Falling behind even further. plusnet we'll do you !!!!

[#1]

I wonder what the cost of implementing filtering is? Whatever it is, it sould be footed solely by those that opt-in

[#2]

Interesting how there's such a fuss over this.
My last two mobile contracts (EE and Three) have had filtering turned on by default and I cannot recall reading too much fuss being made over that.

[#3]

I think it's also interesting how one of the main arguments against the filtering is that it is never going to be 100% effective at blocking everything someone might want it to, and there will also be a few "false positives" where the filtering blocks something it shouldn't. You could say the same thing about anti-virus software or firewalls, but I don't think so many people would be arguing against using security software on that basis - instead people will recommend an anti-virus and extra anti-malware programs, and firewalls at a few different levels.
Perhaps the ISP level filtering should add the blocking of phishing websites, malware hosting websites or botnet command and control hosts, and we'll see who wants the extra protection.

[#4]

Quote from: AndyH

My last two mobile contracts (EE and Three) have had filtering turned on by default and I cannot recall reading too much fuss being made over that.

Its only turned on by default on PAYG on Three and they also make it very clear of the limitations of using such technology and that its the parents job to educate their children on internet safety
http://support.three.co.uk/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBISAPI.DLL?Command=New,Kb=Mobile,Ts=Mobile,T=Article,varse...
If EEs is what Oranges was like a few years ago  (i.e broken and you had to provide CC details to have it disables from what I recall) then I don't  hold out much hope.

[#5]

Andy,
It was EE (Orange) child safe filtering to which I referred that inhibited access to this forum and he MP activity site 'They work for us'.
Evidently these are dangerous sites which children should not be allowed to access.  
I will now rest my case that these tools are not capable of fulfilling the expectations that the protection of children can be passed off to third parties.  As you have wisely identified, ISP tools only filter the connection.  If the device connects by an alternate means (3G or other wifi) the protection is lost.
If this is a route parents want to take, then the restrictions need to be on the device used by the child so that the barriers are always there irrespective of the connectivity method.
Reliance on technology to protect children is foolish; to expect some third party to do it for you and consider that to be the panecea to the issue is irresponsible.
It will be interesting to learn the detail of Plusnets implementation, how it works, whose filter lists it uses and how / when they will be updated.  As has been seen with IP address geolocation data what sounds simple in theory is quite a different matter in practice.  How will undesirable material be identified / finger printed / classified?  How soon will the filter systems be updated?  What will be the process for having false positives rectified?  How personal (if at all) will the filter settings be?  One expects that they will apply to the whole household and thus all use will be restricted to that appropriate to the youngest, in the OP's case the six year old.  In which case one can expect access to the majority of the gaming servers (call of duty and 888.com) will be blocked?
@ejs,
You make the point well, no technology is 100% sound, certainly not AV.  The difference here is that people are putting faith in seriously flawed concepts to protect their children rather that accepting that the reponsibility for controlling / monitoring what their children do is their's not someone ekse's.  If people are really that paranoid about what their children might be looking at on the Internet behind their backs then their problem is much bigger than that which they think technology can fix.
And as for the suggestion that this technology might be used for blocking phishing attacks, you know as well as do I that as soon as these sites are identified and blocked, within hours they are re-established elsewhere.

[#6]

Quote from: DaveyH

Its only turned on by default on PAYG on Three and they also make it very clear of the limitations of using such technology and that its the parents job to educate their children on internet safety

Both of them were business contracts - Three was admittedly nearly 3 years ago now. I remember at the time it was blocking some websites because they had gambling banners and there were major issues being able to turn off the filter. It took a couple of weeks to resolve whatever the issue was their end.