Um could have this wrong, but as far as I am aware, most ISP are against this filtering. This came up a few weeks ago, and they basically said no. This is why now Camoron is banging on about threatening legislation to make them do it.
That said, the ISPs objections are likely cost, rather than protecting freedom. Much like Camoron, this is pandering and nanny stare, rather than really caring about children. To him this is a tick box ticked which costs the treasury nothing, he gets the ISPs to pay for his votes.
And rightly so. If this goes through, i'd like to see the ISPs add a line item to everyone's bill calling this out in plain sight to all their customers. "This month you paid an extra #1.75 to cover the costs of Government censorship infrastructure we're required to purchase / install / maintain.
Mobile providers already provide this filtering. I have to keep asking for "Content Lock" (or somesuch) to be removed when I renew my 3g mobile broadband dongle.
If that's all he wants it seems trivially easy to supply it. I'm gently surprised the ISPs haven't already done so. That way they'd have a simple example to point to when the government asks for more stuff. "Look, we already did the filter, and it's hopeless, but it's what you asked for. Trust us on this - what you're asking for can be done, but should not be done."
It's the classic example of clueless people asking the wrong question. "How can I do $THIS?" "Well, you can do $THIS, but no-one in their right minds would do this because it's stupid. You could do $THAT, and $OTHER, which is better and covers most of what you want without so much stupid." Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working with UK Gov.
Giffgaff likewise default to "delicate sensibilities" mode. Of course, when I tried to access a grown-up site, I assumed it was broken, raised it on the forum. Trivial to resolve but IMO a bug not a feature.
But I 100% agree that it is surprising that the likes of Virgin (my ISP) haven't just added a tick box in their router setup. Even it its not perfect, its something they could point to, to shut up the nannies. And of course over time, they can just improve or adjust the filtering to get it as good as the nannies want. It could easily be a simple update to the router.
Might also demonstrate how hard it actually is. But at least it would be a simple option for those who want it.
That said, the ISPs objections are likely cost, rather than protecting freedom. Much like Camoron, this is pandering and nanny stare, rather than really caring about children. To him this is a tick box ticked which costs the treasury nothing, he gets the ISPs to pay for his votes.
All quite seedy.