At last, the Coalition broadband policy
|
The Coalition’s long-awaited broadband policy will use government funding to leverage a privately run high-speed network to deliver 12-100 Mbps to 97% of households, using a combination of existing HFC cable, DSL and fixed wireless. The cost will be $6.315 billion over seven years. The policy will be based on a $2.75 billion “nation-wide competitive fibre optic ‘backbone’,” involving both public funding and leveraged private investment, to provide two back-haul fibres with an open access regime. It will also try to prioritise regional areas through specific spending on a $750 million Fixed Broadband Optimisation program to provide DSL services or high speed equivalents, a $1 billion grant program for fixed wireless networks in rural and remote Australia areas and a $1 billion investment in fixed wireless networks in metropolitan Australia, with an emphasis on outer metropolitan areas. A further $700 million will be spent providing satellite broadband services to the final 3% of communities, and there will be limited regulatory changes to enforce competition and access to the back-haul fibre. A new bureaucracy, the National Broadband Commission, will be established to implement the plan over six years. The Coalition plan will rely heavily on upgrading existing infrastructure and wireless broadband, despite the vulnerability of wireless to speed degradation due to traffic and distance issues. At a difficult press conference this morning, Opposition Communications shadow Tony Smith, flanked by Finance spokesman Andrew Robb, was repeatedly pressed to explain what proportion of households would have access to what speed levels and repeatedly refused to do so, insisting that was a matter for the market to determine. The only commitment Smith would provide is that households would receive speeds between what they already have access to and up to 100Mbps, and that outer-metropolitan and regional areas would be prioritised. Comment The Coalition broadband policy talks a lot about competition and the vibrant spirit of the private sector versus the dead hand of government, but it is confusing and transfers responsibility for broadband roll-out back to the market, which failed to deliver it for so many years — albeit with government funding intended to “leverage” investment in core parts of the network. Tony Smith came under constant fire from journalists this morning for being unable to explain how many households would receive what speeds. He was, he insisted, making no apologies for leaving that to the market. The other reason, which he didn’t mention, is that the mix of technologies the Coalition says will do the job for it won’t come close to providing 100 Mbps. Wireless has been adopted by right-wing economists as their preferred technology, presumably because it is seen as some sort of rival to a Labor government’s broadband roll-out, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Barring some changes in the laws of physics, wireless won’t provide the sorts of speeds the NBN will unless you’re sitting at the base of the tower and you and the little old lady across the road are the only ones using it. Similarly, upgraded HFC cable, which the Coalition plan also relies, won’t match NBN speeds. Robb insists there’s no need to — where people want to pay for 100Mbps, it will be provided by the market. That may well apply in capital cities. It’s a problematic assumption everywhere else, particularly if there is no single provider guaranteeing, as NBN Co does, that it will be able to provide similar speeds to 93% of the population. Metropolitan broadband services will continue to be vastly better than regional ones. The Coalition, as Smith noted today, remains implacably opposed to the structural separation of Telstra, meaning the role of the dominant telco under the Coalition broadband plan will have to be hedged in with yet another round of regulatory changes to strengthen the hand of the ACCC. That’s a guarantee that infrastructure access will continue to be negotiated through the courts and lawyers, rather than on simple business terms. Such was Robb’s emphasis on the importance of services in outer-suburban areas — at one stage he conjured the image of tradies needing to check their iPads — that the policy can best be described as a reheat of the Howard government’s OPEL project, rolled into the outer-suburban electorates that both sides are targeting in this election campaign. |
|
|
|
102 Comments
It was painful to see Tony Smith fronting the media today with Andrew Robb holding his hand. Smith looks like a nice, ordinary man but he was clearly out of his depth.
Surprising that he is even an MP, let alone a shadow minister. Conroy, a crude, inelegant but forceful debater will chew the poor man up in their coming debate,
A rehash of Opel is also how Paul Budde also describes the Libs cobbled-together scheme.
It is yet another example of Abbott’s desire to take us back to the Howard era. It beats me how that could be an election-winning strategy. It is no wonder punters are now betting that the possibility of an Abbott win is now receding fast and are piling on to back Labor. At Centrebet this morning the odds on Labor shrunk from $1.61 to $1.51 and the bookmakers are reporting large sums being wagered.
“ Where people want to pay for 100Mbps, it will be provided by the market”. Great logic, except that it’s regional businesses and users that who would really benefit from upgraded communications, but they can’t influence the “market” to anywhere near the extent that city users can. Similarly, it appears their vote doesn’t have much influence over coalition policy.
Let the markets operate in the cities, but provide some infrastructure to the bush.
The coalition’s policy would once again condemn Australians to a second rate service. What a surprise, not. Of course any other position wouldn’t allow them the $42 billion so called “savings” they require for their election promises. They are a small minded visionless joke.
A broadband policy treating like dickhe-ds. Wireless is just a form of short distance delivery off fibre optic networks, without fibre, wireless internet wouldn’t exist….And here is Joe and Malcolm holding up i-pads as if their policy is a “wireless” technological saviour….
And in 10 years time, we will be laughing at the speeds we have now (I dearly hope)….
Thanks, very well explained. This policy does look like the equivalent of nipping into the newsagents for a last minute present on the way to a birthday party.
“Happy bithday mum”
“Oh, a pack of highlighters and a Mars bar! Thanks son. Erm, you forgot to write in the card again…”
You’d think they’d reward their army of climate-change-skeptic trolls with a better interweb thingy.
I agree that the Coalition’s plan seems to be a muddled mess, and therefore hard to promote. But if you were starting with the Liberals’ opposition to services being provided by the state, it is hard to see what else they could have proposed. They need to reach Howard’s Medicare moment, when the realisation that the public’s strong support for sensible state provision outweighed their ideological commitment to the market. But the Libs seem distant from that in information and communication technologies.
Yet again this leaves the Nationals in an inconsistent position: let the market apply to all Australia ‘cept the bush.
South of Adelaide - just a mere 15 mins out of the CBD - and you can’t even get a measly 1 MBPS. Head North of the city and you can *just* get 6 MBPS. Australia’s internet access is an international joke.
Labor’s NBN may be prohibitively expensive but it is visionary and it’s building the network that will be the backbone of Australia for the next 100 years, much like the copper wire network was for the last 100. I doubt the Liberal plan would even see much change in existing speeds.
Australia needs Government investment in infrastructure like this, simply because we don’t have the densely populated areas of Europe. Given how spread-out we are, Australia has the most to benefit from a fast comminications / data network - more than any other country.
The only ‘market’ we have right now is a ‘monopoly’. To get access to the Telstra duct is not possible, and to dig another set of duct is inefficient and expensive. What’s more, if Telstra goes ahead and replace the copper with fiber, they will cut off the ADSL for other ISP. This is the ‘bottleneck’, and one the main reason why there are so few fiber upgrades right now. Without the NBN, the only option for fiber internet is a monopoly by Telstra : they refuse to build it on any other terms.
To give you some perspective, the average internet speed in New Zealand is now faster than Australia. 5 year ago, most of them are still on dialup!! That only changed when the NZ government did their own ‘monopoly busting’. The 43 billion dollar price tag will pay for itself in a decade, and the benefit will last for the next century. A commercial company simply do not invest in a project with that kind of horizon.
Leaving it “to the market” means that I can’t even get ADSL2 less than an hours drive out of Melbourne! My current 8Mb/sec “upper level” ADSL 1 link is bearable, but it is far from ideal, even with current traffic demands. From what I gather in most areas the coalition policy solution won’t get beyond the 12Mb/sec of ADSL2 anyway. $6billion may be less than the government proposal will cost, but if it is $6billion that doesn’t really achieve anything of real value then it is simply $6billion down the drain. That is a lot of money to waste.
Certainly sounds like a “Claytons” NBS to me - the NBS you have when you don’t have an NBS!
The Coalition’s answer to the NBN is even more p*ssweak than anticipated.
@Apeman, I appreciate the “highlighters and a Mars bar” solution.
It is only a new thing that I can get 12 mps in Angaston through a dedicated Adam exchange deal in the regional broad band thing.
But there is little or no digital TV, many need satellite now which is painfully slow they tell me and wireless is just as bad.
I watch young Tony Smith and wonder how such a young bloke can be so painfully stodgy.
Crikey, while we need articles such as this about particular policies, we also need a more general daily article about the ‘state of play’ in the election campaign (and an overview of what the media is saying is not good enough). Where is today’s article?
Look, it is certainly unfair to laugh about this but the new Liberal candidate for Chifley (the old one got thrown out for making his vicious bigotry a little too obvious) is …. Venus Priest.
Sounds suspiciously like Tony Abbott’s porn star name to me.
David S,
Thanks for that, along with Guy Rundle it has made an unusually dismal day in Brisbane much brighter. Venus Priest! It’s as they say ie: truth is stranger than fiction.
I’d hate to work for that Tony Smith.
He has a nasty snapping mouth on him like a junkyard dog.
I have seen any decent qualities in any of the coalition except Nelson and Turnbull.
While on the ‘state of play’ it looks like the Liberals hopes of winning Dawson have just vanished. Their candidates nasty Young Liberal past has caught up with him. Like any ambitious Young Lib cadre he put out a full range of vile and heartless bigotry thinking that it would impress his mates.
Tony though thinks he’s “colourful”. Apparently bigotry brightens up an otherwise dreary life.
Ah yes, last centuries technology from last centuries party. A vexing position we have here. We want the Coalition’s position on the internet filter, and Labor’s position on the NBN. The only way I can see of winning is to put enough 3rd party blockers of the filter in the Senate.
@David: re the state of play: I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you want what the politician’s spin-doctors have decided it will be today? :^)
Are political roadside posters banned this election? I don’t think I’ve seen one.
“high-speed network to deliver 12-100 Mbps to 97% of households”
You obviously know wireless has issues, but why do you report the speed of the policy as between 12-100?
It is obvious for many users much of the time it will be lower than 12.
Meski, all I mean is simply an assessment of what side is up or down, who is performing well or otherwise, what issues have the most ‘traction’ etc.
For example, Abbott returned to the boat people issue today. Is that because he is on a winner or because he is desperate to change the subject?
It’s a mish mash of technologies, and will be the end of them!. Idiots.
My take on anyone talking on the boat people is that they’re trying to pander to the redneck (or equivalent) vote. With the exception of the Greens, and I’d consider them unlikely to form government.
Indeed. In fact the coalition spokesman conceded as much during today’s debate. Most of their proposal involves continuation of current copper line ADSL2 speeds with a PEAK speed of 12 Mbps.
It is the modern day equivalent of telling an early 20th century proponent of the telephone that we should all be happy making do with carrier pigeons! But that’s our Tony! Back to the future strikes again!
Its better than i thought it would be , i thought Abbott and co. would take us back to writing letters instead and go for the Postie job vote .
Saw gillard on Q & A , i thought she did a great job ? But no media covered it much ?
Cannot wait for Abbotts go at it next week, ahh um ahh pay back labor debt ahh umm.
Betting market moved strongly towards Labor today. Labor win odds shrunk from $1.61 to $1.48.
Last night at the eight pm time slot, ABC channel two, interviewed a typical anti-‘boat-people’ man. Slightly over-fed, living a rich man’s life-in his expensive looking river craft, and living miles away from the nearest population pot-hole, and this twat is worried about boat-people.
And this is a typical Liberal voter? Is there nothing real at all about this rancid, right-wing, wheelie-bin driven conservative party, led by a would- have- been priest whose hero is the late un-regrettable Bob Santamaria?
Dear Tony Abbott, a man of the sixties, whose hero was a man of the fifties, yet Crikey readers sound surprised this party isn’t able to come up with a decent Broadband policy.
On your faces one and all. Thank your god that they aren’t going back to carrier pigeons. After all this was the means of communication when these boyos were in their prime.
It’s depressing when once again Human Rights Watch has to tell us the law of the land as our so-called leaders run around trying to subvert that same law and even 4 Corners put innocent lives at risk with idiotic stories of “people smuggling”.
http://www.hrw.org/node/92320
Recognize Humanitarian Exceptions in the Smuggling of Persons
The debate on human smuggling into Australia has been colored by an over-emphasis on stopping boat arrivals and criminalizing immigration. This has resulted in a law, the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Act 2010, which will almost certainly interfere with the right to seek asylum by allowing the punishment of those who act with purely humanitarian intentions.
The 2000 Protocol on the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, ratified by Australia, establishes an international framework for combating human smuggling “while protecting the rights of migrants.” The Protocol defines the international crime of smuggling as the facilitation of the irregular movement of people which has both a connection to transnational organized crime and is undertaken for profit. The facilitation of irregular movement for purely humanitarian purposes is specifically excluded from the Protocol’s human smuggling definition. The importance of this exception was demonstrated when a boat of asylum seekers from Vietnam reached Australia in 2003. Because their motivation was humanitarian, the two individuals facilitating immigration finally were not convicted of a crime.
Australia, however, has departed from international consensus by including the facilitation of all irregular movement under the definition of migrant smuggling, with no requirement that a smuggler acted “for gain.” Further, the new provisions on material support to human smugglers are overly broad and vague, potentially criminalizing a person who sends financial or humanitarian support to a family member or friend abroad, if that support is later used to travel to Australia. This uncertainty will likely deter family members from sending remittances and may restrict an individual’s ability to seek asylum. In its effort to stop irregular migration, Australia is showing a troubling disregard for the right of individuals to seek and enjoy asylum. We urge your party to commit to amending this law to bring it into line with international standards.”
Anyone want to nominate the number of times I have said precisely this over the last 9 years?
They *had* a prime, Venise?
D Sanderson: “Abbott returned to the boat people issue today. Is that because he is on a winner or because he is desperate to change the subject?”
I suspect a little from column A and a lot from column B. Anything but the economy. And the broadband policy was just something they ‘had to do’, like wiping your arse.
I would love the Federal Government to invest big in high-speed internet.
$42 Billion is not an untoward amount to spend on such crucial technology for the nation’s future. Cut out submarine acquisitions for the navy (useful only in the highly unlikely event that Australia is subjected to blockade) and it’s paid for.
However, public investments on this scale must be well spent. The roll-out must be efficient. I have no confidence that Conroy is capable of dealing with such a big project. I have little confidence in Labor’s competence as a whole for that matter - but if it sticks with low-calibre Ministers such as Conroy for such an important role, it shows other interests come before efficiency.
My unease about the NBN turning into a milch cow for Labor mates is heightened by my understanding that Mike Kaiser is already on a salary of a $450,000 to manage the NBN after a dubious selection process. Now that is obscene, IMO.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-to-get-a-450000-job-no-ads-required — just-a-nice-word-from-the-minister-20100209-no66.html
This lunchtime I watched the IT debate between Conroy, Smith and Ludlum. Scott Ludlum of the Greens was head and shoulders above the other two.
Despite misgivings about the NBN under Conroy, I’d still be inclinded to support Labor over IT… but then there’s Labor’s obsession with filtering.
Conroy continues to run the same old silly lines on that topic. If he can’t get that right after all this debate, he’s certainly not the man to run the NBN. By persisting with the mandatory ‘filter’, Labor is helping erode support for the ALP in one area where much of its policy is markedly different from, and generally superior to, the Coalition’s.
Here’s a popular tweet on #openinternet today:
“The ALP is keen to catch up with South Korean Internet speeds, and North Korean Internet access.”
That may be hyperbole, but it shows how much damage the filter is doing to the ALP, with widespread concerns that Labor is only pushing the internet filter proposal because it’s under orders.
Then there’s data retention…
On balance, if Labor is really so disrepsectful of civil liberties and public opinion, it probably deserves to lose. Who knows - it may even succeed in smatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
@Apeman: And the broadband policy smells just like that.
Until I retired, I lived in Port Melbourne and all of my telephone and internet connections ran so smoothly I took them for granted. Now, I live down the Mornington Peninsula and, partly due to locational problems (sort of a dead spot) and partly due to Telstra’s denial of landlines to Optus, I am totally dependent on wireless and mobile connections. (The wireless internet and “house” line are part of the mobile network anyway, with underlying mobile telephone numbers). We have to go outside the house to receive mobile calls, the wireless landline howls like a banshee most of the time and my wireless internet drops out about every 15 minutes when it is in use. Mostly, I just need to bring up the Optus program and click on Connect to restore the connection. On other occasions, nowever, I get all sorts of error messages which required me to disconnect the Optus dongle and reconnect it after a few seconds wait. You can imagine, how nerve-wracking it is when you are in the middle of an internet banking transaction and you have to do all sorts of messing around to determine whether (a) it failed (b) it went OK or (c) your money disappeared into thin air and you have to check with your bank that they have it and will return it. Before our pollies make these sorts of decisions, they should do the research (and not only the math) and preferably live for a while with what will probably be the consequences of what they propose
A friend of mine 10 km from the town has to use satellite and it drops out all the time and only allows for about 5 mps. Less than half the speed I operate on and it is affected by weather conditions all the time, drops out, takes forever to receive anything and so on.
Can you check my posts on NBN and broadband on the Open Thread? (@ 30)
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/08/09/open-thread-august-9-14/
I’d welcome some comments, but there’s no use cross-posting.
My commiserations to Jim Wright. That there should be problems even on Mornington Peninsula is an indictment of the current and any future market policy. The Peninsula is at the most only 80 ks from Telstra’s head office in the Melbourne cbd, and while it has a mix of people, I would have thought there were enough wealthy people on the Peninsula to make a decent service profitable.
Bernard - you seem to have trouble keeping track of your threads. Here’s my comment from the Open Thread, but seems more appropriate here.
A plea for all you capital-city folks to see the bigger picture when considering NBN. Bolt’s comments about it only being for lazy bastards to download movies faster really got me upset.
Here are some points about the value of NBN and broadband. These are from my experience having worked in IT in remote areas and in developing countries.
Wireless and/or satellite will never provide the performance and reliability of direct fibre. It has issues with coverage, interference, bandwidth, contention amongst users (the more there are the slower it gets) and performance. Just about any IT person will tell you that wireless vs fibre is no contest.
Copper in the ground is 120 yrs old technology, I think most will agree that this should have been replaced years ago. Multiplexing and DSL technolgies are a compromise to make the best of a bad carrier medium.
Consider the situation of a remote community 500 kms from the nearest decent hospital, higher education college, library or even bookshop. High speed broadband can provide access to expert medical specialists via video who might be thousand’s of kms away. Adelaide pioneered such a service to clinics in remote communities some time ago. Even being 50 kms from the nearest specialist who can diagnose an xray might be a matter of life-or-death.
Schools that might be lucky to have a library of 200 books can be given access to hundreds of thousands of educational resources. On-line face-to-face teaching becomes a reality. Higher education at a distance becomes far more effective. Blackboard teaching sessions from one University (the s/w application, not the chalk board) can be remotely accessed by literally millions of students as has been demonstrated in Africa.
Farmers and small businesses can carry out trades, check up-to-the minute market prices and order goods and services in minutes, which could otherwise take days.
I was convinced that high-speed broadband was essential for human and social development when I saw an Orthopedic specialist diagnose and recommend treatment in minutes when sent an xray from Papua New Guinea to Cairns via an experimental broadband link which normally would have taken many days.
So please let’s not be so capital-city-centric when considering the vast benefits NBN will bring to remote and isolated communities. It’s the modern equivalent of building roads and railways.
Don’t just say it here. Go to the IT forums, the newspaper forums. Try and make more people see that this policy is crap.
The coalition broadband policy is basically stay as we are except to remove the NBN rollout. Telstra can revert to its previous position of obstruction to other companies and delaying the replacement of its ageing copper network for years. With the NBN Telstra gets a good deal for its shareholders and the public will finally have a truly competitive market.
I find it very odd that a party which spouts the market and competition as the way to go then puts out a policy like this. The NBN is their chance to wash their hands of the debacle created by not separating Telstra into retail and wholesale before flogging it off. I like many other people resent paying phone rental solely to get broadband access. I pay more for rental than actual calls every month and find my mobile phone a better option economy wise.
The internet filter will never get off the ground as none wants it except Conroy or perhaps the christian lobby has a had a say in it. I would think Labor will be happy to let it slide off and then say it doesn,t have the numbers in the senate. Satisfies most and lets Labor off the hook to whichever group they said they would implement it.
I have an idea that should be reasonable to the public. Let all religious groups pay the same tax as the rest of us and only charitable organisations be exempt, non profit charities of course.
How on earth did this country manage to build a national telephone service? Must have been a Labor government that started it. The Libs would still be waiting for market forces to get AG Bell’s new fangled devices working outside CBD’s.
Tony Smith is promising “DSL optimisation”. He must be out of his fibreless mind.
Let’s look at this politically. The Liberals got whatever benefit they could by harping on about the $43 billion. Coming up with their alternative today is clearly a net negative.
My feeling is that the Liberal surge is finished and we will see a steady slide in their support up to election day. As a contest, barring a Labor disaster, this election is over.
Abbott today:
“Ha ha I’ve always been very wary of debates involving women.”
A “joke”, I know, but not funny and more an expression of Abbott’s peculiar side, which we may see a lot more of as the pressure grows.
Q and A last night showed Gillard thriving under pressure, Abbott is a much more doubtful quantity.
Here’s a bit of an IT lesson for free.
Wireless and satellite comms have a problem with what is known as ‘latency’. When you update or change some data, the database expects a response within a certain time (usually milliseconds). If this it not received, it will not accept the transaction.
Wireless and satellite links have a long and variable ‘latency’ - that is the time taken for a transaction to be posted and accepted. Microsoft Access is notorious for this latency intolerance and is why it is banned from most corporate applications.
Hence the reason wireless and satellite links are not good for databases. They often time-out and return errors. That’s one reason we need fibre comms links for any serious applications (like electronic health records).
What an absolutely garbage policy.
The irony is that the NBN contains both cost and revenue, and is expected to make a modest return over time. The Coalition policy is solely in the form of grants, and leaves the private sector to enjoy the profits of building the network.
So, in effect and over time, the Libs policy is more expensive than Labors.
You’re all forgetting the question of population flexibility.
Fibre to the home would be a gift to all existing owners of residential property, creating one more cost barrier for any new settlements to appear or grow organically. It’s bad enough with some states overcharging infrastructure levies for new developments; with NBN the federal government would also have to grant permission and funding whenever people want to set up a new town. Or, if NBN to the new town is optional, it will be that much harder to attract residents.
The effect of Labor’s NBN would be a further boost to existing home prices, which would rise to reflect the fact that they have fibre while greenfield developments have still got to pay for it. Home buyers would pay for it twice: once when the home vendor charges a premium for having it, and again in their taxes for years afterwards.
The original fibre-to-the-node plan - for an arterial fibre network, leaving private enterprise to connect to homes - would have retained future flexibility. Rudd’s enhanced NBN was just a spur-of-the-moment response to difficulties negotiating with Telstra, which met with so much enthusiasm that it took on a life of its own.
The Coalition’s low-cost plan is not as good as the original fibre-to-the-node plan. But it is far better than the fibre-to-the-home NBN.
tezza: I watched Robb & Smith today and did they struggle. just as well big bruvver Robb was there to hold poor old Smithys hand. He did not have a clue. Its obvious that the Libs want their powerful mates to run the broadband regardless of the quality we will get. ( Channel print and TV MEDIA and you will see many similarities).
As well as the has been’s from Howard, Abbott will also inflict a bunch of incompetent newcomers on us. what a choice!!!
Incidentally, does anyone else find it amazing that Crikey did not report this five-day-old story?
Coalition to dump internet filter, Sydney Morning Herald, August 5.
For a current affairs site that took the lead in campaigning against the filter, I think that’s a little bit strange. I don’t suppose that would have anything to do with which major party has ruled it out?
“Brer r’Abbott - Party Animal”?
Abbott ducked another debate, on the economy.
Toaday he dogged another “policy launch” - left it to Robb again - after his “detailed budget reply”! Tony had a date in Sydney?
He’s looking more like an animal, looking for a party - t otop it all, last night, Q&A :- Julia Gillard on “Mr Rabbit” - has WorkChoices become his “tar baby”?
(“Today”, “to top it all” - signed Mr Toad.)
This not primarily about a Broadband policy but about their core electoral stance: avoid all that wasteful spending ($43 billion, whatever) by Labor. At various times Hockey has even tried to claim the mere cancelling of the plan to spend money in the future as a budget saving. They expect to take a hit on the technology/nation building issue but hope their mantra of rolling back spending and debt will make up for it. Good luck with that. Only the neanderthals and rusted-on types who don’t use IT much will cheer.
The clearest critique of it so far today is by Rod Tucker in The Age: theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/only-a-broadband-network-will-get-us-up-to-speed-20100809-11tye.html
Though he is not a disinterested party.
I think it will be interesting, possibly truly cringe making to see how Turnbull or even Helen Coonan try to put a positive light on this if they are questioned by the media. By the end of her time grappling with Telstra I think she had enough and also came to the only rational conclusion: functional separation of Telstra.
Gillard just on 7pm project - a much more ‘choppy’ format than Q and A but Gillard handled it very well with a lot of ordinary wit and charm. There is no way Abbott can match the way she projects her personality right into the heart of the electorate.
Abbott on the 7.30 Report - not disastrous, just profoundly unsatisfactory.
Abbott looked tonight like a man under pressure and losing confidence. I think he is starting to think that his winning chance has slipped away. He kept reaching for hackneyed, rehearsed lines and was unable to think ‘on his feet’ and respond in an original way to the KOB onslaught.
Abbott 7:30 Report - did he say their broadband would deliver “upward of 200 megabits”?
His filibuster over O’Brien - not necessarily on topic.
Pretty funny though the way he rages at “this government’s waste” - again with another “mantra to be inserted at every opening” (like “what a bad person Rudd is”) - as though he and his are best arbiters of such things. Almost as though he’d not been such a prominent member of the Howard/Anderson/Kelly government with their own “Regional Develpment Fund”? Maybe he just wasn’t paying attention to that “economics thingy” then, either?
No, “his government” preferred tax cuts to spending on infrastructure (a bit like say, “broadband”?) that’s not waste.
I’m no “tecky” either, so how’s “Fox” situated to deliver broadband - at a “private” level?
With KOB Abbott looked a little like a teenage boy who had been ordered up to the principal’s office. He knew he would be in for a hard time and that he should just grimly endure it.
A more creative politician (Gillard?) would have assumed that she had an equal role to play in the process and then shaped it more towards her own ends.
I thought KOB tore Abbott apart in the quietest, pleasantest interview yet.
Has anyone been watching Insight? One of the participants was going to vote Liberal because Howard and Costello were such good economic managers. When Jenny Brockie explained that they were both out of the govt now and it would be Abbot - oh, I didn’t know that. With voters as ignorant as that, how can logical thinking win???
He looked more like a frat boy running for the student union.
Meanwhile, see where Abbott was in Sydney with Scott “Reith-Morrison” - launching their “boat-people persecution policy” - rahter than with Robb and Smith, launching their “Phoney Express” policy? Wonder where “the more votes” are?
“Funny” a few years ago, it was Reith (followed by Howard, Ruddock, Downer and company after checking their fire walls for leaks), hawking “facts” about “Children Overboard”, with “borrowed snaps” of the (actually “another”, “unrelated”, “how embarrassing”, “can’t blame us”) “happy event” - playing up xenophobia for “fun, profit and votes”.
Seems Scott “Reith-Morrison” has voiced over the latest Coalition ad featuring “another refugee boat”, that turned out to actually be the Malu Sara, an Australian (Howard) government (Immigration Dept?) boat lost in a storm in Torres Strait, killing all occupants?
Well it might have seemed “funny” (and opportunistic) at the time of making - but then that depends on your “sense of humour”?
Well, Abbott did warn us “how dirty this campaign was going to get” - he just didn’t tell us it would be his party scraping the bottom of the dunny can for “ammunition”? Then again, “things (probably) changed” between then and now, too. He’s got “dispensation and pardons” for changing his mind too, as often as the mood takes, “as facts change”, he told us that too - he just didn’t define “facts”!
Lizzie - are you serious? Someone who thought Howard and costello were still around got into the insight audience?
Absolutely serious. I nearly choked on my G&T.
I’m getting abad case of deja vu over the broadband issue. Abbot is channelling Coonan.
Lizzie - read the tabloids, that “ignorance” is as nurtured, as it is handy for their “priorities” - and there are some in the industry flattering the “sophistication” of their mushrooms.
It’s a lot like keeping battery hens “safe from the cold cruel outside world”.
MESKI: “They *had* a prime?” Touché.
@lizzie - god help us all. we should have tests for a ‘voters license’.
Pls Klewso, don’t talk dirty. I wouldn’t dream of reading the tabloids because they make me feel suicidal.
The Australian is as low as I go…
Any special reaosn why my comment posted at 4:39 pm has yet to be approved?
The Australian is as low as I go…
On second thoughts
This is very disappointing policy from the coalition. Fibre to the home is information carrying infrastructure that has near unlimited upgrade potential once the cables are in place. We need this rollout or our country will fall behind economically and technologically over the next decade.
As a low population country isolated by great distances from the population centres of the world, technology like this gives us a chance to compete on an even footing in the digital age, and allows us to share in new technologies that are developed by advanced economies who have already rolled out fibre. It would also give Australian entrepreneurs and innovators an opportunity to carve out new niches in what is hopefully still a largely untapped market by the time we get there.
For a country with a highly educated population who eagerly adopt technology, one of the lowest public debts in the world, in the middle of a major mining boom, this is the right time for a big national investment into the digital economy.
Andrew Robb, an occasional frantically frustrated visitor to our TV screens during the campaign, is fond of referring to the NBN as a white elephant. Presumably he has forgotten Howard’s Adelaide to Alice Springs railway that he helped deliver to an ungrateful nation. That is what a real white elephant looks like.
Most respected expert commentators expect the network to be useful for decades to come.
“Tony Abbott says he looks forward to talking to Kerry O’Brien again next week.”
How deep does Catholic masochism go?
@ Lizzie
Not long ago I informed a neighbour in Brisbane that I was travelling down to Canberra and intended visiting Question Time at Parliament House. “Will Anna Bligh be answering questions?” she enquired.
@Lizzie and others.
It is worse than you realize. That lot on Insight are the same group of people (ie. it is a longitudinal study of a dozen or whatever people) that they have been following since the election was announced. So they actually have more motivation than most to pay a bit more attention to the issues than they would otherwise. Hardly a single one of them made their decision (and lots have changed and some are still changing their minds) on rational grounds. I have found it unbearable so do not watch much of it. When you look at Glen Dyer’s tv viewing tables in each day’s Crikey, you begin to understand. And of course News Ltd that dominates much of the print media. There has been some talk about the dumbing down of the public — sorry, it has already happened.
This is why I personally have a lot of empathy with Bernard Keane’s finger pointing at the Australian public. How can we expect the pollies to be better when it is this kind of profoundly ignorant lot they have to, first obtain their attention and second, convince them of something.
I think I might have found a reason to vote, where before I was so disenfranchised that I seriously considered boycotting this election altogether.
I heard about the Coalition’s policy today and actually burst out laughing. They seriously don’t have a clue do they…
The description of the policy launch by DS was apt. Smith with sweat dripping off his nervous rash, supported by a bumbling Lurch, was painful to watch. They knew the policy sucked and that Abbott had left them to wear the flak.
I live 90 minutes from an urban centre. Many locals commute to work for 3 hours every day. Most could work from home with rapid broadband.
Rapid broadband would unlock their lives, save carbon emissions commuting, and reduce the need for more urban roads, bridges and freeways.
Abbott’s Free Enterprise competition will never deliver rapid broadband here. Or anywhere else outside Sydney and Melbourne. If it does even that. His stooges delivering the policy know that. It’s a con.
One question, off-topic (but IT related), where has Crikey’s coverage over recent events regarding the controversial government web filter? The Coalition announced an emphatic opposition to the policy just recently, you would think Crikey would cover such an important issue. Just this week there has been a debate involving Conroy, some random forum hosted by Turnbull whilst Ludlam continues his admirable assault on this poor piece of ‘policy’.
Given that Crikey has extensively covered the filter policy in previous articles I’m amiss as to how this oversight occurred.
@POWERISNOTSTRENGTH
Your argument about population flexibility is like saying that when opening greenfield development, the cost of putting in phone lines and water is a bad thing because it pushes up house prices, or because people may not want to live in an area without telephones or water. If a fibre-to-the-home network was built, it would certainly exist in the vicinity of any new developments. The cost to extend the network to new premises would be minimal, comparable to the cost of wiring up cable internet at the moment. The biggest cost with fibre is, I believe, setting up the infrastructure to support it on a large scale- optical exchanges etc. The actual cables would be similar in price.
And if anything, your entire case assumes that the NBN is desirable, worth paying for, and worth considering when moving. All of that suggests that it it something that *should* go ahead
Just checked the tape :- it was “upwards to a hundred megabits” (the government delivery speed) - and all the way up “from 12”?
Again this “leader” of theirs, up to his nipples in hyperbole, rhetoric, stunts and one-liners, left them to carry that can while he was off with Scott “Reith-Morrison” demonising more refugees in boats as “stopping all these boats and all these illegal immigrants” - when they actually make up, what, 5% of that number - one in twenty - and if that?
David Sanderson - did you see “The Da Vinci Code”?
“Self-flagellation the way to rapture”?
Lizzie, that’s below the “low water mark”!
@Klewso - If we are to have a real crackdown on asylum seekers, then by jove we need to ‘stop the planes’. Shoot them all down I say!
Self-flagellation may be wonderful (I’m only guessing here) but KOB-flagellation is definitely not rapturous or even painful in a good way. If you stayed long enough in the chair in KOB’s studio it would be like having your guts slowly pulled out and closely examined for any inconsistencies. (“Look, there’s a piece of half-chewed right-wing dogma. See how it deflates when you stick a scalpel in it.”)
Something inside me says that it is really inappropriate for an opposition party to conduct negotiations with a foreign government. We really don’t expect the opposition to set up alternate negotiations with Jakarta or Tokyo, and the same should apply to smaller states, such as Nauru.
DAvid, even the transcript was marvellous. Finally someone confronted the jerk about the BER although Klan is still banging endlessly on.
If you want to check the speed of your connection, ZDnet has a nice little page that does this for you with many international comparisons. I’m running at around 8 mbps on ADSL2. The Netherlands is already close to 1 gpbs on average.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/broadband/speedtest.htm
In theory fibre can provide a huge bandwidth (multi Gbps) as it does in a corporate environment. But a public home connection would be constrained by the routers and switches you are going through. Still 100 mbps should be a piece of cake.
Sorry I was wrong - the Netherlands figure is the fastest recorded, not the average (probably someone from a Uni or something). The Netherlands average is 8 mbps. The fastest average seems to be Malta with 25 mbps.
Fibre can easily provide high-speed connections, wireless is more of a problem. The best current technology for public connections is probably Wimax which has been trialled in Perth. Liberals please note - 100 Mbps for public Wimax is not feasible. And as Kerry O’Brien pointed out last night to Tony Abbott, where will the spectrum come from? (Wireless comms uses allocated spectrum from a limited range of public wavelengths, and it’s in short supply).
Also wireless speed degrades given more users. There’s a trade off between performance and numbers of connections -
“A recent city-wide deployment of WiMAX in Perth, Australia, has demonstrated that customers at the cell-edge with an indoor CPE typically obtain speeds of around 1–4 Mbit/s, with users closer to the cell tower obtaining speeds of up to 30 Mbit/s.
Like all wireless systems, available bandwidth is shared between users in a given radio sector, so performance could deteriorate in the case of many active users in a single sector. However, with adequate capacity planning and the use of WiMAX’s Quality of Service, a minimum guaranteed throughput for each subscriber can be put in place. In practice, most users will have a range of 4-8 Mbit/s services and additional radio cards will be added to the base station to increase the number of users that may be served as required.”
@Fireflying, I certainly agree with the Coalition’s about face on Internet filtering, though I have no idea what shift in principles changed their views on the matter, other than election politics. The announcement does not appear emblematic of a major shift towards individual or civil liberties on behalf of the Liberals, so it rings a little hollow to me.
The issue of filtering has also been overshadowed by the greater issue of IT policy, and who has a more solid vision. The Liberals cannot elucidate a policy that will result in a private industry roll out of a national world-best network. Filling in the potholes of the existing network might get us by for a few years, but is not a plan for the future.
The rest of the world is making a transition to the digital economy that will rival and eventually eclipse the current transport based economy of the industrial age.
In 20-40 years most people in the developed world will work from wherever they want via the Internet (telecommute), purchase most of their goods online, and receive most of their news, education, and entertainment online.
The governments, businesses, and individuals who seize on opportunities to facilitate this transition to the digital economy through new services and technologies will be the economic winners.
For example, when we bank online today, we’re largely limited to basic text. Any videos are non-interactive and grainy, and most complex procedures require you to print out a form and post it to the bank.
Someday you will be able to take out a loan with your loan manager face-to-face from the comfort of your living room without any need for ID other than yourself. With video quality so high, the biometric recognition software on the bank’s servers can scan your retinas and other biological markers, leading to zero fraud or identity theft.
EFTPOS machines at shops would do the same, negating the need for cards or signatures by eyeballing you, and sending the super high quality video feed to your bank’s authentification servers in half a second.
These are but two of the millions of digital economy ideas Australian entrepreneurs could develop and perfect here if we have the infrastructure to support it. Ideas for new services and supporting technologies, that once proven, can be exported to other countries as they catch up.
Australia can be greater than dirt and wheat. Ideas are the currency of the 21st century, and a national fibre network will allow our best and brightest the freedom to develop excellent ideas. Let’s start making things again!
I’ve been reading about Google’s plans to build a 1 gigabit network in the US to test new network technologies. Anyone here know if the NBN will be easily upgradeable if Google find some fantastic new way of doing things - or will we be stuck with 100 MBPS while the rest of the world uses speeds in the GBPS range?
Yes John, fibre is upgradable because you only have to replace the routers and repeaters with ones with higher throughput. Different frequencies of light can be multiplexed on the same glass fibre as well.
PAPAGOOSE - Thank you for reading and responding:
“Your argument about population flexibility is like saying that when opening greenfield development, the cost of putting in phone lines and water is a bad thing because it pushes up house prices, or because people may not want to live in an area without telephones or water.”
The problem is that governments charge for infrastructure up front. If properties instead were taxed over the long term to capture externality benefits — publicly-funded parklands, transport, school enhancements, and so on — which increase land prices, then I would have no objection to a fully taxpayer-funded FTTH network.
The effects of charging up-front are:
1. A cost and red-tape barrier which inhibits greenfield growth and population flexibility (NBN will add a third, federal layer of red tape to the existing two layers);
2. An unfair and economically harmful transfer of wealth from future home owners to present home owners;
3. A further transfer of wealth from those who miss out on the benefits to those who do get it.
The Henry Review recognized these problems and recommended property taxes, to capture externalities and improve housing affordability. Of course property taxes are generally considered to be politically impossible in Australia.
But that is exactly what private utility companies quite often do. For example, when Telstra is pushing cable services into an area, they typically provide a free connection if you sign up within a certain period. Instead of charging you thousands up front, they treat it as a loan and include the repayments in ongoing user charges.
That’s much fairer. It spreads the cost load between the haves and the have-nots, and between present and future beneficiaries. It’s more efficient, because private companies compete for better efficiency, lower charges, and localized solutions which may be better than one-size-fits-all. And it leads to more people being connected than otherwise would be (if that weren’t the case, then the companies wouldn’t do it that way), which means it’s more efficient.
A combination of public and private is a much better model for connecting up the country to fast broadband. I realize these economic considerations of externality benefits and price barriers are very dry, and not necessarily what people want to hear. But thank you anyone who goes to the trouble of reading it and considering it.
John64, see link here
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335856/google_trials_1gbps_ftth_broadband_us/
John64 - the fibre isn’t the issue, its been tested at Terabit and even Petabit speeds. The problem is the various forms of interconnecting devices (switches, routers etc.) that are needed to get you connected. And the main bottleneck will be the connection at your PC end. Most PC’s have a LAN connection which can support 100 mbps or even 1 gbps but it’s all the stuff you go through between your PC and the internet that limits speed.
In theory with the right switching technology and PC interface, yes NBN could be upgraded to support gigabit speeds. I hate to think what this would cost, but fibre-to-the-home is the foundation on which this could be built.
It will also make broadcast TV over the airwaves redundant. Maybe this is why some of the vested interests in the media are scornful of the benefits?
>>>>>”Maybe this is why some of the vested interests in the media are scornful of the benefits?”
Bingo!
A superfast internet threatens conventional TV just as it does the conventional newspaper industry.
However, a superfast internet regulated by a government whose policies are driven by mates does not pose such a threat to the established media, as government censorship and control can stifle and sideline competing media.
This is why, for me, a choice between the Labor and Liberal polices is a choice between the fire and the frying pan - and I’m not even sure which is which. By showing such paranoia about internet freedom - and insisting it wants to bring all media under the same regulatory rubric - Labor’s approach to telecommunications increasingly rings alarm bells for me. These people are control freaks.
Incidentally, where I happen to live in rural FNQ, I imagine Tony Smith is probably correct that the Libs policy will deliver a tangible outcome faster than Labor’s grand NBN scheme - and that my current connection would be faster had the Libs got in in 2007.
I can only access ADSL1 at present. There’s no date or even promise on upgrading to ADSL2 at my rural exchange. A systematic rapid program of subsidizing upgrade of exchanges such as mine would help bring me into the modern internet world in the foreseeable future.
By contrast, Labor’s NBN plan hasn’t even got a rollout date for this region - let alone for reaching my exchange and the homes it services. Fibre-optic to my door seems highly unlikely, even when the NBN is complete.
We need a major investment in telecoms, but I don’t believe the ALP is not the party to implement it.
And so it is that the sad ongoing saga of Australia’s increasingly poor ranking for telecoms speed and service continues…
Incidentally, if anyone here still hasn’t yet seen yesterday’s debate between Ludlum, Conroy and Smith, it is really worth watching. Ludlum was inspiring, coherent and well-informed. He put the other two to shame.
As in so many policy areas, the Greens get a gold medal while the old big parties doesn’t really deserve silver or bronze.
And now for a royalty-free music break:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82QRprW_bAY
Marilyn - interesting to hear that you are at Angaston and don’t get digital TV. I am about 5 minutes from you and have recently moved into a new house that appears to have digital connections, but I can’t get digital TV. If it is a local problem, that would certianly explain it!
I am just curious. Can anyone tell me what people use the internet for? Is there a set of statistics that break down the subject matter searched for and looked at?
Sure, and not surprisingly, it’s on google. THis
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#geo=AU&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist/index.html
@Jeebus - “I certainly agree with the Coalition’s about face on Internet filtering…”
The Coalition has never supported Labor’s web filter, how can you call it an about face?
As for your concerns regarding civil liberties, governments of both parties will always pay scant attention. It is the nature of those who lust for power and aspire to become a politician.
However the Liberals, who take their name from Classical Liberalism (in theory at least), tend to have a touch more respect for individual liberty and personal responsibility than Labor. For example the web filter released under Howard was PC-based, distributed freely and above all, completely optional.
MESKI: 10 Aug 3.04pm “”We want the Coalition’s position on the internet filter, and Labor’s position on the NBN.”“
For what it is worth I read tucked away on an inside page of the Oz that Tony Abbott says the Libs are against an internet filter. Of course, given the source and given the flexibility of a politician’s non-core statement, I wouldn’t want you to be putting a hundred thousand dollars on it.
Thansk Meski. From a quick look ( and that’s all you get) at Google data, its my suspicion that “porn” or some variant of that is dominant. If I am right, then what the hell is this argument about - providing high speed access to porn sites?
BILL PARKER: I use the internet for ice skating!
And pigs might fly.
Well before Google cut me off at the pass I searched “All Subjects”, limited it to last 30 days and Australia. Guess what? Mostly trivia.
Bill, it may surprise you but almost all social and economic activity revolves around “trivia”. Plutarch and Plato are rarely discussed.
David
That’s doesn’t really surprise me, what does it that so much tripe is talked up by Him (who doesn’t know what peak speed is) and Her (as does know - I think).
But with the worldwide porn industry valued at nearly $40Billion it would be difficult to believe it didn’t play a dominant role in the on-line world in Australia.