Broadband Network
Opposition broadband spokesman Nick Minchin quoted on the ABC News site this morning:
“We’ve got a $43 billion plan with no…evidence that people actually want 100 megabits per second of download speed.”
No Nick, that’s why so many of us stayed with dialup. Is a complete lack of understanding of the portfolio a prerequisite for being an Opposition Spokesperson, or is it just coincidence?
Elsewhere, John Quiggin suggests (based on back-of-the-envelope calculations) that somewhere around $80/month might be in the ballpark, assuming a takeup of around 5 million households/businesses. Given that that is not much more than I am currently paying for 1.5mbps, Minchin’s reading of the market might be deemed a little too pessimistic.
There’s going to be a lot more discussion about this, especially when it gets to the Senate: the Fake Steve Fielding has already tweeted that he would “block NBN in exchange for $179 trillion for family cohesion measures”, and I expect the real one will be thinking something similar. And there should be careful scrutiny of this proposal, provided it is more than the opposition’s current tactic of “oppose everything without consideration on principle”. I’m not big on the proposal to sell the company after five years, given that much of the current situation can be blamed on the privatisation of Telstra, but I suppose it will save the Coalition the bother of doing it when they are next in power.
But all in all, $43 billion sounds like a reasonable price for Australia to get middling-to-average internet speeds.
Your Comments
Nick Caldwell writes:
John, can’t tell how far wedged the tongue is in the cheek this afternoon, but I think 100mbps is quite a bit better than middling-to-average Internet speeds. That’s should put Australia in the very highest bracket for Internet speed, globally.
Posted: 8 04 2009 - 15:37 | Permanent link to this comment
John writes:
It depends who you read: Mark Pesce, writing in Crikey yesterday said that 100mbps “is already bog-standard in Japan, Korea and Scandinavia,” and that in the time it takes the Australian government to implement the network, speeds in excess of gigabits per second could be common.
On the other hand, someone else I was reading (and can’t find now) suggested that while 100mbps was the theoretical limit in places like Korea, 50 – 60 was the more likely actual speed. And yes, once the fibre is in the ground, upgrading to faster nodes is easier.
But the point many commentators are making is that while 100mbps is currently state of the art, it won’t be in 7 years when the infrastructure is completed.
Don’t think I’m ungrateful though: as I said, it’s still nearly 100 times faster than the ADSL I currently “enjoy” at home.
Posted: 8 04 2009 - 16:32 | Permanent link to this comment
Nick Caldwell writes:
Well, we don’t know what we’ll be able to do with optical fibre in 7-50 years time. Who in 1919* might have expected that copper wire being strung up could be used for something like the Internet today?
Also, I think getting up there with Japan and South Korea is not a bad bog to have as a standard. You’re still talking about the envy of the developed world.
(*) year selected for rhetorical purposes only
Posted: 8 04 2009 - 17:05 | Permanent link to this comment
Donna McLachlan writes:
I need to point out that people like me who live in the far flung regions of the country could do with a few other things first – like an airport – so I can fly to meet real people in real time. Like a shuttle service to the nearest airport at a town 1hours drive south of here. 1hrs drive is standard for any trip to the airport, but this pot-holed road has no overtaking lanes, so if there’s an accident, you’re stuck. One flight a day, miss it and well .. you’re stuck. You know just a little thought about how that $43billion might be spent for those of us not attached to a major city would be appreciated. I spend half my life on the net, I’m not concerned about the speed of the net at this stage. I appreciate that we need to lift our standards, keep up with the rest of the world, but you know, even if the Federal Government spent some decent money on a decent road for us here in the North I’d be thrilled. Living in the regions is not an academic exercise. And, how sure are we that fibre optic is better than fatter copper cable?
Posted: 18 04 2009 - 19:46 | Permanent link to this comment
John writes:
Thanks Donna: good points that need to be made.
I’m not sure it needs be an either/or thing though: basic transport infrastructure shouldn’t compete with communication infrastructure for funding. I also think that roads are usually a state (or local) government responsibility.
Posted: 20 04 2009 - 10:36 | Permanent link to this comment
Nick Caldwell writes:
Depends on what quality you’re measuring, but fibre optic cable has vastly, unspeakably greater data capacity and speed than copper.
The Tyranny of Distance in Australia is indeed a real problem (though given that the relative urban population density in Australia is greater than anywhere else in the world, I’m not sure it’s our greatest problem) but high-speed Internet connections, by facilitating inexpensive video conferencing, will actually reduce the need for dangerous and expensive travel to and from remote population centres. It’s a win for everyone.
Posted: 20 04 2009 - 15:04 | Permanent link to this comment
Donna McLachlan writes:
Thanks Nick and John for your comments – great to hear the explanation re fibre optic V copper cable. & re yr comment John; the road I referred to (Bowen – Proserpine) is the Bruce Highway, it’s part of the No.1 Highway, which the Feds are responsible for.
I take your point John that many of my concerns (airport, clean water etc) are the remit of the State Gov and local council, and as such, I am not at all suggesting an either/or situation, but I feel it’s a question of priorities for tax-payers.
There are few health services available here – you can’t give birth here, can’t get any kind of specialist treatment, there’s no optometrist here, for example. The town water is undrinkable, and most recently is suspected to be fowled with herbicides.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/21/2548074.htm?site=northqld
I am all for breaking down the tyranny of distance – I witnessed positive examples of video conferencing for Walpiri people at Yuendumu in Central Australia – but I reiterate the point that it’s hard to agree to a $43billion improved Broadband Network, when (for example) our town drinking water doesn’t meet ‘developed world’ conditions.
Perhaps I’m really calling for a more centralised approach to governance.
Posted: 22 04 2009 - 11:41 | Permanent link to this comment