How the Coalition could progress the NBN
The Coalition is already making some noises about changing its broadband policy to facilitate the strong views held by the Independent Senators on this issue.
So, based on that, BuddeComm is fairly confident that Australia will get its NBN, albeit with some alterations.
Options for change include:
- A longer rollout period for the FttH network
- Utilising existing HFC and DSL infrastructure a while longer
- Using more wireless technologies as an interim solution
- More private investment participation in metro areas.
- Some rearrangements re the Telstra HoA
But before any of that can happen the Leader of the Coalition needs to make a statement that broadband is an important national infrastructure, and that it offers social and economic benefits well beyond telecommunications. He should also state that, long-term, the future of broadband infrastructure is FttH. This would send a strong message out to investors as well.
A top-level vision statement such as this should form the foundation upon which the Coalition can then write its policy document. It would extend the issue of broadband beyond telecoms.
They should also take into account the trans-sector approach and, in so doing, recognise broadband for what it is – an infrastructure utility (not a telecoms policy).
How the plan can be implemented should be secondary to the overall policy – the first requirement is a sound plan that sets the broad outline of a Coalition Broadband Policy. Buddecomm believes that, above all, the Australian people are asking for clear leadership and that, on broadband at least, Labor did show leadership.
The Coalition can build on the fact that this approach is acceptable to a large proportion of the population – most likely the majority, since there will be plenty of Coalition voters who also want an NBN. And it is broadly supported by the telecoms industry, consumer groups, the Unions, and many public and private sectors who would want to use this infrastructure for their economic and social benefits.
The Coalition should recognise that this is not just a Labor issue; it is of national relevance. Through industry groups such as the Digital Economy Industry Work Group (DEWIG) and Communications Alliance some 400 volunteers have already worked with the government on both the policies and the technical and industry details. It would be an insult to these people if the Coalition were to arrogantly ignore all the hours of work that these people have given voluntarily to the government. None of this work was at anytime politically motivated this was purely done with the bests interest of the nation at heart.
The current NBN plans have given Australia international benchmark status for the deployment of broadband. The first government to recognise the importance of the Australian model was the Obama Administration. Next was the United Nations, and they established the ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Digital Development. This is evidence of the fact that world leaders support the broad concept of the NBN as it has been developed in Australia – and it also shows how seriously it is now being taken internationally.
All of the above also shows that, from a high-level strategic point of view, there are no specifically Labor or Liberal broadband technologies. The technical details should be left to the experts, and they have already done most of the necessary work. The Coalition should accept with good grace what is already there for the taking.
The Coalition also prefers more private investment. It wants to limit government investment and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The Coalition can compensate for limiting government investment by generating good government policies that will drive private investment towards broadband.
Good examples of this would be healthcare, education, energy and transport policies. If money is directed from these sectors to broadband infrastructure private money will follow. The OECD has indicated that an NBN can be paid for by these sectors alone. However, in order to attract private investors the Coalition will have to reverse its ‘kill the e-health and e-education’ policies, as it is precisely these that will drive private investment.
For instance, the Coalition has said that it will kill the government e-health identifier legislation. Weeks after the announcement of this legislation both Telstra and NEC announced private investment initiatives – one aimed at using the NBN for e-health applications for 17,000 GPs, and the other aimed at linking 28,000 retirement villages (and through them people living around these centres) to the NBN for services such as healthcare monitoring.
Private investors will not be persuaded by more of the same telecoms policies that the Coalition used between 1996 and 2007. Who would want to invest in traditional telecoms, where the revenues are dropping? The Coalition will have to come up with a more attractive set of policies to tempt private investors.
In the end, this should lead to an NBN that at least conceptual is structured along the same lines as the government’s plan, but with a distinct Liberal flavour to it and with an adjusted implementation plan.
Paul Budde
For further background information see:
- Hung Parliament means listen to the people
- International Broadband and Trans-sector Activities
- New England, Lyne and Kennedy attract global attention
Tagged in: Australia, Broadband, Election, NBN
August 31st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Great post Paul. Labor should have fought the election on the NBN and the economy alone. The fact they didn’t has led to their own deserved demise. Australia is one of the only western economies that is currently growing and as you say investment should be made in broadband infrastructure. Historically Australia has failed to invest in any other industries (we completely missed the renewable energy one through our own greed) so there now stands an excellent opportunity. If the coalition reverse this policy (or persist with their current pathetic NBN response) and get into power I advise all Australian property owners to sell up. You have been warned…
August 31st, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Once again a stabilizing and acceptable opinion. I do think that for the capital to become available from private enterprise, when considering that the first requirement would be an acceptable ROI, the present hostility as directed by the ACCC to cripple Telstra would need revision.
August 31st, 2010 at 11:51 pm
I have just read, and thoroughly recommend, Paul Fletcher’s Wired Brown Land. This sets out in convenient form the long history and opportunity cost of Telstra’s pretence at acting in the national interest while acting consistently in its own. Instead of shopping centre stunts and debates about debates, we should have been discussing Telstra’s structural separation. But the caravan has moved on.
The more I read, the more I compared the apparent ease with which our forefathers committed to “risky” investments in rail, roads, Snowy Mountains Scheme, telephone and telegraph services and even the ABC with far less tortuous debate than has been our experience with communications. It seems to me, in those cases, the common thread was far less emphasis on trying to justify a financial return from the immediate users and to think instead of the vision for the indirect benefits to the rest of the country. For example, would expected freight revenue from wheat farmers alone would have justified country rail? Closer to a communications experience, who would like to see the demise of, or failure to establish, the ABC because the only revenue it generates is through its shops? And who says government can NEVER deliver? Again think ABC, Qantas, Commonwealth Bank, Snowy Mountains Authority, justice system etc.
How was it possible to justify building a copper telephone network when hardly anyone had or could see a use for telephones until nearly everyone had one? Yet today there are inn million internet subscribers and even more telephone subscribers.
So here is a radical thought. The government builds (and keeps) the NBN and any RSP with the technical ability to deliver services is allowed to access it for nothing. Through reduced barriers to entry, competition will permit lower prices for the services RSPs deliver. That becomes the advantage to the nation which has built the network. After all in eight years’ time (and even now with phone services in every home) everyone is a potential user just as everyone is a potential consumer of ABC content.
Clearly the nation’s finances and prospects are now in far better shape than was the case when the visionary projects were undertaken. I am normally against hypothecating specified taxes to specific services, but if it is necessary politically to find a way to justify this apparently outlandish idea, why not a tax or royalty on the extraction of any non-renewable resource as a way of converting that depleting resource to one which keeps on giving to the nation.
We would be extracting coal and minerals and replacing them with fibre.
September 4th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Wireless Technolgy does provide a more cost effect solution than fibre in remote and rural areas. Whilst the download speeds are not as great, it can be rolled out far more quickly to ensure that remote and rural Australians get the broadband it needs and deserves.