Strategic differences of an NBN.
The discussion about the ‘value’ of a National Broadband Network (NBN) remains interesting – not just in Australia but also in other countries, particularly the USA, UK and the Netherlands.
In all these countries some people that judge the NBN purely on the current level of telecoms and Internet services, in general they argue that there is little economic evidence that a fibre-based NBN makes sense. They see the NBN as being designed for its consumption value and they correctly argue that there is a limit to how much people will use and how much they will spend on that level of consumption.
On the other side are the people who argue that the NBN is critical for economic development, and that its value is directly proportional to its upstream speed. The argument here is that the economy doesn’t prosper by downloading web pages and watching Hollywood. Economies prosper when users (business, institutional and private) create value and upload it.
It has also been argued that the economists base their opinions and analyses on today’s reality. They argue that they leave issues like ‘what is possible’ to others, such as government policymakers and business leaders.
It appears that the supporters and critics in these discussions can be divided roughly into these two categories. We need them both, and their opinions are very important for the debates that we are having around the globe. As a supporter, my argument is to get the commitment from those sectors that can assist in adding economic benefits to the NBNs. With those commitments guaranteed we can then go to the economists and ask them to do the calculations based on the current situation, plus these business commitments from organisations such as Healthcare, Education, Energy, etc.
Paul Budde
See also:
