news Australia’s premiere digital rights lobbying group Electronic Frontiers Australia has called for the Government to allow public input into the upcoming strategic review of the future of the National Broadband Network, as pressure intensifies upon Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull to support the previous Labor administration’s all-fibre NBN policy.
New Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, MP, yesterday held a media conference in which he announced the new NBN Co interim Statement of Expectations which will guide the company’s operations in the short term. In the conference Turnbull reiterated that the government will institute a strategic review of the NBN, to be conducted by the company itself and delivered within 60 days after a new board is appointed for NBN Co.
The review is detailed in the Coalition’s NBN policy document (PDF), and is to set to estimate the cost and time to complete the NBN under its current model, as well as evaluating how other models could potentially reduce that cost and time to complete the rollout. Yesterday Turnbull said he had made it clear to NBN Co’s staff that he was “not interested in being given information that people may think will conform to my particular political agenda, whatever they may imagine that to be”.
“The goal of the strategic review, as you know, is to ascertain what it will really cost in dollars, what it will really take in years and months, to complete the project on the current specifications. And then, to assess, what options there are to reduce that cost and time, by using different techniques, different technologies,” the Minister added.
“As you know, as everyone knows, we’ve canvassed an example of that in our policy document, but let me say again, as I said to NBN staff today, I am, and the Government is, thoroughly open-minded, we are not dogmatic about technology; technology is not an ideological issue. We are completely agnostic about it. What we want to do is get the best result for taxpayers as soon as possible.”
Turnbull’s comments have been interpreted by some, including influential telecommunications analyst Paul Budde, as having opened the door for the Coalition Government to walk away from its predominantly fibre to the node-based NBN policy and to support Labor’s fibre to the premises model instead, as long as NBN Co can demonstrate that it can cut costs during the process.
In a statement issued today, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) called on Turnbull to include the public in the upcoming NBN review.
“EFA believes that the NBN is Australia’s most important forward-looking infrastructure project,” the organisation said. “It has the potential to dramatically improve the Australian way of life in all sectors of the economy and society, and is an important step in achieving equality between regional and urban areas.”
“Recently there has been much public debate over the relative merits and costs of a Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) versus Fibre to the Node (FTTN) version of the NBN. IT professionals tend to prefer FTTP. Nick Paine, a private citizen and self-described Liberal voter, has received over 260,000 signatures for his petition “The Liberal Party of Australia: Reconsider your plan for a ‘FTTN’ NBN in favour of a superior ‘FTTH’ NBN”. Social media interest continues as each announcement is forthcoming, including this most recent one. EFA believes that this all speaks to a broader issue: Australians want to have their say.”
EFA said it agreed that the new government had every right to conduct audits and reviews of NBN Co, and that there were questions of fiscal responsibility, project management, and technology that deserve greater scrutiny. We approve, too, of the new interim statement of expectations call for transparency. It noted the third last paragraph of the Statement of Expectations letter (PDF) sent by the Government to NBN Co, which states:
“You will be aware that Government policy provides for increased scrutiny and transparency of NBN Co and its activities. As a first step in improving transparency we ask that you publish weekly information on your website indicating the number of premises passed, those premise that are passed but cannot receive a service (.e.g service class 0) and those premises with an active service for each element of the network. Your advice is also sought on longer term arrangements for improving the transparency of the NBN Co operations.”
In its own statement, EFA said this statement was “commendable”, and asked that the Government set itself the same high standard.
“EFA takes Mr Turnbull at his word that the government is technology agnostic, that the government wishes to bring the public into its confidence, and that every public infrastructure project has to be carefully and honestly analysed so that governments, and citizens, can weigh up the costs and benefits.”
“EFA argues that the best course of action is to let Australians have their say, fully and frankly, as part of a transparent strategic review that mirrors the openness of a Parliamentary Inquiry. Interest groups, institutions, corporations, and citizens should all be able to have their say. In short: don’t just inform us, ask us.”
EFA said the the review should include: Full disclosure public discussion documents clearly comparing and contrasting all NBN options, with a specific emphasis on future expansion of Internet needs with respect to urban and regional equality; A period of public consultation long enough and accessible enough to provide meaningful responses; The review committee making concrete recommendations on the basis of all responses, transparently indicating which suggestions have been taken up and which have not, and the reasons for doing so.
It is common for parliamentary reviews to take significant amounts of public input into account when making recommendations to the government of the day.
For example, during recent reviews into government surveillance plans and price hiking on technology products and services, feedback from the public was instrumental in pushing certain policies (such as outlawing so-called ‘geo-blocking’ of online goods and services) as well as blocking certain policies (such as the previous Labor Government’s failed data retention initiative). However, self-conducted reviews of government business enterprises such as NBN Co are less common.
I would be interested to hear EFA views on what minimum level of speed and quota the NBN should meet to be considered beneficial.
The answer varies depending on the period of time you are looking at.
If we look over the life of the project, the answer will be higher than it is today.
1Gbps
I would be interested to hear EFA views on what minimum level of speed and quota the NBN should meet to be considered beneficial.
You just not going to be happy until you get unlimited speed with unlimited quota for a flat $30 a month are you…
Well, when AT&T can offer a household resident living 20km outside Chicago Illinois speeds of up to 18mbps (7.5 times faster than current Australian copper landline-based ADSL2+ theoretical maximum speed) and 250GB of data at US$29.95 a month (just shy of AU$32), why do you think we’re jumping up and down? A number of service providers thoughout the US, United Kingdom and Europe have plans at very close to that cost with around the same level of data allowance at similar speeds (and some faster. After an hour of researching, I’ve found many of these ISP’s to have ‘bundle’ packages – with internet access at speeds no less than 18mbps, unlimited calls to any phone anywhere in their country and a number of HD on-demand TV stations via cable – for prices no greater than AU$150. Point is, there is no reason why prices here shouldn’t be on-par with those in other countries for similar products…
Umm.
The maximum possible speed of ADSL2+ is 24Mbps so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
$150 for 18Mbps sounds pretty damned expensive (and I’m with Telstra and know what “expensive broadband” actually is)
I’ll be perfectly happy with unlimited speed and quotas. Quotas are an effective form of congestion control on the network, without limiting functionality.
In a very simplified use case maybe. Unfortunately a national network doesn’t fit that description.
@Mathew
I’ll be perfectly happy with unlimited speed and quotas. Quotas are an effective form of congestion control on the network, without limiting functionality.
And would you be happy to use a congested network? How would they deal with that congestion? Add more backhaul?
1 Gbps. At a flat price. Isn’t that right?
Anything else will clearly not be sufficient, regardless of consumer sentiment and or budget.
“I am, and the Government is, thoroughly open-minded, we are not dogmatic about technology; technology is not an ideological issue. We are completely agnostic about it. What we want to do is get the best result for taxpayers as soon as possible.”
Such a subtly deceptive narrative he weaves. It is the final sentence there that shows what he is planning. He will determine the parameters of any review, and he will decide what is meant by ‘best result for taxpayers as soon as possible’.
He claims to be agnostic, but will set up any review to vindicate the choice he has already made.
He claims to be technology agnostic as a slur against people who know damn well that the FTTP NBN should be continued – by Turnbull’s phrasing he is dismissing them as zealots whereas he is above such pettiness… except we know damn well that his decision has already been made and we will get FTTN no matter what lip service he pays to being ‘open’.
He is a poisonous little rodent, and it is a shame that it is taking so long for people to wake up to that fact.
Personal abuse is the last refuge of losers who have nothing else to support their position.
Turnbull is doing what Labor should have done on day one. Look at the mess the “nothing is important except how fast it is” zealots allied to the enterprise market lot given the job of building the NBN have produced. They’ve had to reduce what they promised to achieve by a factor of four. Four years into the project they’re only delivering a service to barely over 1% of premises. It was never going to get there under the lot who were in charge.
Turnbull is doing what Labor should have done on day one.
It remains to be seen if Malcolm actually stands by what he’s said. It wouldn’t be the first time he’s spoken of high standards with fair words, and then turned around and acted in the exact opposite manor.
I don’t appreciate being called a loser Gordon, and I think you will find you are in breach of the site’s comment policy. You are also, in your own sentence, calling yourself a loser by abusing me.
The same lack of logical consistency is evident in the rest of your post.
Indeed MegaB…
“Once again” the irony of ones own hypocrisy has gone over one’s head.
At least you were referring to the topic at hand and the Minister involved, not personally slanging (an)other posters…
But then I have noticed having one set of rules which only applies to FttP NBN and anyone who dares support it and another set for absolutely everything and everyone else everywhere is common place for such people.
And no this isn’t a personal attack it an observation of actuals…
“He claims to be agnostic, but will set up any review to vindicate the choice he has already made. ”
Nailed it.
I must have missed when Labor’s NBN went from 93% fibre to “all fibre”.
Lift your game Renai, such basic errors of fact raise questions over your ability to report any other facts accurately.
You’ve read it completely wrong.
Poor reading comprehension.
“All fibre” from the POI to the premises. Instead of? Fibre to the node, and copper from the node to the premises.
You forget that Malcolm’s kindly reminded us all that “democracy has spoken”. The majority of people clearly voted solely based on the Libs NBN and so that is what we’ll now get. End of discussion
Overnight reports that he has said words to the effect that “areas with the poorest services and greatest need for upgrades would receive first priority”.
Can’t argue with that given it is a publiclally funded project.
Wait, do we want this done sooner and cheaper, or to the most needy first?
Picking out spots here and there to do the rollouts, based on ‘need’ is a really inefficient way to do it. That will add costs and add delays.
I wish malcolm would make up his mind about whether he is targetting efficiency or targetting the public good.
If he was really focusing on the areas that need it the most then it would be nothing but the rural areas being concentrated on first. Of course they won’t do that though
The rural areas aren’t necessarily the worst off. I used to live in a tiny central.Queensland town with only 2 streets and a pub. We had adsl2+ I now live in a northern gold coast suburb, stuck on a congested rim, cant evenness watch a low quality YouTube clip after 4pm
I think you will find the areas developed between 1970-2000 are the worst served areas.
I wish malcolm would make up his mind about whether he is targetting efficiency or targetting the public good.
At least he seems to actually talk about his portfolio, unlike the rest of them, although he does seem to have gone pretty quiet since Tony’s control freak hissy fit……
I suppose, being a technician myself, I would like to have a say on how the NBN, fibre or FTTN, would be rolled in the small rural town I live in. Our small exchange would need to be enlarged, but that is not a problem, with the locals who are builders and having machinery at their disposal, would make easy work of this.
Being a small town, everyone is within 500 meters of the exchange, so even with FTTN, we would get some half decent speeds, well a lot faster than 3g or satellite.
The biggest problem I have with any big projects such as this, is that the decisions are made by unqualified people who wouldn’t know the end of a shovel unless it smacked them in the head.
Being a small town, everyone is within 500 meters of the exchange
Having lived in small towns, I’d be willing to put money down that there are more folks in your towns area that are actually outside 500m of the exchange, if there isn’t, you’re not actually living in a “small” town ;o)
Its not an easy one to answer. Where there is an exchange, there is a concentration of people. Thats inevitable. For small rural townships, where that concentration is less than 1000, the plans dont take advantage of that concentration of people, which is the point I think Justin is trying to make.
There are plenty of small townships dotted along main highways that you could plonk a node or 2 down in, and capture everyone, or near enough. Then worry about FttH later, when it IS cheap as chips to roll out. Or when NBN is turning enough profit to siphon some off to deal with the 7%.
Look at NSW’s South Coast, south of Nowra. There are numerous townships that are just off the main highway (check out around Jervis Bay and St Georges Basin – search google maps for sussex inlet) that are around that 1000 population mark. And pretty much every one is concentrated into a narrow band of population, that could easiily be serviced by FttN.
As it is, most of them were slated for FttH a couple of years ago as “it was simpler” to just do them as they rolled the fiber trunk down the highway, but who knows what happens under a FttN rollout.
If there’s taxpayers money going into it and … everyone may be effected by the outcome … and it is not (like e.g. military matters) shrouded in secrecy then of course the public should have a say in it!
Comments are closed.