news Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project is here to stay in one form or another and won’t be discontinued as a whole, telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said this week, even if the Coalition was to take power in the next Federal Election.

When Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull was appointed to the role in September 2010, the ABC reported that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had ordered the Member for Wentworth to “demolish” the NBN. At the time, Abbott said he believed the NBN would “turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale … school halls on steroids”.

Despite denials from Turnbull several weeks later that he would seek to “wreck” the project, the comments were seized upon by various figures in the Labor Party. Prime Minister Julia Gillard, has repeatedly claimed that a Coalition government would “rip up the fibre out of the ground” if it won power. In general, many Australians believe that the Coalition remains stalwartly against the NBN on philosophical grounds and would cancel the project if it won government — at a cost, according to the recent Federal Budget, of at least $1.8 billion.

However, that’s not the case, according to one leading telecommunications analyst. Writing on his blog this week, Paul Budde noted that while changes would definitely be made to the NBN if the Coalition wins the next Federal Election, he stated that the Coalition “also agrees that in some way the NBN is here to stay.

In separate posts over the past few months, Budde used a speech given by Turnbull to the CommsDay conference in April 2012 as well as other communications made by the Liberal MP to make his argument that the Opposition would retain key features of the NBN.

“The Coalition’s policy is, as you know focussed on achieving a comparable outcome (ubiquitious very fast broadband) but achieving it sooner in terms of rollout, cheaper in terms of cost to taxpayers, and more affordably in terms of consumers,” said Turnbull in the speech. “All of that follows from taking a pragmatic and technological neautral approach. But above all, at the front of our priorities is reducing risks for taxpayers and risks for consumers.”

“Very important and very positive was his statement that the Coalition’s aim is to achieve a comparable outcome for the NBN, sooner and cheaper,” said Budde in a post several weeks ago. “This confirms BuddeComm’s earlier claim that some form of a National Broadband Network is here to stay.” And then in April: “There is a lot of chest-beating going on, but in reality the Coalition’s views have been moving closer to the NBN as it is currently being rolled out,” wrote Budde.

The key plank of Budde’s argument regarding the Coalition appears to be that several components of the Coalition’s gradually evolving NBN policy are the same as the Government’s. For instance, the analyst noted in April that there was currently “more or less” bipartisan support for the structural separation of Telstra and the need to service rural areas with wireless and satellite broadband solutions, as opposed to fixed-line telecommunications.

One of the key differences between the two sides of politics’ policies, according to Budde, was that Labor is focusing on fibre to the home solutions, while the Coalition is focusing on fibre to the node, which would see fibre rolled out to streetside cabinets. However, he said, a FTTN solution would eventually “also need to be upgraded to FTTH”.

Perhaps the main key difference between the pair, Budde wrote, was actually not in the area of infrastructure investment at all, but the question of how to incentivise activity taking place on top of that infrastructure.

” … regardless of what the parties agree and don’t agree on, any technology solution will need to be based on a clear vision of the future for Australia in relation to the digital economy, e-health, tele-education, M2M, digital media and so on; and on the role of ICT in all of this,” the analyst wrote. ” … it is very clear that the current NBN is not there simply to deliver fast internet access.”

“The problem we have about the suggestions, comments and criticism from the Coalition is that so far we have no idea what their vision is on these matters. Do they see the need for a transformation towards a digital economy, e-health, tele-education, energy efficiency, etc? Do they believe that ICT has a role to play in this process? And, if so, what does that role have to be? If they were to present a vision on this we could debate what would be the best way to technically enable this transformation.”

opinion/analysis
I also believe that the Coalition’s telecommunications policy has shifted ever closed to the Government’s, and that the NBN project is broadly here to stay.

As Budde mentioned, both parties agree on the need to structurally separate Telstra and upgrade most of Australia’s broadband infrastructure using fibre, either to the premise or to neighbourhood nodes, and both parties agree on the need to provide rural broadband with wireless and satellite links.

Perhaps the areas where the Coalition most radically diverges from the Government’s view on the NBN are the issues of how this should be carried out, and what should be done with existing infrastructure. Clearly the Coalition wants to continue to use existing infrastructure such as the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, as well as some portions of Telstra’s copper network — and just as clearly, the Government wants to shut such platforms down. However, in both cases, the aim is to keep on providing better broadband to Australians — so at a high level the policies are not dissimilar.

One other area is really quite unclear with respect to the Coalition’s telecommunications policy. That is the issue of how its policy would be carried out. Will NBN Co continue to exist as a corporate entity, owning telecommunications infrastructure — potentially even Telstra’s entire copper network? How will the Coalition incentivise Telstra and Optus to further upgrade their HFC cable networks and convince Telstra to help with the upgrade of its copper network?

Will the Coalition continue with NBN Co’s plan to launch its own satellites, instead of leasing capacity from existing satellites? And how and by whom will fixed wireless broadband be rolled out in rural areas? These are all questions which Australians currently have with regard to the Coalition’s telecommunications policy.

Personally, I don’t see how the Coalition could possibly get away without some form of a company like NBN Co to manage all of these issues. And with — at the very least — hundreds of thousands of Australians already having access to the NBN by the time the next Federal Election rolls around, likely in 2013, it seems that a strategy of transitioning NBN Co itself to a new model is going to pretty necessary for a Coalition Government, rather than simply abolishing the company wholesale.

In any case, I think at this stage we need to start counting our blessings with regard to telecommunications policy in Australia. While there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the political climate, the truth is that on both sides of politics we have very capable and senior leaders in the telecommunications portfolio, with deep understanding of the sector and a commitment to improving it. Whatever happens at the next election, that can only bode well for the nation’s telecommunications development as a whole.

Related posts:

1. NBN helped Coalition lose 2010 election
2. NBN policy should integrate FTTN, HFC: Budde
3. New Coalition NBN policy: Splitting Telstra, using HFC

news The Federal Government and Opposition have teamed up to block a motion put by the Greens in the Senate which would have forced the Attorney-General’s Department to produce a series of documents regarding its closed-door meetings on Internet piracy in February this year.

On 8 February this year, major Australian ISPs sat down with the representatives of the film, television and music industries and the Federal Attorney-General’s Department, with the aim of discussing a potential industry resolution to the issue of online copyright infringement. The meeting was the fourth such meeting to be held, after a series of other meetings were held late last year under similar circumstances.

However, the Attorney-General’s Department has used a series of complex legal arguments to deny the release of documents associated with the meetings under Freedom of Information laws — redacting, for example, an entire 14 pages of notes taken by a departmental staffer at the event and other four pages of notes taken by a senior staffer from Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s department.

Subsequently to the censorship of the FoI request, Greens Senator and Communications Spokesperon Scott Ludlam filed a motion in the Senate in March requesting that the Attorney-General’s Department produce a list of invitees and attendees at the February meeting, notes and minutes arising from the meeting, any documentation issued to attendees and any internal departmental correspondence regarding the meeting — as well as documents relating to future meetings.

However, the motion came to fruition on Wednesday this week, it was blocked overwhelmingly in the Senate, with both the Government and Opposition declining to support it. In the Senate, Ludlam noted for the record that the Greens supported the proposal, while “the rest of the chamber opposed it”. The Coalition did not take the chance to hold the Government accountable on the matter. In the past, Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis and Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull have not responded to requests to comment on the issue.

The news is now the third time which attempts to retrieve information regarding the secret piracy talks have failed.

In April, the Federal Attorney-General’s Department conducted an internal review of the decision by its Freedom of Information officers not to release the sensitive documents. At the time, a senior office of the department found that its decision to substantially block the Freedom of Information request was valid.

“I have decided that disclosure of these documents would be contrary to the public interest,” the department’s director of its FOI and Privacy Section, Malcolm Bennett said at the time in one argument made. “My reasons for so concluding are essentially the same as [AGD senior legal officer Jane Purcell]‘s— that is, that the discussions that are taking place are at a delicate and sensitive stage.”

The talks have gained an extra level of potency following a High Court decision in mid-April which found that major ISP iiNet was not responsible for the Internet piracy actions of its users. At the time, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, which represents film and TV studios, said the loss illustrated that the Government needed to step in and take action on the issue of Internet piracy.

In response, Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the Government would closely examine the case, but added that the closed-door meetings between the content and ISP industries on the matter would continue. Despite this statement, it is believed that no further formal meetings have been held or scheduled by the Attorney-General’s Department on the issue since February.

The Australian newspaper has reported that ISPs have taken a stronger stance against copyright holders in dealing with the Attorney-General’s Department since the High Court decision. However, it also reported that a second set of informal meetings between a smaller group of industry stakeholders had also been held by the Attorney-General’s Department on the issue.

opinion/analysis
I really don’t understand the Opposition. This is a political group which will rail against the Government at every opportunity — on asylum seekers, on the National Broadband Network, on the carbon tax — the negative vitriol is incredible. And yet, when given a concrete chance to hold the Government of the day accountable on an issue of high public interest such as Internet piracy, the Opposition doesn’t take it.

All it would have taken for the Opposition to hold the Government accountable on this issue would have been for it to vote for the Greens’ motion to produce these secret documents. Instead, the Opposition chose to support the Government in keeping information in the public interest from being made public. Incredible.

As for Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis … do your job, George; realise that there has been public interest in this important issue for six months now, that it’s been covered in several national media outlets, and that the Labor Government is both holding secret meetings with industry and trying to stop that information from coming to the public eye. Keeping the Government accountable on this issue serves both the Coalition’s political interests as well as the public interest. Can’t you see your way clear to getting out of bed for this kind of free win?

Related posts:

1. Senate order: Greens demand secret piracy docs
2. Govt to continue secret anti-piracy talks
3. Greens slam “offensive” secret piracy meetings

news Liberal MP Paul Fletcher has written to the competition and press regulators complaining about what he said were misleading advertorial-style paid articles about the National Broadband Network, despite the fact that NBN Co has denied paying for the articles, which were independently written by News Ltd and Fairfax journalists and, in one case, sponsored by Optus.

At the heart of the MP’s complaints are several articles published over the past few weeks in the News Ltd-owned newspaper the North Shore Times and Fairfax-owned newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald. The SMH article doesn’t appear to be available online, but Fletcher has replicated a copy of the North Shore Times article on his website, along with his letters to the authorities. The article, entitled “Rolling out the NBN”, was published without a journalistic byline and presents information about the NBN which appears to be broadly slanted towards the aim of informing residents about the project, without critically examining the debate about the project’s merit, which has raged fiercely over the past five years.

“While we may not need these speeds right now, we will in the future if we want to keep up with world trends,” it notes. “Apart from everyday Internet access at home, the network also has the potential to offer new applications in business, healthcare and education … The Government’s most recent estimates say the network will be finished about 2021 and generate revenue of $5.8 billion in that year.”

In both cases, the articles in the newspapers appeared on pages next to paid advertisements which NBN Co had purchased as part of its broad brush education campaign to inform the public about its three year rollout plans, which were recently unveiled. However, in several letters to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Press Council, Fletcher alleged that the articles were paid “advertorial” — that is, articles which had been paid for by NBN Co.

“This material is presented to give the appearance of being a news feature, however on analysis it is an uncritical promotion of the NBN,” he wrote. “Accordingly, I write to ask that the ACCC consider whether this presentation constitutes misleading or deceptive conduct by NBN Co in breach of section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.”

Fletcher further asked the regulators to consider whether individual statements in the material were misleading or deceptive, such as the articles’ claims around the cost of the NBN, the state of the rollout in South Australia and Tasmania, and estimates around the revenue projections and target completion date of the project.

Referring to the Sydney Morning Herald report, Fletcher told the Australian Press Council that “the report reads very much as a promotional piece for NBN and is thus lacking balance and one-sided. It is unclear if the report is an advertorial or news content,” he added, noting there was no disclosure if the article was a paid advertisement, as is usually required. Fletcher also wrote to Amanda Wilson, Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, expressing similar complaints.

In a statement on his website, Fletcher similarly attacked NBN Co.

“NBN Co appears to have engaged in a blitz of misleading print media marketing which blurs the boundaries between news content and advertising,” he wrote. “The Australian public deserves to know who is paying for this misleading public relations material, and for there to be a clear delineation between news content and flagrant promotion.”

However, Fletcher’s statements questioning the basis of the articles, and speculating that they were paid for by NBN Co, appear to be unfounded. NBN Co said in a brief statement through its official Twitter account last night that it had not paid for any of the so-called advertorial material.

“NBN Co did not pay for or solicit the supplement that appeared in The Age/SMH. Nor did we have any influence over the editorial content,” the company said. “We responded to queries from journalists writing the supplement as we would every legitimate journalistic query. And we receive on average 100 queries a week from media. Nor did we pay for or dictate the editorial content in the article in News Community newspapers. The editorial space was negotiated after NBN Co took out advertisements in the titles to inform people of the rollout. We were asked to contribute information and check facts. But the article was written by a News Limited journalist.”

Optus has told the Sydney Morning Herald that in fact, it sponsored one of the supplements exclusively (it appears from the SMH article that Optus sponsored the SMH supplement, but this is a little unclear). ”As the supplement explores the opportunities and benefits that the NBN will open up to end-users, Optus felt this was an ideal advertising fit as we have been a strong advocate for choice and competition over the last 20 years,” an Optus spokesperson told the SMH.

The Australian Press Council and ACCC have not yet responded to Fletcher’s queries, and his office has not yet returned calls for comment this morning. NBN Co has confirmed that Fletcher did not contact it about the matter asking whether it had sponsored the articles before publishing his letters and media statement on the issue.

Over the past several years, there have been a number of misleading articles published in various segments of the media about the NBN. In December, the Australian Press Council expressed concern about the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Federal Government’s National Broadband Network project, backing a local critic’s complaint that three articles in a short period of time had contained “inaccurate or misleading assertions” about the NBN. Similarly, in March this year, another News Ltd publication, The Australian, published a correction to a story after it inaccurately alleged that a school in South Australia would have to pay $200,000 to connect to the NBN; in fact, the school will receive NBN access as part of the normal rollout.

However, neither Fletcher nor other members of the Coalition attacked the misleading articles at the time. It is believed that much of the Liberal MP’s concerns over the articles this week revolve around the fact that they published somewhat uncritical information painting the NBN project in a positive light. Most of the previous articles about the NBN which have been found to be misleading have attempted to paint the project in a negative light.

opinion/analysis
Are the articles published by Fairfax and News Ltd about the NBN inaccurate? Not really. But they definitely are very uncritical and hardly objective. Fletcher was right to be suspicious about them. By no stretch of the imagination could they be called journalism; they merely take basic information about the NBN, probably from NBN Co’s website, and present it to the public as educational information about the project.

Reading the articles, they would appear to be the very definition of the kinds of “advertorial”-style advertising features which are often published in newspaper supplements. And, of course, these features are often paid for by advertisers directly. I think everyone knows this. Certainly everyone in the media does.

However, Fletcher also didn’t do his homework on this one. The facts are that NBN Co didn’t pay for these ads; a fact which the MP could have ascertained merely by calling NBN Co and asking the company. Fletcher didn’t need to contact the SMH, the ACCC or the Australian Press Council as a first step to ascertain the truth here; he could have contacted NBN Co first directly, and found out that it hadn’t paid for the articles, before he went off half-cocked in his huge series of letters and media releases.

The articles may be bad journalism, they may be uncritical; they may even, from a certain point of view (although it’s not my point of view) be false. But there’s no foul play here by NBN Co. There may be some disingenuousness on the part of Optus, as a sponsor of one of the supplements, but Fletcher didn’t attack Optus as part of his rage campaign. Interestingly, as many readers would know, Optus was Fletcher’s employer (he was the telco’s regulatory chief) before he became an MP in 2007.

There is also an essential hypocrisy here in Fletcher’s actions.

It is very common for major newspapers and other media outlets to run articles severely criticising the National Broadband Network project. Sometimes the articles have merit, but often they don’t, and over the past year we’ve chronicled at Delimiter a number of times when major articles about the NBN have simply been factually incorrect.

But Fletcher has never complained bitterly to the ACCC, the Australian Press Council or the media outlets concerned about those inaccurate articles; only about those articles which he feels have been unfairly positive towards the NBN. Obviously, this is because criticism of the NBN — even if it is unfounded — aids the Coalition, as the project is one of the key policy planks of the Labor Government, whereas articles praising the NBN conversely would appear to aid Labor.

If Fletcher is truly interested in stopping misinformation being spread about the NBN — and I will be the first the acknowledge that the articles he complained about this week are pretty bad articles, although not blatantly inaccurate — then he needs to stop having double standards, and complain about all inaccurate, biased or slanted articles about the NBN. To a fair-minded and honest person concerned with truth, it should not matter who is aided by an article about a topic area they are interested in — merely whether that article is accurate and contributes to the debate.

But perhaps this is a concept which would escape an Australian politician in 2012.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

1. Coalition missteps on NBN budget savings
2. Fletcher wants Oz to learn from UK broadband policy
3. iiNet NBN prices too high, says Coalition

news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has demanded that the Coalition publish its policy platform for the next election in the area of broadband and telecommunications, pointing out that this is the third time, in as many months, that he has made this inquiry of the Coalition; asking it to disclose its broadband policy, the technology it proposes to use, and the cost to Australians.

Last week the Gillard Government announced its three year National Broadband Network rollout plan detailing the deployment of fibre and wireless broadband infrastructure to 3.5 million premises in 1500 communities in every state and territory in Australia by 2015. The Labor Federal Government’s NBN plan will eventually see high-speed broadband made available to every one of the 11 million homes in Australia by 2021.

In comparison, Conroy said, besides giving a speech last August, and campaigning negatively against the NBN, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull had not tendered an actual broadband policy. He added that the Coalition currently had no broadband policy document, no funding commitment and no information on the ‘Turnbull plan’ from anyone in the Coalition.

In fact, Conroy said: “In the first three months of 2012, Mr Turnbull has made 479 tweets, issued 9 press releases and delivered 4 public speeches. In that time he has only provided one piece of policy detail – to buy back Telstra’s copper, at an unspecified cost.” Conroy also added that while Turnbull’s Coalition partners continued to call for fibre to the home in regional Australia, their leader kept saying that investment in 21st century broadband was a waste.

Turnbull had claimed, mid-February, that there was enough capacity on private satellites already in orbit or scheduled for launch, for the NBN to deliver broadband to the 200,000 or so premises in remote Australia without building its own. He had also said that outsourcing or leasing capacity would be more appropriate. However, it remains unclear whether leasing capacity would be able to deliver the speed or capacity of satellite broadband which NBN Co plans to deliver using it.

Conroy’s list of questions that the Minister wants Turnbull to answer are as follows, relating to the areas of costs, technology and policy:

• How much will his network cost?
• How will he achieve the structural separation of Telstra?
• Who supports his contention that Telstra will not require additional payment for nationalising the copper?
• How does he cost a network with a capital cost of $35B at $50B?
• How many FTTN nodes does he plan to build?
• What percentage of households will be served by which technology – FTTN, HFC, wireless?
• What does he really think the future requirements for bandwidth are in Australia?
• When does he expect his network will need to be replaced by FTTH (he calls it a migration path)?
• What satellites does he plan to use to deliver broadband beyond the reach of wireless?
• How will he ensure comprehensive broadband availability through his hit and miss approach?
• Does he support his leader’s belief that everyone is happy with wireless?
• Does he support the National Party view that fibre to the home is the right solution? Does he support their target of 50% fibre to the home for regional Australia?
• What he will actually do for the year it will take the Productivity Commission to subject his plan to a Cost Benefit Analysis?
• How much will his ‘voucher’ system for regional Australia cost? How much dearer are ‘comparable’ regional prices to metropolitan prices?
• When will his plan be submitted to shadow cabinet for funding approval?

The office of Malcolm Turnbull declined to comment on Conroy’s statement.

opinion/analysis
I’m not saying the Coalition’s own telecommunications policy is without merit — in fact, as I’ve previously written, it does have a great deal of merit. However, broadly I agree with Conroy. Turnbull has simply not outlined the policy in enough detail yet for the electorate to be secure in the knowledge that it is good policy — in fact, Turnbull has not outlined it officially at all, in any kind of document.

To be fair to the Coalition, the NBN policy which Labor took to the 2007 election was also similarly threadbare, so Conroy is calling the kettle black a bit here. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s OK for the Coalition to do the same. It wasn’t OK that Labor hadn’t fully fleshed out its telecommunications policy before the 2007 election, and it’s not OK that the Coalition hasn’t fleshed out its alternative now. Conroy’s questions here are legitimate.

Opinion/analysis by Renai LeMay

Related posts:

1. Conroy slams Turnbull’s “half-baked” NBN plan
2. Disappointing: Turnbull hasn’t fleshed out his NBN plan
3. NBN policy: Show us some detail, Conroy tells Turnbull

news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has issued a scorching statement on Labor’s track record in building the National Broadband Network, declaring that the three-year NBN rollout plan delivered last week was “a duplicitous and ham-fisted attempt” to conceal its failure to deliver.

On Thursday last week, Chief Executive Officer of NBN Co, Mike Quigley, in the presence of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, launched the first major stage of NBN Co’s roll-out plans at a press conference in Sydney. The plan disclosed in detail the deployment of fibre and wireless broadband infrastructure to 3.5 million premises in 1500 communities in every state and territory in Australia, by 2015.

In reaction, Turnbull issued a statement claiming that for the past five years Labor’s message on broadband had been ‘trust us’. Yet, in that time, hardly 5000 Australian households had actually received better broadband, he said.

Pointing out that the NBN Co was up to a year behind its targets according to its own 2010 plans, Turnbull’s contention was that the plan did not contain a forecast either of how many households and businesses would actually be able to connect to the NBN fibre by 2015 or, would actually be connected.

Turnbull set forth statistics on NBN Co’s performance thus far, saying that between June 30th, 2011, and March 31st, 2012, the company’s fibre roll-out had reached only 657 additional premises, which worked out to just over 3 per working day. To reach the June 30th, 2012 roll-out targets in its current Corporate Plan, NBN Co would have to connect a further 137,000 premises in the next three months, that is, about 2090 per working day. Likewise, on March 31st, there would be 18,900 premises which would actually connect to the NBN fibre, but work would be expected to commence on a further 249,600 premises by the same date. Applying the same passed-to-commence ratio, only 250,000 premises would actually be connected to the network by 2015.

On the NBN’s progress, therefore, Turnbull said that the three-year roll-out plan announced by NBN Co and the Government was a “duplicitous and ham-fisted attempt” to conceal its failure of achieving its targeted connectivity.

However, not everyone was so negative about the NBN, in reactions which came last week to the three year rollout plan announcement. In a statement, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam asked the Coalition ‘to abandon their dogmatic vow on how to “demolish” the NBN.’

“The Coalition clings to their half-baked scheme to basically halt the Network during construction and try to fill in the gaps with tin cans and string, but there comes a time when even the most fervent ideologue must face the facts,” he said. “Mr Abbott needs to recognise that the NBN is here to stay and the Australian people want it that way.”

“The officials and the workers who built this country’s copper network a century ago did a grand service to their nation, but that copper network can’t deliver the fast broadband the modern economy demands. Without this investment in our infrastructure, Australia will struggle to match world’s best standard for telecommunications.”

Ludlam pointed out that some federal Liberal MPs had clamoured to get the NBN in their electorates first, and Liberal state governments were beginning to push for priority. “We have a situation where MPs state and federal are paying attention to the local reality and want the NBN as soon as possible, while the Coalition’s top brass clings to their ideological hatred of public enterprise.”

National broadband provider iiNet also expressed support for the NBN’s three-year roll-out plan. Michael Malone, CEO, iiNet said: “We’ve always been strong supporters of the NBN because it brings faster, more reliable Internet to all Australians, no matter where they live.” About the large number of households that would get access to iiNet’s service, he remarked that the roll-out would provide an opportunity for iiNet to focus its attention on customers in areas previously disadvantaged by poor Internet coverage and lack of competition.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

1. Turnbull has no NBN plan, says Conroy
2. NBN take-up “a bitter jest”, says Turnbull
3. Come clean, Conroy: Turnbull slams Brissie NBN “gerrymandering”

news The Australian branch of the Pirate Party has expressed its dismay about the continuing delay over the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games, in a statement issued last week.

The Party had appreciated the introduction of legislation in Parliament last week that would finally establish an R18+ classification for video games. Commenting that the Government seemed to have considered the widespread public demand for a new rating system, the Pirate Party statement asserted that this would cater better to the continually growing video game market. With the new classification proposed, several games that would have been misleadingly rated under MA15+ would now obtain a more appropriate and informative rating of R18+.

However, in spite of massive public support for the new legislation, the current bill to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 has been held up, pending a parliamentary inquiry. The inquiry process is usually used for bills deemed controversial or complex. No reason has been given, but the Pirate Party expects that the bill will return to Parliament within a month.

ITWire has reported that a tweet from Labor MP Ed Husic revealed last week that Tony Abbot’s Coalition had requested the R18+ video games bill to be subjected to a Standing Committee enquiry. According to Australia’s legislation process, if one MP calls for an inquiry on a proposed legislation, the bill must go through a Standing Committee for examination and scrutiny. Kotaku has reported that Husic called the inquiry an attempt by the Coalition to delay the R18+ legislation or put an end to it for good.

Speaking about his enthusiasm for the R18+ rating for video games, David Campbell, President of Pirate Party Australia opined that the new system would be superior as far as parents are concerned. “However, it is important to watch this space closely, as poorly formed classification guidelines have the potential to create no greater flexibility, with ‘refused classification’ games such as Syndicate, that are perfectly legal to purchase and play around the world, to remain banned here in Australia,” Campbell said.

Brendan Molloy, Secretary of Pirate Party Australia conveyed his hope that R18+ would not simply become MA15++. “Expanding the framework to include another classification will have little to no effect if currently banned games, that are legal in every other country, will continue to be banned after the introduction of an R18+ rating,” Molloy elaborated.

The amendment would be welcomed by some Australian parents who wish to protect their children from content produced for an older audience. The change would also give adult gamers access to other games that would have previously gotten a ‘Refused Classification’ stamp. This would enable Australian retailers to provide adults with content that they would have earlier had to import from countries in Asia or Europe with a more comprehensive rating system.

The Party also is awaiting the finalised Classification Guidelines for Computer Games that will help determine which games would obtain an R18+ classification. The Party expressed its wariness of the R18+ classification turning into just another label within the current scheme, in effect an MA15++ with no potential for enabling greater access to adult games.

opinion/analysis
At this stage, I believe we should recall Tony Abbott’s comments on the matter during the 2010 Federal Election campaign:

“If what happens with video games is not roughly analogous to what happens in other areas, that seems silly,” Abbott said in response to a question from an audience member on the Daily Telegraph’s leadership question and answer session at Sydney’s Rooty Hill RSL tonight. “Instinctively I’m with you, and it’s something I’d be happy to look at, if we are in Government,” he added. “If you think there is a problem, I would be happy to look at it.”

In short, Abbott doesn’t appear to be personally against this one. For my own part, I don’t believe the new delay will ultimately block the planned R18+ rating for video games; from my point of view it’s more or less just a normal examination of legislation which is somewhat controversial amongst some of the Coalition’s more conservative arms. The strength of the push for the rating will doubtless eventually see it through; any new examination of the proposal will continue to turn up the strong and well-developed reasoning behind it. Proponents of the new rating, however, will need to have some patience. The Federal Parliament is nothing if not slow, at times ;)

Image credit: Les Powell, royalty free. Opinion/analysis by Renai LeMay.

Related posts:

1. R18+ game legislation hits Federal Parliament
2. R18+ game classification: The quest continues
3. Federal Govt releases R18+ game guidelines

news In a new blog entry entitled “What can we learn from the UK?”, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher has lambasted the broadband policies of the Gillard Government, unfavourable contrasting them with the approach of the Cameron Government in the UK.

Fletcher starts off in the piece by pointing out the high amounts that Australia is spending to promote deployment of superfast broadband compared to UK and moves on to claim that the Cameron Government’s approach is much more pragmatic, flexible, private-sector oriented and competition-centred. Disapproving of government intervention, except where there is market failure, he is also highly critical of the one-size-fits-all approach of the Labor Government and is all for more tailored approaches with a mix of technologies.

The Cameron Government announced in December 2010 that it will spend £530 million (or A$1.23 billion) to promote the deployment of ‘superfast’ broadband (defined as more than 24 Mbps) in the UK. This amounts to around $20 per citizen of UK, whereas in Australia the cost comes around to $1600 per person, according to Fletcher.

Fletcher points out that the UK approach is to do it in stages, with the first commitment being to provide virtually all homes access to a minimum level of service of 2 Mbps by 2015. After the initial commitment is met, the government plans to promote ‘superfast’ broadband. In contrast, many Australian homes will have to wait well beyond 2015 for the National Broadcast Network (NBN) to reach their doors. Also, the Gillard Government by reaching for a highly ambitious goal of 100 Mbps is being foolhardy without a clear idea of what applications need that kind of speed.

In UK, delivering broadband is primarily a private sector matter. Government intervention is necessary only where there is market failure—in commercially less attractive areas like some rural and inner city areas. British Telecom (using a mix of ADSL, fibre to the node and fibre to the home) has committed that approximately two thirds of UK homes will receive fibre to the node (offering up to 40 Mbps) or fibre to the home (offering up to 100 Mbps) by 2015.

In Australia too, significant parts of the market will require public sector funding, but the Federal Government has taken an approach of pushing aside private sector everywhere — by funding a ubiquitous publicly owned fibre network. The Government is also paying Telstra and Optus to withdraw their extensive existing cable networks from service in spite of the fact that they can be upgraded to deliver 100Mbps.

Another point Fletcher makes is that UK policy, while recognising fibre’s pre-eminence, explicitly rejects picking technologies; it notes that other technologies including wireless and satellite should be part of the mix. In Australia, the Government is also using different technologies — fibre for the majority of the population, coupled with satellite and wireless in rural and regional areas.

Public funding in the UK, where provided, is being put in the hands of the communities and local authorities to use on infrastructure that suits them. A key design approach is to deliver ‘a central digital point’ in communities; in turn the local community will be responsible for extending the network to individual homes. A mixed technology approach will be taken, and local authorities will have a key role. This, Fletcher says, is a more flexible approach and more responsive to local needs instead of Labor’s one-size-fits-all centrally controlled strategy.

Fletcher also brings our notice to a report by UK communications regulator, Ofcom, which estimates that even though 57 percent of the homes were able to receive superfast services, less than four percent of them actually subscribed to it. This is significant as it suggests that consumer demand for superfast broadband is limited.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

1. Shame on you, Dodo tells Paul Fletcher
2. Quigley openly slams Coalition’s broadband policy
3. Fletcher backs Telstra in Alan Jones chat

blog In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (click here for the full story), Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has made some … interesting claims about Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project. The newspaper writes:

The broadband network was by far the biggest off-budget initiative ever seen in Australian government, Mr Hockey said … “I mean, it’s multiples of anything that’s ever been off-budget … it detracts from productivity,” he said.

Readers are advised to treat Hockey’s claims with a grain of salt — in a similar vein to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s comments on the NBN earlier this week. Hockey is correct when he says the NBN is largely off-budget. However, if the project goes according to plan and at least breaks even for the Government’s investment, which many believe it is likely to do (given the fact that Telstra and Optus will be migrating their customers wholesale onto the NBN’s fibre infrastructure), this won’t matter.

Projects are put in the Federal Budget because they cost money; while the NBN is a capital investment expected to make money. Hockey’s criticism will become valid when it can be proven that NBN Co is not meeting the objectives laid out in its corporate plan — and I wouldn’t expect that to be possible, even if it happens, for at least another five years.

As far as Hockey’s claim about productivity goes … this is simply factually incorrect. About a billion studies have shown that next-generation broadband infrastructure helps drastically improve productivity through the rapid uptake of new technology in the workplace. It appears that Treasurer Wayne Swan understands this. “If it was up to Joe Hockey, we’d still be talking to each other using two cans and a piece of string,” his office reportedly told AAP — ZDNet.com.au story here. A bit of an exaggeration, but apt ;)

Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey

Related posts:

1. NBN no CommBank or Qantas, says Hockey
2. Joe Hockey and Kate Lundy: A new Democrats
3. Hockey slams “unworkable” internet filter

news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has stepped in to bat for iiNet, in the wake of claims by the Coalition yesterday that National Broadband Network pricing released yesterday by the ISP was too expensive and demonstrated that Labor’s NBN project wouldn’t bring Australians cheaper broadband.

iiNet’s plans released this morning range from $59.90 per month for an entry level service with a bundled telephone line, all the way up to $109.90 for a terabyte package at 100Mbps speeds. In general, the plans are comparable to iiNet’s current ADSL broadband plans provided over Telstra’s copper network. However, they are substantially cheaper than earlier plans released by rival Internode in late July — in some cases up to $80 cheaper for a similar plan.

Fletcher said he had calculated that iiNet’s NBN prices were substantially higher than equivalent ADSL prices. The MP said it wasn’t iiNet’s fault — due to pricing set by fibre wholesaler NBN Co — however, the prices demonstrated Labor claims that the NBN would drive cheaper prices was false.

However, in a statement issued late last night, Conroy claimed Fletcher was barking up the wrong tree and was continuing to attack ISPs. Fletcher had previously made a number of comments about the prices of other ISPs Dodo and Exetel.

“Mr Fletcher is continuing his extraordinary attack on retail service providers – having already attacked Dodo and Exetel – for providing consumers with low, competitive prices and is deliberately attempting to mislead people with calculations that simply do not stack up,” said Conroy.

The Minister said Fletcher’s price comparison saw the Liberal MP comparing the prices of broadband services only available in metropolitan areas (naked DSL) with iiNet’s new NBN services — which are also slated to be available in regional areas. “If Mr Fletcher had done the honest thing and chosen iiNet’s $59.95 plan – one that is still cheaper than the “entry level” naked DSL product he cites – he would have found a product that is $10 per month cheaper, more reliable, and with two times more included data,” said Conroy.

Fletcher was comparing iiNet’s $69.95 naked DSL plan, which comes with 50GB of on-peak and 50GB of off-peak data, while the ISP does offer several non-naked DSL plans which come with 100GB/100GB, 200GB/200GB and even 500GB/500GB of quota.

“Using Mr Fletcher’s own novel and bizarre calculations, this plan would cost only $0.30 per GB,” said Conroy. “Mr Fletcher is amateurishly copying the dishonest tactics of Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull who will say and do anything in an attempt to mislead the Australian public.”

Posting on broadband forum Whirlpool, iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby wrote in June 2010 when iiNet first released its initial trial NBN pricing that the National Broadband Network policy was actually about a variety of complex outcomes — not just the cost of broadband. “There was nothing in any of the Minister’s releases about making anything cheaper,” he said at the time. “Just the opposite, most of the debate (Google, [former AAPT chief] Paul Broad and the NBN) was about how it was apparently going to make things more expensive.”

“The NBN is about a lot of things including improving competition, reducing Telstra’s conflicts of interest, broadening the availability of high speed broadband to 90 percent of the population, generating productivity gains and winning votes.”

Asked whether improving competition was about making prices cheaper, Dalby responded: “That is an outcome, yes and one of the reasons the government wants improved competition. But not the only one, and that has never been the driving motivation for NBN. On a like-for-like basis the NBN may very well drive down prices, let’s see.”

opinion/analysis
AS Dalby wrote, the NBN is a complex policy aimed at achieving many outcomes — and I don’t personally believe lower prices has ever been an aim of the NBN, despite what Julia Gillard may or may not have said in parliament. Broadly, the policy aims to improve competition in the broadband market while simultaneously drastically improving services — not to provide cheaper services.

I’ve expressed my opinion to several of the Coalition’s key MPs (including Fletcher) that I believe it is barking up the wrong tree by harping on about prices. I just don’t believe Australia’s predominantly middle class population is that concerned about telecommunications prices. If it was … we wouldn’t have more mobile phones than we have people, and we wouldn’t have multiple Internet connections per person (think iPad, iPhone, mobile broadband dongle, home broadband, work broadband and so on).

The Coalition is wasting its time by continuing to attack the Government on the sideline issue of broadband pricing.

Note: This article initially cited Steve Dalby’s comments as being made yesterday. This is an error. They were in fact made in June 2010. In addition, Conroy initially referred to an iiNet plan with ten times the data quote included; his spokesperson has corrected this as a mistake — he meant two times the quota.

Image credit: Razvan Cimpeanu, royalty free

Related posts:

1. iiNet NBN prices too high, says Coalition
2. Exetel prices show up Coalition lies, says Conroy
3. Telstra NBN prices aren’t final: Conroy

opinion Last week Malcolm Turnbull outlined a telecommunications policy which could become a credible alternative to Labor’s NBN juggernaut. But for all its surface-level attractiveness, the Liberal MP’s vision is far from complete — and unless the holes are plugged quickly, it will die a quick and painful death.

The extent to which Turnbull has not fleshed out his ideas became evident last week during a wide-ranging interview on Sky News, in which a number of News Ltd commentators had the chance to pinion the Earl of Wentworth on diverse matters. After garnering Turnbull’s thoughts on world economics, internal Liberal Party politics, workplace relations laws and more, his questioners (somewhat reluctantly, it seemed) turned their attention to broadband.

Turnbull was given the chance to expansively put his view forth on Labor’s NBN project; and as per normal, he didn’t disappoint.

The NBN was “enormously expensive”, he said, with the Government spending “tens of billions of dollars more … than they need to”. The NBN would “blow out” in cost, perhaps ranging up to between “$60 and $80″ billion in total. “Not enough” people would benefit from it, and “there is no application or service” which could use the terabit speeds promised.

Eventually, Turnbull said, there would be “a growing horror” at the money being ploughed into the “massively overcapitalised Government monopoly”, which will see prices go up.

Now, as with many people, I don’t always agree with the approach taken by News Ltd journalists, but in this case, the approach taken by The Australian’s economics editor Michael Stutchbury to Turnbull’s rapidly expanding bubble of hot air was extremely appropriate.”How much cheaper do you claim you will be able to do it under your plan, compared to what the Government is saying?” the redoubtable Stutchbury asked Turnbull.

“Well, the approach we will take –” the Shadow Communications Minister began to reply, before his waffle was cut off at the pass. “In terms of cost to the taxpayer. What’s your estimate?” pushed Stutchbury. Turnbull wouldn’t give a concrete estimate, noting only that “relatively small amounts of Government subsidy” would be required.

“You don’t have a number though,” concluded Stutchbury.

From here on in the interview started to resemble an episode of Yes, Minister, with Turnbull switching sides and playing the role of Sir Humphrey Appleby, rather than his usual position on the other side of the desk as the Right Honourable James Hacker. As Stutchbury doggedly pursued the question of cost, Turnbull continued to duck and weave, giving answers such as “yes and no” and retreating again and again into his safety zone of the cost of Labor’s incumbent NBN approach.

To be honest, it wasn’t one of the best performances in Turnbull’s career; although it did demonstrate the formidable depth of understanding which the former Opposition Leader can boast with regards to costing infrastructure projects — an area in which most of his predecessors in the shadow communications portfolio have demonstrated a lack of knowledge bordering on complete ignorance.

Now one problem for Turnbull, of course, is that it may prove well-nigh-on impossible to actually cost the rival NBN policy he unveiled last week in any reasonable manner.

The public investment figure required to build Labor’s NBN has varied constantly over the past several years, as the Government, then the private sector, then NBN Co itself have estimated just how much money will be required to roll out fibre, wireless and satellite infrastructure around the nation. That amount also changed again when NBN Co and Telstra reached tentative agreement on the terms of their wedding; and no doubt it will change again in future as further construction costs become more apparent.

Turnbull can obviously draw on the substantial resources to cost his proposal — party, public and personal — but with much of its framework unclear (such as the terms of any deal with Telstra), any exercise in doing so will necessarily involve a range of potential future costs.

Compared with the over-analysed NBN, this will leave Communications Minister Stephen Conroy with a thousand avenues of attack to shred Turnbull’s grand vision; a task he has already taken up with relish. Last week — prior to the release of Turnbull’s policy — Conroy issued a series of questions which he demanded the Liberal MP answer. Questions such as:

• How much the plan will cost
• Where the money will be found to pay for it
• How Telstra will be recompensed for separating its operations
• Which Government services will be sacrificed in future budgets to pay for the policy

“Until Mr Turnbull answers basic and fundamental questions about his plan to dismantle the NBN, Australians will be in no position to take the Coalition seriously when it comes to delivering faster, better and affordable broadband,” said Conroy.

I agree.

As I wrote last week, Turnbull’s plan is 90 percent win. It avoids the anti-competitive move of shutting down the existing HFC networks, allows for the long-awaited separation of Telstra, will support the bush with wireless and satellite and holds the promise of infrastructure-based competition in the telecommunications sector.

However, the proposal is far from complete, and its biggest Achilles heel is Turnbull’s refusal to answer questions about cost. This difficulty leaves Turnbull doubly exposed to Labor criticism on an issue which has traditionally been a Liberal strength: Fiscal responsibility. As Conroy will no doubt shortly begin pointing out, technically the NBN project won’t cost the Government anything. Over the long-term, it will pay for itself with a modest return to the public, courtesy of its commercial model.

Of course, there are other issues with Turnbull’s policy. The difficulty of bringing Telstra to the table for another set of complex negotiations. The need to repeal or modify the tranche of NBN legislation which Labor has introduced over the past several years. The dismantling of a rapidly growing National Broadband Network Company and the justification to the population of a nation half-fibred up and half-not.

All of these discussions constitute land mines which Turnbull has the potential to personally negotiate. But none of them will progress in any meaningful way until the former Opposition Leader is able to put a hard dollar figure on the value of his policy.

Until Turnbull can inject a really hard concrete figure into the public debate, his attractive policy will remain marginalised. For the Member for Wentworth, it’s time to stop discussing his broadband views in public for now and head back to a small briefing room where several dozen economists can work through the details of what they might cost.

Until he does that, his alternative to Labor’s NBN juggernaut will remain ungrounded, unproven and ultimately, undebatable.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Related posts:

1. Five questions about the Coalition’s new NBN policy
2. NBN policy: Show us some detail, Conroy tells Turnbull
3. Turnbull’s new NBN policy is 90 percent win