Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has lambasted the justification behind Labor’s National Broadband Network project as featuring a series of false dichotomies between a glorious fibre future and a world where Australians are starved for broadband.
“Ultimately, Labor prefers to frame the public debate over its plan and any alternative proposals as a series of caricatures and false dichotomies,” the Liberal heavyweight told the Communications Day conference in Melbourne today, according to his speaking notes released by his office.
“It’s the NBN or perpetual mediocrity,” Turnbull said. “Fast fibre or overcrowded wireless. Visionary nation-building versus mean-spirited penny pinching. The future versus the past.”
In reality, Turnbull argued, the future of Australia’s telecommunications sector was a great deal more complex than Labor was presenting it as. “Reducing them to cartoons is helpful only if you are trying to avoid scrutiny,” he said.
Turnbull contended that the NBN was actually a response to four separate objectives held by the Government in relation to telecommunications:
- The need for a guaranteed level of basic access to broadband for all Australians of 12Mbps
- A cross-subsidy on broadband from metropolitan regions to the bush
- A desire for most Australians to have access to substantially higher broadband speeds than are currently available in the market to most
- A major change in the structure of the telecommunications market, which Telstra currently dominates as the nation’s formerly monopolist telco.
However, Turnbull claimed in his speech that none of those objectives were easily resolved by the NBN policy.
For starters, he said, those underserved by broadband in the cities could more quickly receive services by removing barriers to the upgrade of ADSL equipment (DSLAMs) in telephone changes, or through wireless broadband. Building competitive backhaul connections would ensure the development of regional areas by telcos who haven’t invested there due to the claimed cost of Telstra’s own fibre.
On the cross-subsidy front, Turnbull argued that this would be better delivered as a direct subsidy to carriers or as a voucher system to telecommunications customers. “Both of these delivery mechanisms have the benefit of being far more transparent than the hidden cross-subsidy inherent ni the currently proposed NBN wholesale pricing arrangements,” he said.
On the higher speeds debate, Turnbull said there was still debate about what the speeds would immediately be used for, but a faster and quicker way for the nation to receive faster speeds if needed would be to provide Telstra and Optus with the investment certainty to upgrade their HFC cable networks to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard — delivering 100Mbps to a third of Australian homes.
And lastly, Turnbull said that if the vertical integration of Telstra (with both wholesale and retail arms) was the issue with Australia’s telecommunications industry, then the solution was structural or functional separation — the NBN was overkill and would itself be a fixed line monopoly.
Turnbull ended his speech with an impassioned call for reason in the NBN debate and reiterated his call for the Government to conduct a cost-benefit analysis into the project.
“For those who cry out “nation-building” and “vision” when matters of finance are raised, consider this: Why is subsidising the provision of a near infinite range of video and entertainment services to every Australian home more worthy than building a decent public transport system in our cities, better hospitals and roads, let alone fast trains and water infrastructure?” he asked.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
I’m so over arguing against this same tired old cost benefit analysis crap, that I’ll just be lazy and link to someone else’s argument instead. Graeme Samuel summed up my thoughts on this perfectly – > http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Samuel-rejects-NBN-cost-benefit-analysis-calls-pd20101012-A69LG?OpenDocument&src=hp6
Graeme Samuel should’ve done a “cost benefit analysis” before he lost the vast majority of his fortune of tens of millions in the DFO debacle.
I’ll be ‘lazy’ as well, here is a link to a response about what Samuel has said.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Samuels-blurred-NBN-vision-pd20101013-A73QW?opendocument&src=idp
Malcolm – come up with a new angle dude! If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
One of the better examples of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ on subject matter in forums like this I have seen – eh dude?
More sage advise from the shadow minister for complaigning about the NBN.
As distinct for the current Labor Communications Minister for ‘smoke and mirrors’ you mean?
“upgrade their HFC cable networks to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard — delivering 100Mbps to a third of Australian homes.”
And the rest? what about upload capacity? Mr Turnbull?
The upload stream is up to the network provider. E.g. currently ncable in Geelong offers a plan of 30/4mbps with soon to be released upgrade to 100mbps. Why would you need higher than 4mbps upstream?
Gee I dunno I guess I just dont like waiting all day long for files to upload via FTP.
“Why would you need higher than 4mbps upstream?”
Seriously what a stupid question. I’m glad not everyone in Australia is as unenlightened as you, the real question should be “Because I have no use for more that 4mbps upstream does that mean everyone else has no use for it either?” The answer is no and go back to dialup.
btw I dont live in Geelong so why did you assume I did?
Exactly Mr Black. Upload speeds are always forgotten about when the coalition crap on about a12mbps min speed to all Australians. On my ADSL 2 connection I get a peak download speed of around 18mbps, but due to the limitations of copper, I can still only obtain a paltry 1mbps upload speed, making it useless for HD video conferencing or any other high bandwidth 2 way communication.
The NBN is the only solution for a stable low latency connection with synchronous upload and download speeds.
The percentage of connections that would use HD video conferencing is less than 1%. Hardly justifies the cost of $43bn.
Did I say HD video conferencing is the only use for the NBN? The benefits of the NBN are to way numerous to mention and more than worth estimated $43 billion.
Our bandwidth requirements continue to increase as more and more devices connect to the net every day and yet many people in rural areas are still stuck on dial-up or ISDN. I can’t believe people are so visionless as to think we won’t benefit from a light speed optical network connecting the nation.
Try to look beyond 5-10 years from now people! Is you ADSL 2 connection really going to cut the mustard then?
“The benefits of the NBN are to way numerous to mention and more than worth estimated $43 billion.”
It’s ok you can mention them if you want, document it, place it in a manila folder and send it priority paid to Conroy with “NBN CBA” in big black print on the cover – he will be rapt.
1. because Trains and roads are generally under state control, and are grosly underfunded compared to commonwealth revenue. Network is something that can be done at the commonwealth level, under the cross border provisions.
2. A fast and stable network can allow me and all my fellow workmates to work from home, reducing the need for transport and road infrastructure
3. You generally need a big stick to get telco’s to put towers up outside of major cities. When I used 3 internet dongle, I could not use it in Port Macquarie. There is no excuse for that.
“2. A fast and stable network can allow me and all my fellow workmates to work from home, reducing the need for transport and road infrastructure”
Well you can do that now and tens of thousands do, it would be beneficial if we had some “stay at home to work” statistics before and after FTTH from overseas that would prove the as yet untested Australian experience ‘theory’.
That is one of the main negatives about the NBN, it’s 95% hype 1% reality, what is real so far is that the NBN Co has been created and it is sucking millions every day.
” “When I used 3 internet dongle, I could not use it in Port Macquarie. There is no excuse for that.”
Well there is, you could complain to 3 about the lack of service, if they ain’t interested why does the sucker taxpayer have to fill the void?
[quote] For starters, he said, those underserved by broadband in the cities could more quickly receive services by removing barriers to the upgrade of ADSL equipment (DSLAMs) in telephone changes, or through wireless broadband. [/quote]
LOL… WUT? If an exchange already has competitors’ DSLAMs they are almost certainly ADSL2+ capable already and the barriers tend to be in the CAN (distance from exchange, RIMs, badly joined copper).
And he can only be talking about fixed wireless here. Mobile wireless just isn’t viable as a pervasive access technology in dense suburbs. Let me know when you’ve done the viability study which checks line of sight to a comms tower from all premises.
[quote] Building competitive backhaul connections would ensure the development of regional areas by telcos who haven’t invested there due to the claimed cost of Telstra’s own fibre. [/quote]
Like the Labor government is already doing?
[quote] On the cross-subsidy front, Turnbull argued that this would be better delivered as a direct subsidy to carriers or as a voucher system to telecommunications customers. “Both of these delivery mechanisms have the benefit of being far more transparent than the hidden cross-subsidy inherent ni the currently proposed NBN wholesale pricing arrangements,” he said. [/quote]
NBNco is less transparent? Only if the government of the day lets it be. And it being the vehicle of cross-market subsidy is bound to be vastly more efficient than any of the other options suggested.
[quote] On the higher speeds debate, Turnbull said there was still debate about what the speeds would immediately be used for [/quote]
This is a long term investment. No one really knows how long the fibre will last as most existing fibre installations “just keep working”. The numbers most commonly thrown around in the NBN debate tend to be based on a study which only looked at financial “life” over which you would amortise the cost of installing it. Actual studies of fibre show that it’s lifetime observes a power law relationship with the forces applied to it. Duct installed fibre should last a very long time. Aerial installed fibre will have shorter lifetime which is highly dependent on prevailing weather conditions.
[quote] but a faster and quicker way for the nation to receive faster speeds if needed would be to provide Telstra and Optus with the investment certainty to upgrade their HFC cable networks to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard — delivering 100Mbps to a third of Australian homes. [/quote]
…and the rest of us? In fact the HFC networks are the best example of why private companies will not build out a fibre CAN. Only a organisation offered protection from overbuild would dare contemplate it. Fixed line access should be treated as a natural monopoly.
[quote] And lastly, Turnbull said that if the vertical integration of Telstra (with both wholesale and retail arms) was the issue with Australia’s telecommunications industry, then the solution was structural or functional separation — the NBN was overkill and would itself be a fixed line monopoly. [/quote]
Or it will be the straw that breaks the camels back and greases the wheels of competition which no amount of regulation has so far achieved.
[quote] Turnbull ended his speech with an impassioned call for reason in the NBN debate and reiterated his call for the Government to conduct a cost-benefit analysis into the project. [/quote]
It’s easy to tally up the costs side of the equation. But what about the benefits? We can estimate most of the immediate benefits but the NBN will be delivering returns for the next half a century if not longer. How far into the intangibles and the unknowns would you like this proposed CBA to delve?
We already know that the NBN Co is financially totally opaque, so it is only reasonable to expect that it is intended to continue that way.
Cross subsidies are the most insidious ways of surreptitiously dishing out largesse on a political basis. In broadband, the only honest option would be to show the rural subsidy component as a community-service obligation, and have a separate levy as part of the metro bills to pay for it.
More DSLAM’s and more backhaul isnt going to change a thing, the copper is the one and only limiting factor… Onto HFC Optus certainly does not cover a third of Australian homes, it’s more like a fifth, maybe higher, I sure as hell can’t get cable nor can anyone I personally know.
I can’t believe Turnbull also compares the NBN, a federal government initiative, to state issues! but even then, his ‘public transport system’ gets $120bn federal funding, his ‘hospitals’ get $560bn(!!!), his roads, trains, and water also get $120bn.
That’s not including the state funding, who are actually supposed to pay for these things…
Turnbull is the only one with enough guts to save us from this $43+ billion NBN train wreck.
And spend $800bn on roads, trains and hospitals. Sure, money does need spending on those things (especially public transport and hospitals, after all building more roads just adds to the problems), but the NBN can lower the cost of those things.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Coalition wouldn’t initiate a CBA for new transportation systems.
Comments are closed.