Oh here we go. The National Digital Economy Strategy (NDES) will position Australia as a “leading digital economy” by 2020, says communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy. His shadow Malcolm Turnbull calls it “Conroy’s Digital Economy Con”. Con. Conroy. Geddit? Twenty-first century politics, that is right there.
So, Mr Turnbull, I’ve repeated your framing. Mission accomplished. Can we all go home now?
The NDES launched by Conroy yesterday is two documents in one. First, it sets some goals. In 2020, Australia will be one of the top five OECD countries in eight specific metrics. Then there’s a bunch of supporting material that explains the benefits of broadband and shows how various government and industry initiatives would supposedly support these goals in what is really a promotional piece for the National Broadband Network.
The goals themselves are measurable, sensible — even rather modest, in my opinion.
The first goal, for example, is about the proportion of households that connect to broadband at home. Back in the early to mid-1990s, on the vaguely-similar-if-you-squint measures of average internet bandwidth and computing power per head, Australia was third in the world after the US and Finland. Then noted internet entrepreneur John Winston Howard took the reins and we dropped out of the top 10 entirely; out of the top 15 even. Returning to the top five some two decades later isn’t just sensible, it’s a matter of national self-respect.
Goal six, to pick another, is to double our level of teleworking to 12% of employees. That’d be easy to achieve if just a few big employers dropped their need to herd everyone into fluorescent-lit cubicles. Experience shows teleworkers are happier and more productive — though the main challenges aren’t technical, but about training, occupational heath and safety and the social aspects of the workplace.
Other goals relate to activities already under way, such as e-health records, getting more government interaction happening online, and increasing bandwidth to schools, TAFEs and universities. A lot of it we’ve seen before. It’s almost motherhood stuff; hard to argue against. And indeed Turnbull concedes the Coalition “broadly supports the eight goals outlined”.
Australia, as The Economist pointed out last week, is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Aspiring to be top five in a few metrics should be far from controversial. Indeed, I don’t understand why we can’t even aspire to be Number One for a change, like we do in such vital economic and social metrics as … erm … cricket.
But, alas, the NDES is a political document, and at its heart is a political disconnect. Turnbull spotted it on day one. Now there’ll never be any discussion of the merits of the strategy’s goals because Turnbull can repeat one easy-to-understand message: taken individually, none of the goals specifically require a fibre-to-the-premises (FttP) network like the NBN. Pretty much everything listed, individually, requires less bandwidth than the NBN’s 100Mbps.
What the government still hasn’t articulated — at least in a way that cuts through the simpler-to-understand if sometimes disingenuous messages of the naysayers — is why, from all the potential approaches to fixing Australia’s lagging broadband infrastructure, a FttP network would be such a good long-term investment, and what new possibilities that opens up.
That in turn means Turnbull can repeat the words “expensive”, “risky”, “over-capitalised”, “anti-competitive” and the rest until our ears bleed.
And that, in turn, means there’s little chance of any discussion about the NBN moving beyond where it seems to be stuck. That other great internet entrepreneur, Anthony John Abbott, wins again.
‘… noted internet entrepreneur John Winston Howard…’
Thanks, Stilgherrian, that made my list for today’s Top Ten Laughs. It’s remarkable how the mere mention of his name lights me up…
Any service which involves bi-directional video requires synchronous, contention-free, highly available connectivity. ADSL and Wireless cant do that.
Fibre to the home also ensures everyone with fibre gets an equal service with equal performance. ADSL and Wireless cant do that either.
“Indeed, I don’t understand why we can’t even aspire to be Number One for a change”
Like in finally having (again!) a decent national communications network? :o)
The NBN as fibre is the best solution for large scale networks (which is why even “wireless” depends on it as a backbone), and Australia being such a large place will need it.
Wireless _even now_ can’t handle the current load and will fall short by 300MHz by 2020 ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/push-to-plug-the-gap-in-wireless-spectrum/story-e6frg8zx-1226049450443 ), and that’s without a “NBN as wireless” push like the Librals wanted.
The copper PSTN network has been around since 1901 (though I believe the first exchange was even earlier in 1880), part of it are pretty old now, and the quality of the lines effect the maximum rate you can get from it (which is why we only rank 21st in broadband global ranking ( http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1557342). The PSTN was never designed with the internet in mind, the fact you can get “broadband” over it is kind of a “trick” which is also why you can’t be too far from an exchange (as in only a few kilometres) to get actual broadband speeds.
Given the limitations of both those technologies, I think the government actually got this right, though from some of Mr Conroys other choices/ideas (like his retarded “Australia filter”), I think them picking fibre was probably just shear dumb luck.
Just talking about education, a truly rich, interactive online learning experience available to Australians wherever they are does require high speed broadband using the sort of network to be delivered by the NBN, with upload as well as download speeds much greater than currently available . Then when you add all the other areas – particularly health services and better business productivity – the case becomes overwhelming. (Declaration of interest: I run a major online learning company. I have volunteered to the government to advocate the benefits of the NBN)
The problem with the NBN is not the use of fibre optics which is the logical source of data transmission in any in network, it is the requirement for fibre to the home which has not been substantiated. Hybrid systems using wireless or existing cable networks the last kilometre or so are far more cost-effective but unfortunately due to the haste with which the government announced its proposals, as a consequence of its initial NBN tender failure, they have painted themselves into an expensive corner which does not allow any alternatives to be considered because of the political backlash. I currently have12MBS broadband using the Telstra coaxial cable network which I understand can carry at least 10 times that data speed without replacement. I am not opposed to having an optical fibre connection to my home, but for all intents and purposes I do not need it and nobody has justified the cost benefit of having such a facility to every home in the country.
Aspiring to be number one is fine if you can afford it, but a more appropriate approach is what is the minimum amount necessary to be spent to generate acceptable level of service. The government should be able to demonstrate that its solution is the most cost-effective alternative and of course it cannot because it is politically wedded to the outcome of this chosen and is afraid