Business Council renews calls for NBN cost-benefit analysis

 

Three words Senator Conroy can't seem to escape.

The Business Council of Australia has joined the Opposition in calling for a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the NBN, in part to ensure the project doesn't bleed money as a result of "scoping inadequacies".

In a 150-page report [PDF] entitled "Groundwork for Growth" and prepared by consultancy Port Jackson Partners, the council urged the Federal Government to conduct "a detailed cost-benefit analysis" as part of the $53 million NBN implementation study.

"A commitment was made to spend up to $43 billion with little or no support analysis," the council said.

"This announcement of a major project without supporting analysis unfortunately also frequently occurs with state government projects.

"Many projects are announced by [state] governments as proceeding without a pre-feasibility study having been done; this could be occurring with as many as 50 percent of [state] government project announcements," the council claimed.

The council said infrastructure spending decisions in state government departments were often a response to a "crisis without appropriate feasibility assessment or planning work being done."

It urged the Federal Government not to fall into the same trap with the NBN.

"The problem with this sort of decision-making is two-fold: first, is the money committed to the NBN being spent on a project where the benefits outweigh the costs? And second, is it being spent on the best program possible?" the council said.

"The money committed to the NBN has a high opportunity cost in terms of other priorities it could be spent on. There is, of course, no shortage of good ideas or projects or programs on which $43 billion could be spent."

The implementation study should also include a more detailed assessment of the "wider productivity benefits arising from the NBN rollout."

The council urged the Government "to keep an open mind" should the implementation study contradict previous policy announcements and timelines. It also urged the study results be made public.

In a statement, Shadow Communications Minister Nick Minchin claimed that "Labor's refusal to conduct a cost-benefit analysis is simply indefensible and is symbolic of its utter recklessness with billions of taxpayers' dollars."

Minchin has called for a cost-benefit analysis on a number of occasions as part of his participation in the NBN Senate Select Committee.

He brought the same line of enquiry to question time in the Senate today, provoking Communications Minister Stephen Conroy to "welcome the BCA's report as an important contribution to the debate on infrastructure in this country - an issue which was almost completely ignored during the previous government's eleven and a half years in office.

"I also note that in the BCA's report today it recommends that the government use the NBN implementation study to assess and settle the way forward with the NBN," Conroy said.

Apart from a cost-benefit analysis, the council also voiced a number of other concerns, including the potential conflict of interest in the Government being "both the promoter and owner of the network".

It said the Government needed "to look carefully at the future of the existing copper-based networks as part of the wholesale broadband mix.

"Should people have the choice between paying a higher price for faster, fibre-based broadband, or a lower price for slower ADSL via the existing copper network?" the council said.


Business Council renews calls for NBN cost-benefit analysis
""nothing to fear"? Could anyone have done a useful cost benefit analysis on the railway line between Sydney and Melbourne in the age of steam and have foreseen the development of diesel electric ..."
By listohan
 
 
 
Comments: 7
sydneyla
Oct 26, 2009 6:42 PM
About time this Governments stand over tactics were challenged. The truth is becoming apparent that for the vote catching NBN to be a success the Government must confiscate Telstra equipment and customers. The NBN will become a monopoly which bans competition and competitors. Never outside a communist fascist third world hillbilly State has such blackmail been attempted. Speak up Australian business, you could be next.
deonast
Oct 26, 2009 11:46 PM
sydneyla I think you are missing an important point. The NBN aims to be a wholesale platform, not a retail one. Retail ISPs and telecommunications companies use that whole sale infrastructure with no preferential treatment as the NBN is an independent corporate entity (if done properly).
Telstra came from a position of monopoly and sadly was sold off as both a wholesale and retail outlet leading to a distinct conflict of interest. If the infrastructure components had been retained or split into a different entity many competition problems we now have with them wouldn't exist.
Telstra was a government property sadly the previous government botched the execution of the sale and sold off a monopoly in telstra. That's not to say the current government won't botch the whole NBN effort and leave a mess as well.
mick09
Oct 27, 2009 1:45 AM
Without a clear specification of what the NBN is, followed by a cost-benefit analysis, the NBN will remain politician waffle riding on a wave of "victims of Telstra" resentment.

The technology suggested by Mr Quigley is GPON (Giga-bit passive optical network) and sounds wonderful, until you read the specification.

GPON is Cable-TV technology, not the current ADSL point-to-point technology. The Gigabit download speed of the one optical fibre is shared by as many as 32, or 64, or even 128 multiple users. The upload speed starts at half the download speed and is further throttled by contention mechanisms should multiple users attempt to upload at the same time.
The notion that GPON can be implemented as wholesale-only with competing retail vendors having non-preferential access has to be tempered by the current reality (as of 10 September 2009) that:

"Alcatel-Lucent is publishing the “OMCI Interoperability Implementer's Guide - Version 1” guide to help service providers create a true multi-vendor gigabit passive optical networking, or “GPON,” infrastructure.
“Alcatel-Lucent is taking a bold step by being the first GPON player to share its OMCI specifications with other vendors,” said Dave Geary, president of Alcatel-Lucent's wireline networks activities.
Geary also said the company’s goal is to encourage the adoption of FTTH by breaking down interoperability barriers."

Noble sentiments indeed, reminiscent of Microsoft encouraging the adoption of Windows by breaking down interoperability barriers, but highlighting the reality that GPON is not yet interoperable.

All of which is meaningless until Mr Quigley spells out what he is proposing, and produces a statement of how $43,000,000,000 is to be spent running GPON fiber by some 8,000,000 premises and to what benefit. $43B is a mighty expensive fiber optic cable TV network.
sydneyla
Oct 27, 2009 7:58 AM
Whatever happens with the NBN proposal the fibre must be placed underground. We have enough ugly cables overhead now.
Digger11
Oct 27, 2009 8:31 AM
Amazing change of opinion by the [previously] Monopoly supporting Sydney. Anyway, everyone who reads your posts understands how 2 faced you are.

Back to the topic of a cost-benefit analysis. Was one done when they built the dams ?, was one done when they built the Hume Highway ?, was one done when they put electricity to most houses ?, was one doen when the put sewerage in ? OF COURSE NOT.

The NBN is necessary infrastructure that will be critical to this country excelling over the coming decades.
Luddites please go back to your caves (Sydney, feel free to join them - you won't be missed!).

Digger
RDEFCON1
Oct 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Nice use of the 'L' word, digger, but unfortunately you've missed the point sydneyla was trying to make (amid ample hystrionics), as has deonast.

A wholesale monopoly is no better than a retail monopoly. No monopoly has an incentive to (innovate on products and service on an ongoing basis. Why? because they can't lose the business to a competitor!

Worse, without a cost-benefit analysis, this monopoly isn't even being founded based on a profit motive, so they don't even care if they are a viable commercial entity. Maybe Mike Quigley will start the company with good intentions, but in 15-20 years it will be a dinosaur.

Without a cost-benefit analysis, this government is spending $34B of taxpayers money with unforgiveable rashness.

It's unthinkable that they refuse to proceed. If they actually thought they were doing the right thing, there wouldn't be anythnig to fear. The only conclusion is that Conroy and Rudd know they're gratuitously wasting enormous amounts of OUR money... and they just don't care!
listohan
Oct 28, 2009 10:16 PM
"nothing to fear"? Could anyone have done a useful cost benefit analysis on the railway line between Sydney and Melbourne in the age of steam and have foreseen the development of diesel electric locomotives many times more powerful, needing far less maintenance and many time more fuel efficient? And these technological improvements were introduced by the monopoly owner of the resource.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Revealed: 2012 e-government award winners
Government highlights projects, professionals of the year.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 480

Vote