Election10: How to choose Australia's next broadband network

By Brett Winterford on Aug 11, 2010 2:07 PM
Filed under Networking

We compare the broadband policies of the major parties.

Is the Coalition's alternative plan for networking Australia as backward as commentators suggest? Or is it a more realistic view of what could be achieved by the Federal Government?

Today iTnews takes a step back to compare the communications policies of the ALP and Liberal/National coalition in the lead-up to Australia's election on August 21.

COMMS POLICY	AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY	LIBERAL/NATIONAL COALITION
The promise	The ALP plan promises 93 percent of Australia's population will be connected to networks capable of delivering up to 100 Mbps, with the remainder getting wireless or satellite connectivity of at least 12 Mbps. Planned for completion in 2018.	The Coalition plan promises 97 percent of premises capable of signing up to 'peak' speeds of 12 Mbps by 2016.
Cost to taxpayer:	The NBN project is estimated to cost between $28 and $43 billion in total, depending on participation of Telstra. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd indicated the taxpayer would pay around $11 billion of this total cost.	Just over $6 billion to the taxpayer, with the rest of the investment being met by the private sector.
Last mile Technologies:	Fibre to 93 percent of Australia's population, fixed wireless to four percent, satellite to final three percent.	The Coalition will not choose a technology winner. Expects free market to play out in cities between DSL and HFC cable services, and eventually fibre. But will fund $2 billion in grants for fixed wireless services in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas, $700 million in grants to satellite providers and a $750 million fund for copper network upgrades those homes stuck on RIM technology.
Backhaul:	Build of 6,000kms of backhaul network underway under the $250 million 'backbone blackspots' tender won by Nextgen Networks. Focus on uncontested areas in regional Australia. Due for completion September 2011.	Plans to spend $2.75 million on a 70,000 km national fibre optic backhaul network by 2017. Most of the spend (and construction) won't start until 2013.
The delivery vehicle:	A Government-owned corporation, NBN Co, which currently has close to 300 staff (over 50 contractors) and is led by former Alcatel exec, Mike Quigley. The ALP wants to eventually sell the NBN off at completion; the Greens have stated they will block such a sale.	The Coalition intends to shut down NBN Co and its first few build sites in Tasmania, taking 'select' staff from NBN Co, ACMA and the ACCC to form the 'National Broadband Commission' to oversee the provision of broadband grants to the private sector.
Regulatory approach:	The ALP Government threatened to withhold 4G mobile spectrum from Telstra unless it agreed to roll its fixed assets into the NBN and/or structurally separate. It also intended to give competition watchdog the ACCC the ability to set wholesale prices and hand out competition notices without prior consultation. This legislation has been stalled in the Senate. Telstra resisted at first, but eventually struck an $11 billion deal to lease its passive network assets to the Government.	The Coalition has vowed that it would take a 'hands off' policy and not force Telstra to split. It would instead pass those bills prepared by the Rudd Government that give the ACCC new powers.
Rollout plan:	The ALP Government prioritised sites in Tasmania to begin the NBN fibre rollout, and has selected five first-release sites to be connected on the mainland within the next few months and 14 more to be connected by late 2011. These locations tend to favour areas stuck on RIM or low-speed ADSL technology or in marginal electoral seats.	The Coalition would ask a newly-established 'National Broadband Commission' to build a 'National Broadband Database' to identify areas of priority. This database would be based on the geospatial modelling already paid for under the ALP's $25 million implementation study. The Coalition said this would be supplemented by 'detailed sampling fieldwork' and promised that the results would be made public.
Approach to new housing estates:	The ALP intended to mandate the rollout of fibre into new housing estates, but has failed to win over support from opposition parties or the housing industry. There has also been some confusion as to the role NBN Co would play under such a mandate. Carriers and housing developers alike have complained that the uncertainty is crippling them.	The Coalition, which blocked the Greenfields bill put before the parliament, would put off making a decision on whether to mandate fibre in new housing estates for another 12 months.
Approach to the Universal Service Obligation:	The ALP Government first threatened to increase Telstra's burden under the USO with threats of $10 million fines, but during its $11 billion financial heads of agreement with the carrier, offered to spread the cost amongst Government and industry via a new entity called USO Co, saving Telstra some $2 billion.	The Coalition would keep many of the elements of the ALP's existing reform legislation (prior to its deal with Telstra), but review the plans to ensure they fit with the grants scheme it intends to introduce to encourage private sector builds. It has promised a new regime by mid-2014.

What do you think of the options put forward? Feel free to comment below...

Election10: How to choose Australia's next broadband network

20 comments in this discussion

"Try living in a small town on say, a pension, where you only see the doctor one day of the week and there is no one to help you when you get ill the day after and the next 5 days. When the nearest ..."

By staaron

Tags

election10, smith, abbott, conroy, nbn, coalition, alp, national broadband network, nbn co, fibre, wireless, satellite, uso, greenfield, regulation, accc, telstra, split

Telstra forges ahead with NBN deal approval

Exclusive: NBN Co withholds fibre upgrade price

Telcos urge revision to NBN regulation

Greenfields residents gain terabyte quotas

Breaking Stories

UXC lands Fortescue, Rio Tinto comms work

Federal agencies game ICT project reviews

NBN Co orders long-term satellites

Windows 8: Develop once for desktop and mobile

Cisco to replace sparky UCS blade

Comments: 20

RaTTyRaTT Aug 11, 2010 4:06 PM	I honestly think that if it came down to realistic vs Pie-in-the-Sky, I think the Liberals have hit a better balance. After all, people are so excited by having faster connections, but at 'what' cost... seems most people are ascribing to the Bread & Circuses approach, and if the country goes into massive debt - well it's not their problem is it. I like the Liberal Plan. It's realistic, achievable and mostly won't spend a $h1t load of my money for the process. As a rule, I do not trust a 'easy' option offered by the government overall - especially as there's strings attached. With private sector involvement in the Liberal plan, it will be more achievable and (ironically) transparent. After all, the private sector just want our money - the govt however wants to spend our money (aka taxes)... !!! :-) so, I see this as a 'who pays' contest, rather than anything else... and I like Libs because I pay 'less' due to competition... :-)
RaTTyRaTT Aug 11, 2010 4:07 PM	Oh, and PS: The Liberals won't be doing the stupid MANDATORY CENSORING of the internet, vs LABOR's REALLLLLLY STUPID approach...
Oldsniper Aug 11, 2010 4:21 PM	Liberals policy is using OLD technology which there for means their plan/s is a total waste of 6.7billion dollars first off. 2ndly their plan reinforces Telstra's power over the industry was means that Telstra's recent price cuts would be reversed and even increased to rip off the consumer even more. The labor NBN will level the playing field for ALL competitors and in doing so will wipe out Telstra's power over the industry and stop its price gouging of the Australian consumer.
lofwyre Aug 11, 2010 4:30 PM	What scares me is that under the liberal plan it sounds like I would be treated as having acceptable broadband; ADSL2+ 8mbps, etc. But the reality is that the speed is eratic when more than one person is online a few hundred k per second is the best it can do. So if the liberals get in will my dodgey copper service be the best I can hope in the coming decades?
RB Aug 11, 2010 4:46 PM	I think it's a shame there's not more critique on what the parties are claiming. 1. ALP Promise of 100Mbps is really in 25Mbps units and you have to pay for each. If you choose to pay for 100Mbps then you won't be able to get a separate TV service through the fibre. On top of that the 25Mbps is not guaranteed, it is also a "peak" speed as per LP policy. 2. Why compare a 97% figure with a 93% figure? Of course those locations within DSL coverage areas will be getting much more than 12Mbps. 3. The ALP numbers don't add up! "Cost" says $11 billion but then the USO section says $11 billion to Telstra. Which is it? The rest of the network is not going to build itself. PS. ALP have still not said where the remainder of the money is going to come from and won't do a cost benefit analysis. I'm interested to see the investors of somewhere between $11 billion and $32 billion that are prepared to hand-over that sort of money with no cost-benefit analysis. AND ... as was pitched from the beginning, the fibre is much, much more expensive. Initial plans comparable to ADSL2+ are 40%+ higher. I'm not actually against the NBN but I'd like it to be a proper policy that's funded and accurately described.
lofwyre Aug 11, 2010 4:56 PM	RB: Agreed, being such a hot potato for the election it would be good to see a technical debate/discussion. ALP seem to be biting off more than they can chew, Libs on the other hand have promised almost nothing above what we currently have.
Jovial Monk Aug 11, 2010 4:57 PM	Lib proposal does not include pulling new cable where the network has deteriorated and pair gain means subscribers must use dial up (ugh!) or wireless broadband, yuck! The NBN will be running at 1Gbps or better by the time it is rolled out: can’t wait!
Ace Aug 11, 2010 5:21 PM	Under Liberal policy, it's hard to see Australia not slipping further from it's current 50th place in national network speed compared to other countries. I realise that residents of Australia will probably not realise just how poorly our network interconnectivity performs because you kind of get used to it. It doesn't mean it's OK though. People asking for cost-benefit analysis are either not listening, or just don't get it. In 2006, Sth Korea spent $31billion on a national network and have been reaping benefits ever since. This is a geographically tiny country compared to Australia. Unfortunately, our telecoms are just way more expensive to implement due to a vast and sparsely populated country. Always have been, always will be. What was the cost-benefit of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel? The tax payer is still forking out plenty for it 20 years later. But, it sure is hard to imagine being without it. In fact, I think tunnel-using Sydneysiders might have gone insane by now without it.
PeterCrows Aug 11, 2010 5:21 PM	This article and what follows in comments suggests that most people do not understand what a strategy is. At the moment all I see in an Opposition policy statement spending $6 billion and providing subscribers much the same as they have now with a few add-ons. No strategy, No tactics just an operational dream (or fantasy) that starts in 2014. The current Government has a strategy for at least 10 years (and for the following 10 years). We cannot depend on Telstra to implement an Australia strategy. They and their cronies will continue to offer customers an expensive crippled communication system at monopoly (or is that oligopoly) prices. So let us look into the future so Australia can be part of the information society. My self-interest was to move into the country and run a global business with its headquarters in Australia (with other offices in UK - already in place and the USA - next cab of the rank.) Let us hope that 'common sense' prevails and we move into the same 'dimension' as Australia's competitors. Oh to have a strategy. PS Wireless should not be part of the strategy other that to fill-in gaps if appropriate (will wireless in the future be the next pair gain or RIM?).
pameacs Aug 11, 2010 10:01 PM	As someone who is loath to vote labor over the issue of internet censorship and do agree with some free market approach I am not so sure the telecommunication services are being given the best from competition. That is probably becasue it is rare outside of teh city. I have family in parts of the country that have no choice but Telstra and have poor mobile coverage in their area, it is difficult to provide infrastructure but one wonders exactly what they do. Optus is starting to build out in that part so perhaps there will be a choice soon. So for this reason I am for the NBN as it has broken the Telstra monopoly. I also live in an are with a RIM, I get ADSL not ADSL2 and I can get Telstra cable. I have no competition for higher speeds and higher downloads. May fastest and only choice is Telstra cable unless I want to stick to a 1.5Mb link. For this I feel that the NBN may deliver a positive for many in a similar situation. This has to be a good thing. I would however like to see a more transparent case of the costing as knowing government projects very well if they really think 43b is going to do it then if they follow general government practise then it will be more like 63b or higher. The actual will depend on just how well they did requirements analysis and what approach they used to costing. Even if in teh initial stages the NBN covers thos areas currently inadequately serviced ie doesnt have access to the high speed HFC in Sydney and Melbourne or ADSL2 then if that primgs greater competition as well as providing new technologies such as WImax and LTE to provide better high speed coverage to areas where it doesn't make sense cost wise to go FTTH eg much of rural Australia then we are of to a good start. There should be a review and a minimum standard set for delivery and it should not be just download speed remember the download capability has to be affected by upload speed.
ITrant Aug 12, 2010 12:03 AM	Surely we aren't voting for either of these are we? I thought we were voting for Greens or Independents.
pameacs Aug 12, 2010 10:55 AM	@ITrant Maybe we are not, just trying to make an analysis of the potential impact of either policy approach being offered.
Mike_Sadler Aug 12, 2010 5:16 PM	NBN naysayers, So, you like Mr Abbott's plan to, well, basically piss $5B against the wall to Band-Aid what we've already got? For, what, ten more years of the same? What's after that? Just cut'n'paste, eh? Just get Telstra to help out; they're so generous with their time if you want to further entrench their monopoly. Oh... and where (exactly - URL please) is the cost/benefit analysis for the the Lib's un-plan? Just because its 1/10 the price, it still needs one, right? One can't do a thing without one apparently. Or do the 'rules' (YOUR rules) change for the 'fiscally responsible' conservatives? Huh? Trust Uncle Joe, he's gunna reduce that waste, dammit. Just not the $5B they want to waste on "more of the same but for more money" nonsense. $5B that will create a new network worth... well, exactly what the existing, aging copper CAN is worth today. The NBN - at whatever it costs - will replace the copper CAN we've used for over 100 years (and spent a LOT more than $43B on in real terms - $10-15B just on Telstr's 'ghost of DMO' systems consolidation project in the mid-nineties). A full FTTP CAN is the STARTING point for the next 100 years. Do you think the current copper CAN will last forever? If not, then when should we start replacing it? No, I'm sorry; "After I've retired from the Parliament..." is NOT a valid response Tony. Business case for the NBN? Pass me an (unbranded) fag packet please! Oh and that pen I nicked from Centrelink when I was stuck there for 3 hours last week. Let's see, 43 billion dollars (worst case) divided by 22 million people (worst case) is (tap, tap, scrawl, scrawl) < $2500 each, or $100 p.p.p.a. (in today's money)for each of the (easily) 25 years of just the 100Mbps available on NBN MK I. Are my sums correct? $100 per annum per citizen is 'exhorbitant', 'ridiculous', 'wasteful', ad nauseum? Here's the thing. Mr Abbott, label me an IDIOT at your peril. Do you really expect me to listen to a Prime Ministerial candidate (or his flunkies) telling me that, with ubiquitous and near universal access to (mostly) 100 Mbps (i.e. proper, corporate LAN style) broadband, with sufficient uplink speed to actually contribute content and interact in real time with the rest of the community (Health, Wellness, Education, Vocation, Government, Employment, Social) and the world (including export $$$ selling the services we use domestically 'again' internationally), that with all this at each of our disposal and the critical mass that ubiquity brings to a network's users, that we cannot each generate an extra $2500 odd over 25 years? Or save that amount in productivity gains? Or the delivery of Government services? Two nights longer at home/two nights less in a hospital/aged care facility? Half of a weekend post-grad workshop attended in HD not in person? A highly interactive, high teacher/student ratio, remedial summer school style maths class delivered to overwhelmed and underperforming students in bite-sized chunks at home, without the stigma of being at school during the holidays? One-on-one, face-to-face HD suicide preventation and counseling 24/7? Is it only Labor voters who have the gumption to leverage such an asset? P-l-e-a-s-e! Even I'm not THAT biased. Your low opinion, Tony, of the capabilities and worth of the citizens you seek to govern is reprehensible! Who the heck are YOU to decide that your 1950's "father knows best" and Howard-esq "strive to succeed, but please, know your place" non-plan for all things is what should define the future of my kids? Your supporters, Mr Abbott, may be happy to have you stiffle their potential, to limit 'risk' by limiting their opportunities, to hold this country back; but I can't abide by it. Even IF the NBN was a 'gamble' (which, of course, I don't think it is) and 'betting on fibre' is 'risky' (Tony, Tony, Tony... Google 'Redfern Photonics', now Australian Photonics; yeah... Redfern, as in Sydney, Australia) you're saying that me, my kids, my missus, my friends - and yes, even my dysfunctional extended family - with all that at our feet, with the one-of-the-first-movers advantage putting us in the top ICT capable countries rather than the bottom, we couldn't each generate $2.5K extra worth of gains, savings or a combination of the two over 25 years? You sicken me. This is NOT a technical issue Tony, its a moral and economic one. Do you Tony, along with your cronies and supporters, think so little of the capabilities of everyday Australian people that you'd put the economy on hold for ten years rather than 'bet' an average $100 p.a. on each of us? Because you've picked the trend that no one else has, that growth in silicon capability and the capacity of we humans to harness that power and create novel things that improve life (including wealth, comfort, security) will plateau, globally, coincident with our little election Downunder? Thank goodness Tony "you can't ask me technical stuff" knows what's good for us. He's "not Bill Gates" but he's willing to bet against the richest man in the world when it comes to calling the future of ICT. Sorry Tony: birth, death, taxes - and the total dominance of fibre throughout this century; all inevitable. Tony, you, your colleauges and supporters, you all totally disgust me with your cavalier attitude to this and to empowering the broader community generally. Your depraved indifference to the future of our country is frightening. Mike PS: When you've stopped all the 'waste' Tony (when is that again? What? Oh, you'll tell me AFTER the election? Right... can hardly wait) and built up that surplus again, then what? Oh, right, plan=0. What WAS I thinking? Guess you could use it to try to smash unions once more? Maybe a 'reform' called, say 'Employment Options'? Unfortunately, some of the better, snappier, programme name contenders were been cremated during a magic show. Or was it a comedy routine? I'd better YouTube it! I'm not entirely sure death - at least 'premature' death - will be on the list by 2099*... depends if we could somehow get all the reasearchers in the world to interact 'virtually', dynamically, without the associated (CO/CO2/NOX output, depletion of oil stocks, productivity, etc, etc) costs of, say, air travel? If only such a thing was possible. What? In Korea you say? Oh and Sweden? Japan too? What? Norway?!! Huh? There's a LIST of places where you can do this!!!??? 'This' century being the 21st one. So far. Just FYI Tony. *** Assuming Earth remains habitable until 2099.
Mike_Sadler Aug 12, 2010 5:28 PM	Ooppss... my bad... typo/brain fade. Of course that line should have read "...$10-15B just on Telstra's 'ghost of DMO' systems consolidation project in the mid-noughties
merc2600 Aug 12, 2010 6:45 PM	There election promises. They will never happen!
muzza2009 Aug 13, 2010 8:04 PM	IMO, most important is the backhaul... install FTTx anywhere you like but until the backhaul can carry it might as well sty on dialup... ALP ready by Q3'11, Coalition not even start until 2013... WTF? Nailing the access layer in the cost to NBN removes the competition but also the "you're too expensive to do, so we'll ignore you" for smaller players who won't make a profit on certain installations... mandating 'you bloody well will install it' by Govt will be duly ignored. Agree in principal with Mike_Sadler re: cost and relative merits of ROI, given his examples, but the spectre of project change, unforeseen circumstances, cost blowout and price-gouging etc casts a huge shadow over the 43billion price tag. I'll bet NBN have been taking cues from Accenture, EDS, CSC, and other weasel consultancies to include whopping surcharges to cater for slightest sniff of a project change request (am IT solutions architect - have dealt with these clowns for years... rapacious bastards do anything to bloat out a project). Oh yeah, how much of the 43billion is contingency? 25%? ACCC needs Govt-ratified sharp teeth that have NBN's name etched on them, with categoric governance. That's governance, not interference... hopefully they have ACCC personnel who have years of experience at the coal-face in IT/comms design+delivery, and not just outsourced consultants in to advise: shades of UK Govt... utter crap. (God help Australia if Accenture are leveraged).
deteego Aug 15, 2010 8:44 PM	Personally I wouldn't care if Labor's NBN was done when Australia didn't just come out of recession and/or had a massive surplus in reserves. Also the fact that NBN is being done over a government notorious for being inefficient and wasting money (Labor) definitely does not help If Liberals did such a plan in the Howard years around a term before Howard got voted out when there was a massive boom, then I would have much less opposition for it (and that would have been the perfect time to do it).
Ace Aug 16, 2010 12:03 AM	Could this be something that reduces the cost of installing an NBN? "A small Palmerston North (NZ) company has created a device that will make broadband internet up to 50 per cent faster without having to pay hundreds of dollars installing fibre-optic cables. Three engineers from little-known company Remote Management Systems have been quietly designing the device, called a service delivery point, for the past 2 1/2 years. But now the modest trio are being propelled into the limelight after signing a contact with Telecom's infrastructure division, Chorus, which has already taken orders for the product. The company is also marketing to Australia, and has received interest from Britain, Singapore, Taiwan and France."
umbria Aug 16, 2010 12:02 PM	@Ace, this appears to be the original source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/4025126/P-North-device-to-speed-up-broadband It refers to the service delivery point improving the distribution of the internet within the household wiring, whatever that means. The company doesn't appear to have a website. Interestingly, the device also acts as a four-hour UPS for the landline telephone in the event of a power cut, for houses with optical fibre. If real, this may be a useful distribution option within a household, but does it fix the speed loss over copper from a too-distant ADSL exchange or node?
staaron Aug 19, 2010 2:22 PM	Try living in a small town on say, a pension, where you only see the doctor one day of the week and there is no one to help you when you get ill the day after and the next 5 days. When the nearest major center is $20 in fuel away if you can afford a car and can get an appointment. It would be easier if everyone lived in a major city but unfortunately food doesn't grow itself without people living in the country regions. Not everyone in Australia has the same convenience and quality of life as the main urban centres but we try and we hope.