Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit

By Nate Cochrane on Sep 27, 2010 8:33 AM
Filed under Strategy

Opposition communications spokesman to meet NBN Co CEO, debate Conroy.

Malcolm Turnbull was looking forward to building a relationship with NBN Co chief executive officer Mike Quigley when they meet at the beginning of next month for the first time since he assumed the role of Opposition spokesman on broadband.

And although the Opposition has called for a cost-benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network, Turnbull said he wouldn't commit to support the $43 billion project in the "unlikely" event that such an analysis concluded fibre-to-the-home should proceed.

Turnbull said October 8 was the first time a "busy" Quigley could clear his diary to meet since the Opposition lost the election to a minority Labor government earlier this month. A NBN Co spokesman confirmed Turnbull requested the meeting.

"NBN Co has been very busy, they haven't had time to meet us," Turnbull said.

"I don't have a relationship with [Quigley but] I'm looking forward to having one."

Turnbull and his advisers were speaking to a "gigantic universe" of people in the communications industry to get a handle on the issues it faced, he said.

He said that the Opposition's relationship with the broadband builder wasn't damaged by pre-election comments from Coalition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, calling NBN Co staff "talentless" and "stodgy bureaucrats".

Turnbull said the Opposition would not rubber stamp the NBN, widely hailed for getting Labor across the line with support of independents in what could have been a hung parliament.

He said his role was to get "real transparency and accountability" from the Gillard Government on the NBN and not just "wave through" the project because it was "politically expedient".

"The Government is talking about spending a really stupendous amount of money and our job in the Opposition is to hold them to account for that," Turnbull said.

"I wasn't elected to Parliament to look the other way when billions of dollars are potentially being wasted."

And he has called out Senator Stephen Conroy with a planned televised debate with the Federal Communications Minister on ABC's Lateline scheduled for next week, he said.

Turnbull predicted Australians could be headed back to the polls by the end of the year even though it was unlikely independents who sided with Labor on broadband would change their minds to turn coat to the Coalition. He thought it unlikely that the Government would last its three-year term.

Turnbull said he  "was not foreshadowing a change" to Coalition communications policies but its activities included looking at the digital divide in the bush, broadband black spots in the cities and backhaul competition.

"The overall objective [was] promoting access to the internet and the information economy that is financially prudent," he said.

Case for cost-benefit analysis

Turnbull said evidence in the US, Japan and the dismal NBN takeup in Tasmania pointed to the fact that households did not want "gigabit speeds". He wasn't influenced by NBN Co claims that its network would give service providers greater certainty when provisioning, marketing and maintaining their networks.

His goal was simply to hold the Government to account and bring the costs home to the public, he said.

"The first thing you've got to do is [discern] what is the problem you're seeking to address?" Turnbull said of the approach to the cost-benefit analysis.

"What do we want to achieve? And, having done that, look at different ways of doing it and assess their relative costs" such as supplementing the existing network, erasing black spots and bringing the internet to disadvantaged areas.

"Compare them, look at their costs, model their revenues; we have to look at what the financial outcome of this investment will be and then form a view of any externalities" such as improved productivity.

"Does that mean 100Mbps or does it mean 12?"

Turnbull said the Government and NBN Co were proceeding with a project where there were no killer apps: "What are the applications that require bandwidth of this scale that's being proposed by NBN (Co)?"

"If you can achieve the same spill-over benefits with a lesser investment that may deliver less bandwidth to the customer then that's something you have to take into account.

"No one in their right mind would ever give a blank cheque to an analysis that hasn't been done but a good cost-benefit analysis will be very transparent, set out all its assumptions, will enable people to play with those assumptions, to change them and form their own view about them and it will inform the debate so it could be very influential, absolutely, but no one's going to give it a tick in advance."

But he acknowledged that the clock was ticking and that lessons would be learned as the network rolled out although he wouldn't say when it might reach a point of no return such that the Opposition would have to grudgingly change its policies.

 
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
 

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.

Turnbull lays out case for NBN cost-benefit
"The main problem I see is the lack of information on what is actually going on. A lot of these comments are just going around in circles because ConBoy has been too busy building himself an "Ivory ..."
 
 
 
 
Comments: 14
Antwon
Sep 27, 2010 7:34 PM
Hello peeps,

Apart from P2P file transfer I see no need for anyone to have an internet speed above 24mb/s, even if you take into count the 8bit run down and the fact that homes can be up to 10km away from a d-slam, downloading at 500-3000kps is a huge amount for people to play with.

I think just getting the internet to people would be a better start and upgrading the international backbone will serve homes more. Besides wouldn't it be better to spend that money on health care, schools or maybe desalination plants.

I would love to talk with the people in charge to give another view on this matter.

Cheers for you time, that's my rant for the day.

Regards from Andy
Bugmenot
Sep 27, 2010 8:34 PM
Dear Antwon,

A century ago, when Alexander Graham Bell told the venture capitalists of his day that his invention would allow an individual in Chicago to talk with someone in New York, their reaction was: "But what, in God's name, would anyone in Chicago possibly say to someone in New York?"

That is all.
Francis
Sep 28, 2010 12:57 AM
I just wish people would stop for a minute and understand what the NBN actually is.
Its not just about Internet, its also about supplying a complete communications network including Telephone as well as Pay TV and streaming Video etc.
As far as speed is concerned, at the moment I have problems downloading video clips from the Sydney Morning Herald.due to congestion. More Speed means less congestion.
Isn't it time we came out into the 21St century instead of mucking around in the past?
This is about the future. Many businesses could use the 1 Gb/s capacity, so are we saying we should spend more dosh throttling back the speed for domestic users?
plhau98
Sep 28, 2010 11:26 AM
it is a complete comms network. Unfortunately, it is a converged stream. 1Gb/s speed is native, not including the other feeds in the stream, so you need to take into consideration the downgrade you would get from the other services sharing the same fibre link. not individual links, or 3 separate streams, but all of them, together. Imagine the speeds achieved when the phone, the tv and the net are sharing the connection... and the footy finals or the Olympics are on...
natecochrane
Sep 28, 2010 2:45 PM
@plhau98 Tom Sykes made clear at the recent AusNOG conference that NBN Co was favouring a multicast network - so the stream would be sent once to the connectivity serving area, analagous in NBN Co's world to a present-day DSLAM, for reticulation to the masses.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232366,nbn-co-builds-for-video-sharing.aspx

So the network load would be a tiny fraction what it is today when each stream is sent directly.

Edited by natecochrane: 28/9/2010 02:54:54 PM
photohounds
Oct 4, 2010 8:34 PM
Still not sure WHY the taxpayer should be funding lightning speeds, apparently aimed at entertainment like video downloads - many of them illegal.

Or is it just $B43 to make the effects of their stupid, easily circumvented nanny filter, less obvious?

For school and business NEEDS - sure!
Making sure everyone HAS a connection - sure!
Tax $$$ for pure entertainment - PURE WASTE!
photohounds
Oct 4, 2010 8:37 PM
More "speed" does NOT mean less video congestion, Francis unless the server at the other end is upgraded to 100x its performance, and that usually means 100x as many machines!

Even eBay has its processing limits during peak times and that is a huge database and data delivery system.

The NBN will not do what you apparently want.
gnome
Oct 5, 2010 12:38 PM

@photohounds, sounds like you've fallen for the same old, same old line against the NBN.

Applying yesterday's network needs now when evaluating a system that will take years to build, and that will be used for decades to come, does not seem to be very sensible. And server capacity will also increase X times over that period!

You're dead right about the idiocy of Conboy's censorship, though.
Francis
Oct 6, 2010 2:57 PM
@ photohounds.

And what makes you think that there will not be demand by the consumers that will result in the servers being upgraded?

In the meantime at least one bottleneck will be removed.
As for the cost of obtaining this speed I have to say it will be minimal as only the switches in the network will need to be upgraded and the additional cost in the overall scheme of things will be peanuts. Even my three computers and NAS device have gigabit Ethernet ports as standard and my Router and network switch all have 1 Gig capacity. The only bottleneck at the consumers end is the modem which I should imagine will be upgraded to NBN standards once the connection is made.
We must be careful that we do not put the horse before the cart. or if you want another analogy try the "Sydney Harbour Bridge". When it was built it had few cars going over it and it took 70 years to reach full capacity. In short like the NBN it was built for the future not the present and thank god it was or we would have been in one hell of a pickle now.
pmc777
Oct 7, 2010 10:53 AM
I think photohounds makes some good points. When you look at the staggering figures of internet usage and how much of it is dedicated to porn and social networking then add other forms of entertainment such as music, movies and future delivery of pay TV style services via internet then one must question why the taxpayers should be subsidising these industries enabling them to deliver more dross to more people in realtime via fibre to the home. Why not get Foxtel / Optus / Telstra and the likes to pay the lion share as they will no doubt be the profiteers.

@Francis I know this is nit picking but the Harbour bridge was a nightmare by the late 1970's - early 1980's and a Tunnel had to be built which was completed early 90's to handle the capacity.
gnome
Oct 7, 2010 5:52 PM

@pmc777 - Oh c'mon, you could make the same wowser comments about, say, suburban roads: "When you look at the staggering figures of road usage and how much of it is dedicated to social travel and sometimes shaggin' in the wagon, we must question why the taxpayers... "

It seems you're against anything which might also sometimes provide the opportunity for people to have fun. Do you only read, watch or do things that are suitably uplifting (ie, dead boring)?
Francis
Oct 7, 2010 11:13 PM
@pmc777
Yeah you are right, But how long did the "Sydney Harbour Bridge" last before we needed the "Harbour Tunnel"?
Let me add to that fact that the "Harbour Tunnel" by comparison took less than twenty years before it was running to full capacity (why did they only make it two lanes wide instead of three?). Then there is the M2 which did not even last that long before it had to be widened Not to mention the M7 which was running to capacity with in 12 to 18 months of completion.
We Must look to the future not the past and build in capacity for expansion otherwise it will cost us even more further down the track.
pmc777
Oct 11, 2010 1:41 PM
@Gnome - Sorry to sound like a wowser, I am all for a good time but the telco's and the content providers are the one's who will make the big dollars from NBN so why not get more private and less public investment.

Let's face it about 10 billion will be spent just to effectively buy back the copper network from Telsta. I think this is in order of 30% of the total money raised by the sale of Telstra.

100's of Millions of dollars raised from the sale of Telstra were at the time meant to be directed back into improved internet and communication access for all Australians with programs such as networking the nation. Unfortunately I believe much of this money got squandered and projects were never completed when funding dried up.

As a result myself and many people in my area(regional but not remote) do not even have a decent and reliable phone connection yet alone access to high speed broadband services.

I am in theory all for better communications but am not sure I trust the government to deliver and fear that the NBN will be used to subsidise private gain (welfare for the rich) by the large telco's, pay tv and other content providers.
Francis
Oct 12, 2010 5:46 AM
The main problem I see is the lack of information on what is actually going on. A lot of these comments are just going around in circles because ConBoy has been too busy building himself an "Ivory Tower" and has not been up front and actually spelt out any real details. As a consequence this is creating unnecessary concern and scuttlebutt. Most people I talk to are frightened of the cost of connecting to the NBN and the cost of totally rewiring the whole house with fibre. As a result they say they will stick with the Copper Network. It is my understanding that the copper network will be progressively shut down as the NBN is rolled out and that no rewiring of the home will be required. You will just have a box in which the fibre terminates and in which there are a number of cards or plug in modules which then cut the signal over to the existing communications wiring in the home. The one exception perhaps being that you will need Coax for connection to the internet and TV, so if you are on ADSL or dial-up you will need to install a short run of Coax. But that could well be supposition on my part as I am forming this opinion by reading between the lines as that for the most part is all that is available.
When we get the actual details a lot of what is written here and in other publications could at best be misguided supposition. Its a bit like a tower of Babel.
So how about it ConBoy, release some details so we know where we are going because all this debate can only be damaging to yourself and your party and creating uncertainty within the community.
Further as Tax Payers we have a right to know.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Data#3 scoops global Microsoft award
Driving Windows 8 adoption.
 
 
Govt clueless about mobile program costs
Smart enough not to develop in-house.
 
Sign up to receive CRN email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Is your business doing as well now as it was at this time last year?


   |   View results
Yes
  32%
 
No
  53%
 
The same
  15%
TOTAL VOTES: 379

Vote now
CRN Magazine

Issue: 315 | May 2013

CRN Magazine looks in-depth at the emerging issues and developments for the channel, and provides insight, analysis and strategic information to help resellers better run their businesses.