SciBlogs

Posts Tagged NBN

Quigley’s big stand: the full speech John Nixon Aug 19

No Comments

Mike Quigley had retired from an exemplary career in the telecoms field.

He had succeeded in beating first Leukaemia, then a brain tumor years later and completed a 30 year brilliant career with Alcatel-Lucent in the US, France etc.

Then he was coaxed back to lead the new NBN Co in Australia as their CEO.

After accepting this challenging position, he immediately donated his first year’s  salary (A$1.5M) to medical research.

Mike made an impelling and fascinating speech concerning the Australian NBN and NGN’s in general. I warmly recommend you read the transcript:

Quigley wins over the true believers.

FTTH Cost Benefit Analysis? John Nixon Aug 17

1 Comment

In both New Zealand and Australia there have been many calls for the publishing of an accurate cost/benefit analysis to justify the taxpayer investment in the UFB and NBN networks.

If you read the New Zealand Herald, you may have seen an excellent article by Chris Barton a couple of days ago.

Chris’ comments are equally applicable to both countries’ critics, and Chris has allowed me to reproduce his very logical piece, mainly for my overseas readers.

The piece is subtitled “Those who call for a cost-benefit analysis of the plan  (UFB) don’t understand the Internet“.

Chris Barton

Commentators over the last few weeks have argued the government’s ultra fast broadband plan is crying out for “a rigorous cost/benefit analysis” that’s “nowhere to be found”. And that we should be concerned that Telecom might miss out on the government’s $1.5 billion investment. To which there is really only one reply – bollocks.

Of course we want ultra fast broadband. The faster the better. Bring it on at the speed of light and beyond. Those who tut-tut that we can’t justify a fibre optic rollout in cost/benefit terms, or argue that the productivity gains from slow to fast broadband are negligible, betray a terrible lack of understanding of what this thing called the internet is. And what happens when speeds on the greatest goods and services delivery mechanism the world has ever seen get really fast.

The internet is not the web. It’s the tracks that deliver the web, but also a whole lot of other kinds of traffic – music and movie files, software, instant messages, phone calls, video conferencing, streaming audio, fabrication data, computation and heaps of other stuff in a list that goes on for pages.

When you make this traffic flow very fast – and the change from the few megabits per second we currently get on broadband to 100 Mbps proposed is enormous (www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____41902.aspx) – something else happens. At high speed the network becomes the computer. And all sorts of other possibilities emerge – dumb devices such as mobile phones or tablets connect to servers on the net and do complex things. The switch to computing in the cloud, computing as a utility, the net computer, or whatever you want to call it, has huge implications for economic development, not to mention surveillance, security and privacy, that we’re only just beginning to realise.

In the face of all this, to call on the crude economic tool of cost/benefit analysis, is just plain silly. Such an analysis would have to take into account so many variables that the model falls over before you even start. It would have to measure, for example, the benefit that accrues from more people making video conference calls instead of travelling to meetings by plane. Or the energy efficiency gains that could be achieved by a community of houses hooked up to a grid network controlling electricity usage. Or the material cost savings from wholly digital versus material (DVD) delivery of movies. Ditto for newspapers, magazines and audio CDs. With cloud computing, storage costs fall too, as all media can reside on the network.

Then there is Telecom which has now belatedly decided it wants to be part of the government’s bold plan – offering to “structurally separate” to do so. Commentators have been quick to argue that to exclude Telecom would be terrible – leading to “a duplication of assets”. But it’s nonsense – Telecom’s assets will still be connected. There will not be two separate networks. By its very nature, the net is an interconnected mesh of copper, hybrid coaxial cable, fibre, and all sorts of other wires, not to mention all manner of wireless frequencies.

In fact, duplication on the network is good thing. The internet is built on multiple paths – a failsafe so that if one path breaks there’s always another route for delivery. As for concerns that “Telecom shareholders would end up with much less value in the two separate companies created by the split”, frankly we don’t care. This is the harsh reality of commerce in the internet age and companies, indeed industries, all over are dealing with the value destruction and opportunity, this new force in businesses brings.

That Telecom now finds itself at “a beggar’s crossroads” is entirely of its own doing. Its arrogant attitude towards consumers, and its refusal over decades to improve the public utility of its monopoly network, is what led to the government stepping in with its broadband investment promise. The government is doing what Telecom refused to do – speeding up the network at a pace that will quickly deliver benefit to all New Zealanders. That’s something it should be commended for, and so far, it has to be said, Communications Minister Steven Joyce is doing a superb job. Not only has he brought Telecom to heel, he’s also signalled a stop to the price gouging by the Vodafone/Telecom mobile duopoly.

The ultra fast broadband initiative doesn’t need Telecom. Telecom needs the new network – which it will have to connect to and pay for the privilege of doing so. That’s a highly desirable situation likely to bring true competition in the delivery of services. There are also plenty of others, like the Regional Fibre Group, (www.nzrfg.co.nz) ready, willing and much more able to deliver what Telecom has for so long failed to do.

As for concerns users won’t migrate quickly enough to give payback, there’s not much to worry about. The new network is like a massive oil reserve discovery deep underground. It takes time and money to tap, but once reached, riches flow. It’s a safe bet the internet will be with us for some time, making the new network a very sound investment – a gusher that will serve up huge benefits for a century or more.

>

I would also recommend Paul Budde’s commentary today on the very “nail-biting” situation in Australia. The Australian Federal election in a few days time could have huge consequences for the NBN project.

Liberal’s hammered over broadband by their businesses constituency.

Australia and New Zealand Cooperation – the ICN John Nixon Aug 11

No Comments

I met today with Dr David Anderson, National Sector Manager, National Broadband Network at ICN or the Industry Capability Network from Australia, and his Kiwi colleague, Robert Murdoch, Manager, Australian ICN Relationships. The meeting was hosted by NZTE (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise), with my good friend John Houlker present.

ICN is a free service funded by the Australian Government and is truly trans-Tasman, open reciprocally and also freely to New Zealand people and companies.

ICN manages a huge database of some 40.000 companies and individuals based in either Australia or New Zealand with a description of their goods, services and skills. There is a “yellow pages” index and a search feature.

The Australian NBN Company (National Broadband Network) does not deal directly with retail suppliers of goods or services destined for this network. Instead David Anderson and his staff search and vet offers and tender bids. Other departments cover different vocational sectors.

Of course the NBN may disappear in a puff of smoke in 10 days time if the conservative coalition wins the elections. They are under huge criticism for promising to abandon this unique project if elected.

Paul Budde is a recognised Australian expert analyst in matters of telecoms, broadband etc.

I MUST recommend you read his report released tonight, it makes sensible but damning reading.

Liberal’s hammered by their businesses constituency over broadband.

NBN – To Be or Not to Be // UFB -Steady as she goes John Nixon Aug 10

No Comments

As we approach the Australian federal elections, the future of NBN (National Broadband Network) is on the chopping block.

I follow passionately the current debate, because the outcome, whichever way it goes, will have major repercussions for Australia’s economy. I have written about this project several times in the past, and am a firm believer in the long-term benefits of the NBN.

Yes the Labour party has accumulated many gaffes during its first mandate, but to kill the NBN (if the opposition wins the upcoming election) is pure folly.

There are so many reactions in the press today, I have just selected a few for those who share the interest in this incredible project with me. I really recommend you check out:

Where is the Opposition’s Broadband vision?


Why the NBN is better than sex


The National Broadband Network is a cultural project?

Well after those titilating tid-bits, we turn to New Zealand. where the subject is much lower key.

Telecom NZ, Chorus, Vector & Co, Vodafone, and all the other bidders will hopefully know who gets the business in a month or so.

There is an interesting twist today from Vector also some avid criticism of the slowness of the process and the apparent incompetence of the deciders.

Vector considers UFB alternative


Why New Zealand’s UFB Officials Have Lost Touch!


I must be totally P.C. here and state that the views held by the journalists are not necessarily mine!

It would be a fascinating outcome if the NBN gets canned in a few weeks, and good ‘ol New Zealand carries on with the UFB project, pulls it off, and goes to the top of the class!

The mind boggles!

Why do we need a National Broadband Network? John Nixon Jul 31

No Comments

A week or so ago I was having a quiet drink with several pilot buddies at the Southport Flying Club on the Gold Coast. One of my very long-term acquaintances (a retired heavy jet-jockey) asked me how my fibre-optics occupations were progressing. “Fine” I said, and tried to talk of some of my recent experiences. I was cut short, as he launched into a tirade against “this bloody useless waste of taxpayers money”. “What’s wrong with your broadband connection now, can’t you download movies fast enough”… etc etc. Whoa! I backed off and joined another group around the bar.

Unfortunately I hear and read this all the time. I do my best to explain that copper has just about had it bandwidth-wise, and wireless won’t get us into the global network future. Only fibre has the almost limitless bandwidth capacity that Australia and New Zealand (in fact the world) will require in coming decades and beyond.

Then I saw an excellent article just written here in New Zealand by my friend Ernie Newman, CEO of TUANZ (Telecom Users Association of New Zealand).
I see and chat with Ernie frequently at meetings and conferences. Recently TUANZ and CFH (Crown Fibre Holdings) have teamed up to organise workshops in the major NZ centers to demonstrate to interested parties the evident advantages of the New Zealand UFB Network. (http://www.tuanz.org.nz/content/134e36d1-264e-4c26-afa7-d7a788b88b96.html)

Ernie’s logic applies equally to Australia’s NBN.

Ernie has allowed me to reproduce his article here which follows. Thanks mate!

Relax, says TUANZ chief executive Ernie Newman. NZ’s broadband policy is solid.
By Ernie Newman
4:00 AM Thursday Jul 29, 2010
newman_ernieNoJacketSUPP_220x147

Brian Fallow can relax – New Zealand’s ultra-fast broadband policy is solid, widely acclaimed internationally, and a critical element in our remaining a first world economy into the 21st century.
Copper wire has been the cornerstone of telecommunications since Bell invented the technology for voice conversations.
Never could he have imagined that 140 years on users would expect the same copper to carry vast amounts of data – emails, videos, scientific content, and radiography images. Engineers have done a wonderful job in stretching its capability for the early years of the internet era.
But copper has done its dash. It can’t cope any longer with the relentless increases in bandwidth new applications demand.
Enter the picture, fibre optic cable with its almost limitless capacity. A fibre bundle the thickness of a broom handle can carry a voice call by everyone on earth simultaneously.

Fibre can ensure the kind of capacity the citizens of 2020 will need and demand to run services in the fields of education, health, energy conservation, and entertainment.
Are these uses here now? Of course not – first we need the connectivity with sufficient critical mass for them to become viable.
That was exactly the dilemma a century ago with the reticulation of electricity. Uptake was initially slow, but mushroomed dramatically during the 1920s as more appliances and uses were invented and commercialised.
Fortunately the leaders of the day had the vision and foresight to take the leap despite not knowing about the microwave, toaster, computer or electric toothbrush. If New Zealanders had waited until every service was available before reticulating electricity, the country would have been held back for decades.
Broadband has similar characteristics. Tomorrow’s families will routinely expect multiple streams of dense content coming into their homes simultaneously. These will include video and other resources from school websites, online medical diagnosis, lifelong education, home security and energy saving systems, and on-demand high-density interactive entertainment.
Businesses will expect productivity-enhancing applications, while government can look forward to major efficiencies in delivery of health and education services.
Such services will encourage more of the brightest and best young New Zealanders to make their lives here rather than migrate.
Fallow quotes liberally from the findings of the Institute for Competition and Regulation. While residing within Victoria University, the institute owes much of its funding and governance to a small cluster of utility companies that are the subject of regulatory controls because of their significant market power.
In 2006 the institute argued stridently against unbundling Telecom’s local loop. Fortunately for New Zealanders its conclusions were rejected by other reputable economists, both overseas and local. Rejected too, by Parliament, which went on to unbundle and thus remove Telecom’s monopoly to the benefit of other telecommunications suppliers and consumers.
That does not mean there is necessarily anything wrong with the institute’s mathematics – just that it fails to run a sanity check across its conclusions. Its work on ultra-fast broadband suffers from a similar weakness.
Economic tools like cost benefit analysis should be used in conjunction with vision and foresight, not as a substitute for them. If cost benefit had been the key determinant, the world might have waited far too long to reticulate electricity, while much exploration and innovation might never have taken place.
As Arthur Grimes has acknowledged in respect of the Motu research referenced in the article, research that is conducted too early for meaningful conclusions to be drawn about the productivity impact should be interpreted with care. Cost benefit analysis is a very blunt instrument where wide ranging strategic projects are involved, he cautioned.
From my observations, New Zealand’s ultra-fast broadband project is recognised globally as world-class. The Government should just get on with the job; future generations will thank it copiously.
* Ernie Newman is chief executive of the Telecommunications Users Association (TUANZ).
By Ernie Newman

Senate Report: don’t do NBN John Nixon May 20

No Comments

Quote: “Considering that the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network is chaired by a Liberal senator, it’s not surprising that its latest report’s first recommendation is that “The government abandon the National Broadband Network project”. But since the government was unlikely to listen to that, it also proceeded to present a list of alternate recommendations.” Unquote

Ther are times that I gnash my teeth and want to have politicians submit to an IQ test before getting elected.
I put a lot of (unpaid) time into providing the Australian Senate select committee, at their invitation, with carefully considered, technically accurate responses to their concerns. Polite thank yous came back, but in the end, it was a political decision, not a technical or commercial one that ruled.
Labour launches the NBN. The Liberals MUST be against. Simply because they are the opposition.
I was born, grew up and was educated in Sydney. So I am still very attached to what goes on over there. And I’ve been a free enterprise person all of my career. But this is ridiculous!
“We don’t need to spend this money”, “Who on earth could use 100 Mbps?”, “Let the commercial world sort it out”, VDSL is coming, that’s all we’ll ever need”.
What a load of hooey!
Canning the NBN project (now well underway) will set Australia back many many years. The National Broadband (fibre) Network is a huge national infrastructure project that is far too big to be done successfully by any private company. Or if that did happen, you just repeat the Telco monopoly over again.
What nobody seems to realise is that the new National fibre network will serve for 50 or 100 years (as the old copper network did). The fibre itself will virtually never need replacing. New electronics at each end will ensure that bandwidth demands are met for many decades to come.
With a hung Senate in Australia, controlled by a few amusing individuals who are very happy to see themselves on TV “saving the taxpayer lots of money”, I’m afraid that democracy shows a rather sad face when it comes to important technical decisions of national importance. Why on earth they solicit hundreds of submissions from individual experts, then take a vote strictly on party line policy… that to my mind is really wasting taxpayers’ money and my own efforts as well (not worth much in comparison).
I have experience, knowledge and time to offer freely to both the Australian and New Zealand fibre projects. But I am totally discouraged when political credos interfere with sensible decision-making.
Again, let’s hope that we do the job in New Zealand without all the political hoopla and grandstanding that is evident in Australia right now.

David Thodey is Telstra Australia’s new boss after the departure of the very abrasive American ex-CEO who took on the Australian Government head to head. When will people learn that (in spite of my comments above) you can’t possibly win a fight against a country’s government.
This is a fascinating comment on David’s new approach to winning back the Australian public opinion. An interesting parallel perhaps with Telecom New Zealand?
http://www.zdnet.com.au/telstra-s-thodey-relishes-role-339303289.htm?omnRef=NULL

More on the Tasmanian $1 per Gb NBN offer John Nixon May 06

2 Comments

Further insight into the quite incredible pricing proposal on Australia’s NBN.
See: http://www.zdnet.com.au/exetel-is-your-nbn-pricing-for-real-339302861.htm?omnRef=NULL

25 Mbps, Zero cost per month? John Nixon May 03

No Comments

I have to plead guilty of not updating my blog often enough.
There was recently a very quiet FTTH period, now things are starting to kick in, lots happening.
I just returned from Sydney and Melbourne following extremely interesting business discussions around the NBN project there.
In both New Zealand and Australia I am promoting the principle of Video Overlay, or the “third wavelength” on Fibre to the Home (FTTH) networks.
Why? Simply because the conversion of current broadcast television channels (and digital radio) to IPTV for distribution over the NBN and UFB networks is fraught with potential cost and problems.
Video overlay, or the use of a “third wavelength” on the fibre link is an ITU standard, and is used in many developed countries already.
It offloads potentially several Giga bits per second (Gbps) from the data link, which is far more useful in transmitting and receiving the internet and phone services.

The NBN in Australia has created huge political buzz, attacks, criticism…
However the first trial NBN network is being delivered in Tasmania.
Today I saw the following headline:
“National internet service provider (ISP) Exetel today outlined projected pricing on its National Broadband Network plans in Tasmania, which was radically different from that offered on traditional ADSL broadband plans — such as a zero cost monthly plan at 25Mbps, with downloads charged at $1 per gigabyte. “
Wow, come on, do you read that as I do?
ZERO monthly cost, 25 Mbps bandwidth, and $1 (albeit Aussie) per Gb of data.
Amazing! I mean now you’re talking!
Faster speeds available at higher price, but that offer by current standards is unbeatable, read unimaginable!
Let us just hope that the UFB initiative here in New Zealand delivers similar “initial” price and performance.
See the whole article at: http://www.zdnet.com.au/exetel-unveils-nbn-pricing-339302822.htm

Australian Senate Submission on Video overlay technology for NBN John Nixon Apr 12

No Comments

As a FTTH Council designated specialist, I received a request from the Australian Senate to comment on the advantages of using Video (aka RF) Overlay in part or all of the Australian National Broadband Network.
The contents of the submission were to be kept totally confidential until it was confirmed as accepted for publication by the Senate Committee.
This morning I received the following letter from them, advising that in fact the submission was accepted and released to the media. The paper can be accessed via the link in their letter, then selecting the submission from Optical Network Engineering (right next to Paul Budde).

THE SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK
12 April 2010
Dear Mr Nixon
Progress of the proposed National Broadband Network

The Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network would like to thank you for your submission. I am pleased to inform you that the Committee has approved your submission for publication; it can now be found at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/broadband_ctte/submissions_from_march_2010/sublist.htm
We thank you for your cooperation in not making these documents public prior to the Committee’s approval.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Palethorpe
Committee Secretary
PO Box 6100, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 3635 Fax: (02) 6277 5794

Excellent thoughts on Aussie NBN John Nixon Nov 06

1 Comment

Tonight Google threw me this article, written only a few hours ago. I found it very logic and sensible. Who is Tom Worthington? Well as I found out, a pretty savvy and successful technical academic in Canberra. According to his website, he looks like this:
tomwtn1b
I tried to find a contact or email address on his website: nothing! So Tom, if you read this, don’t sue me for not asking authority to reproduce! Only one major criticism, no details on the delivery of TV. Just one vague mention about IPTV. It amazes me that nobody seems to know anything about the “3rd wavelength” for TV Broadcasting. Just pull TV off the data link. It doesn’t need to be there. In any case Foxtel, Austar and Sky TV aren’t at all ready to deliver anything over IPTV. Even if they were, why dump TV on the data link when you don’t have to?
Here we go, otherwise very sensible words to my mind! Particularly about level 1 and 2 services.

Friday, November 06, 2009
Designing the National Broadband Network
The Australian Telecommunications Users Group (ATUG) held a National Broadband Network Reference Model Forum in Sydney this morning (there will be another in Melbourne on 12 November 2009). Based on the morning’s discussion, my view is that a simpler internet model be used in place of the Communications Alliance model. This will be technically simpler to implement and will also avoid many difficult regulatory issues with telephone and broadcast services. In essence the NBN will be “an internet”, which will be part of “the Internet”. The NBN can carry many different services using internet protocols, including services which emulate the plain old telephone service (POTS), cable TV and broadcast TV, without being limited to only providing those services or providers.

Paul Brooks, Lead Consultant, NBN Project of Communications Alliance gave a detailed overview of the Communications Alliance High Level Architecture Options for the NBN in detail. His view is that it is likely that the NBN will use a passive optical network for Fibre to The Home (FTTH). This will provide considerable bandwidth to the home, but it is not clear how far this will extend through the network.

While NBN will own and install the connections to the home, there is no architectural distinction between NBN and non-NBN back end networks. The Communications Alliance model operates at level 2 . It is likely that IPv6 will be used or services such as VoIP at the higher layers of the model. Issues to be resolved include how many points should other providers be able to connect at (options range from 5 to 500).

At the home termination, it is not clear how the consumer will connect. Options range from a socket to which any equipment can be connected to an NBN supplied set top box. One issue which I raised early on the the NBN process was the need for operations in disasters during mains power failure. This seems to have been taken up with discussion of who provides the backup batteries.

Stepping back from the details, Paul Brooks pointed out a principle should be customer choice. Each service may be connected to different devices from different suppliers ad networks. The example given was a smart electricity meter provided by the energy company, which the householder has little control of but still has to have working over the NBN.

It occurs to me that in all this some points have been lost:

1. Its the Internet: The primary purpose for the NBN is to provide access to the Internet. It is likely the system will be implemented using internet protocols. The simplest way to provide Internet access via an internet network is with internet protocols. Therefore the the NBN should be designed as an internet. Much of the Communications Alliance model discussion seems to be about old fashioned connection based network design which is not needed and not relevant for an internet.
2. Layers aren’t real: While there s much discussion of Layer 1 and Layer 2, these are abstractions and so of little use for practical decision making. In the discussion it does not seem to be made clear even which multi-layer model is being discussed (the ISO OS model has seven layers, whereas IP has only five).

Peter Hitchiner, Australian Computer Society – Telecommunications Society of Australia, gave a more general overview as to what the NBN should do (similar to the ACS talk I gave to ATUG in Canberra). He pointed out that the nature of the NBN service is not clear, in particular is “layer 2″ access the preferred industry approach. A major question is will IPTV services be treated equally (a major policy question for the Federal Government).

At this point the forum moved into a discussion to explore some of these issues. This proved very interesting and useful. On the access issue Paul Brooks mentioned that the home access box might have four ports (presumably Ethernet copper cable ports), plus possibly a telephone and a TV port. It seemed that he envisioned each port would provide a distinct “service” from a separate “service provider”. In the subsequent discussion it became clear that the model the Communications Alliance’s proposing is to emulate a point to point service over the NBN, on top of an underlying IP network.

Stephen Wright, from Gibson Quai-AAS – Telecommunications Consultants (GQAAS) then talked about the network resilience required. Telstra provides about 99.90% reliability for telephony services (PSTN). Stephen suggested we should aim for 99.95% or higher for the NBN. My view is that it should be relatively simple and inexpensive to achieve this level of service for the NBN for telephony services. This assumes that the NBN is configured to provide different levels of reliability for different services, with emergency services having priority. As an example, the household is likely to want enough bandwidth to call an ambulance in an emergency, and will accept that this should take priority over being able to watch TV. With the NBN configured to provide enough bandwidth to provide TV most of the time, there should be enough capacity to handle lower bandwidth services, such as telephony almost all the time.

The Communications Alliance proposed model is not a good one, is not in the public interest and should not be adopted. Its complexity comes from trying to reproduce the restrictions of the old telecommunications system in order to support old business models. Instead I suggest accepting that the NBN will provide an Internet service. The model then becomes very much simpler, with an unlimited number of service providers able to provide services to the home over one Internet connection. Where a service provider needs a high level of security for their service, for example a telephone, smart meter or a TV set top box, they would need to ensure that the software or hardware they provide to the home has the needed security built in. There is then no need to worry about how many ports to provide or what types. Only one port is needed which can support all the services required.

This would be similar to the electrical sockets provided in the home. These are all wired in parallel and provide the same service. The householder can purchase their own devices to plug in. The householder can also purchase multiple adaptors to plug in. If the householder wants to plug in a refrigerator from a particular supplier, they do not need a special power point installed which only provides one brand of electricity.

The NBN will likely replace the current telephone, broadcast TV and cable TV services. I suggest replacements for these services be done in a way which does not limit the availability of new services. This would be a change in the previous government practice which has been to protect encumbent providers from competition from new services. As an example, the conversion to digital TV in Australia was designed so that the existing analog TV stations retained their oligopoly, even though the new digital technology did not require this.

There is a case for providing telephony and TV as part of the basic NBN service, but architecturally these can be simply services on top of the Internet. In this way the household will not be locked into a new monopoly unnecessarily. As an example, the householder would be able to pay a service provider to provide an ordinary telephone POTS type service from an Australian telecommunications provider. But the householder should be able to use the same NBN equipment to make free Internet calls and to sign up with several other telephone providers, including companies located anywhere in the world, if they wish.

Similarly, the house holder could use the NBN to watch Australian free to air TV and cable TV. However, the householder should be able to also access any other TV-like service available over the Internet from anywhere in the world. The fact that Foxtel might wish to provide a restricted pay TV service using NBN, should not stop other provision of TV like services for free by others.

The issues of telephony on the NBN are not technically complex, compared to the regulatory and public policy issues. TV type services over the NBN are slightly more complex technically, but are dwarfed by the complexity of the public policy issues. There is not sufficient time to work through all of the sectional interests involved in time to implement the NBN. With the current timetable, Australian will still not have transitioned completely from analogue to digital before it will be time to start replacing the digital TV broadcast service with the NBN.

I suggest the Australian Government take the opportunity to short circuit the process by setting some simple goals for the NBN in delivering services over an internet and then let the NBN company get on with the implementation. The NBN is not building a telephone network, nor a pay TV network, it is building a network which can be used for carrying such services.
Labels: ICT Policy, NBN, Telecommunications
posted by Tom Worthington at 1:11 PM

« Older Entries