The coalition doesn't like the NBN - we know that. Malcolm Turnbull, Paul Fletcher and Barnaby Joyce go on about it.
But coalition backbenchers don't like the NBN - because residents don't know when they are getting it. Government backbenchers have also been known to complain about the inadequate roll-out schedule.
The public in general really wonders if the coalition can "stop the NBN." There is no evidence Telstra would have an appetite for negotiating a different deal. There is no evidence a structurally separated copper business could raise any capital in private markets for an FTTN upgrade.
But more significantly, like climate change, everyone wonders whether the coalition could get any enabling legislation through.
The biggest difference between Paul Keating winning the 1993 election against Fightback and Beazley losing the 98 election against the GST was that Keating promised to support ANY Fightback legislation if he lost. Beazley promised to oppose the GST. The people voted strategically in 98 to keep Howard and against the GST - which worked until Meg Lees ratted.
The ALP should go to the next election saying it will oppose legislation to change the carbon tax, because the coalition doesn't believe in any action. They should however say they will support any change the coalition wants to make on broadband policy because Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull claim to be supportive of the intent.
That would make the issue of cancelling the NBN very very real for many people....maybe enough to make a difference.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Showing posts with label Joyce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joyce. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
NBN Again - inconsistency of Joyce, warning for Turnbull
News in the AFR today (behind paywall) that the coalition is about to "change its point of attack" on the NBN from the need for a CBA or the integrity of the NBN Co CEO to the affordability of the service and label it the "No Battler Network".
This is a strange strategy since the analysis of the Internode pricing is that it is the same as their ADSL 2 services! Much focus has been on the fact that the entry level plan is dearer than a telephone line for those who don't just want a telephone.
But let's look as much as we can at the detail and how it is that voice services are delivered and priced. The NBN Co entry level wholesale price is $24 per month including the 150kbps quality 1 for voice. Internode isn't in the business of offering voice only so it hasn't looked at building a voice only service. But Telstra not only will, but has to. It will continue to be the contracted "USO provider". There will be from Telstra a voice only service at EXACTLY THE SAME price points as exist today.
A big difference between the network requirement for voice and Internet is in the backhaul - and the CVC charges Simon Hackett has bleated about. To provide voice you just need that 150kbps per service - not the up to 100Mbps that the internet requires.
I sincerely doubt the NBN Co/Telstra/Government agreement could have reached the point it has without clarity about the retail price for voice to be offered by Telstra.
The inconsistency from Joyce is that he is quoted as supporting a Fibre to the Node (which he calls broadband to the node) build because the price of higher speed services delivered by wireless or satellite will be higher than fibre.
His inconsistency is manifold. Firstly because in the period between his election to the Senate in 2004 and becoming a Senator he and Senator Nash delivered a report for the Page Centre calling for a fibre to the home network in regional Australia. Inconsistent because from 2007 to 2010 coalition response to the NBN was to say the network was unnecessary and that regional problems would have been solved by the OPEL contract - that is wireless.
Finally no one's FttN proposal results in a bigger physical footprint than the FttP proposal - the premises outside fibre reach are basically outside FttN reach. If not then there may be a small tweak possible at the margins.
The coalition strategy is ill-founded and should fail. That is so long as the ALP can focus its mind on facts not rhetoric.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
This is a strange strategy since the analysis of the Internode pricing is that it is the same as their ADSL 2 services! Much focus has been on the fact that the entry level plan is dearer than a telephone line for those who don't just want a telephone.
But let's look as much as we can at the detail and how it is that voice services are delivered and priced. The NBN Co entry level wholesale price is $24 per month including the 150kbps quality 1 for voice. Internode isn't in the business of offering voice only so it hasn't looked at building a voice only service. But Telstra not only will, but has to. It will continue to be the contracted "USO provider". There will be from Telstra a voice only service at EXACTLY THE SAME price points as exist today.
A big difference between the network requirement for voice and Internet is in the backhaul - and the CVC charges Simon Hackett has bleated about. To provide voice you just need that 150kbps per service - not the up to 100Mbps that the internet requires.
I sincerely doubt the NBN Co/Telstra/Government agreement could have reached the point it has without clarity about the retail price for voice to be offered by Telstra.
The inconsistency from Joyce is that he is quoted as supporting a Fibre to the Node (which he calls broadband to the node) build because the price of higher speed services delivered by wireless or satellite will be higher than fibre.
His inconsistency is manifold. Firstly because in the period between his election to the Senate in 2004 and becoming a Senator he and Senator Nash delivered a report for the Page Centre calling for a fibre to the home network in regional Australia. Inconsistent because from 2007 to 2010 coalition response to the NBN was to say the network was unnecessary and that regional problems would have been solved by the OPEL contract - that is wireless.
Finally no one's FttN proposal results in a bigger physical footprint than the FttP proposal - the premises outside fibre reach are basically outside FttN reach. If not then there may be a small tweak possible at the margins.
The coalition strategy is ill-founded and should fail. That is so long as the ALP can focus its mind on facts not rhetoric.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, February 25, 2010
NBN Co legislation
Oh dear. I thought telco policy had moved on from the days when every piece of policy was scrutinised through the lens of its implication for telco privatisation, but today it appears it is still the case that commentators only look at the implication of NBN policy from its impact on Telstra.
The Government yesterday released exposure drafts of the NBN Co legislation. Firstly that is a great step and much better than, say, the Howard Government's final Telstra privatisation Bill wich was introduced with no consultation and gave industry one day to prepare for a one day Senate hearing.
But both the Oz and the SMH report the provision in the Bill that the Minister can authorise NBN Co to sell dierectly as a threat to Telstra. The conclusion is reached because of references to Government Departments.
The reality is that, firstly, Government Departments are big customers in terms of revenue but very poor in terms of profit - simple because they have been big enough to get most of the benefits of competition that exist so far. Secondly the real concern here is that the ability to do things like e-health and e-education shouldn't be impeded by the need to deal with service providers. This isn't about Government using the NBN to connect to its premises, but to citizens.
Meanwhile I note in industry newsleter Communications Day the speculation on the fate of the other current bill, the one that does seek to split Telstra. They write in part;
The government’s desire to separate Telstra originally appeared set to split the coalition, with Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and Barnaby Joyce advocates of separation while Liberal colleagues rallied against any split. However, the Nationals are now set to vote on coalition lines with Joyce in shadow cabinet and both Senators determined to force the government to reveal numerous secret documents relating to the original NBN process. CommsDay understands that Joyce and Nash could still push for a Telstra split at a later date – but not until Conroy releases the McKinsey/KPMG NBN Implementation Study, due to be delivered to the minister by the end of the week.
I can fully understand that the new world order of the coalition prohibits them splitting on the issue. But the new world order should perhaps contemplate a change in their approach to communications policy, just as it did a change on climate change policy. As it stands today the coalition has no communications policy other than to say no, or perhaps that OPEL was better.
It is interesting to note that they never demanded an ANAO report on the cancellation of that contract. That's perhaps because they are afraid that not only will it find the Government was right to cancel it because the conditions precedent were not met, but that the ANAO would likely find that he contract should never have been entered into.
Meanwhile after the replacement of Minchin with Smith the coalition still hasn't progressed on communications policy. Conroy used to count the number of releases Minchin had come out with without a single policy proposal. Smith isn't doing any better.
Perhaps these were the kinds of people new leader Tony Abbott was addressing when he's asked them to "use their brains" at his policy roundtable on Friday. Not much chance of decent communications policy if (a) it is only Liberals, and (b) Henry Ergas is in the room.
Finally, the coalition seems to wrap themselves in a sanctimonious flag of demanding the release of certain documents prepared for advice to government. First it was the expert panel report and now it is the implementation study. In Government the coalition never released such documents. Holding Government to account means holding them to account on outcomes not second guessing the decisions.
I hope the Nationals find the courage to go to the coalition meetings and say that the cause of improved telecommunications to regional Australia is not advanced by an opposition who simply refuses to debate legislation, or opposes legislation such as structural separation (a long held National Party view) or fibre to the home (which was the core of the Page Centre report).
The Government yesterday released exposure drafts of the NBN Co legislation. Firstly that is a great step and much better than, say, the Howard Government's final Telstra privatisation Bill wich was introduced with no consultation and gave industry one day to prepare for a one day Senate hearing.
But both the Oz and the SMH report the provision in the Bill that the Minister can authorise NBN Co to sell dierectly as a threat to Telstra. The conclusion is reached because of references to Government Departments.
The reality is that, firstly, Government Departments are big customers in terms of revenue but very poor in terms of profit - simple because they have been big enough to get most of the benefits of competition that exist so far. Secondly the real concern here is that the ability to do things like e-health and e-education shouldn't be impeded by the need to deal with service providers. This isn't about Government using the NBN to connect to its premises, but to citizens.
Meanwhile I note in industry newsleter Communications Day the speculation on the fate of the other current bill, the one that does seek to split Telstra. They write in part;
The government’s desire to separate Telstra originally appeared set to split the coalition, with Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and Barnaby Joyce advocates of separation while Liberal colleagues rallied against any split. However, the Nationals are now set to vote on coalition lines with Joyce in shadow cabinet and both Senators determined to force the government to reveal numerous secret documents relating to the original NBN process. CommsDay understands that Joyce and Nash could still push for a Telstra split at a later date – but not until Conroy releases the McKinsey/KPMG NBN Implementation Study, due to be delivered to the minister by the end of the week.
I can fully understand that the new world order of the coalition prohibits them splitting on the issue. But the new world order should perhaps contemplate a change in their approach to communications policy, just as it did a change on climate change policy. As it stands today the coalition has no communications policy other than to say no, or perhaps that OPEL was better.
It is interesting to note that they never demanded an ANAO report on the cancellation of that contract. That's perhaps because they are afraid that not only will it find the Government was right to cancel it because the conditions precedent were not met, but that the ANAO would likely find that he contract should never have been entered into.
Meanwhile after the replacement of Minchin with Smith the coalition still hasn't progressed on communications policy. Conroy used to count the number of releases Minchin had come out with without a single policy proposal. Smith isn't doing any better.
Perhaps these were the kinds of people new leader Tony Abbott was addressing when he's asked them to "use their brains" at his policy roundtable on Friday. Not much chance of decent communications policy if (a) it is only Liberals, and (b) Henry Ergas is in the room.
Finally, the coalition seems to wrap themselves in a sanctimonious flag of demanding the release of certain documents prepared for advice to government. First it was the expert panel report and now it is the implementation study. In Government the coalition never released such documents. Holding Government to account means holding them to account on outcomes not second guessing the decisions.
I hope the Nationals find the courage to go to the coalition meetings and say that the cause of improved telecommunications to regional Australia is not advanced by an opposition who simply refuses to debate legislation, or opposes legislation such as structural separation (a long held National Party view) or fibre to the home (which was the core of the Page Centre report).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)