[LINK] NBN - Justification, Costs, Excuses and Probable Outcome

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Whittle [mailto:rw at firstpr.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, 7 April 2011 1:50 PM
> To: Link mailing list
> Cc: Bernard Robertson-Dunn; Tom Koltai; Kim Holburn; Richard Chirgwin
> Subject: Re: [LINK] NBN, education and health
> 
> 
> I am replying to Tom Koltai, Kim Holburn, Richard Chirgwin 
> and Bernard Robertson-Dunn.
> 
> No-one has responded with concrete arguments about why the 
> NBN goals, price and schedule are realistic, or why this is 
> the best way taxpayer money can be used to acheive a range of 
> goals in telecommunications, health and education, especially 
> outside the major population centres.
> 


Robin, besides the fact that most of these discussions have been had
before, I think most Australians/Linkers/Lurkers/Spouse over the
shoulder watchers, are now at the first level of NBN acceptance.

Level 1 - Installed Mario brothers, now how does this joystick work ? 
(It's probably too late to have the discussion about "Should we buy
Mario Bros.?")

Flashback: 1965
In the days of my youth... [when all knowledge was disseminated via
archaic methods involving the pruning, felling and milling of trees, the
shipping to pulp mills, the pollution to our environment of the paper
production process, the pollution to our environment of the paper
delivery process, the printing of the information, the book binding
process, the pollution to our environment of the book delivery to the
library process, and the vehicle generated pollution of the parent
delivering son to the library process.]

... Well, in those days, I used to virtually live in libraries with my
(at that time) alert young mind sucking in knowledge at the rate of
about 600-1000 pages per week.  [Television didn’t start until 5:00 pm]

Today I no longer have to beg anyone to drive me to the library; with
Google and Wikipedia, I can obtain the same result by targeted queries
returning my information relatively instantaneously, thereby decreasing
the amount of time and reading needed for research.
Consequentially libraries all over the world are awaiting the Developers
axe...

OK, my apologies in advance, this next bit will be a very long bow.
However numbers people like to look at all alternatives.

In Sydney, Petrol is at $1.50 per litre. [When we already know that
$1.37 per litre is the tipping depression point.] Why ?
The Middle Eastern oil rich countries are investing heavily in Oil Shale
Extraction technologies and alternative energy forms - to the tune of
$530 Bn. Why ?
In France President Szarkocy has invested 6 billion in a Canal system
that will eliminate 500,000 cambios and lorries on Europe's roads. Why ?
In The USA, the Federal Government have spent $ 8 billion on the
development of a bullet train network (with for example the California
section [2.1 Bn] going from nowhere to nowhere. Why ?
In Germany, the Government is building completely self contained
communities with everything located within walking and cycling distance.
Why ?

Leading us to rather obvious assumptions:
Whatif the worlds oil is running out ?
Whatif in the next five years, petrol rationing eliminates the majority
of discretionary travel as we currently know it. 

Does then the NBN facilitate:

1 telecommuting for workers?
2 enhanced e-commerce opportunities 
3 reduced education individual institution syllabus management costs ?
4 a rationalisation of services based organisations (e.g. medical [non
physical] diagnosis, help desk, government)
5 a recovery from the depression that we are still in ?

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
During past depressions, the road to recovery has always been based on
large infrastructure investment by Government.
That is the role of government, to steer the nation between the sharp
rocks of unemployment and bankruptcy.

The question one has to ask, what choice does a Government have when the
principle industries in the country a mining exporters ?
How can one create jobs and create opportunity for the nation ?

Is the NBN at 26 billion [limited to capex and not financial
monopolistic management costs to Telstra] too expensive ?
Well we discussed in a previous posting [1] that the NBN was
approximately the same percentage of Australia's GDP today as the
Overland Telegraph was in 1870, two percent.
I think the O/T worked out quite well.

As far as planning, scheduling and pricing, linkers should consider the
following argument:

There are no telecommunications companies that cover the world. There
are franchise arrangements [e.g. Voda, T-Mobile].
There is no Telecommunications company that has rolled out a project on
as massive a scale as the NBN, anywhere in the world (including ICBM
silo fibre in the USA which was only 62,000 miles of fibre)

Pricing is a political element to justify the expenditure in light of
the oppositions name calling. 
Everyone is aware that the pricing will be a quarter of what they claim
it will be, mainly because of continuing pressure and competition from
cellular, which wont be halted until the people rise up and (as they did
in several European countries) say - No more ugly cell towers !!!

Finally, the NBN will fail because the Liberals will get back in,
probably within a few months. (That's also why the schedule is so
unrealistic - Labor wants to leave a positive result behind. And Telstra
delaying the copper handover is a strong indication of what Telstra
management think of the political situation.)

When the Libs get back in, Australians will start to learn about the
other side of the coin. Monopolistic, commerce preventing pricing
structures... Oh wait, we already learned that lesson in the eighties,
nineties and 00's.

There will come a time when today's NBN naysayers will cry out to the
heavens.... "Oh, how could I have been so silly... Come back NBN, please
come back!"

If the NBN budget is too expensive, then let us look at saving money on
something else, like submarines, tanks, fighter bombers and other things
that go bang.
Talk about a waste of money... Any F111's flying around ? [2] Did we get
a refund ?
(Oh wait, we make the submarines here ? Ok... We can buy the subs..)

Oh, sorry, the Americans wouldn’t like that huh... Détente and all that
crap, much more important than the communications [social capital of the
country] of our rural communities with their brothers and sisters all
over the country...

Sarcasm /on
We've learned since 1994 that faster communications isn't worth anything
at all. In fact it's just disruptive to our entire way of life.

The internet and the transition from 54 bits per second TCP-IP in 1983
to 6 Mbps in 2010 has not added anything to our lifestyle.
Sarcasm /off

I think the most important ideal that Australian's should stand up for
at the next election is - cheaper communications nationally and
internationally, because  the high cost of commercial communications for
small business and consumers is the single biggest barrier to a healthy
growing economy. [4]

Anyone that argues contrary to the logic of that truism, needs to go and
live in a country where the Internet is banned. Could I recommend the
northern reaches of the Korean peninsula, I understand they have a great
black market in small furry rodents on sticks.[5]

Qualifying Disclaimer:
Apart from a misspent youth where I leaned heavily towards Social
Democrats and occasionally the New Values Party, I am essentially a
republican Liberal. 
Don’t much like what successive Labor Governments have managed to do to
our economy.
Unfortunately I like even less what Telstra domination (for two decades)
of our economy has done for Australian Industry and small business.
We live in an enlightened world where Unions have been effectively
disenfranchised by the power of the Internet. Employers today are more
scared of Facebook than they are of the unions.


[1] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2011-January/091186.html
[2]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/raaf-puts-f-111
-out-to-pasture/story-e6frg8yo-1225965159612
[3] http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/08/1046826567540.html
[4] Koltai T. 1982 Növeszteni a bruttó hazai termék csökkenti a
távközlési költségek kisvállalkozásoknak (Increasing the GDP by
decreasing communication costs for small enterprises.)
[5] http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/eating-rats-in-north-korea/

/body