[LINK] NBN, education and health

[Greg Taylor]

On 2011/04/07 1:50 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ......

> I also meant to say that the taxpayers may also choose to support people
> living outside the major cities, for a variety of reasons, including:
>
>    1 - To help reduce the strain on the major cities.
>
>    2 - To support farming and regional Australia for whatever reasons.
>
> I am not saying these shouldn't be done - but I am against the idea that
> super-fast broadband communications is something which taxpayers should
> fund for people, no matter where they live......

<list netiquette alert>
The escalating reply cascade emanating from Robin's original "blog" post 
threatens to exceed the 50K message limit.
<../>

Others have adequately responded to many of Robin's claims, so I'll just 
make a few brief points.

1. It is unreasonable to expect anyone on link to investigate whether 
the "the NBN goals, price and schedule are realistic". McKinsey/KPMG did 
a thorough job on this last year and produced a 546 page report. It is 
available here:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/national_broadband_network_implementation_study
The report concluded that the government's cost estimates were 
conservative and the goals realistic. It would be a great idea to 
critique the report if someone had the time, expertise and energy to do 
so, but short of that, I doubt that revisiting the debate on Link will 
add anything new.

2. The references to taxpayers funding or subsidising the NBN, and of 
taxpayer funds being thereby diverted from other national needs, 
misrepresents the way federal finances work, and misrepresents the 
nature of the project. NBN is an investment, to be funded largely using 
debt financing, i.e. government bonds. It needs to make a commercial 
return on funds invested, since it is planned to eventually offer it to 
the private sector. It's one of those projects where perhaps only an 
organisation as big and ugly as the government has enough clout to make 
it happen. Sure, there are risks that it may fail to meet its 
objectives, but assuming now that it must or will fail is a huge call, 
particularly when based on whimsy rather than a thorough analysis of the 
facts.

We certainly don't want a repeat of the Telstra/Optus cable duplication 
fiasco, so it makes sense to have a single national network wholesaler, 
with competition at the retail level and appropriate regulatory 
safeguard to prevent wholesale price gouging. And what is the 
alternative for future telecommunications? ADSL is a jury-rigged 
short-term solution dependent on a medium that was designed for analogue 
voice communication, and appears to be reaching its limits. Wireless 
bandwidth is already congested and finite. But all this has been said 
many, many times before, so I'll shutup now before the recursive deja vu 
develops into a feedback loop.

Greg