[LINK] Ffax: FTTH as Infrastructure

Roger Clarke Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Mon Aug 12 12:11:01 AEST 2013


With hindsight, broadband vision will become clear
Kai Riemer
Opinion Piece
Fairfax
August 12, 2013
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/with-hindsight-broadband-vision-will-become-clear-20130811-2rq4k.html

When shown a telephone in the 19th century, US President Rutherford 
Hayes reportedly said ''it's a great invention but who would want to 
use it anyway?'' In 1943, the chairman of IBM is said to have 
predicted that there would be a worldwide market ''for maybe five 
computers''. In 1977, Ken Olsen, co-founder of Digital Equipment Corp 
found no reason to believe that anyone would want a computer in their 
home.

With the power of hindsight, we laugh at these observations from 
supposed ''visionaries''. Yet I fear we are repeating the mistakes of 
the past as we debate the value and make-up of the national broadband 
network. The differences seem technical but they are important.

The government proposes fibre cabling to the home (FTTH) while the 
Coalition proposal relies on fibre to the node (FTTN), where existing 
copper cables connect premises to the network.

No one doubts the much higher speed of FTTH, but we ask: does anyone 
really need the higher download speed to simply watch videos? How can 
we make an informed investment decision without a proper business 
case? Will it be possible to recover its cost? And why should the 
taxpayer pay for it, not businesses?

Just as with Hayes and the telephone, concerns about the broadband 
network seem reasonable. On closer examination, however, they reveal 
a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of infrastructure 
technologies.

Infrastructure is not a tool. Tools solve a problem, they serve a 
specific purpose. Infrastructure should be flexible enough to enable 
manifold new forms of use over time. It is only when people begin 
using the technology in their everyday lives that new ideas and 
business practices emerge.

Infrastructure on the scale of the national broadband network is 
world-changing - it gives rise to new business models, forms of 
social interaction and ways of living. Think about power grids, 
transport networks, telephone connectivity, air travel, the personal 
computer, or the internet. These have enabled profound changes to the 
ways we work and organise our lives. Today, these changes seem 
self-evident, while the technologies have disappeared into the 
background as taken-for-granted parts of life.

But could the wide-reaching changes associated with many new 
technologies have been imagined from the onset? Not at all. The 
nature of infrastructure makes it impossible to predict the future. 
Simply projecting current ways of living onto the new infrastructure 
is likely to fundamentally miss the point, as history has shown.

Take electricity. Having had a modest impact on manufacturing 
initially, it was only after power generation was centralised and 
physically separated from the factory floor that we saw a flurry of 
innovation that gave us mass production.

What does this mean for the broadband network? First, we need to 
recognise that only FTTH is a truly game-changing infrastructure. The 
key to understanding its novelty is not download but upload speed, 
which is much higher than with FTTN.

Naturally, this does not feature prominently in the debate since we 
are accustomed to seeing broadband in terms of download speeds. And 
what are we going to do with this massive upload speed anyway? We do 
not know yet. It might allow better teleworking initially. This might 
have an effect on road congestion, work-life balance and maybe the 
make up of our suburbs.

In one way, critics are right. Few people need the broadband network 
today. Then again, no one needed the telephone, cars or personal 
computers at the time. But could we live without them today?

We have no way of knowing what a world where the network is a normal 
part of life will be like. Hence, no one can put together a business 
case for it in all seriousness. Indeed, infrastructure of this kind 
should not be required to make its own money. It is the benefits that 
will flow from the innovation it unlocks that matters to government.

Finally, why should the taxpayers pay for this infrastructure? 
Because the business community will not embark on a project where the 
business case and profit streams are unknown. The infrastructure will 
simply not be built.

Investments in game-changing infrastructure should be one of the core 
responsibilities of any government. The government deserves to be 
commended on a project that may not deliver any tangible benefits in 
the near future but will potentially change our world.


Associate Professor Kai Riemer is chairman of business information 
systems at the University of Sydney business school.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 6916                        http://about.me/roger.clarke
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University



More information about the Link mailing list