[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