Reactions to Broadband funding
All up the Government has committed around $500 million today to broadband infrastructure investment most of it to be distributed in the same way past funding in this area has – through contestable grants and through direct funding of hospitals, schools and government departments.
It’s certainly not visionary, ambitious. That level of funding isn’t going to change the broadband landscape. It is incremental change that runs the risk of spawning numerous projects that overlap and don’t share a common outcome. …
Labour never indicated it would try to outspent National on broadband, but surely the government could have come up with something more inspiring to convince us that growth and innovation is actually valued in this country.
The highlight is expenditure of $325 million over five years in the framework of a Broadband Investment Fund based on contestable grants available to any legal entity including local government, power and phone companies, and community groups.
There will be quite a complex application process with a gap of almost year from the time an applicant submits an EoI in August, until the result is known in June 2009. The process for a group wanting to lodge an application embraces applicant support, an EoI, an application, analysis and recommendation within the MED, a recommendation by a group of officials, sign-off by the CEO of the MED, and final sign off by Cabinet. It sounds very much like the “Broadband Challenge of old with significantly more money, but with bit more bureaucracy tacked on.
The handouts included a flow-chart to show how decisions would be made on funding. I joked to Ernie that any process which needs a flow-chart to explain it is too complex!
There’s also $15 million in there as capital expenditure towards a new trans Tasman cable. On its own that would get the cable about to Somes Island, but obviously it will be leveraged by private sector investment. Its a good signal.
The investment in international connectivity is welcome.
On the positive side, the fact that money has been allocated is a positive sign. What we have now is cross-parliamentary support in concept for significant public money to be spent on telecommunications infrastructure. That is a big breakthrough from a couple of years ago.
But to be honest, I feel a bit underwhelmed. The amount of money is pretty sparse and I guess I was anticipating more. The administrative processes are complex and slow – I foresee rosy times for the burgeoning Consultation Industry with lots people huddled in interminable meetings. By the time the consultation, evaluation and analysis is done, hamlet by hamlet, will the amount of money left to dig trenches through the streets of Waitotara cut the mustard.
My reaction is similar to Ernie’s. I was expecting more vision and more funding. It’s not about this being something “nice” but about the environmental and economic benefits we can gain from widespread fibre deployment.
InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson welcomes any increase in public expenditure on broadband, which he describes as critical infrastructure and essential for ongoing economic growth. The announcement confirms that the debate has moved to decisions on “when” rather than “if” better broadband is required
“A clear difference has emerged between Labour and National as to how they are approaching this policy question, in terms of amounts to invest, pace of rollout and methods of public engagement. Different levels of detail are also available,” says Davidson.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
All this talk about broadband is just more promises that will never be fulfilled.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
So if people in rural areas get subsidised broadband, can people in urban areas get free parking, cheap housing and uncongested roads to be fair?
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Interesting approach by Labour – we were meant to see faster, cheaper broadband by this year, but we’re still waiting. Talk about flogging a slow-moving horse.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
If the urban types get fibre to the door paid for by the taxpayer,
why should we in the rural areas not get the same.
Maybe it is time for both Labour and the Nats to look at where
all the overseas funds come from, and it is not from some latte
drinking sods in Wellington.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Most of Wellington and Christchurch already have hybrid fibre-coax broadband networks available to every home that wants it. Private enterprise built that with no taxpayer funding, until Labour changed the rules to make it more economic to simply bludge off of Telecom’s twisted copper network, so new networks stopped being built – now people want fibre and wonder how it can happen. Funny how when some people want something they are unwilling to pay for, they want it to be everyone else’s problem.
[DPF: You are saying most homes in Wellington can get fibre if they want it? From whom?]
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Libertyscott, I CHOSE to live in a burb with the services you mention. I’m with you: it’s pork. It might be National pork, but still pork. TAX CUTS PLEASE.
Whoosh (allegedly 800kbs) will have to do for folk who live in rural areas. That’s fast enough for porn and email, too.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Rural folk should get services – but something like WiMax would be more suited to commercial farms.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Broadband funding is simply pandering to the masses with something that’s tangible and tactile but ultimately worthless on its own.
What NZ needs is increased productivity. Productivity isn’t activity, nor is it efficiency both of which are arguably deliver by faster broadband.
Productivity is using the internet to generate wealth by selling new & differentiated services to a global audience. Fast broadband won’t do this… so we should be putting money into creation of these new services ahead of simplistic connectivity improvements.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
CAn you believe it? The Herald editorial says there is no point in connecting high speed broadband to houses because it has no impact on productivity.
Have they never heard of telecommuting.
Why does Sun Microsystems in San Jose have over 25000 of its 50,000 staff telecommuting?
Have they never thought how telecommuting allows highly skilled women to keep up their productivity while taking time out to raise children?
Where do these people live?
In San Diego telecommuters outnumber train riders by 20 to 1. That’s why we are building 19th Century train sets of course so we will have no money to built the highways of the 21st century.
True Urban Romantics – all of them. (My polite name for contemporary fascists – who always look to the past.)
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Ja, but remember Owen, having never had this capability, it will take a while for our economy to evolve to the point where people are employed in enough service industries for telecommuting to make a real difference. It saddens me when people rule anything out when it comes to broadband, because it really does have the capability to change every single facet of our lives.
Or maybe I’m a dreamer