Australian Govt matches NZ with fibre to home commitment
Kevin Rudd has just announced a major shift in policy:
THE Federal Government has announced the “largest infrastructure decision in Australia’s history” after deciding not to award the national broadband network contract to a company.Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Government would lead the development of a national fibre-to-the-home broadband network up to “100 times faster than what many people use now”.
“Years of failed policy have left Australia as a broadband backwater,” he said.
“This new super fast national broadband network is the single largest national building project in Australia’s history.”
Mr Rudd said the Government would seek investment from the private sector to build the network.
Construction would begin in the middle of the year and take “seven to eight years”, he said.
Sounds somewhat similiar to here.
The winning telco in Australia’s national broadband network tender? None of the above. At a press conference this morning, prime minister Kevin Rudd said the government will drive the building of a fibre network itself – taking a leaf out of New Zealand’s book.
The government has also dramatically expanded the scope of the network from fibre-to-the-the node to fibre-to-the-home, putting the total build cost in the vicinity of $A43 billion.
The government’s share of the network, beyond the initially promised $A4.7 billion, will be funded by an infrastructure bond.
The network will be built by a private-public company, with the private investors able to hold up to a 49% stake – a set up that echoes the public-private fibre companies proposed on this side of the Tasman by Communications and IT minister Steven Joyce last week. …
“Fibre to the home, fibre to the business and fibre to the premise is what the 21st Century economy is all about,” says Mr Rudd.
Well done Kevin Rudd. This may also provide some opportunities for companies to pick up work on both sides of the Tasman.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Went up the Stewart Highway several years ago – roughly along the route of the Overland Telegraph – getting the electric telegraph from UK to NZ (originaly via the Overland Telegraph I think) was a major infrastructure achievement.
There were microwave towers every 20 km or so and I noticed rather squat buildings with solar cells every so often which were the fibre repeaters for a fibre cable route. Went past a Navy communications facility, the coach driver knew more about it than he could tell us. This is a strategic area – when you reach Darwin you are just across the sea from Asia.
How ridiculous I thought that an essential national asset such as that fibre optic cable was privatised – the Aussie Government should have retained fundamental ownership and just leased some of the capacity and maintenance contract to Telstra. Presumably the Government will have to back-lease some of the capacity for its internet network at a cost just short of the amortised cost of a new cable.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
These grandiose projects are a feature of Australian politics,( high speed railway or water pipelines ) which we were lucky to be rid of ( mostly , remember Think Big) until our ludicrous version of ‘fibre to the home’ of the 15 largest urban areas.
It will go the way of the ‘national cycleway’ ( remember that, Bill has pulled the plug allready)
April 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Sounds somewhat similiar to here.
Sounds very like the policy National used to have, yes.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
It’s all good. When you’re on copper wire and out in the sticks, broadband is more like medium speed dial-up. Crikey, anything is better than what we have right now.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The linked article from news.com.au must have been written in a hurry by someone who knows nothing about this industry. It does not make sense and has so many basic errors.
Looks very similar to NZ with a company like CFIC being set up. But is that company going to put in $43B or is the whole network going to cost $43B (and the private sector finds some portion of this)? In either case it is much larger than the $1.5B from NZ government (on a per capita basis).
However Australian govt has only allocated $4.7B so far. OK, if they double it – the private sector puts in $36.6B. I can’t see that happening on the returns that are likely. Looks like too much “smokes and mirrors” political accounting for me.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Paul Walker’s recent take on the Broadband issue got me pretty concerned, I reckon his point is right:
http://antidismal.blogspot.com/2009/04/muldoon-is-dead-long-live-muldoon.html
April 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Yep, just because the Aussie’s make a dumb decision doesn’t make our one smart.
Again, show me the business case. Tell me how really fast broadband as distinct from what we have now, will increase GDP by the investment required?
It’s not like building a road where we didn’t have one at all.
It’s like building an autobahn but we already have a perfectly functioning tarsealed road with no capacity problems, since every single business gets as much internet as they need, don’t they? Right now? Don’t they?
Tell me exactly precisely in detail, just exactly and precisely this new infrastructure is going to transform our economy.
Go on, I dare you.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Tell me exactly precisely in detail, just exactly and precisely this new infrastructure is going to transform our economy.
You’ve got a point, but even there was a case that fibre to the home would transform our economy, or make everyone happier, that still doesn’t mean that taxpayer money – stolen from you and I – should be spent on it.
Building things and providing services is what the free market is for, and National is supposed to know that.
National’s failure to understand that the free market is not just a good idea, but is in fact essential to the future of telecommunications in New Zealand, is galling. The more money is pumped into this boondoggle, the more we will fall behind.