I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
After spending time with many New Zealand Internet thought leaders at Foo Camp early in February I started to think about what we could do to really connect New Zealand digitally to the world. I want to see a step change improvement in my lifetime.
I believe there is a growing case for the people of New Zealand to own the physical fibre connections between our cities and the connection to the rest of the world. I believe everyone, including carriers, win under this model.
The following paper is a discussion document. I welcome your comments.
Securing our Digital Trade Routes
(Last updated 28 February 2007)
Thank you to those that cast an eye over the document and offered suggestions.
blog
Onya Rod. Nice to see a clear, concise idea come out of the ferment. Peering’s such a hard sell to people who don’t already get it, but I think this is really helpful.
Rod,
I like the ideas you’ve expressed here. Half measures are just a waste of essential time when you’re dealing with a critical issue like New Zealand’s telecommunications future.
I am an American, a programmer, a businessman and a recent immigrant to New Zealand. At this point in time, I am mid-way through my move with one foot in each country. I’ve just returned to the US after spending three months in Christchurch and during my sojourn there, I got a very good look at the ugly side of New Zealand’s telecommunications structure. This had to do with frequent DSL drops and the Go Large debacle which Telecom has finally owned up to after months and months of denial, delay, obfuscation and polite inaction.
A few weeks before I left to return to the US, they finally stabilized my DSL connection so that I could run my modem/router at the advertised speed without drops every five to ten minutes. Skype was another story. I was in contact daily with my wife and my business computers in the US and I’d planned to use Skype for voice and video communications. No such luck. Once the Skype streams transition the NZ telecommunications system, they are sliced, diced and apparently misrouted to the point that it is very hard to get any sort of reasonable voice signal much less video. I left off all efforts to use it in disgust.
New Zealand is my chosen country. It is where I want to live and work. I want New Zealand to succeed and telecommunications are absolutely critical in today’s world.
I think that one of the most important points you made in your paper, among many, was your statement that, “It does not make sense that an individual company is responsible for New Zealand’s telecommunications infrastructure, when it is solely focused on delivering value to shareholders.” This is a problem throughout the world as nations try to balance their Socialistic urges to look out for the welfare of their people against their Capitalistic urges to let business do what it does best which is to innovate and create wealth. And you are right - in this case, the good of the (New Zealand) people should be the preeminent factor in this decision.
Best wishes,
Dennis Gallagher
Seattle, Washington, USA
Good effort Rod bringing peering to the attention of a wider govt audience. David Cunliffe seems to be on to the importance of peering from what I’ve heard - I hope the IT/Communications people from other parties will get the importance as well. I’d hate to see any progress made get squandered after a change of government (not thinking of anyone in particular hehe).
I look forward to hearing more details in the future - eg how existing internet exchanges fit in etc.
Also, I notice that you mentioned that NewZealand.Net would handle interconnect charging between providers. I realise this is probably required to get the two big carriers on board, but it would probably need to be done carefully to avoid a potential minefield for future wrangling and loophole manipulation like we’ve seen in the past.
Hi Rod,
Looks good, and sounds like something that will be exciting to be involved with (see, optimism!). I’ve got some minor suggestions for you…
Make clear this is not about broadband, it’s about peering. Non-technical readers need to understand that Telecom’s unbundling won’t make this go away.
It would be great to flesh out how this contributes to NZ tech companies and their growth, particularly internationally. Apart from the AfterMail example at the start, this seems to be missed. Creating something like NZ.net would achieve some concrete goals:
- allow NZ companies to participate on a global stage from right here (US/UK/EU phone numbers, video conferencing, hosting, …) - reducing the pacific ocean barrier.
- encourage the development of media and bandwidth-rich applications which we can then sell overseas. NZ should be and can be an ideal ‘proving ground’ for technology ideas, but currently its not.
Talking about the last point, it could be the same for mobile apps. But that’s a different kettle of fish.
Rob :)
Rod Drury said at David Farrar…
Over fibre we get much better connectivity…
That is correct. It was interesting to read your view on this issue in the NZ Herald Business section this morning.
If you need more technical information for your Securing our Digital Trade Routes report, then perhaps you can contact any of the following world renowned scientists who are specialists in the field of Photonics telecommunication systems (fibre-optics) from Auckland University, Physics Department.
1) Prof. John Harvey
2) Prof. Rainer Leonhardt
3) Dr Stuart Murdoch
The team at the Auckland University Photonics Centre, does some consulting & design work for Telecommunication companies around the world, particularly Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, in which Helen Clark was so impressed with their fast broadband on her recent visit there that prompted the government on her return to draft legislation to unbundling Telecom’s network. It has only been recent that NZ Telecom had commission the Photonics Centre to do some work for them, according to my recent conversation with Prof. John Harvey.
The government should have seek the opinions of the experts from the Photonics Centre because they know the science & engineering of the broadband technology inside out rather than relying on the opinions of the so called IT experts such as InternetNZ & TUANZ, etc, etc, who know very little but lobby hard for the unbundling of Telecom lines.
You might be interested in downloading the following paper, which summarized the current state of ultra-fast broadband technology that had been available commercially over recent years and also the ones which will be coming out soon from research. We should be talking about achieving a data transmission speed of 40 Gbit/s and above in the future with fibre rather than a merely 20 Mbit/s with current ADSL. Consult the Photonics Centre about the technology described in the publication, so that you can include that in your report.
Progress in Ultra-fast Photonics
Rod, with TVNZ On Demand (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/968201) coming on stream next month, I’m preparing for my interleaved VoIP traffic to now compete with last week’s episodes of shortie street bought @ $2 a shot by the kids down the road, sharing the same nokia box at the exchange. Lucky no one else can now fit on the network.
We’re overdue for more government intervention (both local & central) in the network build. The foundations are already in place with KAREN (Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network) paid for by us for universities & CRIs to have exclusive access.
KAREN (previously REANZ)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10372619
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0609/S00002.htm
Finally, big congrats to Wgtn City Council on their forethought:
Capital broadband plan likely to go-ahead
http://stuff.co.nz/3977342a28.html
MG
“Peering” - now I was told at kiwi foo that it was a dirty word and showed just how little I understood by refering to it :-) Are we allowed to use it again?
Also, can someone please explain how we could use KAREN to reach our clients in Kelburn? As far as I am concerned, it is targeting a totally different problem.
Well explained Rod. Your comparison of digital trade with refrigerated trade is apt, especially considering that physical trade with other nations may well become more restricted as resources get scarce and climate realities bite home.
That’s why, as you say, our digital links will become increasingly more valuable. It’s in the national interest, not just the commercial interest.
I’m an active member of the NZ Labour Party, and intend to raise a few of these ideas in policy circles and see what interest they generate. I expect there will be quite a bit. Not to disrespect your political leanings - in fact your honesty on that front is refreshing - but it will take a more interventionist government to achieve any idea like this.
Thank you for starting an interesting discussion
Peter Wilson
Invercargill, New Zealand
Rod,
Its an intersting play. I think that the crux of the issue is that you cannot expect a publically liste company, who is obliged to make profits to be the provider of critical infrastructure.
To that end the seperation of isn’t really going to be enough then.
Why doesn ‘t the governement consider going to the actual provider of the network (alcaltel lucent) and get them to do it. I’m sure they’d love the chance to sell more kit and focus on their core propositions.
Norwegian countries have this model down pat with the local utilities doing the investment and subscribers owning the network.
I kind of agree with this and kind of don’t.
My objection mainly comes from the “government shouldn’t get involved in stuff it doesn’t need to” camp.
Maybe a government run cable would work, and maybe it would be a good thing for all of us, but it does smack a little of socialism: central planning etc. Far better, in my eyes, would be to look at what barriers prevent companies from setting up their own cables. Why don’t we have a market for international links, when so many people are currently spending so much on it?
I proposed that local peering should be free, which would force the big players to start breaking their network into geographically arranged pieces if they want to keep leveraging their advantage.
Of course it might be too late for my idea; Telecom are pretty much free to coast on what they’ve earned from us so far and this might make the risk for venture capitalists too much.
Peter Wilson said…
I’m an active member of the NZ Labour Party…
How about urging the government to buy back the lines from Telecom and then it can go ahead and install a nationwide fibre-network? This is the only solution to solve the current & future broadband problems.
Sam’s post is worth reading. The crux, for me is expressed with these words:
“Refusing to route between netblocks is fine; why should I send this data from Wellington to Auckland for you? But refusing to accept traffic that is right at your door really has no excuse.”
This is overly simplistic at best. Peering is not the panacea many seem to think it is. I’m all for cheaper international bandwidth, but heres the thing: It’s not as “simple” as stringing a cable over the floor of the pacific. Once you have landed your cable in the U.S., you will be want to connect it to someone, yes? Well, guess what, the U.S. telecoms cartel will be charging you for that priviledge. What then? lay fibre optics to Wyoming?
But, ignoring the problems with international peering for a moment, lets talk about national peering. So we lay a national backbone, cheap to all comers between major centres. What if there is an outage? will this benign network be offering SLA’s? if not, then that pretty much rules it out for carrying critical business services. Guess what, these guys will want a gauranteed speed and a gauranteed uptime and a really big sackful of cash if you don’t meet targets. I can’t see that working out for a non-profit entity.
But hey, lets ignore these problems too. So we have a national nad international backbone… err.. …and? Great if I’m TVNZ and I want to publish content without having to pay for traffic - if ISP’s want my content then they can peer with me, if not, well hey, not my problem. This does not do anything for the end user, because what is the important - and expensive - part of the network from a consumer perspective is the access or “last mile”. Individuals and most business will not be directly connected to a peering exchange. They will be connected via thier access provider (Telecom, whoosh, TelstraClear, Vodafone et al) and thier ISP. The user experience and cost is far more contingent upon these two parties than it is on any national and international peering.
So what would your proposal achieve for the average consumer or small enterprise? Next to nothing.
Bob.
Instead of “government” and “socialism”, think “all of us” doing something, instead of hanging around waiting for a natural monopoly busy milking its existing network dry to come to the party.
The current situation is in fact due to a long-running ideological experiment that both the Nats and Labour continued. It failed, and I’d like to know what the cost to the country is?
Great idea Rod, Labour would get my vote if they came to the party in a nationwide fibre rollout.
The Government in the PM’s opening statement to Parliament referred to taking action on a fibre rollout. That wasn’t there by coincidence - there is already some lobbying underway on this issue, and has been for the last year.
Rod, I read three pages and then started to question your conclusions.
We don’t need another network, there are multiple networks already in place. Just because what we have got is not working properly, lets not setup some government run co-operative. Lets fix the marketing of a perfectly good infrastructure that already exists. And thats the problem. We are being screwed by bad marketing.
All we need is the government to regulate it; its not a long winded exercise, all they have to do is compare what we pay with what other pay. And if they want us to be competitive the prices must be close.
There is only one way to get fast Internet and I will say it three times
Fibre, fibre and fibre (or fiber if you want to spell it that way)
Once you have used fibre ethernet connections everything else is pathetic by comparison.
And its available in more places than you would believe. Sure its not available out in the country but there is a lot of it around.
I know someone who lives on the island of Tavenui in Fiji. The EU gives aid to this island and rather than providing something really useful like a decent hospital they laid fibre cable for phone lines.
Eat your heart out NZ.
Don - The Council is getting us to Kelburn. KAREN gets us across the country.
MG: KAREN is the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network. Unless you’re an Advanced Kiwi Research or Education facility, your packets won’t be on that Network. KAREN isn’t a consumer regional backbone or long-haul network, it’s for CRIs, universities, etc. with real high bandwidth needs (biological datasets, astronomic imagery, etc.) Xtra, ORCON, etc. traffic goes over Telstra or Telecom backbones to get from Wellington to Auckland and that won’t change with KAREN.
If you’re Telecom, you have a choice: the economics of scarcity or the economics of plenty. Scarcity economics means you create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth which then lets you charge unnaturally high premiums for it. It’s the business of margins. Think diamonds. Plentiful economics means you attempt to sell to as many people as possible. It’s the business of volume. Think TradeMe.
TradeMe’s a great example. If TradeMe were run like Telecom, it’d cost $40 to list an item and if you complained that it took 3 weeks to get your product listed they tell you “hey, it’s not in our interest to do this because nobody’s listing with us”. Bringing peering into the analogy, TradeMe-as-Telecom would instantaneously process transactions in Telecombux but take weeks to process your payment if it were in New Zealand dollars.
Nat: I hear that certain Universities are attempting to make an end-run around the research-only restrictions by introducing ISPs as their “Internet partners” so that commodity Internet can travel over KAREN. And/or any company that wants to can petition REANNZ for connection if they have an R&D department.
“Don - The Council is getting us to Kelburn.”
MG - maybe, but as Nat above suggests, it is via Auckland or wherever the hell Telecom and Telstra decide to route traffic.
Bob - the solutions are simple. Indeed, prior to 2004/5 they were largely in place. The peering exchanges have been or are being built. The fibre backbone exists.
All that is *really* required are some routers and rule changes and a big stick to make sure policy is adhered to. This is in Rod’s proposal if you read the fine print.
Rod’s proposed big stick is nationalising the fibre, which will be putting the shits up some quarters, not least some of the apologists in the BRT.
Stu “And/or any company that wants to can petition REANNZ for connection if they have an R&D department.”
Which is still crappy, it’s like having to ask farmers to walk on public rights of way. A barrier to business and will very rarely happen in practice.
Hi Rod
Much like you, I’m a mammoth fan of free markets for most things - but good connectivity seems to fall outside that here. It should be regarded as basic national infrastrucure, similar to roads, power, water, drainage and sewerage.
If the free market was able to provide this, I’d prefer to keep it as part of the market, on a user pays basis. Unfortunately, the relevant part of the ‘free’ market here seems more interested in leveraging minimal investment for short or medium term profits - which, from a market perpective makes solid sense.
Telecom isn’t in the business of building New Zealand’s infrastructure. No pure business really is. I don’t think we can expect any business to be.
Government intervention feels like a dirty word (well, pair of words) to me, but in this case, it also feels like the only was we’ll be able to move forward, as a country.
Andrew
Rod
Good document, does not matter that many may miss the importance of peering and a few other tech bits and pieces. You have brought out the bottom line(s) well - this is just like roads, and it is a fibre road full stop. Many of us have been promoting this for a long time and progress has been made in certain parts of the country - however not enough. I hope that with the involvement and championing by successful entrepreneurs like you the movement will be accelerated - cheers
Don - Did you actually read past the first sentance of my comment? The solutions are not simple, nor are they in place. I have a significant shareholding in a small NZ based technology startup supplying financial ASP services to international clients. Precisely the type of business you all purport to be encouraging with this type of initiative. This proposal would help my company not one iota. All this proposal would achieve is to help much larger businesses get something for (next to) nothing. Why not cut out the middle man and the hassle and simply have the government write TradeMe a cheque? Peering does diddly-sqaut for small to medium enterprise which is most NZ business. Want to do something worthwhile? encourage investment in ACCESS NETWORK. The backbone is not, nor has ever been the problem in NZ. If your logic is somehow labouring under the notion that peering will somehow lower the cost of access connections, let me disabuse you of that now. With margins as thin as they are, I can’t see any ISP passing on the saving to me. Broadband access prices are now pretty much as low as they are going to get for the forseeable future. LLU? well, there might be a very short term price war, though I doubt it, as all the players will be needing to invest in and recover the cost of equipment needed to take advantage of LLU. If we do not provide subsidies for the building of access networks or otherwise encourage investment in them then the status quo must surely previal. Peering is a red herring.
Bob
Bob, believe me I have read both your posts..
“Peering is a red herring.”
No it is not. *I* speak as someone who develops and hosts sites for large and small content providers alike. The effects of depeering a couple of years ago were very significant - particularly from an engineering perspective.
You seem to be suggesting that I am suggesting transfer of traffic shgould be free. I am not. All I want is for it to be efficient and no abused by monopolistic practices, which in most OECD countries are illegal.
It is that simple.
Bill St Arnaud discusses a lot of these issues, indepth, in his mailing list (to subscribe, send a blank email to news-join@canarie.ca) and presentations
http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/recent_presentations.html.
He regularly mentions New Zealand.
I agree with your comments and points made, in your “Securing our Digital Trade Routes†discussion document.
Below is a summery of recent correspondence with NZ Herald columnists regarding Telecom’s monopoly and lack of investment in optic fibre. Over the years I have written similar letters on this topic.
Just before the creation of Telecom, the NZ Post Office was installing state of the art telecommunication equipment – including Optic-Fibre just threee months out of the Bell Labs R&D – for installation in the network. We were the leading edge. Then along came Telecom and investment stopped in network infrastructure. That is why we are ranked 10th in the world telecommunications now.
Yes, the NZ Government should invest in a optic-fibre network and allow Telecos to purchase capacity on this.
A monopoly such as Telecom should never hold the country to ransom over access to such a vital infrastructure.
To Peter Griffin
NZ Herald
20/01/2007
The deregulation of Telecom will not solve the land line broadband issue. Opposition ISP’s installing equipment in exchanges will not help the customer one bit.
The reason being that the copper network was never designed to handle High speed anything - some of it will be over 100 years old! ADSL was developed in the US by Bell Labs, in the mid 1990’s, as an INTERIM measure, before the Telecos needed to install optic fibre cable to all subscribers. But the teleco’s here and overseas found they could make a quick buck from the “perception”, by the customer, that they were getting a high speed internet connection. CBD business customers have had 2meg pipes over optic fibre since the early 1990’s.
Telecom NZ decided not to reticulate with optic fibre, but to push ADSL and blow $1.6 billion on a wasted effort in Australia! Even Telstra Australia has backed out of optic fibre to all subscribers, claiming their Government has deregulated and upset their investment plans! Poor didums!
Just to clarify the technical side. ADSL works up to 3.5km from an exchange, beyond that the speed drops steeply. Telecom NZ does not have to run optic fibre into every home, but can install 2meg links to a cabinet which can be sited in an area and from which subscribers are connected via cooper. This gives the effect of moving the exchange to the customer. One example I had of Telecom’s stingy attitude (around 1998) was in a subdivision , north of Auckland, in which households could barely use a basic telephone! We (my colleague and I in consultation with other Engineers) decided the answer was a 2meg link/cabinet - but Telecom would not spend the money to install it!
Telecom NZ was forced to reticulate the countries CBD’s when the old Clear Communications (bought out by Telestra) installed optic fibre in Auckland CBD - thus creating the only true competition in land lines they have had!
Telecom NZ pulled the plug on a optic fibre link in Auckland’s Eastern suburbs (for cable TV and possible high speed internet) in the mid 1990’s - before ADSL, when a lot of money had already been invested by Telecom and private in-ground cable installers, who had out laid money for new diggers, etc.
about myself:
I worked for the NZPO Engineering Branch as a Technician, then was promoted to Engineering Consultant in 1990, just before the creation of Telecom Corporation.
Finally in 1999 I had a guts full of them and gladly accepted redundancy when offered.
Regards
Allan Porter
There are different types of fibre optic systems available today in commercial environment. One is the conventional fibre (linear signal transmission) and the other one is non-conventional fibre (non-linear signal transmission). The non-linear fibre which is called Soliton is briefly described in this paper, mentioned in a previous post in this thread. Soliton transmission is the one that could achieve a data transmission speed of 40 Gbit/s. Soliton wave transmission is govern exactly by the same physics as tsunami wave transmission except that one wave travels in a silica-based fibre medium while the other one travels in ocean medium. Soliton can travel for a long distance upto 500 km or more with very little broadening (dispersion) of the signal width, thus it can achieve a very high-bandwidth carrying capacity.
It is important when considering installing a nationwide fibre-optic systems, whether it is done by private enterprises or by the government, the decision must look into one that has a future proof in place for the expected explosion in demand for higher bandwidth, in which Soliton can definitely deliver. Soliton systems is mostly an all optical one, in which repeaters are composed of Erbium-doped laser, where signal amplification is pumped by laser light (ie, light is used to amplify light) rather than the traditional conversion from light into electrical signal, which is then amplified prior to its conversion back into light signal. This sort of inter-conversion between light-to-electrical and electrical-to-light does limit broad-band capacity.
I am a software developer who is developing some java applications that make things easier with real broadband in nz.
I have a secure peer to peer encryption network in development that allows simple, secure email, file transfer and most internet traffic to get reliable, unintercepted information between points on the network and off it. (not real time video, unless I could get a hardware version made to run the crypto codes.)
I also have a very dynamic java operating system in the works, based on an exokernel instead of those obsolete microkernels major OS vendors use. (linux is on an old monokernel design). What I will need for that is a Library marketplace, I want competition in the middle layer of the system so actual apps don’t have to rely on whatever commands I can port from unix / someone else clones from DOS.
Finally, I have a civilisation MMO game, StarCiv, which is ready to code when I get through the rules list.
Back to the topic, when there is fibre to the home in wellington, I want a 100MB connection, with perhaps a TB traffic limit per month (if there is a limit) and for just $80 per month. That would drive my company to be successful, I want to build a game which may have as many users as World of Warcraft, a 21st century open source operating system and a very useful peer to peer network.
ComputerWorld article: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/C272817F941D71D3CC257299000ADDA5
The 3.5km max distance for ADSL is a canard that needs shooting down. I’m further than that from the exchange, and get 5.5-6Mbit/s downloads, and 5-600kbit/s uploads. When I was closer to the exchange, two streets away, I got 6-7Mbit/s and 7-800kbit/s down/up.
Some modems work less well over longer distances, but that shouldn’t be construed as blanket proof that ADSL only reaches 3.5km. The newer DSL technologies being deployed overseas improve on the reach with more robust modulation schemes as well as providing higher data rates.
The First Media network warrants some comment: that and the TelstraClear cable network that the mayors of Auckland spiked through apparent ignorance (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/214) set back broadband in NZ by around five years. HFC cable can be extend rather nicely to provide fat pipes to people’s homes, so the two failed network builds were very real missed opportunities for SMEs.
Hi Rod
After listening to your comments on TVNZ’s Sunday programme I felt compelled to write in support of your cause to convince both local and central government that the only way New Zealand will ever develop a world class communications infrastructure is through public ownership. I was absolutely horrified by David Cunliffe’s very defensive ‘head-in-the-sand’ response!
We are too small a country to be able to absorb the costs of multiple privately owned broadband networks. An example of this is evidenced by the multi million dollar cost of Telstra Clear’s cable network in Wellington and Christchurch, which since the advent of wholesaling on Telecom’s network has become a millstone around Telstra Clear’s future profitability. How much longer do NZ consumers have to pay excessive charges for phone and internet services to ensure that Telstra Clear makes a return on this highly questionable investment? As long as Telstra Clear struggles to make a return, Telecom can continue to keep their charges up in a cosy duopoly, continuing to make excessive profits for their foreign owned shareholders.
This scenario is only going to be repeated all over again as telecommunication companies compete to install their own wired and wireless networks. Already we have a number of niche wireless broadband providers including Woosh Wireless, CityLink and CallPlus. Several WiMAX deployments are currently underway throughout the country. CallPlus is scheduled to launch a WiMAX data and VoIP network in the Whangarei and Woosh Wireless has revealed plans to build a city-wide WiMAX network in Hamilton. CityLink has recently expanded into Christchurch with the C1 Network and now publicly listed Team Talk owns 67% of CityLink.
To illustrate the fallacy of private investment in local infrastructure a great example is the private company (Transurban) that built the CityLink Freeway in Melbourne. CityLink cost $1.8 billion to build. Shareholder equity in the operation is now $5 billion and the Melbourne public will continue to pay tolls on the freeway for another 24 years! The $3.2 billion difference (to date) reflects the fact that Transurban tolls are at least twice that which would be required to cover the cost of a publicly funded tollway. In much the same way as Melbourne commuters are being “ripped off” for their roading infrastructure, New Zealand broadband users will end up paying dearly for privately owned broadband access.
The Institute of Local Self-Reliance in the US http://www.ilsr.org/ released a report in January 2007 highlighting five arguments for public ownership of broadband infrastructure http://www.newrules.org/info/5ways.pdf ,namely:
1. High-speed information networks are essential public infrastructure
2. Public ownership ensures competition
3. Publicly owned networks can generate significant revenue
4. Public ownership can ensure universal access
5. Public ownership can ensure non-discriminatory networks
If New Zealand has any hope of developing a world class communications infrastructure we need to have publicly owned broadband networks.
Regards
Keith Shaw
Christchurch
Hi Rod
Some of the recent events in Australia highlight possibilities for similar action in New Zealand.
Broadband has become an election issue in Australia (could it do so here?). The opposition has decided to spend AUD 4.7 Bn to “build what it describes as a national broadband network in concert with the private sectorâ€. Of course Australia has this level of funding available from the sale of Telstra. See http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21420928%5E15442%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15320,00.html
An article today says that Telstra would be the big loser under this plan. http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21424432%5E16123%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
Another article today points out that studies show that the Australian economy would increase by up to $30 bn pa if “next generation†broadband was widely available.
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21425992%5E16123%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
“The federal Government’s Broadband Advisory Group, which has set the template for the development of private sector, government and Labor policies over the past three years, said the major themes to emerge from its research was “the great potential of broadband to boost economic growth and the importance of a coordinated national approach to broadband connectivity”.
The group estimated the next generation of broadband could produce economic benefits of $12 billion to $30 billion a year if broadband becomes as common as the telephone. The advantages for small business are regarded as considerable, in a world where global supply chains mean that access to broadband is essential to sell products and ship them to intermediate and final producers.â€
Based on a crude GDP ratio between Australia and NZ means this would have an approximate effect of $2 to $5 bn pa to NZ’s GDP. Spending say $2 or $3 billion to have a return of $2 to $5 bn per annum produces a very good IRR!
This is backed up by Telecom’s own figures. If you download CFO Marko Bogoievski’s March 14 Analyst Briefing shows on slide 17 that a $2 bn investment would give 90% of NZ receiving at least 15 to 20 Mbit/s. The use the other billion to give us another fibre route to the US (more on this in a later post).
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,8748,205527-201072,00.html
The interesting point to me is the existence of the Broadband Advisory Group, the likes of which we have no equivalent in NZ. Examining the “Bag†more closely, it is funded by Government and have an independent role in directing research into broadband issues and making recommendations. More detail is shown at:
http://www.agimo.gov.au/media/2002/03/17206.html
New Zealand needs such an independent group to develop some hard information and advise Government, industry and the people of NZ with advice on what is a number of complex issues.
Issue discussed on ASB Business …
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/414443?video_id=1033705
Hello Rod,
I was hoping you and others could lend some support for the lobby of the KAREN project to help provide connectivity to NZers.
1. Optics to as far as we can take it
2. Wireless transievers from there
3. Wireless mesh network to carry the signal from then on
Dunno what happened link: http://www.wiki.karen.net.nz/index.php/Wireless_mesh