I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Thanks John Humphrey for your summary of what the Australian Government is talking about regarding their national infrastructure.
I’ll repost here …
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 connectivityâ€.
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.htmlThe 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.htmlNew 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.
blog
Rod what I would to see rather than the government owning the fibre as you have suggested or even local government running out infrastructure is the following.
Wherever you live, the rate payers own the infrastructure i.e. the roads, the sewerage etc. If a national highway goes past your door then it may be centrally owned by government – us again.
What I would like is central and local government to provide one pipe under the roads through which runs power, gas, sewerage, water, telephone/Internet. So through our combined ownership of the councils and central government we all own the delivery pipe. Then power companies, Internet suppliers pay a nominal fee to feed a wire down it. Amortize it over 50 years and the cost is nothing.
Then anyone who wants to run an Internet service can feed a fibre cable down the pipe. Multiple providers leads to competitive pricing and redundancy in options available.
What do you think?
That’s a very valid option.
Hi Rod,
I’m intrigued by the bit in your post “Broadband has become an election issue in Australia (could it do so here?)”. What do you think is happening?
The reverse side of the coin that is Telecom’s PR disaster is the upside for the government, posturing that they are doing good for the people.
The move against Telecom might well be warrented, they could have been taking the michael for years. But they way in which it was done was purely political.
As to the point in the post, i’m not sure NZers get the internet (in their droves). How many true ecommerce sites do we have 9 years after the boom?? I know its web 1.0 but isn’t that an indicator? By suddenly delivering the same internet faster what is going to change?