Obama Looks Down Under For Broadband Plan 387
oranghutan writes "The Obama administration is looking to the southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US. The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford, has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network. It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too. The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying: 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms — it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet. That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism, that sort of thinking. They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest. In all my 30 years in the industry, this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside.'"
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it doesn't suck. We have a 45mbit symmetrical plan, have had it since 1996 - ain't nobody suing the fuck out of the Telcos and cable companies to force their ass to roll it out, uncapped.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't try to defend our Communications Minister, but there are some very smart technical people involved with this project. It will be a huge success for Australia.
Almost everyone who works in communications in Australia agrees this is a great idea, as I do. Some are skeptical about the dollars, but this infrastructure will be in place for many many decades and will be profitable in the long run. A cheer went up in my IT department when this was announced, literally people standing up at their desks saying how awesome this will be for Aus. You should have seen the celebrations when it was announced that Telstra would be split into wholesale and retail.
Re:Unfiltered, I hope. (Score:5, Interesting)
force the telco's to either invest the billions they were given or return the money.
If it was me, i'd roll out government owned last mile fiber or high quality copper in population densities greater then 100 people per square mile, and allow private enterprise to use this for a nominal fee and have them provide the backhaul and support services. in area's with lower population density auction off spectrum to ATLEAST 4 different providers in any area.
this way poviders aren't trapped into making huge investments they won't see a return on, and customers aren't trapped by monpoly providers. everyone wins without tax payers having to foot 100% of the bill or making the bill larger then it needs to be.
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:2, Interesting)
Rail networks are regulated to death. Amtrak loses $32 per customer and only exists because of large subsidies. Most of the rail laid in this nation was subsidized by the Federal Government and is very inefficient. The most efficient rail network created was the Great Northern ran by James J. Hill. The Government subsidies were increased based on miles of rail laid and terrain the rail was built on. So the other railways tended to have overly circuitous routes and would happily plow through mountains.
From today's perspective, if we had a free market, what property owner would wish to reduce the value of property by allowing a rail to be built next to it? Very few, probably mostly ones in industrial zones. Additionally, there are only so many available customers in a given region, so having too many rail networks would lead to putting some out of business or liquidating their assets to offer some other type of service.
If private industry were allowed to offer sewage services without competing with the Government (which operates through involuntary transactions), we would see all sorts of innovation in the waste management market. But we'll probably never know what could be done there. Just because there is limited space for a pipe to run under a road does not mean there is no other way of providing the same result.
So who shall decided the set of infrastructure? The kind and benevolent Government? When has Government ever facilitated competition? Never, except on K Street.
A short history of Australian telco stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
So they rolled out their own. Not too private, not to public.
Just pay for the wire, make a profit to pay back cost and future needs.
Jobs for life, cheap local calls, $ for anything else, early with pure digital networking.
A big Bell, but you could make calls, send faxes, enjoy dial up and pay huge amounts for data services.
Then Australia sort of got a bit lost/crazy with its cash flow in the 1980's/90's.
We where going to be pulled into the 20C and had to sell it all, sort of.
So on top of this sold off, own it all Bell giant, all other isp's had to make a profit.
They also controlled the pipe/s out of Australia and ran an ISP.
So for a decade Australia was in telco hell, for profit and gov backed, brainwashed into thinking every packet was golden as we where so far away and unique due to population density.
Australia now has another pipe to the outside world, but still has the old cartel pricing, why change a good thing
Our federal gov has basically said they will roll out optical and out flank the existing Bell copper, exchanges, lawyers ect.
What is a greedy cash crazed Bell to do? Lobby, bribe, PR smear, grass roots astro turf?
Well that does not work as they are pure evil.
What can the US learn?
Roll your own optical and set a few 10's of telcos free on top.
Let the ISP's pay a basic access fee to keep the network working and then sell any mix of services they like.
From all you can eat, no tech support, to pick up on 3rd ring to a real person for $$$.
Connect your schools, hospitals, tv, radio, universities and enter the 21C with something useful. Understand what John D. Rockefeller was taking about when he said 'Competition is a sin." and nail your demands to a town hall doors.
Roll your own and take back your local community from the optical barons and then get your local data to an area where you can play the telcos off against each other.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it isn't just about the home and personal use. It's about businesses and utilities such as hospitals, schools, fire, police, etc.
Business contributes a significant chunk of our tax take - corporate tax take increase is what is responsible for all our tax cuts over the last 10 years, after all - and more efficient utilities reduces spending.
The difference is that business doesn't vote, people do - so while the backbone will be there for business, the fringe cases of getting it to the homes will get the votes.
And before you object to public money being spent on private enterprise, that's because it's infrastructure. The government builds roads and rail and ports because very few single businesses can afford to pay for it themselves (BHP & Rio being exceptions). This is what governments are supposed to do, a fact too many have forgotten.
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:4, Interesting)
Ha! In Australia its the regulation that makes the market competitive. The American's who ran our version of pre-breakup AT&T (Telstra) got very frustrated at not being able to kick their competitors off their network (a former government asset), and left.
Good thing it's Australia! (Score:2, Interesting)
And not some country where the government wants to censor the internet on a perpetual basis, for the greater good (THE GREATER GOOD)!
Because that would be wrong!
timothy
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the textbook cases of how natural monopoly/duopoly arise. The cost of entering the market is high - digging up the street, buying pole space, connecting houses, etc. If there's already a market actor present, the expected return on the investment of entering that market is small. From the perspective of an investor, his money is invested better elsewhere. Fiber doesn't provide all that much benefit over cable or dsl to most residential addresses. If all you do is check email, a few stock prices, and do light surfing, all that extra speed does jackshit. So the price that a new entrant can charge for their shiny new service has to be low, to attract any volume, or high enough that the very few who will pay that much of a premium will cover the costs and profit margin. And these issues exist no matter what regulations are in place. Digging up streets is very costly, and so is renting pole space. Nevermind the labor costs of running new wires. But keep on trumpeting that it's "regulation" impeding "the market". The market that's always justified using "perfect competition" models, except for the inconvenient bit where competition drives firm profits to zero.
An empirical counterpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's an empirical counterpoint:
Denmark has the second most equal distribution of income[1]. It's also the country where people are the most happy about their lives[2].
What does this prove? Well, I'm probably guilty of cherry-picking evidence, and correlation isn't necessarily causation, but I think it suggests that equality doesn't ruin our lives (yes, I'm probably also biased, being a Dane).
That certainly matches my personal experience. Free medical care, free education, well-stocked public libraries, a postal service I was happy to use (and still am, I just use it much less), the state even gives you money while you're studying and you can life off of it if you're a bit frugal. Sure, you get to pay a lot of taxes, but I'm happy to do that, seeing how I'm getting my money's worth for it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality [wikipedia.org] (sort by "CIA Gini").
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index [wikipedia.org]
(note that [2] doesn't say that life satisfaction correlates with income equality, nor that it doesn't. Make of that what you want.)
Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right that the government is attempting to 'fix' the problems that the government created. The problem in Australia is cronyism, politically and economically. Unfortunately, the government that privatised Telstra, with the rallying cry "Free Trade Market", also sold the company to the (mostly) same people that paid for its inception and subsidies.
I can understand that Telstra had been disassociated from a government department for quite a few years before privatisation. That led to Telstra being more than its physical assets. However, the government never attributed the grants that had been given to Telstra to create the networks prior to privatisation, which in turn led to Telstra 'owning' networks whose creation had been funded by the Australian taxpayers.
So, taxpayers have paid for the networks to be created and maintained, paid for the company to be privatised, and are now going to pay for a new 'national' network to be recreated. While I have problems with government no matter which party is in power, at least in telecommunications the current government are almost recognising that Telstra should not have the infrastructure it has without paying back the taxpayers.
Now, if we ignore the previous government's grasp on morals and fairness, they had a better grasp of the problems of internet censorship... *sob* What have I come to?