The NBN: Visionary Nation-Building or Bliss for Video Addicts?

It seems the NBN will solve all sorts of problems. But there are very different views on each side of the political divide. It depends on the potential benefits we perceive high-speed access to the Net will bring us.

Here is what the NBN will do, according to our political leaders:

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy: Productivity benefits of smart grids (internet-enabled electricity grids), digital tracking of goods (e.g. RFID), new broadcasting opportunities, remote health diagnosis and patient monitoring, real-time freight management, video conferencing, telecommuting and advanced science and research applications.

The Opposition: A faster network for downloading movies.

read more | digg story

These differing views beg the question: Should Australia spend $43 billion on the NBN?

But there are much larger issues at stake. What is the vision of the future we are moving toward? How will the NBN impact upon current industry structures? Can such divergent views on the value of high-speed connectivity help Australians benefit from the digital economy?

A look at Australian laws which set out the objectives of 'broadband' policy rarely include statements about the benefits to citizens beyond cheaper prices:

The Telecommunications Act 1997 focuses on:

(a) the long-term interests of end-users of carriage services or of services provided by means of carriage services; and

(b) the efficiency and international competitiveness of the Australian telecommunications industry.

Compare the above objectives to Canada's Telecommunications Act 1993:

It is hereby affirmed that telecommunications performs an essential role in the maintenance of Canada's identity and sovereignty and that the Canadian telecommunications policy has as its objectives:

(a) to facilitate the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system that serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its regions;

(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada;

A common theme in Australia's 'broadband' policy for many years has been the lack of a clear vision. Further, Australian consumers have been generally ignored in the development of such policy. Leaving the fate of such important infrastructure in the political realm means that the divergent views of politicians will determine Australia's digital future.

Canada's approach is markedly different. For example, the CRTC has powers which enable the specialist regulator to forbear from regulating particular carriers, but the public must be consulted:

The Commission may, by order, exempt any class of Canadian carriers from the application of this Act, subject to any conditions contained in the order, where the Commission, after holding a public hearing in relation to the exemption, is satisfied that the exemption is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives.

Canada's policy objectives go beyond Australia's focus on consumer prices. For example, the Telecommunications Act 1993 is designed to: 'respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services'. Whether the wording of legislation makes a difference is worthy of debate, but the differences in citizen engagement are reflected in the words.

The point is that Australian consumers continue to be spectators, rather than participants, in the debate over our digital future. With political leaders at logger-heads over the purpose of high-speed network connectivity, what better time than to ask the people (who will ultimately pay for the NBN) what it is they actually want?

The NBN is certainly visionary. But will it really only benefit video addicts? At a time when 'evidence-based policy' is being thrown about to justify political decisions, listening to the citizens' voice in the debate is well overdue.

ACT Politicians at the Bleeding Edge

Party politics aside, when it comes to needing the help of a local representative, most of us are rarely disappointed. Maybe the outcome doesn't necessarily suit us, but my experience of being an active adult citizen for the past 21 years has not provided a single instance of poor form from a local representative.

But in the ACT, many local representatives (of all political parties) are moving toward the 'bleeding edge' of technology and actively engaging with citizens. This presents advantages and disadvantages for politicians.

I have always been an advocate of the Net as a great freedom machine. A place to find information that was previously limited to professionals; a public sphere which provides accessibility to more citizens (who tend to be overwhelmed by work and family commitments) than can be found in face-to-face engagement.

While undertaking my undergraduate degree (online at Deakin University) in the 1990s, I was struck by the power of the Net. One of my lecturers, Dr Andrew Vandenberg, was working on the ideas of cyber-citizenship at the time. But much of what we discussed in the mid-1990s was only a pipe dream then.

So it is pleasing to see that advances in technology are making those early ruminations a reality. However, as we have seen with the Fake Stephen Conroys et al, there are many issues to be worked through.

The good news is that in the ACT, many of our representatives are at the 'bleeding edge' of technology adoption. This is a brave move on their part: while following the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader may be passe, it is much more involved for politicians without the resources of more senior representatives.

More on this later, it seems that putting together a list of politicians who are already engaged in New Media is a good place to start. If you know of any, I would appreciate you posting the links as comments. Segregating the real representatives from the fakes is a necessary first step - any ideas how this could be done are most welcome!

ISP Filtering: Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence?

What constitutes evidence in policy-making? Is it a case of making policy based on evidence, or making evidence to support policy?

Obviously, an ISP filtering trial will provide evidence about the success/usefulness/cost etc of filtering Net content at the ISP. But what about the 'evidence' which suggests that Australians do not want mandatory ISP filtering?

The point I am making is that the use of the term 'evidence-based policy' is purely spin in this instance - in effect, it is policy-based evidence-making.

Why do we need evidence on a policy which nobody wants? The Minister for Broadband was provided with considerable 'evidence' on ABC’s Q&A recently: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm.

Indeed, the results of Netspace’s customer poll on compulsory ISP filtering were quite conclusive (with a sample size of 10,000).

But what 'evidence' do I need to suggest that ISP filtering is a case of putting the cart before the horse? The major problem for us lowly citizens is getting access to the evidence when even the federal opposition needs to use FOI laws to get access to the government’s information. What chance does the average citizen have?

I maintain that ISP filtering is a side-issue. Nonetheless, it is good to hear from the Minister for Broadband that the NBN will be rolled out on a fast-track plan where market failure in broadband access is occuring:

The ACCC has confirmed that places with only a single provider of backhaul services include: Geraldton in Western Australia, Mt Gambier in South Australia, Broken Hill in New South Wales, Mildura in Victoria, Mt Isa in Queensland, and Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Connecting the Big Tube to the Big Screen

I like the ITU's explanation of 'broadband'. What surprises me is that there has been little push by firms to come up with a consumer-friendly setup to connect the Big Tube to the Big Screen.

PayTV (especially in Australia) is an absolute rip-off. There is simply not enough content. Meanwhile, there is so much content on the Net but it is expensive to buy all the equipment and difficult to obtain the know-how to set up a Big Screen with a PC for watching Net content.

If I had a Net business, I would work out the least expensive way to setup the Big Tube to the Big Screen and package the equipment with a Net plan so that I would never have to be 'broadcast at' again - I could simply 'tune-in' or find what I wanted when it suited me.

In the meantime, I would be interested in any ideas on how people are veiwing Big Tube to Big Screen content. I just hope it happens in my lifetime and is not thwarted by the interests of those who wish to keep me stuck with free-to-air television programs which are little more than Big Ads.

Minister for Broadband: How much 'evidence' do you need?

Optus will participate in the government's ISP filtering trial. If I was an Optus customer, I wouldn't be now! Imagine knowing that your ISP was blocking your access to the Net? The Big Brotherness of the whole idea is just unpalatable.

According to the Minister for Broadband, the justification for the trial is to provide 'evidence':

"The participation of Optus will help ensure the government obtains robust results from the pilot, which will inform the evidence-based development of our ISP filtering policy"

Evidence-based policy, as the process is known in policy circles, is meant to provide a rational means for developing policy. It fits comfortably with the ideas of the rational, choice-making individual operating in a market economy. Yet not everyone agrees that policy-making can ever be a rational process.

But the problem is so irrational it must be poking the Minister for Broadband's eye out. How much evidence is needed to prove that ISP filtering is unwelcome in Australia's liberal democracy? Do you really need the statistics to prove that this policy deserves to be scrapped now? Has there been a single voice which supports the idea of ISP filtering? How much evidence do you really need to stop pushing this policy?

This feeble attempt at 'evidence-based policy' should be called what it is: nothing less than a sham.

This post was me exercising my right to free speech. Regrettably, Optus customers may have trouble viewing my post.

Traditional media on the ropes?

Since refusing to pay the ridiculous prices for PayTV services, I have been reduced to watching free-to-air television. Watching 'Today' this morning, I notice that the traditional media is increasingly turning to youtube, Facebook and twitter for content.

The content on 'Today' consists of a significant portion of New Media snippets. Even the Hollywood session was dominated by twitter and youtube.

'Today' has become 'The Footy Show' of New Media. Commentary on youtube videos and so forth is a bit like watching former footy players talk about what is happening on the field. It seems the traditional journalists are increasingly taking on this role as 'former' and commenting on the breaking stories emerging from New Media.

Does this mean the traditional media is on the ropes?

UniTwitter Update 3

I was asked to add the full matrix of following/followers/updates, so here it is as at about 8:30pm this evening:

1. RMIT - 307/934/240
2. UNSW - 466/475/237
3. Uni of Melbourne - 290/469/416
4. La Trobe - 93/398/171
5. Monash Uni - 165/377/48
6. Flinders Uni - 34/252/47
7. Uni of Wollongong - 188/176/65
8. Uni of Adelaide - 99/97/52
9. Charles Sturt Uni - 89/94/56
10. Uni of Sydney - 0/74/0
11. UniSA - 75/74/23
12. Uni of Canberra - 51/56/15
13. ANU - 18/37/0
14. Aust Catholic Uni - 0/22/8
15. James Cook Uni - 3/19/1
16. USQ - 20/16/17
17. Central Qld Uni - 23/12/10
18. Swinburne Uni - 0/6/0
19. Charles Darwin Uni - 20/4/1
20. Deakin Uni - 0/2/0 (but status updates by request only)

Happy to receive any additions/corrections (corporate sites only please!).

UniTwitter: Update on Australian Unis on Twitter Poll

This is the best I can do for now (I cannot guarantee all are correct corporate sites - I did this for fun!). Unis ranked by number of followers as at about 1:30pm today:

1. RMIT - 934
2. UNSW - 472
3. Uni of Melbourne - 470
4. La Trobe - 396
5. Monash Uni - 376
6. Flinders Uni - 251
7. Uni of Wollongong - 176
8. Uni of Adelaide - 95
9. Charles Sturt Uni - 91
10. Uni of Sydney - 73
11. UniSA - 71
12. Uni of Canberra - 53
13. ANU - 37
14. Aust Catholic Uni - 22
15. James Cook Uni - 18
16. USQ - 16
17. Central Qld Uni - 12
18. Swinburne Uni - 5
19. Charles Darwin Uni - 3
20. Deakin Uni - 2 (but status updates by request only)

Happy to receive any additions/corrections (corporate sites only please!).

Australian Universities on Twitter

This evening, during a period of extreme procrastination, I took a poll of Australian unis on Twitter (those that I could find) and the number of followers and have ranked them below (by number of followers):

1. RMIT - 926
2. UNSW - 468
3. La Trobe - 391
4. Monash Uni - 371
5. Flinders Uni - 251
6. Uni of Wollongong - 174
7. Uni of Melbourne - 170
8. Charles Sturt Uni - 87
9. Uni of Sydney - 72
10. UniSA - 72
11. Uni of Canberra - 49
12. Aust Catholic Uni - 19
13. James Cook Uni - 17
14. USQ - 12
15. Charles Darwin Uni - 2
16. Deakin Uni - 2 (but site is blocked)

UTS has several profiles but these are for individual areas, ie it is not a corporate site.

UWS has a Faculty profile with 130 followers.

I could not find any other university profiles but would be happy to be corrected.

For academics, Jason Wilson at Uni of Wollongong has started a self-listing post of Australian researchers on Twitter here: http://gatewatching.org/tag/twitter-academics-listing/

When will New Media be old?

I often wonder at what point New Media will become old? A quick glance at communications technologies from the time of the telegraph to telephone, television and radio reveals long periods of stability punctuated by rapid change as each new technology was adopted by consumers.

However, New Media never seems to settle down. I have been using the net since 1994. I cannot recall a single period of stability in 15 years. At an IBM presentation for the Queensland Industry Development Corporation in 1999, the presenter mentioned how software updates were being released every 6 months. This was likely to be reduced to 3 months (during 1999) with industry commentators suggesting the release time would be reduced to just 6 weeks by 2000. I remember being impressed at the time.

Now, software updates occur in real-time and download automatically without us really noticing. But the 'killer app' remains elusive. Over the last two years, I have noticed how discrete communities developed around particular applications. For example, MySpace was more popular for musicians and in certain parts of Sydney, whereas Canberrans tended to be more active on Facebook. But this stability has remained short-lived.

Twitter and other networking sites have brought about a truly global reach (at least to those who have broadband access). The change in terminology from 'Friend' to 'Follower' is significant: psychologically, it is easier to 'follow' someone you don't really know rather than be their 'friend'.

Since the Internet became available for public use, not only has the timeframe for software upgrades become irrelevant, but the number of applications available for communicating is increasing so rapidly it is difficult to keep up. A few weeks ago, a student suggested that a site which links all the different applications would be a useful tool. Tonight, I stumbled upon unhub which claims to do just that.

The point is that New Media (as we know it now) is disrupting what seemed to be the period of stability promised by broadband networks. The time taken for technological advances to be adopted by consumers is decreasing, while the availability of applications is increasing. Industry structures and the delivery of services by businesses and governments throughout the world is changing rapidly.

This brings me to the original question: when will New Media be old? It seems that the term is useful for now, as each application becomes, in turn, a new medium. It will take a significant paradigm shift for the current period of instability to end. With businesses, governments and even individuals entering the flurry of Net activity, there seems to be no end in sight. 'Change' has taken a place beside 'death' and 'taxes' as the major constants. And how we should deal with these changes has become one of the most pressing questions of our time.

Telstra & Twitter: Embarrassed or Innovative?

Journalists are having a field day with Telstra's new social media policy. But some of the traditional media reporting on Telstra's new policy has been overly conservative.

While the Fake Stephen Conroy episode on Twitter provides an interesting example of the difficulties for corporate governance in the New Media era, reporting on Telstra's policy is simply more Telstra-bashing:

AFTER being embarrassed by one of its employees on micro-blogging site Twitter, Telstra will today release a new policy governing how staff can talk about the company online, even in private conversations.

I am sick of Telstra-bashing. Telstra is what it is because the previous federal government made it so. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet in the absence of any leadership from the federal government on New Media technologies, which have unlimited potential to improve democracy through citizen engagement and participation in policy development, Telstra leads again.

Telstra's handling of 'Twittergate' has been exemplary. It indicates that the company is serious about using New Media as part of its operations. No employer allows staff to 'go public' without consequences. I don't see the new policy as mitigating 'embarrassment' at all. This is simply a case of the company experimenting and developing policies as new issues arise. The so-called 'guardrails' Telstra has developed are a step in the right direction.

Australia is already stuck in the innovation mud with conservative mindsets. No matter how many reports on innovation the government drums up, unless the collectively conservative mindset is changed, we will continue to be at the wrong end of the innovation spectrum.

Journalists really need to get with the program. Innovation is essential if we are to get out of the GFC hole. But the collectively conservative mindset is a hindrance to innovation and such conservative reporting doesn't help at all.

Maybe the traditional custodians of free speech are feeling a bit threatened by New Media? Some advice I have received in the past is relevant here: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Telstra should not be embarrassed, it should be applauded.

read more | digg story

Obama names first US chief technology officer

US President Barack Obama has named a Harvard-educated Indian-American to the newly created post of chief technology officer in an appointment much-awaited by Silicon Valley.

read more | digg story

The move to an e-White House has inched closer with the appointment of a Chief Technology Officer in the US. However, one of the major hindrances for Obama's vision of an open democracy using new media technologies is the barriers created by antiquated practices:

But hopes that the president can unleash a technology revolution and create a new e-White House in government have come up against antiquated government technology and privacy and security restrictions.

The implementation of new media technologies is essentially contested. Privacy represents individual liberties whereas security represents the collective good. It is difficult to improve one without impinging upon the other.

There are no quick solutions to the individual liberties/public good dilemma, but there are ramifications for getting it wrong. At least in the US, some steps are being taken toward overcoming the traditional barriers to new media use. However, Australia is nowhere near this level of consideration in the policy process. While it may be happening in-house, the public are simply left out.

What must happen is an open, public debate to determine the public interest. There are some specific questions which must be addressed: What is more important, individual privacy or national security? Are issues concerning individual privacy and national security more important than a technologically-driven and open democracy? How important are social media to the economy and standards of living?

Australia tends to adopt a wait-and-see approach which has advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage is that resources are not wasted on dead-end approaches. The major disadvantage is that developing a national culture of innovation remains a pipe dream.

The promise of the digital revolution is on our doorstep now. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will open the door or wait to see what the neighbours do before acting. The trouble with the latter approach is that we are always one step behind.

Given our small population and vast resources, we have the capacity to take the lead in the use of new media as the NBN is rolled out. However, as the US is discovering, antiquated practices are a major hindrance.

Ordinary citizens have few options unless the federal government takes the lead. But the first step is to have the public debate, and new media are the vehicles which will enable the debate to happen.

We are all waiting. Your move, Mr Rudd.

Independent body must supervise NBN rollout

Some homes will miss out on the Rudd government's $43 billion plan to roll out fibre-optic broadband cables to households, a frontbencher admits.

The NBN is an ambitious project and has certainly turned previous ideas about addressing Australia's broadband woes on their heads. But small towns will still miss out on fibre access under the current plan for the NBN.

While small towns 'missing out' is not such a good thing, the announcement this week that Australia will launch more satellites to cover remote areas is good news.

But politics will either make or break the Rudd Government's ambitious plan. It is time that an independent government agency was established to remove Australia's communications infrastructure from day-to-day politics. Afterall, politicians have avoided the issue for over two decades.

Another reason for removing politics from the infrastructure is technological convergence. As the NBN impacts upon television, newspaper and other traditional media businesses, there will be calls to protect them from becoming irrelevant in the broadband era.

My view is that if these businesses have not kept up with changes in the media communications industry, then the public should not have to put up with outdated modes of veiwing content to keep a handful of people rich.

Creating an independent government agency with clear goals to connect Australia must be considered in the early stages of the NBN. If this doesn't happen, you can be sure interested parties who occupy the periphery will present a major risk to the success of the NBN. The infrastructure is too important to be caught up in the political point-scoring games which are sure to follow once all the traditional interests converge.

read more | digg story

NBN Reaction: ZDNet Video

Check out this video from ZDNet: Sydneysiders' reactions to the NBN.

Can the Aussie Ute cope with a Rolls Royce NBN?

I have been conducting research to explain the differences in broadband speeds and take-up between Canada and Australia since 2005. An obvious theme, aside from the Canadian anticipative versus the Australian passive approach to technological convergence, has been decentralisation (Canada) verus centralisation (Australia).

Until the announcement of the NBN (Rolls Royce version), an obvious solution to Australia's broadband woes was the structural separation of Telstra (pre-privatisation). However, now Telstra is what it is, I am reluctant to support any government move to destroy a world-class company. I am also sceptical about anything the Opposition has to say. After all, they dropped the broadband ball on their watch.

The NBN announcement this week has put things in a flat spin and many questions remain unanswered. Why spend $43 billion on broadband and not healthcare or education? If Australians have access to fibre-to-the-home (FTTH), will they use it? Where should it start, in the bush or in the city? How much will it cost?

A national FTTN network would put Australia as #1 for broadband networks in the world. Industry analysts agree the FTTH would be the best option to future proof the NBN. Although 55% of statistics are made-up, I would think that 90% of Australians are keen to see the government roll out the largest nation building project since the Snowy Hydro scheme.

Politics will determine the government's ability to roll out such an ambitious project. I think this would be the most substantial long-term policy goal ever undertaken by an Australian government. But like many others, I am concerned that the NBN might eventually become Telstra 2.0.

It seems apparent that the debate must now focus on the 'public interest'. Clearly, a FTTH NBN would usher in the end of debates over convergence. But are Australian industries ready for the change? How will the government deal with these issues? Why not give the Taswegians a chance to pilot the NBN? Indeed, why not the 'bush' too? Most of us are sick of waiting for the 'trickle-down' effect promised in the 1980s.

My main concern is the government's ability to roll out such an ambitious project without it being stalled by traditional politics. After all, the NBN (Rolls Royce version) will bring to the fore a whole bunch of interests which to date have been segregated by divergent views and industry structures. How will this affect media ownership laws? Is it important enough to simply roll it out and see what happens?

I think it is. But then I regard the Net as the ultimate freedom machine and therefore I am biased. Yet Australia's international competitiveness rests on its ability to engage in the digital economy. If not now, then in the very near future. But do we have the institutional capacity? Can the government do what it suggests it can? I hope so. But the NBN (Rolls Royce version) will travel a rocky road. Let's hope the good old Aussie ute is up to the task.

Article on ABC's Unleashed

I have an article appearing on ABC's Unleashed about this morning's NBN announcement. Check out the article here.

Govt to build NBN

The Australian Government will form its own company and enter into public-private partnerships to build the NBN.

This is great news, but the approach to building the network will be crucial. The Australian Government must seriously consider the role of all levels of government in the build. Canada, which leads Australia in broadband take-up and speeds, used a combination of market aggregation strategies and local and regional initiatives. The NBN announcement provides an opportunity to get the approach right, after years of government failure.

I am speaking on 2GB Radio today about the NBN announcement.

Government may go it alone on NBN

Speculation from an industry consultant suggests the Australian government may 'go it alone' in building the NBN. This is not such a bad idea, with the tender process already fraught with political strife. There are opportunities for the government to build such a project in a way that benefits citizens, rather than entrenching interests which will add another legacy to the already ailing system.

It is still speculation at this stage, but it is about time the public debate changed its tune. It would be great to see such important infrastructure built in the public interest, but determining what the 'public interest' should be, however, is another story.

read more | digg story

World's fastest consumer broadband

The New York Times is reporting that the fastest consumer broadband connection in the world at the moment is Liberty's J:Com service in Japan. At 160mbps, the speed is no doubt blistering. At $20 for the upgrade to pass each home, it is cheap, too.

I am not convinced that the prices are not subsidised by the Japanese government, but the NYT article makes a point that one of the reasons blistering Net speeds are not available in the US is that it may impact upon the cable providers' subscription TV services.

It will be interesting to find out the details of Australia's NBN and whether similar technology will be available here.

read more | digg story

BroadbandNow: Lights on, but nobody's home

Recently, I made a personal commitment to blog regularly. As nothing really happens on a Sunday, I thought I would have a look at the Australian Government's broadband portal. After stumbling upon Telstra's criticism of the previous government for excluding the major telco from the information on broadbandnow.gov.au, I thought I would try it out.

It seems broadbandnow.gov.au is no longer available - it says that access is restricted, even though the Regional Entry Point still says it is the place to check the availability of broadband.

So I thought I would give the government a break and see if there was a new consumer site for checking broadband availability. Maybe the website was simply out of date. I found the Broadband Service Locator here.

I entered my address (in the Gungahlin region) and found that Telstra was not listed as a provider (even though I subscribe to BigPond). Naturally(!), cable Internet access is not available in this area. The Broadband Service Locator suggests that the only available ADSL 2+ services in my area are from iiNet or NetSpace. When I used NetSpace's locator service, ADSL 2+ is not available.

It seems that the only ADSL 2+ services (according to the government's locator) are Telstra (not mentioned) and iiNet. It was an interesting exercise, and if I wasn't travelling for an extended period later in the year, I may have changed providers (I dislike being locked into a contract).

Nonetheless, the exercise proves a point from an earlier post - side issues are affecting the government's ability to focus on the demand-side issues concerning broadband access and take-up. The lights are on, but nobody's home!

Evolving community networks - the local level

I suspect there are a great deal of similarities between creating an e-learning commons and creating a community discussion forum. The differences between creating an e-learning and a community-based commons, however, are considerable. E-learning commons tend to involve a captive audience, whereas a community commons requires something more.

I must say that I blog because I like it. It helps me develop my thoughts in the quasi-public sphere. One of my favourite quotes explains the principle:

'[My blog is written] by myself and for myself - an author and audience of one' (Rolf Potts 'Vagabonding: An Uncommon Guide to the Art of Long-Term World Travel' 2002).

Nevertheless, a lone voice is hardly the same as a community commons. Recently, I stumbled upon a local community commons which I find to be quite useful: Check it out here.

Anyway, enough procrastinating, the history of the Canadian television industry awaits!

Australia's CSIRO wins landmark wi-fi settlement

This article is a few days old, but thought it blogworthy for posterity:

The CSIRO has won what could be a landmark settlement from Hewlett Packard over the use of patented wireless technology.

read more | digg story

Broadband policy lost in side-issues

With the NBN winner due to be announced shortly, broadband policy leadership is stuck in a quagmire of side issues. In a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, improving the availability, speed, quality and price of Australian broadband services has taken a back seat as the policy debate focuses on side issues.

While obviously important in the longer term, issues of cyber-security, Internet filtering, copyright and so on are far from being solved. Indeed, every developed nation is still coming to grips with these issues as the digital economy evolves.

In the meantime, Australia's broadband network is stalled. Businesses are waiting to see what will happen at a time when the GFC requires businesses to innovate and increase growth. The role of government in broadband deployment and demand-side development at all levels is unclear. The Australian communications industry is bounded by out-dated industry structures which restrict the deployment of infrastructure.

Federal systems present unique challenges for coordinating the deployment of communications infrastructure. Australia's federal system has evolved from a government-owned monopoly to a market-based system which is still dominated by Telstra. But there is a role for the states and local governments which is rarely heard in the public debate. This is most noticeable in cases such as TransACT: where access to the 'duct structure' (particularly overhead power lines) was available, Canberra residents have had access to high-speed cable broadband since the early 2000s. Suburbs such as Gungahlin, with underground 'duct structure', have struggled with mostly ADSL services. The differences in the available consumer choices for broadband services between Ainslie and Gungahlin, for example, are significant.

A 2008 report by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) entitled Explaining Broadband Leadership makes particular note of policy leadership and the role of the different levels of government in the US:

State and local governments should take action to make it easier for providers to deploy broadband services, including making it easier to access rights-of-way.

In Australia, the historical legacies of centrally-controlled communications networks make it difficult for local solutions to address peculiar communications issues at the local level. Local planning laws need to enable open access to the duct structure, for example, but with federal responsibility for communications networks so entrenched, there is little room for innovation at the local level.

The ITIF (2008) report also suggests that pragmatism is more important than arguments over whether government or business should deploy broadband infrastructure. With a centrally-controlled system, there is little room for a diverse approach to delivering broadband services.

Given that the policy debate has moved away from providing Australians with faster, cheaper access to quality broadband services, and is now caught up in side-issues, the practical problems of broadband deployment are simply being ignored. It is difficult to see how any improvement in the current situation can occur without policy leadership from the federal government. Decentralisation may be the key.

Finally, the structure of the Australian communication market needs to be changed to meet the challenges of technological convergence. If this does not happen soon, Australia will end up with further legacies which will impact upon the digital economy for years to come.

New Media: Where are the local councils?

Craig Thomler's blog raises some interesting questions about local government uses of New Media. Comparatively, Australia is well behind the US, UK and Canada in this regard. In a seminar recently presented by Henrik Bang at the ANU, 'The post-national condition - the end of modern democracy?', some interesting ideas were presented about US President Barack Obama's ability to motivate local interests throughout the US.

I have some reservations about this model working in Australia due to the increasingly centralised control of power in Australia's federal system. It is interesting, in comparative perspective, how Australia's federal system was deliberately set up to protect the States from the Commonwealth Government, only to end up more of a centralised system. In contrast, Canada's federal system was set up to increase the federal government's power, only to evolve into a system which is much more decentralised.

I am currently addressing some of these issues at the moment, but here is my attempt at addressing the question proposed on Craig's blog: Is Australian egovernment innovation on life support?

I propose three main hypotheses in answer to the question: (1) Australian governments of all persuasions are inherently conservative and tend to follow rather than lead (globally) in terms of innovation in high technology, especially where outcomes are unclear (2) Local councils bear the brunt of increasing centralisation of power in the federal government, reducing their ability to implement new ideas in the face of coping with contemporary local problems - New Media is simply off the political radar at the federal level and this flows down the federal system; and (3) the deployment of broadband infrastructure is so centrally controlled by the federal government and therefore removed from users that there is no active local engagement in its potential usage - there is a close link between local access and local usage - which means that even though people are 'active', they have little ability to influence the centrally-controlled system directly.

I appreciate these hypothese are somewhat unrefined at the moment but I intend to have a number of research publications out early next year.

Life without a mobile phone

When the contract on my iMate JAS-JAM ran out recently, I decided not to renew the contract and to remain completely mobile-less. For someone who has been using mobile phones since the bricks (actually they were bigger than bricks - see pic) in the very late 1980s, it was very strange at first. This was about one month ago.

It must be noted that I am writing up my PhD, so I am permanently attached to the laptop and/or several desktops and therefore I am not really 'disconnected'. But as time wore on, the most noticeable aspect was the freedom. No annoying phone calls at the movies, no need to carry anything when walking around, no need to worry about forgetting it. It has been a very freeing experience.

I doubt I can do this once my thesis has been submitted, but I must admit that both my budget and my stress levels have improved. The additional functionality of the JAS-JAM (awesome in its time, now just another brick!) is only a memory. But the fortnightly budget has improved significantly!

The major finding of this experiment: be a mobile technology follower. If I had waited, I would have an iPhone. I jumped the gun and paid the price. Same goes for laptops. Staying behind the technology curve is advantageous in the contemporary environment. If I had saved the amount I have spent over the years on mobile technology, I would be considerably wealthier!

Toward a New Media Industry

Australia's development of policy and approach to regulating New Media is in dire need of a re-think. A quick glance at the different laws which establish the traditional communications industries reveals how New Media technologies are disrupting the status quo.

Key definitions from major legislation follow:

Definition under the Trade Practices Act 1974 - Section 151AF

Telecommunications market:
For the purposes of this Part, a telecommunications market is a market in which any of the following goods or services are supplied or acquired:
(a) carriage services;
(b) goods or services for use in connection with a carriage service;
(c) access to facilities.

A more detailed glance at the telecommunications industry in the Telecommunications Act 1997 - Section 110 reveals :

(2) For the purposes of this Part, each of the following groups is a section of the telecommunications industry:

(a) carriers;
(b) service providers;
(c) carriage service providers;
(d) carriage service providers who supply standard telephone services;
(e) carriage service providers who supply public mobile telecommunications services;
(f) content service providers;
(g) persons who perform cabling work (within the meaning of Division 9 of Part 21);
(h) persons who manufacture or import customer equipment or customer cabling;
(i) electronic messaging service providers.

Further, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 - Section 6 reveals:

Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
"broadcasting service" means a service that delivers television programs or radio programs to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that service, whether the delivery uses the radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means or a combination of those means, but does not include:
(a) a service (including a teletext service) that provides no more than data, or no more than text (with or without associated still images); or
(b) a service that makes programs available on demand on a point‑to‑point basis, including a dial‑up service; or
(c) a service, or a class of services, that the Minister determines, by notice in the Gazette , not to fall within this definition.

And the SPAM Act 2003 attempts to define electronic messaging:

Basic definition
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an electronic message is a message sent:
(a) using:
(i) an Internet carriage service; or
(ii) any other listed carriage service; and
(b) to an electronic address in connection with:
(i) an e-mail account; or
(ii) an instant messaging account; or
(iii) a telephone account; or
(iv) a similar account.

For any New Media business, navigating the legislation which is clearly focused on devices (ie telephone, television, radio etc), must be a nightmare. Further, the major policy and regulatory institutions reflect the same device bias: ACMA, ACCC, TIO, and the variety of Industry Codes (both voluntary and mandatory). Although the ACMA (the merger of the ABA and ACA) represents a significant advance in reducing some of the old silos, the policy and regulatory regime is still dominated by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the ACCC.

Clearly, the ACMA is well-positioned to take over the telecommunications functions of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and its status as an independent regulator would assist in removing the future of Australia's digital economy one step further from party politics. Canada's CRTC seems to be performing this function comparatively better, and is enabling greater community participation through the use of New Media technologies in establishing the emerging regulatory functions.

A specialist, independent regulator with greater authority to implement communications policy would enable DBCDE to concentrate on developing communications policy. What is obviously missing from the public debate on New Media are the two traditional policy questions: (1) How will productivity be achieved (using New Media technologies)? and (2) What is the public interest (in terms of New Media)?

The public debate must focus on the forest (communication) and avoid getting lost in the trees (devices). Indeed, Australia is desperately in need of a communications industry restructure and a new policy paradigm for New Media.

National security: NBN politics hots up

OPTUS has accused Telstra of fanning xenophobia by raising the threat posed by Chinese espionage in the new national broadband network.

National security remains a major issue with broadband networks, keeping the politics of communications networks firmly within the bounds of the nation-state.

This situation is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Indeed, the history of the telegraph followed the same trajectory. Telegraph networks within nation-states were a domestic issue, while the international connections were mostly unfettered as John Pender built his global empire of submarine cables.

In the meantime, it seems that the politics of national security remains a significant factor in the deployment of the NBN. The nation-state necessarily remains a sticking point for the evolution of global communications networks. Maybe there is a greater role here for the ITU?

The surprise is that comments on the article in AustralianIT (read more below) are not bashing Telstra, but are heavily focused on the Singaporean Government's majority control of SingTel Optus and the Chinese Government's ownership of Huawei Technologies.

read more | digg story

ACCC uncomfortable with Vodafone-Hutchison merger

Would this merger lead to higher prices, or provide a real competitor to Telstra and Optus?

I am not convinced that allowing the merger between Vodafone and Hutchison will be necessarily bad for the mobile telephony sector. Throughout the history of telecommunications, larger firms enabled better network coverage and coordination - three major competitors is surely better than two competitors on different tiers within the sector?

Maybe things have changed, but I remember ditching Vodafone and other smaller providers because their coverage was simply second-rate. I am not advocating this merger, but neither am I convinced that such a merger will necessarily lead to higher prices... it might even set the scene for other niche providers to merge as a fourth competitor. It will be interesting to see the response from Telstra and Optus.

Read more on the IT News article below...

read more | digg story

Canadian Govt e-consults on Net Neutrality

Canadian blogger Michael Geist reports on the CRTC's use of an online forum to consult on Net Neutrality. The forum will become part of the public record of the consultation:

The comments and discussion resulting from this consultation will help shape the upcoming CRTC hearing on Internet traffic management practices, as well as form part of the public record. We welcome your participation and thank you for sharing your opinions on the various topics.