Comms Minister Anika Wells rejects the premise of liberal democracy

Australia deserves better than this, but the fourth estate, the ABC aside, is starting to see the light.

If only I could have witnessed Minister Wells in person, I might have confirmed my ‘reject the premise’ thesis empirically.

What does ‘rejecting the premise’ mean?

In Labor parlance, ‘rejecting the premise’ means ‘okay, you may think that you caught me fibbing, but I’m from the government and therefore you’re wrong’.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Heute ist Der Tag. Today is The Day. The day when, if you’re under 16, you become an outlaw if you venture onto legally-proscribed social media platforms. Proscribed, that is, by an egregious American who is Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, and spruiked by embattled communications minister, Anika Wells who, as Michael de Percy points out all the way from Hamburg, can’t answer basic questions about how it will work in practice, whether it will work, and is it an affront to liberal democracy (her answer: ‘I reject the premise of the question(s)’. Our answers: we still don’t know; it won’t; and it is). However well-meaning it may be, this ban is wrong, and that it is being enforced zealously by a Septic who surely was brought up on the First Amendment, is even more appalling. But it is here, and we predict it will fail. The only question is how long it will take for its spruikers – on both sides of politics (don’t forget Peter Dutton was the first on this bandwagon) – to realise it’s a flop.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Comms Minister Anika Wells rejects the premise of liberal democracy.

On the eve of the Labor’s draconian digital identity laws banning under 16s from accessing social media (and by what I consider to be deliberate extension, introducing a Digital ID system) Labor’s Communications Minister, Anika Wells, took a leaf out of Chris Bowen’s court jester… pic.twitter.com/KkOuUmsIuT

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) December 7, 2025

Our Short-Shrifted Academic Journals

What is now The Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy was first published in 1935.

When Australian researchers publish their work, the journal they choose to publish in has implications for their academic careers. Journals are important vehicles for peer-review and a particular journal’s reputation is a useful measure of the quality of the research output. However, the system is often skewed to ignore research focused exclusively on Australian issues.

My first article in Quadrant, Our Short-Shrifted Academic Journals.

The Institutional Origins of Canada’s Telecommunications Mosaic

Bell payphones at the Montreal Bus Station, 6th July 2007

Context: This is a work in progress article that stems from my PhD research over a decade ago. The paper suffers from numerous conceptual issues that remain unresolved and I am keen for feedback from the PPN group to progress my ideas. Alyssa Attioli, current graduand of the University of Canberra, has been working as a co-author on the paper.

With Alyssa Attioli at PPN2024

Abstract: The paper argues that the political circumstances leading up to Canadian Confederation resulted in a significant and lasting impact upon the institutional origins of Canada’s telecommunications market that persisted into the 21st century. It does so by first outlining the ideas and institutional dynamism that flowed from political rivalries in the lead-up to Confederation and coincided with the deployment of the telegraph. Second, the article discusses how commercial disputes created separate telegraph and telephone industries that embedded Canada’s unique telecommunications mosaic. The article concludes with a discussion of the importance of considering the local and regional imperative, and the legacies created by the original rationale, in developing national telecommunications policy. Canada’s approach sits somewhere between the private ownership model adopted by the United States and the public ownership model adopted in Australia. The major lesson from Canada is that, where diverse circumstances exist, addressing local and regional political imperatives can provide opportunities that might otherwise be overlooked by attempts to provide a standardised national solution in the delivery of telecommunications services to citizens.

The slides from our presentation are available below:

 

Albo’s control of your TV is only the tip of the iceberg

Then they came for my smart TV...

With Communications Minister Michelle Rowland expected to introduce a ‘prominence’ bill this week, Australians should be very worried about the government attempting to control our smart devices and the information we receive. We are on the slippery slope to socialism and it will only get worse as the Albanese government destroys our standard of living in pursuit of its socialist agenda.

The green-left agenda, previously the purview of conspiracy theorists, is now out in the open. It manifests in government policies designed to reduce our individual carbon footprints. It has no regard for our liberty.

Here is my latest article in The Spectator Australia's Flat White, Albo’s control of your TV is only the tip of the iceberg.

Albo’s control of your TV is only the tip of the iceberg

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland is expected to introduce a ‘prominence’ bill this week. Australians should be very worried.https://t.co/TdgVsxLXjS

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) November 28, 2023

Just what we all need - Airbus Albo in our TVs telling us what we can and can't watch.https://t.co/PLdei0eoLs

— Alexandra Marshall (@ellymelly) November 28, 2023

Beyond NBN: Improving digital inclusion through a National Digital Communications Strategy

Korean art: Chatting at a well at night

Beyond NBN — new research suggests that advancing Australia’s digital economy and improving digital inclusion needs to start with a National Digital Communications Strategy led by the Federal Government.

The research examined lessons from other developed nations — the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Republic of Korea - which indicate that user-focused or demand-side policies are key to an accessible and inclusive Australian digital communications strategy.

The presenters explain how COVID-19 restrictions exposed the importance of digital inclusion and demand-side policies, for example, enabling vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, to develop digital literacy skills to utilise online services, when in-person services were no longer an option.

The findings support existing policies including, for example, Service NSW-assisted digital services in shopfronts and elsewhere, and digital classrooms in Seoul Citizens Hall - a multipurpose space in the South Korean capital.

The research determines that the ongoing enhancement and usage of the National Broadband Network needs to be drawn into a broader policy, where broadband services are part of a digital communications ‘ecosystem’, led by the Federal Government, but integrated with the State Governments as social policy.

This presentation is an outcome of a TelSoc internship project at the University of Canberra. A paper on the subject was published in the last issue of the Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy.

GMT_20230221 from TelSoc on Vimeo.

Towards a National Digital Comms Strategy

Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy

My latest article in the Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy:

Abstract

In  the  early  21st  century,  governments  developed  national  broadband  plans  to  supply high-speed broadband networks for the emerging digital economy and to enable digital services  delivery.  Most  national  broadband  plans  are  now  focused  on  moving  to  ever  faster  networks, but there is a growing need to develop national digital communications strategies to focus  on  the  demand-side  of  the  broadband  “eco-system”.  In  this  paper,  we  outline  the  approaches adopted by the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Korea to assist in the development (or renewal) of Australia’s national broadband strategy, or, as we prefer, national digital communications strategy. The paper draws on the lessons learned from the case-study countries and the recent pandemic and considers some theoretical aspects of the broadband ecosystem. We conclude by suggesting a process to re-evaluate Australia’s national digital  communications  strategy  as  it  rolls  forward,  and  to  incorporate  recent  international  trends  to  develop  demand-side  policies  to  enable  greater adoption  and  use  of  existing  broadband infrastructure and digital services.

Citation

de Percy, M. A., Campbell, L., & Reddy, N. (2022). Towards an Australian Digital Communications Strategy: Lessons from Cross-Country Case Studies. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 10(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v10n4.650 

Policy Legacies from Early Australian Telecommunications: A Private Sector Perspective

Rylstone Telegraph Office [CC BY-SA 4.0 by Cabrilis]

My latest research article, Policy Legacies from Early Australian Telecommunications: A Private Sector Perspective, has been published in the Journal of Telecoms and the Digital Economy.

Abstract

The purpose of this article on the policy legacies from Australia’s early telecommunications history is not to present a counterfactual to Australia’s choice of public monopoly provision of early telecommunications services, but rather to indicate the extent that politics limited the private sector’s role in deploying early telegraph and telephone infrastructure in Australia. The article begins by outlining a theoretical framework for analysing government’s role in deploying new telecommunications technologies, before investigating some of the less familiar literature on the historical impact of government intervention on the private sector in the early Australian telegraph and telephone industries. It then discusses some of the political issues relating to the subsequent liberalisation of the telecommunications industry in Australia and concludes with a discussion of the historical legacies of government intervention on the private sector in the Australian telecommunications industry.

A Critique of the NBN

Parabolic antennas on a telecommunications tower on Willans Hill, Wagga Wagga.
Photo: Bidgee/CC BY-SA 2.5 AU

I was quite pleased to participate in a joint publication with a policy practitioner on Australia's telecommunications infrastructure. It is one thing to sit on one's scholarly couch and critique what others do, and quite another to be the "man in the arena" as Theodore Roosevelt (1910) once said.

Fifteen years ago I commenced my PhD thesis on comparing telecommunications outcomes in Canada and Australia. Based on my findings, it was clear that the decisions made in Australia would stifle private sector competition in fixed line broadband services. 

Today, fixed line broadband services remain costly and poor as 5G services bring ever faster speeds at ever cheaper prices. I routinely run my entire household and all its devices off my Samsung S20 5G Ultra phone on 4G and 5G networks (depending on whether I am in Sydney or Gunning) at much faster speeds than either the NBN or ADSL 2+ services available in the respective areas.

Today, my latest work has been published in the Australia Journal of Social Issues alongside an excellent outline of the Australian policy perspective. Australia is fortunate to have such experts in the field and time and again Australia's performance in international policy issues proves the efficacy of  our unique "Washminster" political system. 

I have renewed faith in our system due to recent events and I say without reservation that it is indeed the best in the world.

See my contribution to the article "Telecommunications Infrastructure in Australia" in the latest issue of the Australian Journal of Social Issues.

Reference:

Madsen, A. and de Percy, M.A. (2020). Telecommunications Infrastructure in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(2), pp. 218-238. DOI: 10.1002/ajs4.121.

SkyMuster or ADSL: Whither Gunning's connected future?

When will we know?  Times ticking away...
Picture Credit: Pixabay-geralt CC0

Good news! Today I received an email from the the Member for Hume's office, which read the following: "There is no ADSL switch off for FW [fixed wireless] or Satellite services". Updated 19th October 2017.

There has been much talk about the future of ADSL in Gunning, but little is known about the future state once SkyMuster is introduced. Will the ADSL services be cut off? We don't know. When might this happen? We don't know.

I am a firm believer that our rights as citizens are meaningless unless we "actualise" them, so I decided to write to my local representatives and ask them.

My letter to the Mayor and Councillors of the Upper Lachlan Shire Council asking for clarification of this matter is below:

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I am writing to ask Council to provide some clarification about the future of internet services in Gunning. While I am aware that this is a federal issue, poor internet services do have an impact on economic development in villages like Gunning. There is also a precedent for councils to negotiate better internet connection services with NBN Co.

In the above article, Bellingen Shire Council in NSW was able to obtain a modification to NBN Co's technology used to deliver internet services in their shire.

There is much confusion about the services that NBN Co will be providing to the village of Gunning. At present, many residents enjoy a high standard of internet services, with Telstra, for example, offering ADSL connection speeds of approximately 17mbps and data download limits of up to 1,000GB for around $120 per month. This far exceeds what most users require, and as a heavy internet user for my work purposes, the service as it is now is more than adequate.

However, it is my understanding that when SkyMuster's satellite services become available in Gunning, the ADSL services will be switched off, and residents will be forced on to SkyMuster's inferior satellite service. This will mean a less-reliable service, with speeds of around 7mbps and monthly download limits of around 120GB at about $160 per month. But these figures are misleading in that 60GB of the download allowance is only available between 1am and 7am. This would mean that many residents in the Shire will not have adequate internet services, especially for those who rely on a reliable internet connection for their employment.

There is an issue here in that Gunning residents (and other residents in the Shire), will have contributed to the cost of the NBN through federal taxes, but may end up with an inferior and costlier internet service than that which is already operational.

I am asking Council to provide some clarification on the future of ADSL services in Gunning, and, if it is the case that SkyMuster services are to replace ADSL in Gunning and other villages in the Shire, that Council lobby NBN Co to ensure that the rollout of the NBN, and SkyMuster in particular, does not disadvantage Shire residents in relation to currently available services. This situation presents Council with a problem for employment and the local economy, issues which are clearly within local council's responsibilities for economic development.

Nevertheless, if ADSL services are not to be switched off, I ask that Council confirm this with NBN Co, and advise residents accordingly, to alleviate the current uncertainty over the future of internet services in the Shire.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Michael de Percy.

Hopefully I will have something to report back soon!

My comments on NBN on ABC News 24's "The Business"

Photo: Rob Pearce/Flickr CC BY 2.0

My comments on NBN tonight on The Business @abcnews https://t.co/TqWY3011qk @unicanberra @UCIGPA #nbn

— Michael de Percy (@madepercy) September 8, 2017

My comments on NBN, Radio National's Business PM yesterday: https://t.co/7tzSKuAZVA @unicanberra @UCIGPA

— Michael de Percy (@madepercy) September 9, 2017

Sky Muster is Coming: Whither ADSL?

Photo Credit: Pixabay CC0

In the village of Gunning, about one hour's drive north of the national capital, Sky Muster^TM has arrived. But rumours abound that if you are not already connected to the existing copper network, then Sky Muster^TM is your only option.

These rumours were reported recently in the Gunning News section in the Goulburn Post, with a request for clarification.

The problem is, if you are on ADSL, you can get 1,000 gigabytes of download for about $120 per month. But on Sky Muster,^TM  customers are typically paying around $159/month for 60GB download.

In a letter to the editor yesterday, and in response to the community's concerns, National's Senator for NSW and Minister for Regional Communications, the Hon Fiona Nash, pointed out that from October this year, customers will be able to receive "100 gigabytes a month of peak data and 150 gigabytes of off-peak data for around $120". This is a far cry from the 1,000 gigabytes ADSL customers can access.

My ADSL usage since April 2017

I have used over 120 gigabytes of my ADSL service only once so far this year, and my average monthly usage has been around 106 gigabytes (see left).

But that is only for two people who both work. If my kids were still at home, then a Sky Muster^TM plan wouldn't keep pace with our broadband demand.

The lack of choice and the non-answering of legitimate questions has been my issue with NBN all along.

Back on 7 April 2009, on ABC's Unleashed (which later became the now-defunct The Drum website) I wrote about the plans to roll out the NBN. I warned that government needed to end "business as usual" and engage with citizens. In particular, I warned that:

In Australia, the historical legacies of centrally-controlled communications policy make it difficult for local solutions to address peculiar local communications problems... [Further,]

If the government is going to invest in the infrastructure, why must it be spent on one solution? [...and]

At the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee in Sydney... [in 2009], the participants represented a range of rural and community groups. They presented stories about how local efforts were simply overlooked and how they were regarded as 'fools' by authorities and other 'people in the know' when they complained about specific communications problems in their local areas. 

Fast-forward eight years, and what do we have? A single solution that appears to be regressive: if you are in the village and on Sky Muster,^TM your service, despite billions of dollars of taxpayers money already spent, may well be worse than what was previously available.

But we can only guess because we do not have the facts: if you build within the village limits in places like Gunning, do you have no other option but to go to  Sky Muster^TM? Is this true, or isn't it? Why can't we be told?

Again, in 2009, I wrote:

Rather than bringing the infrastructure closer to the people, the secrecy over the NBN to date has simply been more of the same. 

The Minister's letter yesterday does not answer the question posed by the Gunning community. Her response is to state that the service will be improved. This is great, but will it be better than the current ADSL service? I don't think so.

Later in 2009, I also wrote:

The broadband reform consultation provides a major opportunity to fix a problem which has plagued Australia for decades.

But it would seem we have slipped right back into the old ways, where telecommunications is a big policy lever to be pulled whenever political parties want to have a go at each other, or when there is need for a new announcement. Indeed, the Minister's response to the village's questions provided an opportunity to have a go at the Opposition with no answers forthcoming. Clearly, NBN remains a political football.

In almost every other country I have visited, if you are prepared to pay, you can get the services you want. But in Australia, the central control model of "doing" telecommunications policy often leaves consumers with limited choices, regardless of how much you are prepared to pay. After decades of market reforms, we haven't progressed all that far in telecommunications, especially in "the bush".

But to have to use billions of dollars in taxpayers money to actually reduce the existing services seems absurd. Some clarity from our political representatives on this problem would be welcomed by many in regional and remote areas who may not be getting what they have already paid for.

When I first started my research into telecommunications policy outcomes, I was interested to know why Canada was so far ahead of Australia. My findings were that the divergent outcomes were the result of historical processes and ways of "doing" telecommunications policy.

Despite my research, many others were convinced it was simply a matter of time and effort and Australia would catch up. Let's have a look. Here's how it was in 2002:

OECD Fixed Line Broadband Statistics 2002. Source: OECD (2003: 173) Telecommunications Outlook 2003

And here is the same graph for December 2016. It must be noted that only smaller countries have surpassed Canada's early leadership:

Source: OECD Broadband Portal

Did Canadians spend billions on a government-controlled monolith? No. And the difference in speeds has been a persistent issue in Canada's favour, too.

Surely Australian citizens have a right to ask, has it all been worth it? and, Are we getting what we paid for?

Personal Gartner Hype Curve: 20 Years of Social Media

Le Flâneur Social Media Hype Curve, 1997-2017

I just realised I have been using social media for twenty years. The diagram above explains my love/hate relationship with social media. I left out MSN Messenger, but it wasn't memorable.

Technological Disruption: What role for government?

Photo by Paul Townsend (CC BY-ND 2.0)

I picked this draft post up from February this year and decided just to get it out there... My article in The Conversation was used in a Parliamentary Brief on the at the time of broadcasting legislation amendments in 2015-16. This topic is worth revisiting.



The demise of Presto has been attributed to too many service providers in Australia's small market. But competition in the Australian television industry has been absent for too long and it is the normal functioning of competition in the market.

While some suggest that free trade is not living up to its expectations, Australians should not be too eager to criticise local attempts to offer alternatives to Netflix. The origins of broadcasting in Australia were plagued by government attempts to avoid competition, and much like the taxi industry, consumer prices for pay-TV services such as Foxtel were a function of the regulatory environment.

In his book The Rise and Rise of Kerry Packer, Paul Barry tells the story of Steve Cosser's attempt to deliver pay-TV services using microwave, known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Systems (MMDS) in Australia. Why things should be any different today one might wonder.

Australia's broadband is getting comparatively worse...

My comments on broadband in Gunning https://t.co/zSRfCpksgs via @GoulburnPost

— Michael de Percy (@madepercy) April 2, 2017

My comments on the latest Akamai report on Australia's broadband

My comments on mobile broadband speeds at Xinhua https://t.co/uW9lPnitgA

— Michael de Percy (@madepercy) March 13, 2017

My comments on outdated USO

The $6 billion that Telstra could soon miss out on https://t.co/CdO1ztk5fF

— Michael de Percy (@madepercy) December 6, 2016

Gold Coast City Council's decision to invest $3.6m in fibre network makes sense...

© Depositphotos.com//@jamdesign

Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate has made a brave decision to roll out a fibre network along the Gold Coast light rail network in time for the 2018 Commonwealth Games.

Spokespeople from GOLDOC, the Games organising committee, and NBN have "golf clapped" the decision but NBN Co could not commit to delivering its fibre in time for the Games.

I spoke with ABC Radio Gold Coast's "Drive" presenter Matt Webber this afternoon about the Council's decision.

The budget for the Commonwealth Games tops $2bn, with the Queensland Government paying the lion's share at $1.5bn. The Gold Coast City Council is contributing $155m, with the Commonwealth funding the rest.

The Gold Coast Bulletin claims that:

ratepayers will fork out almost $4 million to bring high-speed internet to a section of the city – a job the National Broadband Network should have done – but most will not benefit from it.

While the investment will be funded by ratepayers, and it seems absurd that NBN Co was not in on the deal to ensure the economic benefits of the Games could be adequately captured, the Council's move is not out of step with other countries. 

For example, it is quite common for municipal governments in Canada to come to the party when the benefits of high-speed internet are obvious. But Australia's constitution hampers the ability of local councils to get involved in telecommunications infrastructure.

I have long argued that the NBN model was destined to become a political football, and central control would lead to sporadic failure of the approach. The inability of NBN to support the Commonwealth Games provides yet more evidence of the problem with central control.

Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate is to be applauded for his political courage. The risk that internet services will embarrass the City during the Games should be worth the relatively small investment. 

But local council broadband plans do not generally go well for councils, as indicated by the Macquarie-Hastings Council's attempt to deploy its own network back in 2006. 

But ratepayer's may not be happy, even though the potential economic benefits flowing from services such as free WiFi along the light rail route should be obvious, especially in one of our major tourist destinations.

When I think back to Brisbane's transport infrastructure pre- and post-Expo '88, the city transformed itself and the updated infrastructure provided a much-needed injection into the economic life of the Brisbane that continued for years after Expo was but a memory.

The potential benefits from the Commonwealth Games should do the same for the Gold Coast.

Given NBN's poor record at delivering high-speed broadband, I hope that the Gold Coast's approach is successful and might be taken up by other local councils to shake up Australia's approach to telecommunications infrastructure. At least at the local level, the politics of infrastructure is dealt with within the geographical area where it is needed.

NBN Co is rightly tight-lipped in responding to criticism. It has a job to do, set by the federal government, and that doesn't include deploying the network to service the Gold Coast or the Commonwealth Games.

What the situation does indicate is the failings of the overall National Broadband Network approach. The model is cumbersome, slow, bureaucratic, and fraught with politics.

I daresay that after the fact, $3.6m would be a paltry sum to recover the Gold Coast's reputation if nothing had been done. Whether the Gold Coast Council can bear the impact from ratepayers used to the Commonwealth paying for telecommunications infrastructure might just be a bridge too far. But I hope not.

NBN: Australia still behind Canada despite policy effort

© Depositphotos.com/@everett225

The latest Akamai State of the Internet report provides more evidence of Australia lagging behind Canada, despite almost a decade of policy effort. I have argued for a long time that this is a result of the inefficacy of Australia's centrally-controlled telecommunications policy regime.

This means that the NBN's lack of impact has little to do with good versus bad NBN models. I have stated previously that government control of the industry is the problem, not the solution, This view was guided by my research to explain why Canada had better broadband than Australia back in 2005.

My research compared telecommunications technology outcomes from the time of the telegraph to the present in Canada and Australia. The findings suggested that the problem lies with Australia's telecommunications policy framework. It was never a case of a lack of government interest or funding, but something fundamentally flawed in the centrally-controlled system that would make it a perpetual political football.

As Canada and Australia are well-suited to the 'most-similar' comparative approach, I adopted Mill's method of difference to explain why these two very similar countries had very different institutional arrangements with very different outcomes. All accepted methods of inferring causality.

I referred to the telecommunications policy frameworks as the monolith (Australia) versus the mosaic (Canada - see Wilson 2000: 25). Neither system was necessarily a result of deliberate design. Indeed, Canada's superior outcomes were the result of serendipity, in that its telecommunications policy framework grew organically, locally, and, as a result, constitutionally; the telecommunications powers reside with the provinces rather than the national government.

The reverse is true in Australia, but telling people about it does not prove popular.

In Australia, the broadband 'crisis', leading to the advent of the NBN, was a case of history repeating. The federal government alone would solve the crisis. After careful examination of the historical record, it was apparent that the broadband 'crisis' was no different than the telegraph crisis, the telephone crisis, the radio crisis, the television crisis, and so on, each appearing in similar magnitude when compared with Canada over time.

The State of the Internet report demonstrates that the federal government's faith in its own abilities has (again) not been justified.

Akamai provides an interactive and customisable graphical report generator known as 'connectivity visualizations' (incorporated in this post). Compared with my many years of 'empirical rummaging' (Skocpol 1995: 104) to build a chronological database of telecommunications technology penetration in Canada and Australia, using the Akamai visualiser is a cake-walk.

The Akamai blog provides a useful explanation of the metrics used in these visualisations.

First, I will return to some of my earlier, painstakingly put-together 'visualisations'. Here is the state of broadband speed in Canada and Australia in 2008:

Australia-Canada Broadband Speeds by Household 2008 (constructed from Akamai 2009 data)

This trend is remarkable in that it has not changed over time, given the extent of political focus and taxpayer investment in NBN. The latest Akamai report shows average connection speeds from the period above to the end of 2015:

Australia-Canada Comparison of Average Connection Speed 2007-2015 (Akamai 2016)

Second, the measurement of broadband penetration has changed, in that it is now possible to distinguish between unique IP addresses. But here are the figures for broadband penetration by household from 2004-2007:

Australia-Canada Broadband Penetration 2004-2007 (constructed from OECD data)

Below the Akamai visualiser shows the same trend continuing (note this is by number, not by percentage of population, but you can see that the trend is consistent, if not levelling out:

Australia-Canada Unique IP Addresses Comparison (Akamai 2016)

Finally, the percentage of services 15mbps and above, the speed Akamai regards as the minimum for 4K (or full Ultra HD quality video streaming) services:

Australia-Canada Percentage of Broadband Connections above 15mbps (Akamai 2016)

This last visualisation is the clincher. Despite NBN in whatever form, despite the investment of taxpayer dollars, Canada is not only (still) ahead of Australia, but increasing its lead.

This is not the fault of Mr Turnbull's NBN-lite. This has nothing to do with policy differences between the two major parties. This is the result of historical processes where the first principles of Australian telecommunications policy lie buried. Some time ago, I wrote an article for the now-defunct The Punch (19 May 2011), where the title was edited to read 'The NBN’s the culmination of 150 years of cock ups'. In hindsight, the title was closer to the truth.

But it is difficult to change an institution, and the way telecommunications is done in Australia is just that. The retort "Don't confuse me with your facts" comes to mind. Even Professor Reginald Coutts thinks the evidence is my personal 'fantasy'.

To channel Professor Julius Sumner Miller (1975), "Why is it so?"

These are all the hallmarks of a policy regime, an entrenched way of 'doing' policy that is difficult to change. The use of policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy is part of the regime's self-reinforcement. And that is why Australia is still behind Canada in broadband.

References

Miller, J.S. (1975). Why is it so? Light and modern physics. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Skocpol, T. (1995). Why I Am an Historical Institutionalist. Polity 38: 103–106.

Wilson, K.G. (2000). Deregulating Telecommunications: U.S. and Canadian Telecommunications, 1840-1997. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

A Mini-Ethnography: Shanghai-Hangzhou High Speed Rail

Photo by S370/CC BY-SA 3.0

1:28pm, 23rd March 2016

We leave the station slowly and pass under the spaghetti of roads just outside

Speed picks up slightly and the view changes to worn out fields of weeds

Up another gear and warehouses, more spaghetti, quaint houses, a freeway

This is a green, smoke-free train according to the hostess over the speaker

Another gear, beside an elevated freeway

Construction sites, across rivers, yellow flowers in worn-out and unkempt fields

A woman with a tray of who-knows-what. No time to stop and sell

Purple uniforms, 184km/h, 15 degrees

Market gardens amongst rubble, an excavator and construction

Some drinks and snacks, just so, pass faster than the train seems to move

Over another market garden, a creek, a slow train

Another gear and like nothing we reach 300 km/h

1:37pm, 23 degrees inside

Constant rumbling, the slight drone of engines

Barely notice the pace until a sound barrier careens past

With subliminal flashes of market gardens in the gaps

We're off and Shanghai dissipates as if into the perpetual grey sky

Or it would if it ever ended

Hangzhou to Shanghai, 8:18pm

Ticket office over there. No - construction.

Ask police. Downstairs.

Outside, 200m, walk the stairs to the ticket office

No signs for outsiders

Line-up behind the yellow line while nobody else does

¥75 for both but too cheap. First class?

Window 21 is the reply. Back in line, but longer

First class. All done.

Out of the ticket office and straight past where the cops told us to go downstairs

So near and yet so far

Welcome at the entry, passports waved off. But no gate number

Search for the journey number, not too difficult

Seat won't stay up - travelling backwards at speed. Seems to stop more often

Other classes more seats, good to have room to move

But hoiking, hoiking everywhere. A national past-time? The smog?

Hangzhou is quiet in parts. (Arm nearly ripped off by passing luggage!)

People dancing on the deck, old men singing and playing musical instruments

The crowd joins in. Chestnuts, squirrels (so friendly!), the West Lake (so happy!)

Then through the spaghetti and we're back

But then home to buses and slow trains, an airport where the traffic holds up the bus

On the tarmac trying to get to the other terminal. Not so in China

Rich country on the cheap. Poor country shows the way.

Planning and Trend-Setting: Are we being conned into higher density living?

Credit fireballk2558/Flickr Creative Commons

I am sitting in a forum listening to some research on changing work practices, particularly the changes resulting from technology and telecommuting, but a big issue is missing from the approach. Institutions. 

In their broadest sense, institutions are the formal and informal rules, routines, and procedures used to order society. Put simply, institutions are the "rules of the game".

There are some theoretical debates about whether institutions influence behaviour or whether institutions are a result of desired behaviours that are then reflected in society and so on. Nevertheless, it is clear that institutions can limit behaviour, and the presence or absence of institutions can lead to certain behaviours becoming normalised.

Take private cars, for instance. As I drove into work today, there was a line-up of cars waiting to enter the campus. The line extended all the way back to the entrance. Except for mine, every car had one person in it. This is a common story.

But why do people insist on driving their cars to work, paying for fuel, parking and maintenance, not to mention the frustration of driving through ever-increasing traffic? The reason seems simple: There is no alternative.

But sometimes it is just out of habit (a form of institution). This applies to other areas, too.

Some recent feedback from my "flipped classroom" teaching was surprising. For this approach, I produce video lectures and have longer, more focused tutorials available in a variety of flexible formats. This means that students can choose not to drive to the campus - they can even study fully online.

Yet a small sample of the feedback suggested that students should get a discount because they were not attending a "proper lecture". The rationale was that video lectures were somehow easier for me and therefore required less effort than face-to-face lectures. In fact, the opposite is true!

While most appreciated the flexibility, I was surprised that providing people with a "telecommuting" choice meant that it was somehow "cheaper". Never mind that there was no need to drive through traffic, park one's car, carry books and laptops for almost a kilometre during a heatwave and then sit through a lecture for two hours! But this attitude tends to reflect broader trends in planning, and brings me to my major point.

There is a major shift in planning that somehow higher density living is a good thing. The idea is that the closer to work you live, the easier it is to commute by walking, cycling or light rail services. Many urban renewal projects in Sydney and Canberra reflect this growing trend.

What concerns me is that telecommuting, despite the endless promises of the NBN (now nbn), is barely happening - at least formally. In the meantime, higher density living is winning the battle over "changing work practices". Higher density living changes the mode of commuting, maybe changes the way employees dress (at least to and from work), but it relies on the traditional measure of performance - attendance. 

An employee's physical presence at work is clearly an institution. If you are not physically at a formal workplace, you are not working. Sure, for many careers the physical presence of the employee is a necessity that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. But it is an institution nonetheless.

Which brings me to planning. Higher density means higher prices for smaller parcels of land. It also means greater value capture for governments relying on land taxes (like the ACT Government). It also means more people in smaller spaces. The three bedroom house with the 1/4 acre block is fast disappearing. Some think this is a good thing, but is it?

The now mostly-out-of-reach Australian dream of the house on a 1/4 acre is often blamed for increasing greenhouse emissions, suburban sprawl, pockets of poverty and drug abuse and so on. Too often, the lack of infrastructure is to blame for such situations and the reliance on cars as the major means of travel in Australia is somewhat a cause and a consequence of all the bad things about the Australian dream. 

However, there are many small towns around the major metropolitan centres that still offer the opportunity to own the Australian dream at an affordable price. The problem, of course, is commuting. If you live out of town, then you have to drive. 

What strikes me most is that in a country with so much space we don't know what to do with it, we would be conned into living in higher density housing in the middle of already bursting-at-the-seams cities. Yet these areas are becoming trendy, expensive and gentrified. And these areas are getting most of the investment in transport infrastructure. This is the part that doesn't make much sense. Unless the idea is to force more and more people into cities to improve the return on investment in infrastructure and the value capture through land tax. Yet flock to high density housing they do. Another institution.

In the meantime, the NBN (nbn), the largest investment in infrastructure in Australia's history, is being underutilised for telecommuting. Instead of enabling a decentralised Australia to flourish, the NBN is barley catching up on the shortfall from previous years of neglect. Further, our reliance on the car as the primary means of transport restricts one's ability to live outside of major centres, much to the detriment of smaller communities. Unless of course investment in high speed rail and other alternatives happens soon. And it should. Only Australia and parts of the United States seem hell-bent on relying on private cars as the major transport strategy. Another institution no doubt.

It would seem that higher density housing is one big con job. Governments, developers and real estate agents are having a field day. In the meantime, affording a house with enough land to grow a decent vege patch is fading into mythology. So much for telecommuting. Maybe it just isn't trendy enough. Or maybe "workplace presence" is the institution that no longer orders society appropriately.

Either way, there is a strong correlation between high density housing and workplace presence that no longer makes sense in the digital age. Unfortunately, we often focus on solutions to the very problems that we created, rather than looking at the "rules of the game" and how these determine the score.