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.