TUANZ - Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand   Search website    
 
Labour announces broadband policy
Posted Thu 22 May 2008 @ 2:22 p.m. by Ernie
The government announced its policy on broadband within the Budget this afternoon. I had the unusual experience of sitting through the lockup for media and analysts.  

The highlight is expenditure of $325 million over five years in the framework of a Broadband Investment Fund based on contestable grants available to any legal entity including local government, power and phone companies, and community groups. 

A good deal of detail has been released. There will be quite a complex application process with a gap of almost year from the time an applicant submits an EoI in August, until the result is known in June 2009. The process for a group wanting to lodge an application embraces applicant support, an EoI, an application, analysis and recommendation within the MED, a recommendation by a group of officials, sign-off by the CEO of the MED, and final sign off by Cabinet. It sounds very much like the “Broadband Challenge of old with significantly more money, but with bit more bureaucracy tacked on. 

A new Digital Development Council which the government has been promoting has its role revealed – it will provide “policy advice and review” to Ministers, for which the government will grant it around $500k a year. TUANZ is one of a number of groups that have participated in the establishment phase at the Minister’s request and the expectation is that we will become a member of the Council at the appropriate time. 

There’s also $15 million in there as capital expenditure towards a new trans Tasman cable. On its own that would get the cable about to Somes Island, but obviously it will be leveraged by private sector investment. Its a good signal. 

My reaction? 

On the positive side, the fact that money has been allocated is a positive sign. What we have now is cross-parliamentary support in concept for significant public money to be spent on telecommunications infrastructure. That is a big breakthrough from a couple of years ago. 

But to be honest, I feel a bit underwhelmed. The amount of money is pretty sparse and I guess I was anticipating more. The administrative processes are complex and slow - I foresee rosy times for the burgeoning Consultation Industry with lots people huddled in interminable meetings. By the time the consultation, evaluation and analysis is done, hamlet by hamlet, will the amount of money left to dig trenches through the streets of Waitotara cut the mustard. 

I know Budgets are necessarily factual and boring, but I did hope to see a bold vision statement about the outcome. The nearest I could find was a high level goal of “widespread fibre to the home within a decade.”  

It was always going to be hard for Labour to upstage the very strong and visionary plan announced by National. To be fair, I don’t think they’ve tried. This is the Labour status quo with a lot more money – a reliance on seeding bottom-up, decentralised local initiatives rather than a nation wide grand plan. And whatever government New Zealand has at year’s end, the desirability of public investment alongside the private sector in new generation telecommunications is well established. Good news!

 
Categories: Education | Fixed line carriers | Innovation | ISPs | Light relief | Regulatory | TUANZ policy | Vendors | Wireless carriers
     
Comments (5)

5 Comments

Alex says:
Ernie,

would be very interested in your views on the merits of funding broadband with captial funding (ownership: National & Australian govt) versus operating (grants: Labour & Singapore govt).

I would have thought providing grants is a much better way of incentivising private sector investment in uneconomic projects (i.e. FTTH). With capital funding, where the government needs a return on its investment, the private sector still needs some form of compensation to invest in uneconomic projects. As in Australia, such an approach will inevitably require regulatory concessions, particularly through negotiations on access pricing.

This would appear to be the biggest difference between the parties, but you haven't even addressed it...
Added: 22 May 2008, 3:57 p.m.

Clunking Fist says:
Umm, I'd rather pay for fibre through my internet bill, thanks, rather than my taxes.
Sure, fibre for all would be "great for the economy". But all pork barrel projects are presented thus.
If there truly is a demand for fibre, then the customer will pay.
If I choose to live on a lifestyle bvlock, and I choose to work from home, then I'll investigate a satellite solution or something.
User pays, pleeaassee!
Added: 23 May 2008, 11:01 a.m.

Keith says:
All I can say is Labour’s $500 million offering is pathetic - and David Cunliffe had the gall to criticise National's $1.5 billion plan!

Read very interesting article in Monday’s DomPost InfoTech section where they discussed National’s fibre plan with Maurice Williamson. Here’s a few snippets from the article “...the public would own a half share in National’s proposed fibre optic network, saying homes and businesses in NZ’s 22 biggest cities could be connected for no more than $3 billion” “.. he envisages that copper phone lines and DSL broadband equipment in exchanges and roadside cabinets would be scrapped in urban centres at the same time the fibre network was rolled out.” “.. it would switch all businesses and homes to fibre, exchange by exchange and suburb by suburb, in the areas covered by the network.” “It’s a massive transition. My view is a network has only got a value if it is that vast majority of users are signed up to it. If you rolled it to the kerb and then allowed people to connect as and when they wished, it takes a long time before you get value.” “Mr Williamson says Telecom would be given ‘no special rights’. If Telecom wants to participate, and I hope it will, it will be up to it.” “The Government will still be a 50% shareholder so that we keep control of the whole thing.” “National’s plan is ‘a very big change of thinking for me, being from the right of politics, who has always thought the private sector is best left to deliver and the Government should stay out of it’ Mr Williamson says.”

Wow, this article has completely changed my opinion of Maurice Williamson and National – they are bringing a new vision to the broadband debate and only further convinces me that they are the party to vote for to bring about the fibre revolution to NZ.
Added: 23 May 2008, 3:52 p.m.

Simon L says:
Keith - I read the same article as you, but was completely appalled.

Particularly by the quote “.. it would switch all businesses and homes to fibre, exchange by exchange and suburb by suburb, in the areas covered by the network.”

Maurice Williamson was very clear - everyone in a suburb would be forced to take a fibre service, with existing copper and cabinets being withdrawn. There are a number of important issues that need to be addressed:

1/ the price of a fibre-based service will always be more expensive, so now all users will be forced to pay (significantly) more than they currently do (despite there being lacklustre demand for such services, as evidenced by our low broadband uptake). What happened to consumer choice??

2/ The decision to remove the copper is a decision for Telecom and Telecom alone - it's Telecom's assets. The above statement would indicate that Williamson's project is completely reliant on Telecom's co-operation, as without it, Telecom will be able to compete with its copper based services. If this is the case, surely Telecom can dictate the terms of its participation to the government rather than the other way around.

Surely everyone deserves much more detail on this broadband policy BEFORE the election.
Added: 23 May 2008, 9:25 p.m.

Glenn says:
Keith, I'm sympathetic, but it's not quite true that if there is a demand for fibre then the customer will pay. There has to first BE cable for the customer to pay for. Presently that does not exist, so no matter how much customer demand exists, they can pay all they want but they won't get fibre. I'm not sure what I make of the proposals (other than to note that Labour's offer will not deliver because it is just too small - and everyone can see that). I don't really think it's the government's job, but on the other hand Telecom is a monster created by the Govt in the first place, and let's admit it - the private sector just has not delivered.
Added: 24 May 2008, 1:26 p.m.

Add Your Comments



Display Name
Email Address
 
Your Comments

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below, this test is used to prevent automated robots from posting comments.
CAPTCHA code image
Speak the codeChange the code