ICT at the Centre of Political Debate

It would be hard not to have noticed the attention that the National Broadband Network received in the election campaign.  That the debate should be so focused on the technology and the bits and bytes rather than the services (noting there was some commentary on eHealth and education) is perhaps missing the point. 

 

Put simply the national imperative is to be part of the digital revolution and understand the importance to the economy of being able to play in the digital world.  It’s about smart grids, smart water, smart infrastructure and so on: apart from points of health and education delivery and for businesses, the need for high information rates rarely exists other than for entertainment purposes.  This is not to undervalue the importance of entertainment (which can be educational in its own right) but the really significant economic benefits don’t seem to require 100 Mbps to over 90% of the population, at least not until it’s affordable and/or productivity benefits are clear.  Smart deliverables can be achieved generally at information rates readily available to most of the population today. 

 

So why the fixation on maximising the delivery of 100Mbps (arbitrary because if the network is capable of delivering 100Mbps (ie optical fibre end to end) it’s just as likely to be able to deliver greater than 1Gbps requiring little additional access network cost)?  The fact that other economies have a higher adoption of high information rate services does not necessarily translate to productivity benefits.  It may make life more liveable.  The outdoor culture of Australia is much more aligned with mobile devices and it is not surprising that an increasing portion of users are abandoning fixed lines to the home in favour of (lower information rate) wireless only.  Wireless does require fair access to fibre in the backhaul networks however users are content with wireless speeds and work continues in the area of compression technologies despite the almost limitless capabilities of fibre optic networks.  

 

Perhaps there’s better ways of applying the $43billion, delivering even greater economic benefits.  Who will meet the costs of developing applications that use 100Mbps or even 12Mbps effectively?  The digital economy requires products which meet needs in a cost effective and affordable way.  Engineers can make it so!  There are simply insufficient ICT engineers in influential and leadership positions.  Furthermore we continue to be influenced by overseas equipment suppliers whereas an indigenous industry more understanding of local needs is essential.  We are steadily losing the capabilities to be leaders.  Australia still has world leading capability in fibre optics albeit diminishing since the work of the Australian Photonics CRC concluded. 

 

In any case we must take the opportunity to install fibre to the home in new developments and to progressively replace aging copper with fibre. Backhaul access and upgrade is what is required and whether 1Gbps is delivered to the home, the backhaul (and international capacity) will remain the limiting parts of the network.  Perhaps investing in capabilities in this regard is where some of the $43 Billion should be directed?

 

In my view engineers should be providing leadership to ensure optimum delivery of ICT infrastructure and applications and avoid the trap of biggest is best.

Comments

[Ed Custeau]

Dear Peter,
I was delighted to read this article about the NBN being over engineered. I was thinking exactly on the same lines (having worked on broadband roll-outs and applications) for years. Thanks for making the case so clear.
Ed Custeau