99% of Australians With Broadband By 2009? 313
Recently a study of broadband penetration rates around the world was in the news, because the US has fallen to 24th place worldwide, at 53%. Now comes word that the Australian Prime Minister has announced a $1.68 billion (US) plan to move Australia to 99% penetration within two years. If they accomplish this goal they will be the most-wired nation (South Korea currently occupies the top spot with 90%). The Prime Minister's plan was attacked by his political opponents because it would create a two-tier system with the country's vast (and almost empty) interior served by wireless at "only" 12 Mbps.
99% Accessability != 99% uptake (Score:5, Insightful)
And like most Australians here (Score:5, Insightful)
Howards just doing the oneupmanship thing (Score:5, Insightful)
sigh
Problem is links going out of Australia. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,219
the real problem is that the lack of links out of Australia means we are being charged way too much. This will only get worse if more people are able to get connected.
Partisan submission much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously that 12mbps will only be available to those with an apartment on the roof of the telephone exchange itself, or who have access to the unproven WiMax option.
The opposition has promised to upgrade the entire country's infrastructure to fibre-to-the-node, unlike the govt which is only willing to encourage private investors to do this in the cities where it is profitable.
Very difficult task. (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia is a big country. Really big. We're talking roughly the same size as the forty-eight states (ie: not counting Alaska or Hawaii.) All this space to hold a population that's one third the size of the United Kingdom (roughly - 20 million people or so).
Rolling out broadband to the big cities, where the majority of the population lives, isn't all that hard. It's also pretty damn profitable. The trouble comes when you try to roll it out in the country; the population is pretty sparse (as you can imagine from the size of the country versus the population), meaning that you have a much higher amount of infrastructure to roll out, for a much lower return.
The regulations require equality of access, as much as possible. That's a large part of what killed ISDN in Australia; it was priced at a level that allowed Telstra to at least break even regardless of where it was requested, making it too expensive for most people.
To be blunt, I doubt that current technologies can make even a reasonable stab at providing universal fast access across the entire nation, or even 98% of the population. I'm more comfortable with the Labor party's proposal as being workable than the Liberals', but even then, I have my doubts. All this strikes me as being political hot air that won't go anywhere once the election is decided.
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
How can it be a direct abuse of power, when its an election promise? Surely they have a mandate to fullfill their election promises?
At least the Libs want private sector to fund it, it shouldn't come from our pockets.
How do you think the private sector's going to recoup their investment? Go on, have a think about it. Do you think it will come from corporate altruism, or perhaps from our pockets?
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is Australia we're still using the good old tin can bush telegraph system provided by a now "private" and utterly substandard Telstra, which the government goes to for all telecommunications needs (ignoring other private company efforts). 10mbps is the speed at which the WHOLE of Australia communicates to the world with. Or at least it feels like it.
In Australia, 512kbps (yes, you read KILOBITS/SEC correctly) is considered broadband. Lower the standards enough, and 99% reach is very easy to accomplish. We don't need "Fibre to the node" (which is really just another way of saying SOME people will get ADSL2+) - we need international submarine cables to the rest of the world.
If Australian companies can't host servers within Australia because it is 10-20 times more expensive than equivalent hosting in the US or Europe, there is NO incentive for growth in Australian broadband.
What Australia really needs is a huge overhaul of the telecommunications systems. Rip out the copper and put fibre in its place, which will solve the problem for decades to come. And this is certainly not cheap. But what you have to realize is that new housing estates are STILL having copper cable put in, and NO attempt is made to use fibre to new housing estates. For these new projects, there is no/minimal difference in cost between laying copper vs fibre. We're actually going backwards in Australia, not forward.
Very misleading submission (Score:5, Insightful)
A foreigner would get the impression that our brilliant Prime Minister is taking innovative steps to bring Australia to the bleeding edge of Internet accessibility and uptake.
The reality is that we are effectively in an election campaign, the Government is getting thrashed in the polls, and the opposition Labor Party announced an attractive broadband policy designed to lift Australia from its current woeful speeds and levels of access (256kbps is described as "broadband" in this country, and you pay upwards of $60/month for a capped allowance of 10Gb of downloads). This move by the Government is reactive at best, and a political stunt at worst. There is a widespread perception that the Prime Minister does not understand the slightest thing about broadband and the Internet.
As others have pointed out, Australia's real problem is a lack of big pipes to the rest of the world. Add to that a government-created-then-privatised monopoly (unlike the US we didn't split our telco into "baby Bells", we just privatised it, gave it all the essential infrastructure, and let it dominate/distort the hell out of the market), and you've got broadband fit for the late 1990s.
Re:the measurements are wrong!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Under the Howard government we have practically been turned into the newest US state.
Re:Partisan submission much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the measurements are wrong!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:1, Insightful)
This is especially the case since many of the places aren't economically viable to deliver to at the moment.
So, the only option is for the Government to stump up some cash. Otherwise, Australia's epidemic problem with people and businesses leaving towns for the major cities will be exacerbated. Smaller towns would become second-class-citizens when it comes to connectivity.
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus, the Libs sell you the status quo as a big achievment and put some half-assed measure (well, a promise of it anyway) for the bush (which would never be served by the private sector for the profit margin there is way too low) to gain a few votes in marginal seats. The usual election year BS.
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Now while society should help in the payment of some basic human needs (such as health care, something our country has yet to realize), is broadband truly one of these needs? As a geek who loves the internet, I think not.
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
As an ex-Telstra customer, I can attest that the reason it is degrading at the rate it is being installed is because it takes Telstra so long to install it!
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:99% Accessability != 99% uptake (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Real Reasons Howard Wants Broadband = Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
How can it be a direct abuse of power, when its an election promise? Surely they have a mandate to fullfill their election promises?
Oh yeah, because politicians have such an awesome track record of fulfilling election promises.
How do you think the private sector's going to recoup their investment? Go on, have a think about it. Do you think it will come from corporate altruism, or perhaps from our pockets?
Of course, it will come out of Australians' pockets, either way. Except the private sector is a LOT more efficient at allocating resources and then using them. And oh yeah, it might spur industry leading to a bigger economy and more jobs. But we all know only politicians can magically "make jobs".