Microsoft Critiques Australian IT Policies

StorminNorman writes: "Microsoft have criticised the Australian Government's handling of IT policy. It's not the first time they've done this either. Basically they talk about the lack of competition in the Australian broadband market, as well as the current Australian Government's boneheaded IT policy. Story here." Source aside, what do Australians (and anyone else for that matter) think of the conclusions? For a company which on some fronts decries government intervention, Microsoft seems to have a different tack here.

Comments

I'd give it 2.5/5...for repetition

[SirFlakey]

Ok , firstly to remark on the timing of that release. As many US people are aware Australians love to hate our local communications carrier Telstra - and mostly for a good reason too, what some US people might not have realized is that the Aussie government had this grand plan of outsourceing a lot of public IT work (link from the same paper as the one mentioned in the article). This was no chicken feed deal either - $5 billion dollars worth (~ $US 2.8 billion) - but the plan looks to have crashed and a lot of IT companies banking on this deal got burned. Most likely some companies with reasonable ties to MS as well (Wang would come to mind - MS outsources it's own stuff as well).

So the timing is "peculiar". Also, as some people pointed out, this is not new - Uncle Bill came downunder about 6 months ago and spoke at length about why Australian broadband had a long way to go etc etc ..(tried to find the link for this but couldn't oh well..it was done via webcast to all major Australian Universities)

Or perhaps it is because Bill is a little pissed about his treatment in the media (check out the headings on this search done of the fairfax web search =))
--

Further thoughts

[Jeremy Lee]

[I posted this in response to another comment, but I think it's relevant here too. :-)]

While I agree that the government here - on IT issues especially - couldn't find it's own arse if it used both hands and a map, I think Microsoft's suggestions are uniformly self-serving and would actually make the situation worse.

Our vaunted 'deregulation' has turned Telecom from a slothful but competent beauracracy into an agency that gouges more money from Australians than can be imagined, (biggest profits in australian corporate history) while sacking most of the technicians who actually run the system. Remember; they only started charging that $0.17/Mb in 1995 once they'd wrested control of AARNet from the vice-chancellors committee. As for the situation in the bush...

Frankly, what this nation needs is not more corporate investment and control, but:

* Nationalization of the telecom infrastructure (yes, you heard me) and deregulation only of services and support. Same for electricity, water, and all basic infrastructure; which is frankly why governments are supposed to exist.

* Significant government investment in education and basic research. Again.

* Sane and sensible policy on issues like digital signatures, privacy, and datacasting. (Die! Alston, Die!)

* Use of government clout to introduce new technology once past the incubator stage, which is where we have traditionally fallen down.

Of course, none of that is going to happen. I despair.

As an Australian...

[decefett]

I have to say that I agree with pretty much everything MS has said here. This government in particular has done horible things to the country, come examples:

Education Huge funding cuts to higher education and a focus towards full fee paying students (there is currently a senate hearing into full fee paying students getting passed when they should be failed).

I'm studying CS part time, my employer pays for it, they also have to pay fringe benefits tax (FBT) on it! If I was doing a private course, even one that cost several thousand dollars a day there would be no FBT but because it university FBT is applied.

The public school system is in shamble, especially for boys. Every year boys perform worse and worse in the HSC (sorta like SAT's). Boys literacy rates are truly scary.

Broadband: Up untill recently I could not get any affordable broadband, where did I live about 15 mins drive from Sydney's CBD. I can only get it now because I moved, and it's capped at 512kbs. ADSL has been increadibly slow to roll out, the govt. has (finally) ordered Telstra to open their exchanges and allow competing providers in so ADSL rollout should start to speed up.

TV: (The industry I work in) HDTV spectrum was GIVEN to the free-to-air broadcasters, no charge and no competition in it till 2008.

I Hate to agree with MS, but this time they're right on the money.

.net?

[Xenex]

I agree with what Microsoft is saying, broadband in Australia is in a shocking state. But then I think "Why do Microsoft care?". Why do Microsoft want people to have high bandwith internet access? Can't we read MSNBC, talk on MSN Messenger, and read out MSN Hotmail on 56k modems?

This makes more sence: Microsoft's .net strategy is going to have it's whole 'downloadable aspects' of software bit going. Your office suite will be downloaded from Microsoft. Your Operating System will be downloaded from Microsoft. Your media player, web browser, paint app, game of solitare (well, maybe going overboard here) will all be downloaded from Microsoft.

Obviously 'taking to Microsoft over the net and downloading stuff' will be a big thing with .net, and Windows in a version or two. And now it all makes sence; Microsoft NEED a large rollout of high bandwith in places all around the world or their latest jihad has a major flaw. Why else would a company obessed with profit give out free advice to nations on their current flaws?

.net is Microsoft's planned future. Broadband is .net's platform. Microsoft need broadband.

Xenex's thought of the day...

Let's cut the anti-MS crap please!

[dustpuppy]

I notice that a lot of the posts are pure anti-MS rubbish.

For the record, I live and work in Australia and the points that MS raised are absolutely and utterly correct to the very last point.

Looking at some of the posts on /., who cares if MS has a vested interest, who cares if the timing is suspect, who cares that a corporation is critising a government, the fact of the matter is that MS has raised perfectly valid points with what needs to be improved to help grow the Australian IT industry.

We should be applauding that someone has brought these issues to the attention of our bonehead government - not critising them. Sheesh.

Re:Let's cut the anti-MS crap please!

[jotaeleemeese]

Yous houls wonder why there are so many poeple that would post with their guts and not their brains. Dealing with MS is not anymore something rational, because such entity does not understand rational arguments.

Although the points raised could be valid, the credibility of the meesanger has to be taken into account, one should guess always the motives of a corporation that has been found to practice monopolistic tricks when they issue such statements.

Think hos MS could benefit, then think about the consequences. Some people don't like it and thus can see no good in even the most serious MS statements.

Re:Microscrew influence...

[donutello]

What kind of a lame ass troll is this?

but where does microscrew get the right to tell a sovereign what to do?

That right comes from the Freedom of Speech (or were you asleep in Civics class?) Everyone has the right to criticize a country and its policies. I can't believe someone would deny anyone their right to express an opinion. The Australian government doesn't have to listen to what they say - or even read their paper. And yes, the CEO, stockholders and even YOU are free to criticize the Australian government - or the US government for that matter.

how the heck does microscrew expect their stupid commentary to influence anything

Did you even read the article? The paper contains some very valid criticism. Fortunately the Australian government doesn't have its head as far up its ass as you seem to. The article quotes an official as saying they were aware of some of the issues raised and were looking to correct them.

And btw, the company is called Microsoft - learn to spell or you'll be seen for the moron you are.

Re:Microsoft are pretty-well spot on

[cthugha]

I don't think the government necessarily wants to annoy the tech sector, they just don't understand it, don't understand its importance, and regard IT-related issues as a tool or bargaining chip to achieve their own political ends.

To wit, the censorship regime was first introduced when the government was trying to garner the support of a moral conservative in the Senate (Brian Harradine) for a controversial piece of tax legislation. Coincidence? Hardly. (The senator in question just said "Thank you very much" and voted against said tax legislation anyway.)

Similarly, the new digital broadcasting regime is simply an attempt to appease the most powerful television mogul in the country (who also happens to be the richest man in the country), Kerry Packer. (There was an excellent piece on the ABC's Four Corners program about this, but I don't know whether there's a transcript online.)

And the underfunding of universities is simply another facet of the conservative "privatise everything that isn't nailed down" ideology that's rampant in this country right now.

In short, don't blame malice when utter, total stupidity will do.

One Aussie Geek's perspective

[Jeremy Lee]

Oh boy. This is NOT going down well.

I really should read the whole 'Accellerating Innovation' paper before commenting on details, but I can give a first-glance perspective:

On Bandwidth:

Australia was significantly behind the US in terms of broadband until about six months ago. Cable and DSL have arrived here with a vengance! $60 a month will get you 400kbit/s DSL. Really. The technical implementation has been rock-solid: none of the problems the US has been having. There are still political issues with the 'duopoly' telco situation, but the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Comission) should do a good job of sorting out the more draconian stupidities in their 'Acceptable Usage Agreements' if they try to enforce them.

(The ACCC is way cool. They're currently having a spat with the MPAA over DVD regional coding.)

Home users here are in the best position they've ever been in. The biggest problem is that Telstra keeps running out of cable modems.

Academic and Business users are, however, in a position of paying rather more for interet access than is really sane. Telstra and Optus C&W both charge about $0.17 per megabyte for inbound traffic, (yes, you heard right) something which deregulation should have put an end to. But Optus likes the money too. Things should change with the recent landing of the Southern Cross Network pacific fibre.

Microsoft wants more broadband in Australia because they've targeted us as one of the prime test markets for .NET. Make of that what you will.

As far as accessibility goes, anyone who wants net access can get it. It's in every library, government department, and medium to large business. ISP's and net cafe's abound. The only people who don't have access are those too lazy to get off their fat arse and walk down the street.

On Taxes:

Yes, Australia has fairly high income and corporate taxes. We have correspondingly higher 'socialist' programs like decent state-sponsored Education, Medical care and Welfare. Australians are, on the whole, happy with this situation. Similar to Canada, in many respects. Multinationals don't like high taxes, though.

On R&D:

There is a cultural difference in what R&D means. We still have a very strong Academic research tradition: most really innovative stuff in Oz gets done by the CSIRO (commonwealth science and industry research organisation) and the universities. I think this is fine. Corporations suck at real R&D. I think Microsoft are just complaining they can't twiddle their thumbs inventing things like "Microsoft Bob" and get massive tax rebates for it.

Besides, what most US companies would call R&D, we call 'getting shit done'. We're an emminently practical people in many ways.

Failure to create local centres of excellence:

Rubbish. See above. The main issue seem to be the existing centres of excellence contain people who work outside the corporate domain and are, therefore, fairly unpoachable. ie: No talent pool waiting for Microsoft to snaffle them all.

On Piracy:

Australia has one of the highest rates of 'Piracy' in the western world. And literacy too. We are significant users of information products, even if we can't quite afford it. :-) Most of that 'piracy' happens on an individual level. Software swapping with friends, etc. Small and 'backyard' businesses run a lot of 'grey' software. Large companies tend to be utterly legit, though.

There are some historical reasons for that, mostly due to semi-monopoly locks on imports of information products (the mentioned "parallel import restrictions") like software and music that kept the price artificially high for a long time. These have been changed recently, and will change again, since anyone with a net connection and credit card essentially ignores it.

A skills shortage:

"Australia faces many specific hurdles to train and retain skilled people."

Duh!! You know why? Because of the famous 'brain drain'. US/UK companies tend to make our best and brightest offers they can't refuse. We'd have better people if Microsoft stopped poaching them all.

On Capital:

Australia doesn't have anywhere near the level of Venture Capitalism that exists in the states. (but who does?) Yes, this does hurt us. He has a point here. But, if microsoft want to fix it, all they need to is start investing themselves. A billion US dollars goes a long, long way here. Microsoft has no lack of access to capital. I think what they mean is; there's no easy pool of money for Microsoft to suck from.

Technology security:

I can't think of any Oz sites that have been DoS'd, or even defaced. (I'm sure there's been some. Nothing to the level of Yahoo or Ebay. Mostly a US phenomenon) All major banks in Australia now offer internet service, and I've never heard of any problems. What has the writer been smoking?

Summary:

Yes, as many people would expect, Microsoft are complaining about local factors that tend to favor individuals and small businesses over large multinationals like them. There are one or two decent points in the dross, specifically those about lack of telecom deregulation and capital availability.

The gist of the complaint seems to be "give us more money or we won't invade your nation".

Sounds fine to me.

Re:One Aussie Geek's perspective

[Goonie]

Somebody please mod this comment up!

However, I take issue with a few of your statements:

There is a cultural difference in what R&D means. We still have a very strong Academic research tradition . . . Corporations suck at real R&D.

*Australian* corporations suck at R&D, mainly because they spend stuff-all on it (the exceptions being foriegn-owned multinationals, a few tech firms, and a very few enlightened other dcompanies). Australian companies aren't even capable of exploiting the technologies invented by Australian scientists in universities and the CSIRO, half the time. This is partly an issue of lack of government incentive and guidance for corporations, and partly a massive lack of management talent at the heads of many major Australian corporations.

Australia faces many specific hurdles to train and retain skilled people.Duh!! You know why? Because of the famous 'brain drain'.

Due to the lack of funding for universities, and the shortsightedness of the Australian corporate sector, valuable people are offered a fraction of the opportunities both financially and professionally than they can get overseas.

While you are quite correct in that there is some element of self-servedness in Microsoft's report, they've made some good points.

Microsoft are pretty-well spot on

[Goonie]

There are a few points I'd take issue with - technology security is really no different here to the US AFAICT, the "inability for some groups to have net access" comment could be applied anywhere in the world, and the "piracy" comment is blatant Microsoft self-interest, but basically virtually every Australian government in the past 20 years (the previous Victorian government, for all its considerable faults, understood IT as well as any government on earth) misunderstands, distrusts, and dislikes IT, and has consequently screwed up its IT policy.

Some cynics in the local IT press have even gone so far as to suggest that there must be votes in pissing off the local IT and, more broadly, the "knowledge" sector, they do it so effectively.

To list just some examples of screwed up policy in the area:

• The tax concession described in the article.
• Continually underfunding universities, attempting to force universities into "applied research" (which often barely deserves to be called "research") and beauty-contest degrees in flavour-of-the-month jobs.
• Telecommunications policy has been one great disaster after another.
• The government has just abandoned an IT outsourcing scheme whose main achievement is paying US consultants millions of dollars for zero return.
• In broadcasting policy, the government has just squashed any chance of a viable datacasting industry in Australia by agreeing to a ridiculous scheme where the entire spectrum will be used for HDTV broadcasts, despite the fact that nobody will be able to afford HDTV sets to take advantage of it.
• The net censorship regime, which has had no practical effect, by the way, but is just another example of the boneheaded attitude of the current Federal government.

Take it from me, I could go on for a *lot* longer.

Re:Sure...

[Goonie]

Cool. I'll match that offer - I'll donate an unlimited license for Debian for all Victorian public schools ;-)

Re:what..

[Xenex]

The Australian government isn't restricting Microsoft. Microsoft is staing some (correct) observations. They are right for once.

Broadband in Australia is expencive, limited, and almost totally controled by one company (Telstra).

Nothing in Australian law is hurting Microsoft.