Obama Looks Down Under For Broadband Plan

oranghutan writes "The Obama administration is looking to the southern hemisphere for tips on how to improve the broadband situation in the US. The key telco adviser to the president, Sarah Crawford, has met with Australian telco analysts recently to find out how the Aussies are rolling out their $40 billion+ national broadband network. It is also rumored that the Obama administration is looking to the Dutch and New Zealand situations for inspiration too. The article quotes an Aussie analyst as saying: 'There needs to be a multiplier effect in the investment you make in telecoms — it should not just be limited to high-speed Internet. That is pretty new and in the US it is nearly communism, that sort of thinking. They are not used to that level of sharing and going away from free-market politics to a situation whereby you are looking at the national interest. In all my 30 years in the industry, this is the first time America is interested in listening to people like myself from outside.'"

Comments

Bad Idea

[The Solitaire]

I live in Australia. Our broadband *sucks*. Try Korean or Japan if you're after inspiration.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, our broadband sucks. But it won't suck after the NBN has been built. Hence why they're talking to people about the NBN.

Try reading the summary. (I realise RTFA is too much to ask)

Are you kidding?!

[sammcj]

Is Obama going mad? Here in NZ we have one of the WORST internet "solutions" in the world! Its: -Slow -VERY expensive -Lots of area's don't even have access to internet -Heavily Data Capped (I pay $120 NZ for 10mbit (which is more like 7mbit) with only 40GB of data!)

Don't follow us

[labnet]

Goodness, the $40B broadband plan will be a disaster.
Lets see.
About 10 Million possible connection points (Business + Households) with say 25% takeup (after they will still be competing with ADSL/Cable which is already > 10 Mbits/sec to most)
Thats $16k per connection. Lets assume cost of capital (6%) + maintainence(4%) is 10%/annum.
So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.

So USA, don't follow our example.
Our dear leader K.Rudd is intent on sending us as broke as you.

Re:Don't follow us

[Chuck Chunder]

So it will cost $1600/annum or $133/month before we add any data costs.

That obviously isn't true because at that price no one (who had an option) would take it up. Whatever it costs to build access to it will have to be priced according to what the market will bear. Obviously that means someone (presumably the taxpayer) taking a hosing but that's where infrastructure usually comes from.

Australia is probably a worst case scenario for internet access. We have a low population density, our population centres are vast distances apart, our absolute population is pretty low and we don't have a lot of neighbour countries

With that in mind I don't think our access is all that bad. I can get 100gigs of ADSL2+ for $50 a month which isn't too bad.

Re:Not suprised

[MichaelSmith]

We have about 1/10th the overall US population density. OTH our urban population density would be quite similar.

Re:As an Australian living in Australia....

[some_guy_88]

(no, I'm not a liberal, not even close)

To anyone who doesn't know, the two major political parties in Australia are the Labor party (left-center) and the ironically named Liberal party (right conservative). The term "liberal" in Australia is therefore rather ambigious a lot of the time.

The new broadband network is being proposed by our current Labor government.

Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb

[RudeIota]

There is no 'natural' monopoly or duopoly. These situations are only created through Government intrusion into the market.

Based on actual history, you speak quite a bit of truth. However, it's not *only* created through government intrusion.

When a company is so successful that it can "get it" and "do it" for less... when a company offers something over an infrastructure that is so expensive and offering a product/service on a huge, national scale is the bar that has been set... That company will be so incredibly entrenched that it will never be rooted out by a startup. Ever.

It's the reason 100% free market capitalism can't work on it's own. It needs a little help from the big G, sometimes.

I totally agree the government effed up in the past and basically made AT&T a monopoly. They also continue to eff up in many ways, but without *some* government regulation, you'd STILL be stuck with AT&T anyway. In fact, their actual goal was to be *the* only telecommunications provider back in the early 1900s as they gobbled up the little companies in buyouts. AT&T would have been able to do it too, even without the government's help. I have no reason to believe AT&T or any other company in that position would feel any differently about the Internet.

Re:We're looking to AUSTRALIA for advice on broadb

[commodore64_love]

>>>This is one of the textbook cases of how natural monopoly/duopoly arise.

Except in the case of cable television, which is most areas the monopoly did not arise naturally. It was *mandated* by the local government when they granted Comcast (or Cox or Time-warner) an exclusive license in the neighborhoods or counties.

The government should revoke that exclusive license, and let other companies to move-in. Imagine if the metal pipe under your street not only had Comcast, but also Cox, Time-Warner Cable, Charter, Apple TV, and so on. You could just pick the one you liked, the same way you can choose a Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota, Kia, or Dodge car.