![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/8802982.jpg?316)
The sale of Telstra was botched by Howard as he turned a Government owned monopoly into a privately owned monolith. In addition to reducing competition in the telecommunications sector, the initial offering was so badly under-priced it cost tax-payers $18B.
And despite advice to split the Wholesale and Retail arms, that was too hard for Howard, and had to be eventually done by a Labor Government.
The need for the split arose out of Telstra’s monopoly hold on the copper network (and the resulting negative impact on competition), Telstra's resistance to the progress of the NBN and the need to level the playing field across telecommunications. That cost us $11B.
With the total cost of the NBN estimated at $37.4B, if the Howard Government wasn’t so incompetent we’d have most of the new network paid for.
What about the Coalition’s cheaper alternative?
Quite simply… It is cheaper and nastier. And in the long run, if it doesn’t meet our needs, it will end up costing us so much more. I’d like to see Turnbull’s cost-benefit analysis on this.
Is Abbott's instructions to Turnbull to 'demolish the NBN' further evidence that he just doesn't understand the potential of this infrastructure. After all he is ‘no tech-head’.
As the Coalition seems to fear...will the technology become outdated?
Well nothing is faster than the speed of light… if you believe Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity which has remained unchallenged since 1907. I don’t know if the Opposition would be satisfied that the ‘science is settled’, but I think the rest of us can be confident that it is. Transmission speed will never be the issue. But switch speed will, and switches can be updated as the technology changes without needing to dig up the fibre optic cables.
So the argument about the technology becoming outdated? The best advice available suggests that is a low risk. The real risk is changing to the Coalition’s plan for the NBN.
And then the biggest argument… Do we NEED it?
The benefits will flow significantly to rural and remote communities. Despite decades of trying to attract medical professionals and specialists to these locations, a move into Telehealth will improve access to better health outcomes by reducing patient travel and increasing access to timely medical advice and treatment.
Even surgery can be performed remotely, and can be done more safely.
It will reduce power costs and environmental impacts by enabling Smart Grids.
It will support business innovation and support workers who want to Telecommute. This in turn will reduce traffic congestion and the associated downstream costs related to motor vehicle accidents, parking, public transport pressures, road building, road repair and maintenance.
And of course access to high quality Education for those in rural and remote locations, as well as access to more innovative learning tools for all our classrooms. An outcome the Gonski report has already flagged as key to our future and that of our children
To simultaneously run all those services safely needs both speed and bandwidth. At the rate at which we are increasing our demand, we do (to use Malcolm Turnbull’s words) need a 4 lane highway and not a sealed dirt road.
The predicted benefits are huge. To put that at risk would be irresponsible.
But then Abbott, being ‘no tech-head’, has no idea and Turnbull (a man who should know better) is doing his bidding … Scary stuff.
What are your thoughts?