Labor Blog

Delivering superfast broadband

Stephen Conroy posted Friday, 30 July 2010

Opposing the National Broadband Network is like opposing the construction of railroads over a century ago.

The NBN is a significant investment; it will deliver superfast broadband access to the internet across Australia. Broadband access will open up many new possibilities for business, work place flexibility, education and health care.

It might surprise you that the NBN will help deliver world class health care to all Australians. No matter where you live, the NBN will make getting access easier by improving services like tele-radiology and enable remote consultations via video conference. This will especially help those outside our major cities because it will mean that the possibility will exist that you could easily have face-to-face regular consultations with your doctor or specialist without having to travel hundreds of kilometres to do so.

The NBN is a critical piece of infrastructure designed to help drive the Australian economy through the 21st century. Without it, Australian businesses won’t be able to compete with those in Singapore, Japan and Korea.

Every era presents people with new challenges and opportunities brought about by the technological advances of the day.

Our age has its own challenges. To keep pace with change, Australia needs to take opportunities when they appear.

Today Federal Labor announced the National Broadband Network will see an optical fibre network extend to 93 per cent of all Australian homes and businesses, up from the 90 per cent originally proposed. Where fibre optic broadband isn’t practical, homes will have access to next generation wireless or satellite broadband. Every home, school and business in Australia will have access to high speed broadband.

Today’s announcement confirms that NBN’s fibre coverage plans include places like Weipa, Tennant Creek, Port Augusta, Albany, Cooma, and Warrnambool – all of which will receive fibre broadband.

The NBN is one of the issues which defines the choice Australians have at this election. Only Federal Labor is committed to bringing affordable high speed broadband to every Australian home, business, school and hospital.

On the other hand, Tony Abbott and the Coalition have already announced they will cut the NBN. He has said he wants Australia to sit back and wait while the rest of the world leaps ahead of us.

Tony Abbott’s plan isn’t just a cut to the 25,000 jobs that will be supported every year by the NBN rollout. It’s a cut to the economic, education, and health care possibilities of the future.

Federal Labor is committed to moving Australia forward, and equipping the country with an NBN to drive economic growth for decades.

Tags: Abbott, broadband, Conroy, cuts, NBN

+ View all

18 Comments

damienbuckley from Capalaba , QLD Monday, 6 February 2012, 15:06

Its a great talk Stephen but where is the NBN? You were elected to Government promising to sort out the farce that is broadband in Australia. It is now 2012 and where are we? Still 'talking' as usual. Its just not good enough.
desertflower from RESERVOIR , VIC Wednesday, 18 August 2010, 12:18

I would recommend any one reading here, to go to the brilliant comments of Robin Wittle in the 'How We Build for the Future" thread. This guy knows more than his broadband from his wireless etc and has been writing about telecommunications since 1992, for Australian Communications Magazine and more recently (until 2 years ago) for Paul Budde Communications. His viewpoint - unrelated to Paul Budde's. . This is long but well worth reading: http://alp.org.au/blogs/alp-blog/august-2010/how-we-build-for-the-future/
desertflower from RESERVOIR , VIC Friday, 13 August 2010, 20:13

This Article is taken from the Australian Newspaper. NBN IS WELFARE FOR TECH HEADS Grahame Lynch August 13, 2010 The ALP government's $43 billion policy, at $2000 a head of population, is the most expensive government intervention of its kind in the world. The Coalition policy - at $300 a head - actually ranks comparably to that of Singapore's national broadband network government contribution, which costs about $200 a head of population, and New Zealand's at about $330. In South Korea, the five-year upgrade plan to bring fibre beyond the basement and into all homes is being funded 95 per cent by the private sector, the government contribution equating to a mere $25 a head of Korean population.h Also, many of the benefits touted by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy of a high-speed broadband world this week - things such as virtual classrooms, smart grids and video conference health care - are as achievable over the platforms envisaged by the Liberal plan as they are over fibre. Conroy's assertions that copper and wireless lack the symmetrical speeds necessary for these applications are not correct. Smart grids, for example, require small strings of information and they are easily facilitated over something as simple as SMS. Indeed, as we can see in Tasmania, early National Broadband Network plans are largely asymmetric anyway and tailored with all the usual off-peak and peak pricing and shaping that we see in the DSL world.i It is a disgrace that the many economic beneficiaries (the telecommunications industry ) of Labor's NBN policy believe they should have a bipartisan entitlement to tens of billions of dollars of gifted resources without resourcing credible analysis to back their arguments. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nbn-is-welfare-for-tech-heads/story-e6frg6zo-1225904633837
desertflower from RESERVOIR , VIC Friday, 13 August 2010, 20:13

NBN DOES NOT STACK UP FOR ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS. This is an article from yahoo.com By Gareth Parker August 12th, 2010 While the National Broadband Network is undoubtedly a nerd's wet dream, the question that must be asked is whether it's worth the $43 billion in taxpayers' money Julia Gillard says it is going to cost. Despite the claims of some industry analysts, the vast majority of Australians in the cities already enjoy very good broadband speeds on ADSL through the existing copper network. And in the parts of Sydney and Melbourne that already have access to fibre that delivers the NBN's 100Mbps speeds, there is simply no demand for it. Labor is making two big bets: that fibre is the only technology Australians will need for the internet, and that the services will emerge over the next five years that will justify the massive extra speeds. Tony Abbott's more modest proposal (which is still expensive at $6.3 billion) spreads those bets among a range of technologies and relies on the market to deliver higher speeds once the demand justifies it. With no business case (that's why Stephen Conroy had to abandon a partnership with the private sector) the NBN only really makes sense if you believe in nation building and telemedicine. Whether Mum and Dad are prepared to pay double per month so Junior can download three movies at once is something different. Of course, the bush looks set to miss out on the really fast stuff no matter who wins. Even $43 billion only buys fibre to 93 per cent of homes. Reckon the 7 per cent that miss out will be in Melbourne or Sydney? http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/garethparker/post/788/comment/1
desertflower from RESERVOIR , VIC Friday, 13 August 2010, 20:13

In my opinion, some of the comments made in the media over the last few months are relevant for the general public to be aware of before casting their vote. This piece consists of excerpts from Crikey.com. One poll-driven economic disaster — NBN — remains from horrific Rudd era Wednesday, 14 July 2010 by Adam Schwab Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: dead. Resources Super Profits Tax: dead. Home insulation scheme: dead. Rudd bank: Dead. Internet filter: dying. With virtually every one of the major policy initiatives of Kevin Rudd very publicly abandoned, there is one almighty policy that is not only surviving, but thriving. The $43 billion National Broadband Network — a testament to big government and small accountability. It appears to have been forgotten that the NBN was not a policy spurred by any great technological need, but rather, it was a very political beast, announced in April 2009 at the height of the global financial crisis. For the federal government, the primary goals of the project were to sideline a recalcitrant Telstra and to enhance its economic credentials. Australia would spend its way out of recession McKinsey, … were paid $25 million by the government to prepare an “implementation study”… The study explicitly did not “undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the macroeconomic and social benefits that would result from the implementation of a super-fast broadband network.”…… It didn’t proffer an opinion on whether the $43 billion is money well spent. .One … key benefits that Rudd (before his sacking) referred to was the nascent area of eHealth — that is, the ability for doctors to diagnose and treat patients remotely using video connections. While such a function has some use, instead of spending billions of dollars of taxpayer funds on a project rejected by the private sector, perhaps Rudd would have been better off hiring a some more rural doctors — you could probably get a few for $43 billion. There is also the fact that the main users of eHealth will be in rural areas, and those users will be covered by the NBNs wireless service, rather than its FTTP network. Former Optus executive and Liberal MP Paul Fletcher, who (despite his conflicts) is well versed to comment on the NBN, stated in the Financial Review that: In two fundamental ways, Labor is merrily taking on risks that Telstra, with its vastly greater experience of telecommunications — has chosen to steer clear of….It is a huge and complex text. But the second risk is even bigger: that labor will squander many billions of taxpayers’ money … In total, each Australian taxpayer is spending almost $4000 on the NBN (assuming the project costs $43 billion). This money will be spent on “creating jobs” for engineers’ consultants and public servants. In return, Australians will then need to spend upwards of $100 a month on a high-speed internet service that most don’t really want (for that price) and almost all don’t really need. There is no reasonable basis for a costly and complicated nationwide network connecting 93% of premises. The government most likely knows this, which is why it instructed McKinsey not to conduct a cost-benefit study of the $43 billion project. Julia Gillard has wiped clean the horrific remnants of the Rudd era — only one poll-driven economic disaster remains. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/14/one-poll-driven-economic-disaster-nbn-remains-from-horrific-rudd-era/
slipperyjim from mount gambier , south australia Friday, 13 August 2010, 13:13

sorry for the double post
slipperyjim from mount gambier , south australia Friday, 13 August 2010, 13:13

Labour want to win this election?? my opinion: spend the money IOPL (Internet Over Power Line). It makes sense, and wouldnt it save spending 43 billion??, more like half that and you would get the speed (or greater) than the fibre network would get, not to mention most of the infrastructure already would exist.
slipperyjim from mount gambier , south australia Friday, 13 August 2010, 13:13

Labour want to win this election?? my opinion: spend the money IOPL (Internet Over Power Line). It makes sense, and wouldnt it save spending 43 billion??, more like half that and you would get the speed (or greater) than the fibre network would get, not to mention most of the infrastructure already would exist.
solutions from Box Hill , NSW Tuesday, 10 August 2010, 08:10

Hmmmmm, i also think that this could be handled better, Please before you go live spend the extra time consulting the professionals. We don't want another white elephant
Ignyte from Maslin Beach , South Australia Wednesday, 4 August 2010, 00:04

Okay so your joining networks within Australia with Fibre Optics. How about trying to connect Australia to the rest of the world? This may seem extremely childish or "Geeky" but what Australia really Needs is a second Main Host Server which should be based in the South due to space availability, security and the obvious Jobs seeing as SA is one of the most unemployed state. A Main server which would be directly connected VIA Fibre Optics and High speed Satellite data transfer to the main countries such as America, the UK etc. would be Astronomically Beneficial for our economy, How? well It's simple, Big companies like to use the best of the best at an affordable prices, So the server can be used as Host for Domains (Websites and such) Online Storage, Once again affordable price and people will go for it. and most importantly (Which will bring in the most amount of money) Hosting for Online Gaming. It sounds silly I know, but in today's world almost every Teenage, Child and young adult has in their possession, A Console AND a computer. and most of the user's will be involved in online gaming in some form or another. So How does online gaming bring money? The companies the produce said consoles and Games either use their own Dedicated servers, Or pay Businesses to use a portion of their servers as dedicated servers for their games. This is however only useful and ONLY if the server has a very high speed connection with the rest of the world, which, None of them do. The problem with this is the Ping that Australian users experience when playing online games. If they are playing with their friends or other people within Australia then there isn't a problem. It is however a problem when users want to take part in online games with other users from across the world, when such activities are commenced, all of the users taking part in the game will experience LAG and/or High Ping's (Depending on the host servers location) Lag is what kills an online game, It slows it down so the server can sync-up all of the computers but when one or more are out of the country then you have a problem which most if not all gamers try to avoid. A Massive Dedicated server that would link up the rest of the world with our country will boost the amount of online gamers thus creating sales, thus creating jobs, thus getting us out of debt. Like I said, its a silly idea but when you think of how many people spend numerous hours playing online games, It doesn't seem so silly after all. Personally, If I had the funding myself, I would be commissioning this server right now but such a large scale project requires more than one person, It requires either a large organisation or better, A government that knows what they are doing. So Like I said before, Upgrading our data-lines internally isnt going to make much difference seeing as almost 70% when we use the internet, were visiting international websites.
zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 31 July 2010, 19:31

Wouldn't it be interesting if a company got a tax rebate for the infrastructure cost avoided for the days an employee who worked in an office worked from home.
disappointed2010 from melbourne , victoria Saturday, 31 July 2010, 15:31

conroy has a debilitating speech impediment that he has to deal with if he is to speak confidently in public. this is a serious presentation issue, also faced by martin ferguson and simon crean. ministers who can't speak properly - who can't pronounce words properly - run the risk of sounding foolish. in the current climate, the ALP cannot afford to let this happen.
aussepom from frankston , Victoria Saturday, 31 July 2010, 00:31

Hi found out that the charges for the new broad band in Tasmania friends have told me it will be so expensive no one will use they still have not told any one what the price will be, so how can they know that it will be used, they found out in Tassy as they asked about it, looks like a white elephant and an expensive one
thewinchester from Joondalup , WA Friday, 30 July 2010, 23:30

Sorry Stephen, you're not fooling anyone. Labour hasn't released its updated policy on the internet filter, thus most ordinary Australians don't know that the NBN will be crippled by an unworkable, non-viable and unnecessary waste of resources. And where is Labour on the Filter? It wasn't elected on that as a platform taken to the electorate last time - and there's been no intention to discuss it or open public debate either. If the party was serious on nefarious, subversive and sexually explicit content online - it would instead divert the resources of the filter into enhanced policing techniques, a uniform national criminal code that adequately punishes those who exploit others online (not the paltry sentences that value child abuse and exploitation at less than 1/4 of a day per image on average).... ...and most importantly: fund parental education on internet use, and teach responsible & save internet access in the classroom as part of a national IT curriculum. Of course, knowing Conroy's modus operandi - He'll just say that I support child abuse because I don't support the filter, the same disgusting gutter tactic line he's been using against everyone, even esteemed members of his own party like Sen. Kate Lundy. I've not voted Labour before, and you won't catch me voting for you this time. I'd rather have unfiltered internet than the NBN thanks.
sangerer from Albert Park , Victoria Friday, 30 July 2010, 17:30

I think that just about sums it up Stephen. The comments by "mwyres" and "Sticky" are spot on. Internet policy should not be handled by someone with no technical know how. Mind you I am only speaking as a person who has more than 20 years industry consulting experience and who sat on the G3 industry forum, wrote the national e-learning Training guidelines and multimedia training standards for this country. Fighting for band width and cheaper access has been an ongoing battle through the ill considered Telstra privatization and the absolute balls up by the Howard government of the G3 sale that cost the industry more than $350 million in promised funding. Why! Because the Liberals sold the bandwidth to early for a song and a dance. But of course you wouldn't know that. Not many people know how the Howard government asked to consult industry and when we reluctantly agreed in return for the promise that revenue would be injected back into the developing the industry we all got a nice letter telling is that since the sale realized less then a thrid of the revenue projections no funds to develop the gaming, training and multimedia indsutrywould be available. Worse, the $250 million the Howard government collected completly disappeared. Privatizing Telstra to early and before the national optic fibre was laid had the same sense of "rush to sell of the silverware" that remains the legacy of very state and federal liberal government from the late 80's onwards. Yes, we need the NBN just as much as we need a new national electricity grid that caters for renewable technologies.--- Another thing privatized under the liberals. Another thing that the every person in Australia pays dearly for everytime they get a bill. Next came water, Gas and so on and forth. ---- The issue is that if the liberals would not have sold it all we would have had options that we don't have now. ------->------Instead of concentrating on an ill conceived internet filter which is realy an issue of parental control, you should be concentrating on policy that moves Australia foward. Why would any rational person consider am internet filter that is as simple to resolve as setting the privacy controls on individual browsers and the parental controls that come with all newly purchased computers pre-installed. You should be concentrating your effort on pushing through legislation that guarrantees a minimum connection speed by law. Many european countries offer free internet to school students and the aged. In france you can sit in parks and gardens and connect for free. Finland has passed a law that guarrantees high speed access to every person as a consitutional right. In fact Stephen, instead of getting mired into right wing arguements by the lunatic fringe, and other nut bags who are to lazy or ignorant to press the parental control and privacy buttons on the software installed on every computer, I advise that you actually concentrate on sensible policy initiatives that move this country forward. Instead of showing your ignorance of the industry sector on national TV and with these rather self-serving and meaningless media releases you should concentrate on sensible policy that guarrantee high speed access to 100% of the Australian population. What do you think?
mariap2145 from marayong , nsw Friday, 30 July 2010, 17:30

The only thing you havent told us is HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST US??????????????' All we hear is BLAH BLAH BLAH not convincing at all Im afraid!!!!!!!!!
mwyres from Norlane , Victoria Friday, 30 July 2010, 15:30

So Mr Conroy, you announced TODAY that Labor is expanding coverage from 90% to 93%, did you? Why did NBN Co reveal FOUR MONTHS AGO during their latest technical briefing sessions, that when they applied their design model to geography, and factored in the budgetary aims of the project, that coverage would in fact rise from 90% to 93%? Yes, FOUR MONTHS AGO! Nice of you to sit on that little piece of information for all that time, saving it up for the election campaign! The ICT industry in this country has a complete distrust in yourself and your inability to "consult", as you claim. You have a bullish "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, despite mountains of evidence that are completely contrary to your wild accusations and statements. The NBN will be great for Australia, but keep your nose out of all the other things you think you understand.
Sticky from Northgate , QLD Friday, 30 July 2010, 14:30

Not much point if you persist with the internet filter.