ungulate

Regarding the NBN. The argument for FTTH is compelling. And in saying so I am also advocating that the Government take a stronger role in financing or underwriting the project. This may not seem sensible politically, but the alternatives are fraught with political risk. Options that involve re-using Telstra copper will be expensive. Whether that is in the fee structure, the inevitable delays or the risks in securing capital. FTTN at its best, is a stepping stone. But it is also a gift to the incumbent. Additionally, FTTH provides the government with the key to acting decisively and be seen to be acting decisively. Rather than go for second best and get bogged down in Court. With FTTH comes inexpensive backhaul, the key to further competition in the 3G market. As far as regulation/legislation goes. Here is my modest proposal. Build a FTTH network. Allow the existing system to function as it stands. In return do two things. Regulate a sensible price for access to existing ducting and rights of way. Legislate to prevent anyone other than the new network from providing speeds beyond (say, 25Mbps). Very simple, and it solves the key political and economic problems. Yes, you guys (the Government) have to take the bull by the horns, and yes to some extent the money will compete with roads and railways (but their budget is enormous compared to this. In any case, in an environment where the Government has to act as job provider, rolling out a brand new CAN creates a lot of jobs (its a better investment than the car industry). Btw, a large part of the cost of a FTTH network is in the CAN. There is no reason that this needs to happen immediately or that it has to be financed by the builder. Consider the billions invested in mobile phone handsets. Finally, at this stage we can only guess what the suitors of the NBN have in their proposals. Let us hope that at least one of these propose something with a bit of vision, or if not that the Government steps in to fill that gap.