Perhaps the more alarming factor to surface (or lack thereof) from behind Mr Hockey’s speech, was the absence of an NBN alternative. It sounds a lot like the Lib’s are basically committed to scrapping Labor’s whole Digital Education Revolution which includes new high speed broadband, computers, networks and IT programs for schools and of course the entire National Broadband Network project.

It’s one thing to throw around speculative numbers on how the Liberal party can return the economy back into the black by scrapping this and that, but without making any real policy announcements on sound alternatives, suggests uncertainty for effectively mounting a credible case. This leaves significant doubt that the only achievable outcome that a new Liberal Government in power would bring, is a return to the lack lustred innovative and visionary ‘dark ages’ of pre 2007 Governemnt.

Published by Ronnie on May 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Initial indications from many Optus customers suggest that they’re far from happy with the Optus decision to rejoin the Federal Government’s controversial Internet Content Filtering trial.

Broadband Industry analyst Paul Budde has also expressed his concern with the Content Filtering retort by Optus and stated that he suspects many Optus customers will be angered by such a decision.

“I thought the credibility of the whole situation was now so low that very few companies would actually put their weight behind it. It is clear the customers of companies such as Optus will not be amused about this sort of activity. So in that respect I am a bit surprised that companies do stick their neck out in a situation like that.” – Paul Budde

Not only does Mr Budde suggest that many Optus customers will be irate by the decision, he also ridiculed the Government’s process as unacceptable for a democratic society, which is also a view that has been aired by a significant amount of the online informed.

The Federal Government push to have mandatory content filtering introduced has appeared very ‘strong handed’, and capitalising further on Mr budde’s views, I too, am concerned with what might become, if such a potential precedent is struck.

And the winner is… The Australian People!

Putting the future of Australia first, the Federal Government today announced that it has scrapped requests for proposals on the NBN by effectively terminating this process on 7 April 2009 and simultaneously announcing a new $43 billion project in which the Australian Federal Government will build, own and operate a new high speed National Broadband Network over the next eight years.

The Government envisions the future broadband network to predominantly use FTTP – Fibre to the Premises (aka FTTH – Fibre to the Home) which consists of fibre optic technology. It’s still unclear what remote and regional parts of Australia will use for Broadband delivery, although it’s been suggested that developments in new Wireless technology could play a significant roll in these areas.

A new NBN process will commence immediately with the Federal Government to establish a company to build and operate the initial $4.7 billion stage of the broadband network. This includes an overhaul on ‘blackspots’ throughout the country along with work on a new FTTP and Wireless network in Tasmania to start as early as July 2009.

Telecommunication regulatory reform has also been announced with the Government seeking views and opinions on making the broadband regime more effective, especially in regards to the churning process which involves consumers migrating or transferring from their existing ADSL or Cable connections to new high speed broaband Internet access on the upcoming new Broadband Network infrastructure.

Stay tuned to Youcompare and Broadband Guide for further NBN developments!

In the biggest broadband news to hit the Internet since Telstra was dumped from the NBN process, the incumbent today announced a Cable Broadband upgrade of 100Mbps which will triple existing speeds. Telstra’s timely media release has coincidently surfaced within days of an expected National Broadband Network decision to be made by the Australian Federal Government.

Work on the Telstra cable upgrade roll out will use the latest DOCSIS 3.0 software technology and has been scheduled to start immediately with completion targeted for December this year. The next level of cable broadband speeds is not expected to finish at 100Mbps either, as further upgrade capacities suggest cable broadband potentials can reach speeds of up to 200Mbps.

Although Telstra may be excluded from the Australian NBN process, the Telco still appears to be rapidly releasing upgrades and new features whilst expanding on their already impressive network coverage. It’s almost as though Telstra was seeking to obtain an early ‘upper hand’ against a prospective NBN rival that is due to be announced any day now.

By the end of this year, and provided that all forecasts go to plan, Telstra will have upgraded it’s 2.5 million subscriber cable broadband network to 100Mbps; possibly increased it’s Next G mobile wireless service from 21Mbps to 42Mbps; consolidated broadband Internet access to 99% of the population; and as a result, enabled the potential for millions of people to work from home, improve home automation capabilities and opened the door to an online world of entertainment that includes high definition content viewing.

Funnily enough, this Telstra blueprint could almost deliver high speed broadband of at least 12Mbps (as defined by the Government’s NBN guidelines) to the majority of the population without needing the NBN funding of $4.7 billion? If Telstra was to provide minimum broadband Internet speeds of 12Mbps on both of it’s existing ‘Next G’ and ‘Hybrid Coaxial Cable Networks’, it would only leave an ADSL2+ upgrade to VDSL2 technology in it’s path of meeting the NBN speed requirement.

VDSL2 (Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line 2) is a broadband Internet access technology that could supercede ADSL2+ services and can theoretically support speeds of 250Mbit/s at the source. However, beyond this distance the speed quickly deteriorates to 100Mbps at 0.5kms, 50Mbps at 1km, then to ADSL2+ speeds (24Mbps) at 1.6kms.

Telstra has already tested VDSL technology and ‘all bets are off’ that this type of technology will be the next in line for a roll out beyond the upcoming cable and Next G upgrades. If VDSL2 does become reality, then Telstra will basically have all the mechanisms in place to compete against an alternative National Broadband Network structure based on the Government’s pre-requisite minimum speed of 12Mbps.

Telstra Media Release.

Will Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy and the Australian Federal Government go ahead with mandatory Internet content filtering after so much negative feedback from the ‘informed’ public arena?

Results from an Australian Broadband survey conducted recently that attracted approximately 20,000 respondents overwhelming voted against the new content filtering proposal. The survey  found that only 1.2% who voted for Labor at the last election actually supported the proposed policy of Internet filtering, while almost 90% say they would opt out of a filter if introduced.

Although many of the participants in the survey are highly informed and or technically sound, it still asks the question of just how many people in mainstream society would also agree with the survey finding’s. Furthermore, if this were to be the case, would the Federal Government proceed with an Internet content filtering policy just to ‘check’ so called election promises?

One irate content filtering opponent in a online news forum labeled the Government as ‘hubris’ and waved goodbye to democracy whilst saying hello to China/North Korea. A silly remark perhaps, or does this statement have a basis for concern? The general consensus of the survey results, and from many opinions found in corresponding online forums, suggests there’s a significant amount of conjecture behind the underlying principles of what a ‘mandatory filtering policy’ may bring to the table.

The impeachment of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and a ‘Big Brother’ type government are two such concerns, and although this may sound a little overboard, many believe that whilst the general public have good principles and morals that would welcome the eradication of pedophiles and explicit material, which the Government have based their whole policy around, they feel that mainstream Australia may overlook the bigger picture and what’s really at stake.

Does a 20,000 thousand strong survey that heavily weighs against the introduction of Internet Content Filtering warrant a reversal of policy? I suspect not, but then again it does give the Government something to think about.

Upsetting a minority is a ‘rational transaction’ that any Government obviously has to execute from time to time, however introducing a policy that evokes grave fears for ’human rights’ that may, over time, grow louder and louder in the public sector, is certainly something that a Government cannot ignore.

If the writing wasn’t already on the wall, the imminent fate of Telstra chief ‘Sol Trujillo’ was definitely made more evident after blundering the NBN bid. It’s been officially revealed that the Telstra CEO will in fact step down on June 30th this year after 4 years with the incumbent.

During his period at Australia’s largest telecommunication provider, Mr Trujillo says the results he’s achieved in this respective time has made him incredibly proud. He certainly has Telstra’s world leading Next G Mobile broadband network to his credit, however others would argue his success was limited, especially Telstra’s shareholders.

There’s no doubting that Mr Trujillo’s almost ruthless approach at dealing with the Industry’s challenges; it’s competitors; Australian Government relations; and regulatory conflicts earned him some stripes if not stars, however history will possibly reveal down the track that the one thing that he didn’t know too well was the environment he worked in and it’s people.

So who’s next in the seat? If the board share similar opinions to those just described, I’d be inclined to lean toward an in-house appointment. Telstra may be twice shy when it comes to obtaining a foreigner for the top roll, and someone that will be subject to an unfamiliar, and at times, hostile environment. My guess Telstra’s next boss is an Aussie!

In a recent survey conducted by Aussie ISP ‘Netspace’, inital results showed that 78.9% of participants disagree with the Federal Government on making Content Filtering compulsory at an ISP level. If this is anything to go by at a national level, it appears that the Government has it blatantly wrong.

Around 10,000 customers took part in the survey, in which Netspace said was an ‘overwhelming response’. Only a mere 13.6% supported a proposed content filtering mandate, with the remaining 7.1% undecided and 0.4% not responding. It really does send out a loud and clear message…. Australians do not want content filtering implemented at an ISP level!

Perhaps the average Aussie can see a bigger picture here than filtering child porn alone, and that it may refer to other fundamental principles such as the real motive for the introduction of filtering at an ISP level; Precedents that it will set; Effectiveness of an ISP filter to work appropriately; and the potential consequences that a decision like this may bring.

What are you concerns? Do they fit into any of the following categories:

A. Will an ISP filter stop illegal content completely? Industry experts are in agreeance and say ‘No’, as there are many different avenues to bypass or transmit content around an ISP filtering system.

B. What is the real motive behind an ISP content filter?  Is it to check election box promises? Control more than just illegal Internet content?

C. Once implemented, where does the filtering stop? Could the bodies in power that be impeach an individual’s freedom of speech by removing content at will, regardless of agenda?

D. How much content will be ‘wrongfully’ removed by accident or otherwise?

E. What kind of consequences are involved for the ISP and end user? Will it slow down the Internet dramatically and or cause other types of technical conflicts?

I, for one, believe that it comes down to ‘choice’ and more to the point, a parent’s responsibility, and that it should extend into respective Institutions (to a certain degree). However, just who should the primary responsibility of nurturing and protecting our children fall upon?

Are we now too busy to do this ourselves to the point that we need ‘Big Brother’ to intervene? Surely not. Could ‘FREE’ protection software act as an adequate alternative opposed to pre-emptive control, which in essence, may take away an individuals right to act ‘freely’.

Internet content filtering should be available, but to what extent and controlled by whom? If you have something to say on this topic, by all means feel ‘FREE” to post a reply.

Colin Jacobs, Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, has published a very interesting article on the controversial topic of Internet Censorship that includes findings from a study by Brooklyn Law School (Filtering in Oz: Australia’s Foray Into Internet Censorship) which he has deemed a ‘serious embarrassment’.

Outside Eastern countries, if the Internet Censorship plan was to be passed through the legislative process successfully, then Australia would become the first Western democracy to have such communist like controlling laws.

Mr Jacobs has begged to differ with the Government’s censorship experiment by questioning it’s legitimacy. In a Crikey.com.au blog titled ‘The world smirks at Conroy’s censorship plan’ the study has shown, through a process based methodology, that there are serious doubts over the legitimacy of such an experiment.

The study’s author applies a process-based methodology to determining censorship’s legitimacy by asking four questions. Is the country open about its censorship plans and the reason behind them? Is it transparent about what is to be restricted? How narrow is the filtering? And finally, are the processes and decision makers behind the scheme accountable? While the Government earns praise for openness (Internet filtering was a central campaign promise), serious issues are highlighted in the other three areas.

The blog is certainly an interested read, so if you aren’t up to speed on the whole Internet Censorship uproar, I recommend you check it out.

Furthermore, the ‘Filtering in Oz: Australia’s Foray Into Internet Censorship’ study can be downloaded here.

Telstra’s public policy and communications representative ‘David Quilty’ has stated that the telco is not considering legal action against the Federal Government after being booted from the NBN tender process.

Speculation has emerged stating that Telstra would seek compensation claims in excess of $80 billion from the Government if another proponent was to win the rights to build a national broadband network which accessed Telstra’s existing copper network.

Senator Conroy has withdrawn from making any hypothetical remark on the possibility of compensation claims by Telstra, although he did point out that Telstra had already brought the access issue before the courts (unsuccessfully). 

“In fact, Telstra decided to take this matter all the way to the High Court,”

“Even (chief justice) Michael Kirby joined the other six members to say that when Telstra purchased the network, they purchased it with an access regime in place. Get used to it,”

Telstra is certainly showing signs of backing down, however Mr Quilty once again stood behind his company’s ongoing broken record excuse that ‘puts their shareholders first’  by saying that Telstra were unable to submit an extensive NBN proposal through fear of vertical separation which is something that Telstra cannot contemplate.

Quilty also played down any possibility that the board, including chief executive ‘Sol Trujillo’, faced uncertain futures following their ballsup with the whole NBN process that witnessed billions wiped from Telstra share prices which infuriated Telstra shareholders.

Telstra will not build the $4.7 billion National Broadband Network! The Government’s expert panel has made extraordinary headlines by making a decision to reject their non-compliant bid based on a technicality. Telstra was dumped from the process on grounds that it did not meet a section of requirements surrounding a ‘small to medium enterprise plan’ which was a mandatory part of the NBN criteria.

In the biggest Broadband news to hit the industry this year, Telstra boss ‘ Sol Trujillo’ may have called his last bluff by submitting a pitiful 12 page NBN proposal to the Australian government. Trujillo was believed to be somewhat bewildered by the decision as he had not yet had any correspondence with Minister Conroy, thus receiving the news secondhand.

“We are a bit surprised at taking this action on a triviality, which we are very clear in our minds, we were fully compliant in the language of the RFP in terms of how we handled this matter. I don’t want to speculate beyond that, because we’ve not had any conversation with the Minister or the appropriate people involved yet,” – Sol Trujillo

Many Australians have been made buoyant by the sobering decision to dump Telstra from the NBN process as they believed the incumbent was too powerful in holding out competition; slowed down innovation and market growth; and charged extremely high prices for telecommunication services.

On the surface, this latest decision by the government is statement of strength and unity which suggests they will not be taken lightly with the national broadband network process, and furthermore, will endeavour to create an ‘open access’ network with ‘fair’ regulatory conditions for Australian consumers along with an equal playing field for Industry competition.

At the same time this decision will also force Telstra to re-evaluate their strategy on the NBN. This may included succumbing to the NBN process guidelines and submitting an eligible comprehensive proposal, if the door is still open that is? Or possibly considering business (on their own) beyond the NBN.

If this latest slap in the face doesn’t awake the arrogant giant, it’s quite likely that Telstra’s shareholders will, or the perhaps the possibility of declining stock value? You’re move Telstra, the ball is well and truly in your court now.

The Government’s proposed ISP filters which are meant to safeguard young probing eyes from illicit content found on the web have come up thumbs down after initial test results showed shortcomings. The findings have suggested that the products tested could in fact filter websites that produce illegal content or block peer-to-peer networks, however they could not identify content that is being shared across the P2P networks such as BitTorrent.

The report, released today by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, showed ISP filtering technologies were improving, however it also highlighted significant holes in current technologies to automatically filter content shared over peer-to-peer networks.

source: zdnet.com.au

The demand for the functional, or structural separation, of Telstra has been a very precariously debated and wide spread topic over recent months. If these calls weren’t made loud and clear enough back then, you can bet you’re bottom dollar that almost everyone who reads online technology news will know about them now as regulatory submissions for the new national broadband network have now been made public by the government.

These submissions came from a variety of sources ranging from internet service providers, individuals, business and corporate entities including the likes of Google and Intel, through to state government departments. Funnily enough, the majority of the submissions all shared a common theme (or should I say suggestion), separate Telstra  either operationally or structurally. The respective submissions (including two from Telstra), will make for interesting reading, especially for those who wish to be further informed on the issues surrounding the national broadband network process and it’s regulations.

Industry and public interest groups were invited to provide submissions on regulatory issues associated with the National Broadband Network process.

The Government has reserved the right to not publish submissions or parts of submissions where it considers it appropriate to do so for confidentiality or other reasons.

The views contained in the submissions are those of its authors, and may not represent the views of the Commonwealth or its officers. The Government continues to reserve all of its rights in respect of the Request for Proposals.

Read the Regulatory Submissions at the DBCE

In a contradictory announcement made by Telstra, the telecommunication giant revealed that it’s now planning to offer wholesale ADSL2+ services to competitors. This statement comes only after several months of rolling out ADSL2+ services to over 900 new exchanges.

The remarkable turn-around of policy has left industry experts scratching their heads. Coincidently, Telstra has also simultaneously called on the government to end speculation over a possible structural separation split into retail and wholesale sectors.

Is it possible that Telstra is preparing a contingency plan with this latest ADSL2+ wholesale announcement on the chance that it doesn’t win the NBN or is structurally separated? Perhaps this latest ADSL2+ wholesale policy back flip is part of a bigger picture such as a network upgrade? Afterall, its puzzling to witness a change of heart like this from telstra after such a short stint, and why at this particular point during the NBN process?

With increased conjecture mounting around a structural separation along with the additional pressure placed on the government by Telstra, its certainly leading to interesting times ahead.

source: Telstra tells govt: end speculation
source: Telstra’s reversal: now it plans to wholesale ADSL2+

The 2020 Summit was a success for many various reasons such as it raised concerns, sprouted ideas and addressed important issues challenging Australia and it’s future prosperity. In the final report of the Summit, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was urged to split the wholesale and retail elements of Telstra in order to obtain a competitive market for the Broadband Industry.

It appears that Telstra has fallen heavily into the structural separation line of fire. What makes a possible separation more evident is the fact that not only are Telstra’s competitors calling for a split, highly influential and prominent business people (some of which were in the Summit group) are now also urging the government to perform a structural severing.     

The government should assess the case for vertical separation of the network owner from retail carriers and carriage service providers to promote access,” the group’s recommendation in the report said.


source: misaustralia.com

Unveiled: Another consortium who coughed up the $5 million bond prescribed by the government and one that’s been keeping a very low profile until now, has publicly raised it’s hand in the battle for the upcoming national broadband network bid.

“Acacia”, made up of prominent Melbourne businesses which include Doug Shears, Leon Kempler and Solomon Lew, says that their bid will alleviate government concerns by making the NBN open and competitive. The key factor residing in Acacia’s proposal apparently suggests the network will ultimately be returned to public control (similar to the CityLink project after X amount of years), or possibly a similar role to that of Telstra’s which it had once upon a time ago.

There’s a “them and us” tussle going on at the top of Australia’s IT industry over Telstra’s power. The Acacia plans is proposing to return the new, improved part of the network to public hands, or the position Telstra once held. This could be along the lines o, say, Melbourne’s CityLink road project, where fees gained over a two-year to 25-year period more than repay the original investment, plus making a tidy profit, before it reverts to public hands.

source: misaustralia.com

Due to delay from Telstra in releasing critical network information for all proponents of the FTTN NBN bid to examine, Senator Stephen Conroy was left with no alternative accept to extend the deadline for proposal submissions until 12 weeks after the information is released.

Telstra had recently provided some information on it’s network, however it fell short of the comprehensive information needed. In response to Telstra’s sluggish and uncooperative actions, the Government moved to introduce a bill into parliament which will force Telstra to disclose all the relevant network information that’s required.

NBN bidders will have 12 weeks to examine network information

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, today announced that parties participating in the National Broadband Network process will have 12 weeks to consider network information from the date all material is made available.

“In February, I wrote to carriers seeking the voluntary disclosure of network information. All carriers either have or are working towards providing this information in a timely manner and I welcome this cooperative approach,” Senator Conroy said.

“Telstra has provided some network information however despite its best efforts some information is not yet available.”

“The provision of network information is vital to allow potential proponents to build the network to compete on an equal basis.”

“The National Broadband Network represents this nation’s single largest investment in broadband infrastructure. It is important that interested parties have adequate time to make use of information about existing infrastructure,” Senator Conroy said.

For this reason the Government will ensure potential proponents will have 12 weeks to consider network information before being required to lodge their proposals. The Government will amend the Request for Proposals to reflect this timetable.

Further information on the National Broadband Network and how to make a submission is available at www.dbcde.gov.au/nationalbroadbandnetwork

source: minister.dbcde.gov.au

In a recent speech on the upcoming National Broadband Network by OPTUS CEO Paul O’Sullivan, he stated that his overall message could be summed up in one phrase ‘Australia cannot take Competition in Broadband for granted’. In colloquial terminology using a famous Aussie expression it sounds more like he’s asking for a ‘Fair Go’ due to the current (and past) state of the Australian Broadband Industry and the Policy Guidelines behind the NBN process.  

Mr O’Sullivan also referred to the National Broadband Network as ‘Open Heart Surgery’ and touched on subjects that inlcuded The OPEL Decision, Structural Separation and gave an insight into the Broadband Market and the struggle that many ISP’s have against Telstra’s monopoly of the industry due to regulatory inadequacies.

Telstra has used its market power, over two thirds market share in residential fixed voice, to keep prices high – whilst pocketing the savings from the lower wholesale prices we have been forced to give it.

But recent developments are giving us increasing concern that the fine words of opposition are being lost under the heavy burden of Government and in the face of a seductive though anticompetitive pitch from Telstra.

If the new national broadband network is a repeat of Telstra controlling bottleneck infrastructure it will be a comprehensive policy failure – and Australian consumers will literally pay for this mistake.

we stand ready to provide a compelling proposal which will dramatically improve Australia’s broadband services. But we can only do this if we are given a fair and reasonable chance to put in a serious and compelling bid.

Read the entire speech article at news.com.au

In a very similar and ignorant circumstances to that of the previous Liberal Government, Kevin Rudd is seeking to block all objectionable material before it can be downloaded by Australian Internet users. Many business and industry experts are declaring that this totalitarian type of censorship will not work, effect underlying ‘freedom of speech’ principles and cost consumers more in the long run along with bogging down the Internet.

It appears that Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy seriously need to slow down and rethink their entire so called ‘clean net’ plan prior to muzzling ISP’s with filtering software. What’s wrong with parents implementing content filtering at a PC level? AIIA spokeswoman ‘Sheryle Moon’ suggests that filtering should be implemented by parents at the PC level.

“This is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide” said Hostworks chief excutive Marty Gauvin. “It isn’t going to make a great deal of difference other than to make Australia a less desirable market to create digital content”

“It’s worth remebering that server-level filtering was trialled in Tasmania and was ultimately rejected” said iiNet’s Mr Malone. “There is no real way to do it accurately at a national level.”

“We think that filtering should occur at the PC level,” said Ms Moon. “It should be up to parents to make decisions about what their childeren can and cannot access.”

Read the entire article at MISAustralia.com

Just like Australia has a new political party in power, we also have a new Communications Minister. Senator Stephen Conroy has been appointed Australia’s new Communications Minister under Kevin Rudd’s Cabinet lineup. Perhaps Senator Conroy’s most important task as the new Minister will be overseeing the development of the Federal Government’s new national fibre-to-the-node Broadband network. One thing is for certain, Mr Conroy will also need a suit of Armour to keep telco giant ‘Telstra’ in check along with the arduous task of building a new Broadband network for Australians.

Australia now has a minister for broadband, under Kevin Rudd’s new cabinet lineup. Senator Stephen Conroy will be the minister for broadband, communications and digital economy.

Given that a central part of conservative political theory is light-touch, non-interventionist government and letting the free market operate, it speaks volumes that the former conservative government thought it so important to strongly regulate Telstra.

Read the entired article at APCmag.com

As the forthcoming Federal Election gears up a notch, Prime Minister John Howard says Aussie Broadband Speeds are OK, Labor talks $8billion dollars for new joint Network, and reports show Australia is lagging behind leader Japan with speeds 35 times slower. Howard says Broadband Internet speeds will be improved over the next couple of years, but it might be a case of too little too late. A recent report also suggests that we’re paying 9 times as much for our Broadband services compared to other countries. While the Libs appear to have dropped the ‘ball’ on Broadband, Labor commits to plans for developing a Broadband Network in conjunction with the Private sector which will pave the way for Broadband speeds 40 times faster than whats currently available.

Opposition communications and information technology spokesman Stephen Conroy says Labor wants to use the $2 billion Communications Fund to build partnerships with the private sector and roll out an $8 billion national broadband network.

Prime Minister John Howard has defended Australia’s broadband speeds.

“We are laying out speeds of 12 megabits per second for 99 per cent of the community,” he said.

Read the entire article at ABC.net

Australians are certainly behind the eight ball when it comes to Broadband Technology (as we all should know by now). While the Federal Government is bungling around in la la land over a new national high speed Broadband Network as the Federal Election looms, other regions of the planet such as Asia are far more advanced than Australia using robust Fibre to the Home Technology (that’s since early 2000 as well).

Although not entirely wide spread yet, other regions such as Europe and more so Scandinavia have embraced the technology and implemented Fibre to the Home Networks. It’s easy to see that the core of Australia’s future depends on a national high speed Broadband network, so why is it that decisions and development on Broadband infrastructure in our country are taking so long and being left on the backburner?

21.2 percent of homes in Hong Kong were found to be wired with FTTH, followed by South Korea at 19.6 percent and Japan at 16.3 percent.

In Japan, FTTH often provides a 100Mbps connection for less money than Australians pay for a connection one-tenth as fast.

Take-up in Europe varies from country to country, although the most significant movement to date have taken place in the Scandinavian countries and, latterly, France and the Netherlands.

Current estimates put the number of subscribers across the continent at around one million, with Sweden leading the way with some 27 percent of subscribers.

Much of the debate around fibre in Australia remains around fibre to the node, with both the Coalition and Labor planning to authorise rollouts in the near future — should they be elected.

Labor’s communications spokesperson Stephen Conroy has previously lent his support to a FTTH rollout although the costs involved in such a move remain prohibitive, according to the Opposition senator.

Read the entire article at ZDNet.com.au

Access to popular sites such as Facebook and MySpace could be blocked if the federal Government introduce legislation which they say is ‘not really’ about censorship, moreover criminals that defraud people. Industry experts warn that policing the Internet could prove to be a very difficult task considering the complications involved when trying to close down a specific site that is linked to non-prohibited sites by the same IP address. This type of total control approach is used by the Chinese which basically block everything in that IP range. Other areas of concern revolve around the ramifications that such a law might have that could be deemed unconstitutional.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Helen Coonan said the amendment would address “a gap” in the present legislation. “This is not really about censorship,” he said. “We’re talking about sites that are established by criminals to defraud people.

Electronic Frontiers Australia chair Dale Clapperton said the proposal had nothing to do with terrorism.

“These laws will be open to massive abuses by the police,” he said. “They could, for example, be used to prevent access to websites organising protest marches or rallies against the government, or advocating the legalisation of euthanasia.

“But, as a technologist, I have to point out that blocking content from overseas is horrifically hard, if not impossible.”

“Unfortunately, filtering will not make the internet safe for children. If parents are deceived into thinking a filtered service is safe they will be less likely to supervise their children while they use the internet.”

Read the entire article at AustralianIT.com.au

Once upon time the Internet was a raw technology resource for everyone that invoked a new frontier of exciting opportunities for electronic communication, business and entertainment on a global scale. That was until Mr Policeman came along and moderated the Internet. A bed time story or potential future reality?

It appears that we’ve reached a descent toward a ‘police state’ according to the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA). New legislation that has been introduced to the senate will give Australian Federal Police the power to ban access to specific content found on the Internet through threat of Terrorism.

According to EFA, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related Internet Content) Bill 2007, which has been introduced into the Senate, would, if enacted, give senior members of the Australian Federal Police powers to ban access to Internet content which they have reason to believe: encourages, incites, or induces the commission of a Commonwealth offence; or was published in part to facilitate the commission of such an offence; or that it is likely to have the effect of facilitating the commission of such an offence.”

Read the entire article at ITWire.

The widely anticipated Broadband network deal for the country has finally been signed by both the Federal Government and the Optus led consortium. Ironically, the $1Billion tax payer funded Broadband network development program has been given the final nod only days before Telstra take Communications Minister ‘Helen Coonan’ to court over the alleged ‘unfairness’ of the selection process, and on the eve of an impending election announcment.

The Communications Minister, Helen Coonan announcement, has forged ahead with the Opel agreement after weeks of delays despite scathing criticism of her handling of the selection process for the Broadband Connect program.

Telstra has claimed the Communications Department selected Opel as the preferred bidder four months before the minister announced it as the winner. Furthermore, it claimed Opel was the only party to get an opportunity to bid for a further $358 million.

Read the entire article at SMH by clicking here.

Will this country ever get the Broadband infrastructure it so throughly requires without continuous delays? In another setback for major Australian Broadband development, the Federal Government has placed a ‘freeze’ on a Broadband Connect deal that it recently struck with Opel consortium (Optus/Elders). This latest hindrance has been brought about from direct legal action placed against Senator Coonan by Telstra. At the end of the day there’s no doubting that the public ,namely the rural sector of which, will be disadvantaged by the legal proceedings.

Telstra began the legal action against the minister early this month after the Government awarded Opel $958 million to build a broadband network. The company alleges the Government did not follow proper procedures in selecting a bidder.

Opel consortium were due to sign the funding deed for Broadband Connect on Wednesday night, but pulled out after receiving advice from the Government’s lawyers

Read the entire article at The Age.com.au

The governement is starting to introduce measures like rushing a Future Funds spending prevention amendment through Parliament which appears will hinder Labor’s Broadband network planning if they were to be successful next election. Furthermore, a recent ‘Future Fund’ article, which also depicts an image of Senator Minchin and current Treasurer Costello laughing, has people speculating that the current government could also be in process of conceding it’s position at the helm. Case of sour grapes perhaps?

The article in question states that it would stop Labor robbing the future generations by raiding the Future Funds. However, it could be quite the contrary as in affect, it may rob the future generations who would be relying on the best possible Broadband infrastructure that Labor are likely to introduce by using part of the Future Fund assets.

As it stands, the whole process could merely amount to an expensive and pointless time wasting excersie as a Rudd government could remove any future changes to this bill, however it would still require the support of the Senate which it would not control.

The legislation is expected to be passed next month, so it will be in place before the election

They would “stop the Labor Party robbing future generations by raiding the Future Fund, taking its annual earnings and dictating to the board that it should invest its money in advancing Labor’s political interests”.

While a Rudd government could remove the changes, this would require the support of the Senate, which it would not control.

Read the entire ‘Bid to lock up Future Fund’ at The Age

We all want to protect the innocent from the online rubbish thats polluting the Internet nowdays, but just how to implement the best resource to do so is the question. Industry experts from Australia’s leading ISPs are suggesting the government’s proposal to ‘filter’ online content at an ISP level is simply ‘unworkable’. Common sense would also indicate that administering censorship would work more efficiently at a household level such as the case with anti-virus protection and that seen with TV programming. This latest radical plan has also prompted Labor party spokesman ‘Stephen Conroy’ to accuse the government of rehashing old announcements in an attempt to gain popularity in the lead up to the next federal election later this year.

filtering the internet at the ISP level, as opposed to installing filtering software on the home computer, was unworkable and would “affect the performance of the network quite significantly”.

Opposition communications spokesman Stephen Conroy accused the Government of rehashing old announcements in an attempt to portray a tough stance on internet safety in the lead-up to the federal election.

Read the entire article at SMH

The reality is that the minister is misleading the Australian public. Under the Government’s broadband plan Australians can expect speeds up to 20 times today’s average.

Meanwhile, it appears that Labor’s policy on the Broadband Network is going from strength to strength in wake of the governments handling of the project and is being adopted as a ‘more realistical’ approach by the public.

That is why Labor has proposed a national broadband plan that extends the superior technology, fibre-to-the-node, into rural and regional areas, to offer not just city comparable pricing but parity of service. The fibre-to-the-node service will deliver to 98 per cent of Australians guaranteed minimum connection speeds that are 40 times faster than today’s average.

Read the entire article here at The Australian

Controversial Telecommunications giant ‘Telstra’ is poised to take government communication minister Helen Coonan to court over the ‘topped up’ Broadband Connect Program funding decision. The Optus and Elders consortium (OPEL)  were awarded funding to the amount of $1 billion to develop Broadband in rural and regional areas, however Telstra wants to know exactly why they weren’t given the opportunity to tender for that amount when the initial funding offered was supposed to be set at $600 million.

According to Telstra, “The Broadband Connect Program Guidelines offered ‘up to $600 million’ of taxpayers’ money to provide broadband to ‘underserved’ rural and regional areas. Telstra submitted its proposal on that basis.” However, instead, almost $1 billion was ultimately awarded to the SingTel Optus and Elders consortium (Opel) to, according to Telstra “largely duplicate existing services with little net benefit to rural Australians.”

Read the entire article here at ITWire

Telstra’s shakedown of the government’s handling of the FTTN Network initiative has been taken another level. This time the telco giant is suggesting that the threat of ‘terrorism’ could loom if the fibre to the node broadband network tendering goes to the Optus led consortium who has links to SingTel (a foreign owned company). It appears there’s no stopping Telstra’s executives and the somewhat ‘extreme lengths’ they’re going to when trying to convince the government that a FTTN network developed, constructed, owned and operated by them is the way to go.

TELSTRA public affairs boss Phil Burgess has suggested Australia would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks if the telecommunications company didn’t get its way in the broadband debate.

Telstra has continually highlighted Optus’s foreign links through its parent company SingTel, which is majority owned by the Singapore Government’s investment vehicle, Temasek. 

Read the entire article at Australia IT