- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I would agree that all of the infrastructure projects mentioned above were immensely important and extremely controversial at the time. But there are three fundamental differences between them and the NBN rollout.
Firstly, there were no alternatives. There are lots of ways of delivering similar capabilities to what the NBN may offer.
Secondly, no one else would provide the infrastructure if the government didn't get involved. But we know others want to get involved and will get involved if there is a profit to be made. Subsidies can be used to encourage the technology to be installed in the non-profitable areas.
Thirdly, and in my opinion, the most important. Not only were there no alternatives, but the likelihood of obsolescence of the infrastructure was remote. O'Connor's water pipeline to the gold fields is still in use today. For broadband, we are dealing with one of the most dynamic areas of technology, with few people even as recently as 10 years ago capable of predicting what we would have available today.
It is this last point, together with the fact that the government is betting so much on one particular implementation that I find frightening. Let the private sector take the bets and stand or fall by their decisions. This is something that IFocus said could be delivered by the NBN.....
There is the possibility that an ill person at home in bed could connect some sort of probe to their body that, via the NBN, could allow remote diagnostics of their illness and possibly even remote remedial action. Rolling out the NBN to every home would allow that. But let's say the probe equipment at the patient's end cost $50K. Few could afford that, so rolling it out to every home when only 2% could afford the necessary equipment, is very wasteful. OK, so the equipment is leased out to who needs it. Then you have issues of needing to go to hospital or some central point to pick up the equipment. What if it needs a nurse to connect up (how many can connect up to an ECG?. What about incapacitated people?). What about false readings from improper connections that might trigger a need to send an ambulance? Do you send a nurse out every time a diagnosis is needed just to be sure? Then maybe instead of doing it at home themselves, the best compromise is that the patient goes to a nearby clinic, community centre or perhaps the nursing home medical office for the diagnosis. That would solve the cost problem and alleviate needing expertise at each patient's home, but now we have the situation that roll out to each home was unnecessary, at least for this particular application. OK lets assume that the probe at the patient's end is not complex to attach or expensive to buy. Perhaps nothing more complex that one of those heart monitoring meters that runners wear. So the patient can do it themselves and can be diagnosed remotely. But they have to be either at home or close to an NBN access point. But in the meantime, some bright spark has made a Bluetooth version of the probe that can talk to an application on an iPhone or similar smartphone and that application can simple dial up the hospital if it detects an issue, or maybe the application just relays the probe results every half hour and the diagnosis is done at the remote centre. So instead of having to connect up via an NBN access point, you have 24 hours diagnosis from anywhere using your smartphone and a probe. So the money spent on the NBN in anticipation of what IFocus said could be delivered has been made obsolete by alternative and more flexible delivery methods.
I am not trying to suggest any one of the above outcomes is more likely than the other. The point I am trying to make is that the government is betting $43B on one outcome, when it has no idea of the practicalities of all the other components necessary to deliver the complete end to end solution and when there is a possibility that their envisaged solution may actually be less flexible than other solutions.
Not to labour a point. But the government has touted the advantages that the NBN will deliver to education. Looking at industry trends, I would be betting that a mobile device like the iPad connected to broadband wireless will be the access method for most educational and information content in the future, not some home based WiFi network. I may be wrong, but I am not betting with other people's money as the government is doing.
Firstly, there were no alternatives. There are lots of ways of delivering similar capabilities to what the NBN may offer.
Secondly, no one else would provide the infrastructure if the government didn't get involved. But we know others want to get involved and will get involved if there is a profit to be made. Subsidies can be used to encourage the technology to be installed in the non-profitable areas.
Thirdly, and in my opinion, the most important. Not only were there no alternatives, but the likelihood of obsolescence of the infrastructure was remote. O'Connor's water pipeline to the gold fields is still in use today. For broadband, we are dealing with one of the most dynamic areas of technology, with few people even as recently as 10 years ago capable of predicting what we would have available today.
It is this last point, together with the fact that the government is betting so much on one particular implementation that I find frightening. Let the private sector take the bets and stand or fall by their decisions. This is something that IFocus said could be delivered by the NBN.....
There is the possibility that an ill person at home in bed could connect some sort of probe to their body that, via the NBN, could allow remote diagnostics of their illness and possibly even remote remedial action. Rolling out the NBN to every home would allow that. But let's say the probe equipment at the patient's end cost $50K. Few could afford that, so rolling it out to every home when only 2% could afford the necessary equipment, is very wasteful. OK, so the equipment is leased out to who needs it. Then you have issues of needing to go to hospital or some central point to pick up the equipment. What if it needs a nurse to connect up (how many can connect up to an ECG?. What about incapacitated people?). What about false readings from improper connections that might trigger a need to send an ambulance? Do you send a nurse out every time a diagnosis is needed just to be sure? Then maybe instead of doing it at home themselves, the best compromise is that the patient goes to a nearby clinic, community centre or perhaps the nursing home medical office for the diagnosis. That would solve the cost problem and alleviate needing expertise at each patient's home, but now we have the situation that roll out to each home was unnecessary, at least for this particular application. OK lets assume that the probe at the patient's end is not complex to attach or expensive to buy. Perhaps nothing more complex that one of those heart monitoring meters that runners wear. So the patient can do it themselves and can be diagnosed remotely. But they have to be either at home or close to an NBN access point. But in the meantime, some bright spark has made a Bluetooth version of the probe that can talk to an application on an iPhone or similar smartphone and that application can simple dial up the hospital if it detects an issue, or maybe the application just relays the probe results every half hour and the diagnosis is done at the remote centre. So instead of having to connect up via an NBN access point, you have 24 hours diagnosis from anywhere using your smartphone and a probe. So the money spent on the NBN in anticipation of what IFocus said could be delivered has been made obsolete by alternative and more flexible delivery methods.
I am not trying to suggest any one of the above outcomes is more likely than the other. The point I am trying to make is that the government is betting $43B on one outcome, when it has no idea of the practicalities of all the other components necessary to deliver the complete end to end solution and when there is a possibility that their envisaged solution may actually be less flexible than other solutions.
Not to labour a point. But the government has touted the advantages that the NBN will deliver to education. Looking at industry trends, I would be betting that a mobile device like the iPad connected to broadband wireless will be the access method for most educational and information content in the future, not some home based WiFi network. I may be wrong, but I am not betting with other people's money as the government is doing.
