Australia, along with six others, now have wireless broadband penetration beyond 100%
Source: OECD
Wireless broadband penetration has grown to 72.4% in the OECD area, according to December 2013 data, meaning there are almost three wireless subscriptions for every four inhabitants.
Wireless broadband subscriptions in the 34-country group were up 14.6% from a year earlier to a total of 910 million, driven by continuing strong demand for smartphones and tablets.
Seven countries (Finland, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Korea and the United States) now lie above the 100% penetration threshold.
The ongoing debate on national infrastructure investment for telecommunications in Australia is mind-numbing. I was a teenager when the Snowy Mountains Scheme was completed. An inter-generational non-partisan development that strengthened the country. I am not sure we demonstrate the ability to replicate such developments?
Those concerned with the demographic challenges facing the country over the next generation and the implications for employment, productivity, investment and skills would suggest a National Broadband Network would be a “lay-down Misère”.
A long-term restructure of the infrastructure capabilities of our telecommunications network for an increasingly atomised, distributed and SMALLER workforce, would, one would think, be high on the agenda of public policy planners.
When one understands that 96% of Australian Businesses are SMALL businesses [less than 20 employed] and only 1% are large businesses, the disconnect in policy is very confusing to me.
“an extraordinary opportunity for businesses in Australia to “transform their innovation practice, in terms of realising cost-savings, productivity, extending market reach and introducing brand new types of products and services.” – [Source: Innovation 2010 AIG]
2013 – NBN
“The fact that a contest has developed to see who can offer the most credible high-speed broadband policy will ultimately be good for business and the economy….”
“Ai Group has long supported the need for a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best approach to the rollout and to answer broader questions about what this investment means for Australia’s future economic and social development. This analysis is particularly important where changes to the model are being debated and many claims and counter claims are made.”
“Over the coming months Ai Group will consult further with members to determine their views on the best way forward in terms of broadband infrastructure,” Mr Willox said.
2014 – NBN
“Our infrastructure is still lagging behind and that indicates that we do still need something like a National Broadband Network,” – AIG chief economist Julie Toth
The economics of access:
As a small [micro] business operator, working almost exclusively online, in a rural area of Victoria, with clients and colleagues across state and national/international borders, telecommunications infrastructure is fundamental. My business is severly hampered by this lack of infrastructure and I have no doubt also effects other “off-farm” enterprise developments in my region.
I rely exclusively on 3G Wireless internet and phone access.
I have gone to the additional expense [$1000.00 + incl installation ] of purchasing a Telstra Smart Antenna to boost and focus internal 3G coverage.
I pay over $300.00 dollars per month for a combined Mobile-phone and Wireless Internet service that only provides 12 Gigabyte of data download a month. This is the maximum I can receive. [Yes there is an additional 3GB per month for an additional 30+ dollars.- An insult] $120.00 dollars per month for 15GB?
In other parts of the SAME POSTCODE, users have access to a minimum of 50GB a month for $49.00 dollars. I regularly find myself driving around the district to get access to bandwidth.
As the Federal and State budgets loom large, let’s hope vision, foresight and long-term thinking find a place amongst the debates about expenses and investments………
There is NOTHING like access to HIGH-SPEED and RELIABLE broadband infrastructure.
Source: SpeedTest.net
I have NOTHING like access to HIGH SPEED and RELIABLE broadband infrastructure.
A small rant regarding my network access today……
I have been involved, both personally and professionally, in the planning and development of information and telecommunications projects for Education, Business and Communities for almost 30 years. Most recently, my focus has turned to my region and my own needs. This seems as reasonable a case-study as any I have previously seen or worked on.
We understand the links between telecommunications access and income creation. The economic drivers for regions are many, but telecommunications infrastructure is non-negotiable in my view.
Source:NIEIR – State of the Regions 2007
I live approximately one-hundred Kilometres from Victoria’s capital city, Melbourne [Australia’s second largest city, soon to be its largest]. As a rural resident, I live on a property without access to copper-based ADSL services [ ADSL + Distance/Loss = Bad ] and have to satisfy myself with wireless technology and services from Telstra that do not come close to those of my friends, colleagues, customers or even competitors.
My day-to-day business, my children’s education and even my community’s connectedness relies on high quality telecommunications infrastructure.
This should be a challenge to all local councillors and prospective State and Federal politicians and/or candidates.
The most recent review of the National Broadband Network [of which I am a supporter] three-year rollout map highlights what I can only describe as the “Central Victorian NBN Banana..”
The current and planned lack of access is obvious. This is a map of planned activity for the next three years. This is not the only such “Banana” in the state, but it is the one that concerns me most at present.
Given the HUGE demographic challenges being faced in this peri-urban region as well as the most recent effects of the catastrophic “Black Saturday” bushfires, I am still at a loss to understand how this region in particular will not be considered for NBN infrastructure to at least beyond 2016-17, if at all?
NBN Banana
It is ironic that in an area of Victoria that has worked with State and Federal MP’s that have included, Fran Bailey MP, Marsha Thompson MP, Bill Shorten MP and Stephen Conroy MP as well as regional and local councils for much more than a decade to improve telecommunications and other services [such as gas pipelines], we are no closer to improved broadband infrastructure.
It seems prescient that local organisations [of which I was involved] presented both successive State and Federal Governments with a telecommunications network infrastructure plan, preliminary engineering and business case ELEVEN years ago.
The map below, which matches my “NBN Banana” was a logical network outline presented to both State and Federal Governments nine years ago – pre NBN…and was the basis of planning for a number of years by both local councils and related organisations.
This was euphemistically called a community of integrated networks or “C.O.I.N’s”
Proposed COINS Network 2004
Why a Community of Integrated Networks [C.O.I.N.’s]?
*This section is a copy of originals published by the Central Ranges Local Learning & Employment Network in 2004
When the most detailed socio-economic scan of the Macedon, Mitchell and Murrindindi shires was completed in March 2004, it highlighted little if any coordination of education provision with health, youth or other services.
A number of communities within this region demonstrated some of the highest rates of youth disengagement [and associated social and economic problems] in the state. This was combined with labour-market dynamics that suggested a large section of the population was loosing ground in all areas of employment and training outcomes at a time when the nation was growing strongly.
The percentage of non-job ready adults was growing alarmingly, well beyond comparable regions.
Source: NIEIR & CRLLEN Inc
A cross-sectoral and community alliance of local and regional providers already existed and was working to develop strategic initiatives designed to reform programme and service delivery to the communities they served.
At the time [2004] an alliance was formed between local governments, local progress associations and the Central Ranges Local Learning and Employment Network Inc to lobby Governments for improved telecommunications infrastructure.
The Objectives of the network were:
To improve the outcomes for young people entering the work-force or further study.
To improve the skills available in local communities.
To reduce the recurring costs of modern communications to agencies in the region
To improve the range of services and applications available to communities in these areas
To provide infrastructure that can be used as an attractor for higher levels of education and training
To promote collaboration between existing organisations with overlapping requirements and resources
To provide mechanisms by which communities and local economies can promote regional skills, both internally to the communities and externally to the rest of Australia and the world
The network was intended to provide services to a range of agencies, communities and individuals in the region, including:
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary education organisations;
Healthcare agencies;
Vocational training agencies; and
Community and youth agencies such as libraries to name just a few.
There were some relevant case studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of this type of collaboration. These included:
Many similar networks existed. The goal was to create a series of bridges between existing networks and build capability, particularly in our smaller communities, with a view to synchronizing and expanding delivery right across the learning needs of our communities and our local economies.
[End of 2004 reprint]
An NBN Banana ? Can we peel it or make fruit salad?
Eleven years on and this can only be described as a failure for our [my] region.
Given the the hundreds if not thousands of hours that have been devoted by many many community and regional groups to improve broadband access for the region, it appears we are left with the “NBN Banana”.
This situation is not good for my business, as everything I do, based on my telecommunications access, is at least a factor of FIVE more expensive and a factor of TEN slower than my colleagues, clients and competitors. Even within small geographic areas, the inequity of access to such services is substantial and profound. This applies equally to the services, businesses and regional development opportunities that would or could be based around appropriate telecommunications infrastructure.
The situation for education and training providers, for those seeking to improve their skills and access to online services [because of distance and cost] also face the same structural inequality built in to our local economy.
The extrapolation of such a small case study for strategic regional and national development is clear.
In a Federal election year, rural and regional telecommunications infrastructure needs to be a major strategic priority.
At a local level, regional and council representatives need to re-consider the implications for our local economies, now and in to the future and should consider re-establishing the strategic imperative around telecommunications and consider “getting the band back together”, the alliance of numerous community organisations that worked so hard to make broadband access a priority for our region.
Google has posted an interesting [and fun] run-down of the energy pathway of an email through a well crafted online animation/cartoon.
The environmental impact on growing data centres is very real and the question of sustainability is a strategic and governance challenge that cannot be ignored. The context of the current debate about carbon-pricing and mechanisms for capture and/or attenuation of future impacts is very real for these global companies.
A new report, released in September of this year, conducted jointly by Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC), Arthur D. Little and Chalmers University of Technology in 33 OECD countries, quantifies the isolated impact of broadband speed, showing that doubling the broadband speed for an economy increases GDP by 0.3%.
A 0.3 percent GDP growth in the OECD region is equivalent to USD 126 billion. This corresponds to more than one seventh of the average annual OECD growth rate in the last decade.
At a local level we know that such infrastructure and access is critical to the long-term well being of regions.
In work completed by Peter Brain and National Economics over many years, including the “State of the Regions” report [SOR] we have known of the relationship [for example] between ADSL speeds and per-capita income or ADSL speeds and the NIEIR unemployment rate. This is [perhaps] obvious [now] but still poorly understood and demonstrated when it comes to discussions about “national skills” or the “urban/regional divide” debates in modern policy positions.
Average ADSL Speed vs Per Capita Income & NIEIR Unemployment Rate
National Economics modelling showed that lagging regions have poor access to quality telecommunications infrastructure, preventing efficient internet usage and, therefore, reducing the possibilities for exporting and attracting high technology firm start-ups. Low productivity/economic regions have relatively high local government tax rates because the cost of delivering basic services to the community is relatively high.
The OECD research further confirms these relationships. The National Broadband Network and those working to improve the links for regional Australia in to a modern skills base, including regional and local councils, will do well to stay focussed on such research.
The ongoing debate on national infrastructure investment for telecommunications in Australia is mind-numbing. I was a teenager when the 
