NBN connections should be mandatory

NBN connections should be mandatory

Summary: The Tasmanian Opposition is right to propose that Australians should have to opt out from having their houses connected to National Broadband Network fibre cables — not have to opt-in as the process currently stands.

SHARE:

commentary The Tasmanian Opposition is right to propose that Australians should have to opt out from having their houses connected to National Broadband Network (NBN) fibre cables — not have to opt in as the process currently stands.

Last week, Liberal MP Michael Ferguson asked Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett in an estimates committee why this wasn't already the case. Bartlett hummed and hawed but really couldn't give Ferguson a good answer. Instead, he passed the buck — stating that it wasn't for the government to answer the question but promising to take the question to the Tasmanian branch of the NBN Company.

However, there are already plenty of good reasons why all Australians should have to actively opt out from having their houses connected to the NBN, rather than having to opt in.

The first and most obvious one is efficiency.

As Ferguson pointed out in a later statement, doing a cable drop to all houses in a suburb while technicians are in the area would make the whole process tremendously more efficient. If you're connecting thousands of homes over a period of months, after all, you're going to get pretty good at it — and the amount of time you spent on each one will decrease.

Economies of scale will kick in and the whole process will become something that is quite automated and predictable as technicians work out the various categories of trouble cases and sort out standard solutions for them.

This approach also plays into the idea that telecommunications should be seen as a utility. Do Australians need to request that electricity is physically connected to their premises when they move in? Or water? Or sewerage? Or the roads that we drive on? Of course not. These things are basics that run right to our door and have for some time. Telecommunications — in the future fibre paradigm — should be treated just the same.

The argument becomes even stronger when you take the converse case.

One of the main problems with the roll-out of hybrid-fibre coaxial (HFC) cable by both Telstra and Optus (which can be taken as an example of how NBN Co should not roll out its fibre network) is that the HFC cable didn't run to all premises. Apartment blocks, particularly, were left out of the cable broadband gold-rush because of the difficulties of getting notoriously argumentative strata authorities to agree on anything — least of all whether the whole apartment block should be expensively wired for cable.

Mandating an opt-out model for the NBN would solve many of these issues right from the get-go. You don't want the NBN fibre to run right past your front door — but be unable to access it because your penny-pinching strata secretary just doesn't see the value in the technology.

There are also other strong sociological reasons for the NBN to be rolled out on an opt-out model.

If you have been watching the Greens in parliament recently, you will note that the party has been making various noises about what it terms the potential "ubiquity" of online services in the future. In the Senate Select Committee on the NBN this year, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam noted the following comments by the Northern Territory's ICT minister:

The fundamental value proposition of the National Broadband Network isn't so much its speed (although important), but its potential ubiquity... It could connect the 25 to 30 per cent of homes that are not internet connected and enable a whole range of services, including some government services, to be delivered to householders regardless of whether they have subscribed to a retail broadband service or not.

In essence, what the Greens appear to be saying is that if all premises were to have NBN fibre connected virtually as a mandatory imposition, it would allow governments and other public interest service providers to provide basic services and information to them — regardless of whether they were paying for full internet access.

For example, even if you didn't pay for a full NBN internet connection, you might still be able to use your free access to pay your taxes, access information on government websites, access educational resources and maybe even — at some stage in the future — vote.

Essentially, the idea is that at some level, essential government services — potentially from your local council, State Government, hospital, public school, Federal Government and so on — would become similar to iiNet's Freezone. You wouldn't need to pay to access them — they would just be bundled as part of the ubiquitous fibre broadband.

Leaving this door open could even be what the Federal Government had in mind when it decided to make allowances in its NBN legislation for NBN Co to supply services directly to some users, going against its stated aim that the company would only provide wholesale services.

And it would make sense.

Now at the moment the Federal Government has not signalled that it will go down the "opt-out" path for the NBN, although we've put the question to both NBN Co and the office of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy this morning, to ask what the pair think of the idea.

Our current government appears to see the NBN as much more of an enabler for the commercial telecommunications sector, rather than as a key piece of government infrastructure.

Overall, its approach is more consistent with the American capitalist notion of driving better services through competition, and letting the market provide the best outcome, rather than the somewhat Scandinavian notion of ubiquitous access and better services for all, often from the government purse.

But I think it's about time we at least had the debate. Let's stop talking about whether 30, 40 or 50 per cent of Australians would opt in to NBN fibre services straight away when the network is rolled out. Let's start talking about how we can make sure this network is fully utilised, and that by default it's available everywhere and to everyone.

Topics: Broadband, Government AU, NBN

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I don't think it will matter if you make it Opt-in or opt-out Strata/body corps will always block things like this from going in. The only way you will get it in all premises (especially apartment blocks and rental properties) is to install it for free. Seriously, can you imagine a landlord paying to get broadband hooked up for their tenant? Yeah right, mine wont even fix the leaks and cracks in the building!

    Also electricity/sewage/water/gas are not mandatory, you need to request and pay for these services to be installed. If you own your own house and choose not to have these services you can. The key difference with these services is they are seen as essential services, so if you want to rent out a property then you need to provide these services. NBN should go into this bucket as well (currently Telephone isn't even in this same category).
    m00nh34d
  • What a good idea. Force people to do things and remove the idea of opportunity of choice. Let's force every motorist to use the toll-ways and tunnels, let's force every passenger to fly first class to help airline revenue. And when you go to buy a new car don't bother making a selection, you will get a Toyota. As someone once said "the Government knows best for you".
    sydneyla
  • Oh Sydneyla (la)...

    If there's a "nationwide" roll out, wouldn't it make sense to have a "nationwide rollout", connecting every premises, while in each area? That way for decades to come, no matter how many times people change addresses, they will have a fibre connection - commonsense surely?

    Also, from my understanding (of these suggestions), no one's being forced to use it, but it's there. Bit like putting in sewarge pipes to your home, no one is forcing you to use the toilet, but it's there, just in case, lol...

    But let me ask, when Telstra decommission the copper/PSTN (as I believe they have said they will) and people want a connection, what would you suggest...?

    Of course if there's a cost involved for the fibre and people simply can't afford it, well that's a different matter altogether and one which will need to be addressed! Which would explain the opt-in/out clauses suggested, I suppose.

    However, like no one is (I believe) being forced to use the fibre connection (opt-in/out) no one is "forced" to use toll ways and tunnels or to fly first class, it's choice.

    Ironically, choice most haven't had comms wise, with people forced to use your precious Telstra's "gifted monopoly (dangle the bait - lol) last mile", which you strangely vehemently supported, not opposed! You weren't worried about choice before!

    As someone once never said but indicated daily at NWAT "Telstra (and my TLS shares) knows best for you"!
    RS-ef540
  • That idea of having an always available connection to government websites is quite a good one... You could walk into any house, connect a laptop, and grab documents from Centerlink, ATO, etc. Imagine the time this would save staff AND clients of government departments.

    If they then also had a site similar to Whirlpool's Broadband Choice section, people could research an ISP, and then sign up without having to ever go and "borrow" someone else's internet.
    tin-6e4b9