On August 1, Sophie Mirabella posted this article on The Punch (and probably other places). An uninformed and agenda-driven piece, she made painfully obvious her lack of technical knowledge yet tried to convince us of technological issues using an anecdote so vague it's hard to see how it could be drawn with Bow River (see what I did there?!)
She uses the analogy of Beta tapes vs VHS to compare the NBN to... Well, nothing. Was it wireless? She makes a fleeting reference to DIDO, apparently unaware of what it is, but we'll get to that later.
The battle of Beta vs VHS was a war of contemporaries. 2 rival technologies, providing a similar service, emerging at the same time, each trying to capture market share. The causes of the eventual triumph of VHS aren't a mystery - they were cheaper to make, and could record for 3 times as long.
The case of the NBN can better be compared to digital mediums vs analogue mediums. The comparison would be Fibre Optics vs copper.
First we should look at what the NBN actually is. The NBN is a project to replace current aging copper cables with modern fibre optic cables. Copper cables have been used to transmit data since the invention of the telegram in the early 1800's. In the case of Australia, we have been using copper wiring for over 150 years. They've been doing the job so well until now, why should we replace it? Well, several reasons, actually..
Copper is expensive. More importantly, though, the value of copper is increasing rapidly. It also has a relatively short life expectancy. For a short, succinct account of the disadvantages of copper, see here.
This is a very interesting read on the pro's and con's of copper and fibre in different circumstances, and makes strong points for both when they are appropriate.
Back to the point though. The major bug bear of so many opposers of the NBN seems to be the price. $35 billion. Over 10 years. $3.5 billion per year. To replace a national facility that is well and truly at end-of-life.
Unrelated to the NBN, there is $36 billion being spent on infratsructure in the 2011/2012 FY.
I find it hard to complain about those numbers. 10% of the budget for infrastructure being applied to a service that will benefit 100% of Australians, either directly or indirectly. What exactly is the problem with that?
I suppose that brings us on to DIDO and the demand for wireless services. I agree wholeheartedly that wireless will be a massive component of future internet use. True, wireless usage may even surpass wired. But it is not an alternative. The advantages and disadvantages of both are well documented. This is just one example.
As for DIDO, it is a fascinating technology. Without going in to too much detail, it is about providing a wireless service that is not subject to the bandwidth issues currently experienced with wireless. Here is a link to the DIDo white paper, and here is a link to a critique of the same.
One of the problems with the DIDO system is the required infrastructure to support such a system. Even IF the technology works as promoted, the requirement is for large data centres to do the wireless processing and re-transmitting. In order to avoid bandwidth congestion, one must wirelessly connect directly to the data centre - that is, without going via a tower. So, we replace the towers with data centres... Uh... Hang on... Aren't towers fairly innocuous things on street corners and up light poles? And aren't there dozens of them in every district? And aren't data centres sort of, like, buildings? Short answer, yes. And even then, the data centres would presumably transmit the data via fibre. So it's a cool technology, but it doesn't appear to be, at least at this stage, a viable solution in and of itself.
To put it bluntly, I am more than a little disappointed that the woman who penned the above-linked article is the Shadow Minister for Innovation. Innovation does not mean sitting on your hands waiting for someone to come up with something better than is currently available. Innovation is using the resources at your disposal to come up with something new to solve a problem. We have a problem. Several, in fact. The Government is solving them innovatively.
Wouldn't it be nice, just for once, to see the Opposition line up behind the Government?
