michaelwyres.com.au | musings of a geek

So Hockey Loves The NBN Then?

Despite his constant disapproval for the National Broadband Network, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey, when discussing the so-called ”gold plating” of electricity infrastructure, was heard today to say:

“Never heard before the argument that too much infrastructure in essential infrastructure is a bad thing.”

Dooesn’t Joe tell us that the government shouldn’t be building the NBN?

“Well, what it illustrates is that they are just reckless with money. The absurdity of it is that the government is going to be spending money rolling out a National Broadband Network.”

Essential infrastructure.

So for someone who has “never heard before the argument”, it certainly seams he said it, even if he didn’t hear it.

In one breath, spending big on essential infrastructure is good, yet in another, it is bad.

Oops.

Thoughts On New NBN Corporate Plan

With the release today of the Corporate Plan 2012 – 2015 for the National Broadband Network (NBN), we’ve already seen the mainstream media trumpeting of failure, and cost overruns, and delays.

This is of course not unexpected, with much of the media having it in for the project from day one.

While there has been a short – (six months) – increase in the expected rollout period of the network, and indeed some increase in cost, what the media can’t/won’t tell you is that the scope of the project has changed somewhat, due to changed conditions since the previous corporate plan was released in 2010.

When you follow through the explanations of where the increases in cost have materialised, it is quite clear that growth in the size of the network – (particularly an increase in overall fibre length) – demonstrates the reasonableness of these increases.

Of course, this won’t please everyone. These are the people who will ignore the fact that revenues are also projected to increase – so clouded has the debate over the NBN become.

However, there are a number of other interesting pieces of information that have – (so far) – jumped out at me from the corporate plan – and these definitely won’t appear in any mainstream coverage of today’s announcements.

Let’s start with this quote:

“As at 30 June 2012, 41 Access Seekers have signed NBN Co’s Wholesale Broadband Agreement (WBA), constituting over 94% of the current fixed broadband market.”

Think about that statement for a moment.

It says an amazing amount for the likely uptake of the network going forward.

Since the plan is to decommission the existing Telstra-owned copper network, and ISPs representing 94% of the fixed-line internet user base in Australia have already signed up to provide services on the NBN to their customers, we should see close to all of that 94% moving straight across from the copper network to the NBN.

Because the copper won’t be there anymore, if they want fixed-line service still, they’ll have to move. That’s a sizable and measurable metric of just how many people will be on the NBN when it is completed.

One of the bugbears of many people is that they may have to wait up to nine years before their areas is completely cutover to the NBN, that it is “taking too long”. Try this:

“NBN Co will increase construction capacity in more densely populated regions through the release and award of further construction work packages by the end of calendar 2012.”

So, before the end of the year, more contract work to actually build the network will be commissioned, meaning it can be built faster than is already planned.

Expect that when the three-year rollout plan receives its first annual revision next March, that a lot more areas will be added to the schedule for rollout than might previously have occurred.

It could also mean that areas already scheduled are accelerated – but we won’t really know until the end of the year when the new contracts are announced, and then March when the rollout plan gets updated.

Positive news, but stay tuned.

Also in respect to the pace of the rollout, NBN Co made it quite clear that their main priority at this time is the “transit network”, required to actually connect the entire network together into a cohesive system.

“NBN Co has prioritised transit connectivity to support earlier connection of greenfields estates ahead of the volume rollout. Prioritising the transit rollout also supports the rapid deployment of the fixed wireless network. The 2012-15 Corporate Plan forecasts that the transit network will be completed by the end of FY2015, with the bulk of the network in place by the end of FY2014.”

This entirely makes sense. The transit network is the foundation of the NBN, and like a house, you don’t build up until the foundations are ready.

A common complaint from the media is that too much of the contract value of the NBN is going to overseas companies, with one analysis claiming 82 cents in every dollar is going to foreign concerns.

Well, no:

“Local content was 51% of contract value as at 30 June 2012. Further future Australian construction and operations contracts are expected to increase the value and proportion of local content.”

Australian content has always been the priority, and one must remember that most networking gear is made overseas. Australia just doesn’t manufacture this kind of equipment, and this makes the current level of Australian content at 51%, mighty impressive.

Recently, I have seen people concerned that their areas that are currently earmarked for fibre – (rather than wireless or satellite) – might slip outside the fibre footprint.

Good news here too:

“NBN Co will ensure that all premises within Telstra Bands 1 and 2 are served (unless they are declared ‘frustrated’) and provide a definition of the fibre footprint.”

And finally for now, the battery backup argument.

Existing copper lines are powered with 40 volts from the local telephone exchange, and given the fibre cannot carry electricity, the NBN termination devices have to be powered at the premises. In the event of a power failure, and the NTD going down as a result, phone services cannot be provided during the failure without a battery backup unit.

The battery units to suit the NTDs are large and unsightly, and many existing users are unhappy with them. Corporate plan to the rescue again:

“The Government has consulted widely with key stakeholder groups on the extent to which NBN Co provides battery backup to different types of end-users (e.g. phone only end-users, special services and priority assist end-users). The 2012-15 Corporate Plan incorporates the Government’s policy approach that end-users will be able to nominate whether or not they want NBN Co to provide battery backup. Priority assistance households will be provided with a battery backup. It is now assumed that 50% of fibre end-users will elect not to have battery backup, with a consequent reduction in capital expenditure.”

Cost savings, and the option of still having the backup if you want it or need it – a sensible outcome to argument that has been going on for at least 12 months.

Overall, you won’t see these positive points in coverage from the major media outlets, yet they show quite clearly that progress on the build of the NBN – albeit slow on the surface – is ready to explode.

It is a shame most people won’t see them.

Why Apple And Samsung Should Just Grow Up

While the are several possible examples of the first “automobile”, it is generally accepted that Karl Benz invented the modern automobile in 1885, and patented it in 1886 – 126 years ago.

As described on Wikipedia:

“An automobile powered by his own four-stroke cycle gasoline engine was built in Mannheim, Germany by Karl Benz in 1885, and granted a patent in January of the following year under the auspices of his major company, Benz & Cie., which was founded in 1883. It was an integral design, without the adaptation of other existing components, and included several new technological elements to create a new concept. He began to sell his production vehicles in 1888.”

There have been almost an uncountable number of motor vehicles built around the world since the day Benz received his patent in 1886. Certainly the number would be in the many multi-millions.

Every modern car, while they have different stylings and technologies included, are intrinsically all the same.

Engine. Wheels. Seats. Steering wheel. Brakes.

Look at ANY car and you’ll see all of those features.

The recent patent bickering between Apple and Samsung over who did or didn’t invent tablet computers, smartphone designs, and the like has been nothing other than a free-for-all for the lawyers.

Nobody is winning. One side gets a ruling, the other side appeals. That side wins the appeal, and then the other side appeals again. Each side gets banned from selling various products.

Products that people want to buy, while the pettiness of these companies stops exactly this from happening.

There is no doubt that their products look remarkably similar.

Ultimately, we see that all motor vehicles look remarkably similar also. What we don’t see is car makers acting like spoiled brats claiming patent breaches against each other.

Truth be known, with the initial patent Karl Benz received in 1886, Mercedes Benz could probably day claim patent infringement against every other car maker in the world, ever, since that date.

But they don’t.

The bottom line is, whoever “invented” the devices Apple and Samsung are arguing over, just as the car makers can happily work together in the industry selling ultimately similar products, Apple and Samsung should get over it too.

Cars look the same. Tablet computers and smartphones look the same. The Apple “iRange” and Samsung Galaxy range have defined and become the definitive shape of what such a device should look like.

Just as there is a definitive “shape” of motor vehicles.

Grow up chaps! People want to buy your gear. How about letting people do just that?

You’ll make more money that way, I promise.

Taking News Limited Seriously?

Bill Shorten has copped a bit today – (rightly or wrongly) – about what has already become known as “PieGate”, where an alleged confrontation occurred in a shop over the availability of a meat pie.

I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened.

But should a major news outlet – (News Limited) – be declaring the incident “awesome”?

It then got even more ridiculous:

Who is tweeting this stuff? How can one take seriously, a news agency that apparently just wants to take the piss out of the issue?

Poor form.

Broadcast Television Missing The Message

Television viewers are complaining about poor coverage of the London Olympics. The television networks are complaining that people are using the internet to get better coverage, by circumventing geo-blocking systems to view coverage from other countries.

In the US, NBC is copping plenty of flack for poor and delayed coverage – (delayed to move events into the valuable primetime slots) – and here in Australia, the Nine Network are copping it for generally poor coverage, regardless of the time slot.

“A growing number of people are no longer willing to watch TV on someone else’s schedule. They want to watch it on their own terms when and where it’s convenient for them.”

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

More evidence that “traditional media” cannot or will not respond to the ways in which people want to consume their content.

People don’t want to be locked into certain times. They don’t want to be locked into sitting down in front of an actual television to watch the content they want.

They want it how they want it, and the old broadcast models simply don’t match consumer desires.

The first media organisation to really “get it”, and deliver the content in flexible way, will win the “gold medal”.

If the networks are going to complain about people circumventing geographic boundaries to get a better product, that should be ringing alarm bells, telling them to deliver a better product.

It costs a lot of money to win the rights to cover the Olympics, so best they start listening to the message, lest that money goes completely to waste.

It might just take a high profile event like these Olympics for the penny to finally drop.

But I wouldn’t bet on it.

The Reverse Nigerian Scam

I just found the most hilarious piece of spam in my filters.

Clearly fed up with their “Nigerian Scams” not working as well as they might, it seems we have something I’ve called the “Reverse Nigerian”:

Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI. Washington DC.
Washington d.c room, 7367
J. Edgar hoover fbi building
935 pennsylvania avenue,
Nw washington, dc 20535,0001.

Federal Bureau Of Investigation Seeking To Wiretap The Internet

Greetings and good day to you. The federal bureau of investigation (FBI) Washington dc in conjunction with the internet crime complaint center (IC3), national white collar crime center (NW3C), bureau of justice assistance (BJA) and some other relevant investigation agency here in the united states and overseas have recently been informed through our global intelligence monitoring network that you presently have a transaction going on with the central bank of Nigeria (CBN) as regards to your long over due contract award payment which was fully endorsed in your favor without any clause.

This is to officially inform you that after an investigative background check on your payment file, we noticed that you are currently dealing with some unscrupulous elements/criminals claiming to represent the interest of your fund from the CBN. You are hereby advised and warned to contact the rightful bank where your fund is currently lodged.

We were also made to understand that a lady with name Mrs. Cathie C. Jones from Florida has already contacted them,she presented all the necessary documentations evidencing your claim purported to have been signed personally by you prior to the release of your contract fund valued about US$10,500,000.00 (Ten Million Five Hundred United States Dollars) but the Central Bank office did the wise thing by insisting on hearing from you personally before they go ahead on wiring your fund to the Bank information which Mrs. Cathie C. Jones from Florida forwarded to them,this was the main reason why they contacted us so as to assist them in contacting the true fund beneficiary and carrying out a professional investigations on this issue.

And in case you are already dealing with anybody or office claiming to be from the Central Bank of Nigeria, you are advised to STOP further contact with them in your best interest and then contact immediately the real office of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) only with the below information accordingly:

Contact: Mr. Sanusi Lamido
Office address: Central Bank house, tinubu square, Lagos – Nigeria.
Email:[email protected]

Keep us posted as soon as you have made contact with the new CBN executive governor to enable us direct you accordingly.

Yours in service,
Mr. ROBERT S. MUELLER
CC: Federal Bureau of Investigation
CC: National Central Bureau of Interpol

So it is “don’t go through with the Nigerian scam, just contact the Nigerian bank for assistance.”

Too. Damn. Funny.

Media Blame NBN For Everything

The recent Finklestein Independent Media Inquiry delivered recommendations in regards to changes to media governance within Australia, with particular emphasis on media standards and the mechanisms by which those standards are applied.

While I don’t wish to get into a discussion with respect to the pros and cons of the report, the general response from the media outlets in this country has been more or less along the lines of “don’t worry guys, we’ve got this”.

They don’t really want any kind of change. They say everything is above board, and the complaints processes are adequate.

I may just make a complaint about this one.

As an avid watcher of all things NBN, I was startled to read on Google News the headline “NBN Sales Manager Pleads Guilty to ASIC Breach”. I had heard of no such case where anyone at NBN Co was under investigation for an ASIC breach.

Of course, the “substance” of the article says no such thing:

“The national sales manager of a telco now selling NBN Co’s broadband services has pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the corporate regulator.”

So this chap works for a company that is completely independent of NBN Co, but happens to sell services provided by NBN Co – the vaguest of vague vague connections.

Does it justify the headline “NBN Sales Manager Pleads Guilty to ASIC Breach”?

Of course it doesn’t. The headline is completely misleading. He is not a Sales Manager at NBN Co.

It is a headline that is designed to get people to click it. Those who do click on it will likely figure out the story’s link to NBN Co is threadbare at best.

The problem is that the people who don’t click it will never know that the connection is as flimsy as a sheet of Glad Wrap up a flagpole during Cyclone Tracy, but will have this concept inserted into their mind that someone at NBN Co has gotten into trouble with ASIC, and will assume that what they are getting into hot water over has something to do with the NBN.

Muddying the image of the organisation. Unfairly.

Link baiting is one thing. Using it to mislead is another thing altogether.

The media have had it in for the NBN from day one, as for many media outlets, its arrival threatens their business models. They have every right to defend their business, but surely not to muddy the playing field with inaccuracies and misleading sub-editing.

Or out and out lying.

When it comes to media standards and ethics, maybe the Finklestein report makes a good point.

Not that the bashing by the media will stop.

UPDATE: Lucy Battersby, the author of the article confirmed in this tweet that she requested that the headline was changed after it was applied by an online sub-editor. I appreciate Lucy confirming that the “bad” headline came from a sub-editor. The sub-editing was always where I suspected the headline came from.

“@LucyBattersby: @chuqtas @mwyres an online subeditor wrote the headline. When I realised the mistake I had it corrected immediately.”

Spelling Misfires!

One would think that if a newspaper is going to write a headline critical of the performance of Australia’s 4×100 freestyle swimming team, that one should make sure one doesn’t misspell that headline.

Enter, the Herald-Sun:

Misile?

I’m sure they meant “missile”…right?

Misfire.

Why Won’t You Answer The Question Malcolm?

In the midst of an online Twitter “discussion” yesterday between Malcolm Turnbull, the ABC’s Nick Ross and myself, in the midst of which Turnbull accused the ABC of “relentless propaganda” in favour of the National Broadband Network (NBN), I offered Turnbull a number of opportunities to spell out the cost model of his proposed broadband solution.

Turnbull started the ball rolling with this piece, outlining his position on the matter.

Most prominently he stated that:

“We will complete the national broadband network and do so sooner, cheaper and more affordably for users.”

Of course, stating that he will complete the NBN is disingenuous at best, and at worst, completely untrue.

Feeling it necessary to challenge the statement – (given that if whatever his FTTN solution costs PLUS the cost of a later upgrade to FTTH is NOT less than the current price of the NBN, his solution is NOT cheaper in the long term) – I started with this:

“@TurnbullMalcolm How much for FTTN? How much to upgrade to FTTH? If total not less than NBN, yours is not cheaper or better! #auspol #nbn”

And this:

“@TurnbullMalcolm @bradsprigg And you keep talking about price, yet you won’t give even a ballpark costing…”

And this:

“@TurnbullMalcolm Tell us how much your plan costs and how much the later upgrade will cost…compare apples with apples mate… #auspol #nbn”

And again here:

“@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech Only if you tell us how much FTTN will cost, and how much the subsequent upgrade will cost…”

And again:

“@TurnbullMalcolm You are deliberately obfuscating…how much to deploy YOUR solution, and the later upgrade to FTTP? Stop avoiding it…”

And again:

“@TurnbullMalcolm @ABCtech For as long as you avoided the question I have asked you many times, you are being evasive and disingenuous…”

And yet again:

“@TurnbullMalcolm That’s not what I’m asking you…why do you twist and turn every time someone asks you for the price?”

There was absolutely no response to any of these tweets with respect to how much his alternate plan will cost.

None.

CitiGroup recently priced Turnbull’s plan at approximately $17 billion – a number he disputed at the time.

If he disputed it, he thinks it is wrong. If he thinks it is wrong, he must know – (at least in a ballpark kind of way) – what the cost will be, to know that Citigroup’s figure is wrong. Leading to the possible conclusion that he either doesn’t know the cost, or doesn’t want to tell us the cost.

Which means that the Coalition either hasn’t costed the policy at all or it costs more than they want us to know at this time.

Whatever the cost for Turnbull’s FTTN plan, combined with the cost of a later upgrade to FTTH – if the total is not less than the current plan to be the NBN as it stands, his plan is neither cheaper OR technically superior.

Until he comes clean, comparing his solution to the current solution is comparing apples and oranges.

I gave Turnbull seven opportunities to answer the cost question yesterday.

Why won’t he answer?

Copyright Holders Don’t Want To Pay The Price

With online piracy a hot topic the world over – (most visible in Australia with what is known as the “iiTrial”) – it has been interesting to watch how different countries around the world are trying to deal with the issue.

One common approach seems to be the “three-strikes law” – (such as France’s HADOPI law) – where people convicted of breaching copyright online are to be disconnected from the internet – in some instances, for life.

Given the United Nations has declared internet access a “human right”, legislators seem to be backing away from permanent bans.

One country that has a “three-strikes” policy is New Zealand, where the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act was passed in 2011. After only a month in place, it is clear that the usefulness of such a policy is dubious at best:

Forty percent still do it, despite the threat?

How much is it costing the ISPs to issue the infringement notices?

“(Telecom New Zealand) said it had spent $534,416 complying with Skynet, but had been asked to send only 1238 notices.”

Simple mathematics says that is $438 an infringement notice. It costs $438 for Telecom New Zealand to do what is required of them to issue the notice.

Yet the copyright holders have to pay only $25 per infringement – AND – want that fee reduced to only $2!

It seems – as many have feared – that the copyright holders want the result, but don’t want to pay for it, placing the burden on the ISPs.

All measures of fairness would suggest that is not a fair and reasonable outcome for the ISPs. However you try and spin it. Why should the ISPs be shouldering the burden for the content industry’s problem?

As I have said in the past:

“Drop your prices to reasonable levels, and people won’t even steal your content. As soon as the price of legally purchasing your content is effectively less than what it costs people to download it – (for free or otherwise) – people won’t want to download it for free. Because it will be cheaper for them, and you’ll sell a lot more units.”

It is not pirated downloads that are killing the content industry – it is their own overpricing greed and lack of vision that’s doing it.