michaelwyres.com.au | musings of a geek

Another Nail in the Filter Coffin

Hot on the heels of the stunning revelation from Stephen Conroy that he intends to continue to pursue his mandatory internet filtering policy, comes what appears to be another nail in the coffin of the entire plan.

Former Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, having gained the Shadow Communications portfolio in the usual post-election hulla-ba-loo, has wasted absolutely no time in getting onto the front foot, ready to land punches in a number of policy areas within his new sphere of influence.

On the internet filtering policy, Turnbull is unequivocal, promising to maintain the Coalition’s promise to stand against the filter legislation:

“I am absolutely and utterly opposed to it — it really is a bad idea in all respects,” he said. “I have nothing good to say about the filter. The best thing the Government could do is drop it.”

In a recent interview, Conroy himself openly admitted that there was not much he could do to bring the filter in without it the legislation working its way through the normal parliamentary processes. When asked if the filter was effectively dead, and if there was any way mandatory filtering could be brought in without a vote in the Senate, Conroy responded:

“Genuinely, I don’t believe we can, I don’t think there’s a backdoor way we could do it. I think the only way we could do it is through Parliament.”

This means Turnbull’s latest comments leave little room for the filter to ever come into existence. With the way in which the numbers have now fallen in the new parliament, Labor does not have enough votes in the House of Representatives for the legislation to pass that house.

With only 72 votes of their “own”, and a pledge from the Greens, through their newly elected lower house member Adam Bandt to vote against the filter, even if the three independents who have sided with Labor to form government all voted for the filter, there is only a maximum of 75 votes in the lower house from their side of the parliament in favour of it.

Even if a number of Coalition members voted for the filter in the lower house, and it managed to get through to the Senate, come next July the Greens will hold an absolute balance of power in the upper house, and with a stated policy – reinforced a number of times since the election – to vote against the filter, the legislation appears dead.

An apparent – yet still cautious – victory for the anti-filter lobby.

This leaves one more question – why is Senator Conroy still actively pushing the proposal, even though it appears to have lost the numbers to get through parliament?

It is a question of image. His image. His own self-centred “me me me” image.

If he publicly backs down on his proposal, he delivers yet another policy backflip/failure to the Labor party, in the same ilk as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT). Both changes in policy direction were deeply embarrassing for the party, and undoubtedly cost them many votes and seats in the new parliament. They don’t want to go down that road again.

So, he publicly continues to spout the filter as a “good idea”. He appears “strong in his convictions”, appeases the fundamentalist lobby groups – such as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) – by sticking to his guns, and he gains a convenient out clause.

When the filter legislation dies in the lower or upper house, he can “blame” the Opposition and the Greens. It will be “their fault” it didn’t come to pass.

Clever, isn’t it? Conroy might be “dumb”, but he’s not “stupid”.

Tech-Heads Finally Gain a Political Voice

It has been almost a week since the “longest election” in Australian history was resolved in favour of the incumbent Gillard Labor government, and there has been much discussion about who and what did and did not win the election in the final shakedown.

After waiting for a marathon 17 days from election night – which delivered a hung parliament – and then waiting through an excruciatingly long press conference from two of the four independents to find out which side of the political divide they would support to form a minority government (see video below), we found that the National Broadband Network (NBN) became the deciding point. Not only for Windsor and Oakeshott, but for Andrew Wilkie in Tasmania, and the Green MP, Adam Bandt.

Technology issues rarely make it into political calculations – even using the word “rarely” is probably overstating it somewhat. Generally, they just do not get a guernsey in mainstream discussions, with election debate normally centering on an “it’s the economy, stupid” debate, with only an occasional dalliance with other issues.

In 2007 for example, the federal election was primarily fought on a platform of industrial relations, with the Labor party sweeping into power, largely because they were “not the Coalition”, which went to the polls with its unpopular WorkChoices legislation.

The government has long proposed its NBN – a $43b plan to deliver a fibre-to-the-premises solution to 93% of Australian homes and businesses. In the dying days of the campaign, the Coalition delivered its own $6.5b plan – (based largely on “optimising” the existing copper network, built around 65 years ago, and wireless technologies) – as an alternative solution to our broadband needs going forward.

Without going into the pros and cons of each – (my opinion is well documented both on my site, and elsewhere) – Australians, and in the end the five men charged with ultimately deciding who was to form government, came to realise that our broadband and technological future was a little more important than it was previously given credit for in the wider community.

Many people still do not understand the ramifications, but the community as a whole needs to do so, because it decided the election.

As voting continued, I speculated that the “tech-heads” were about to become a new political force in Australia. While that remains to be seen, this most recent chapter in our political history has generated at least two positive outcomes for Australia’s future, particularly from a technology perspective.

First of all, I believe that all sides of politics will realise that in a voting community that will contain an ever-increasing percentage of people for whom technology policy is extremely important, that they will absolutely need to concentrate a lot more effort and energy into this area in the years ahead. That is a very clear message from this election.

Secondly – and putting all areas of policy aside – the hung result has sent a glaring message to all politicians that voters simply don’t care for the style of politics they have been served up traditionally. Effectively, nobody won the election at the ballot box, and any political party that does not heed this warning will be in for a rude shock come the next election.

Australia has announced loudly and clearly that they are not interested in the traditional “bullshit” anymore, and that has got to be a good result for all.

Fifteen Milliseconds of Fame

Well the election has finally been decided, and the media are busily dissecting the historic events of yesterday, recording every last detail – real or imagined – for posterity. I actually got a bit of a laugh out of this article:

They say if you live long enough, eventually you get your fifteen minutes of fame, but given the rapid pace of the online world, in this instance perhaps fifteen milliseconds is a more appropriate interval of time.

It is also great to see major media outlets trying to tap into social media in their coverage of important events, but they still clearly don’t understand the tools they are trying to use. While I was responsible for the original tweet, the full content of the quote of my tweet in the Herald-Sun article actually comes from a combination of my original tweet, and an edited retweet from @trmash.

As first entered, here is my original tweet:

Following on, here is the follow-up retweet:

No biggy really – just wanted to give all credit where all credit is due, and declare that here endeth my fifteen milliseconds of fame!

Our Next Online Battle!

With the online community in Australia is cautiously celebrating the “near death” – (presuming all political parties vote as they have indicated previously) – of the ridiculous proposal for mandatory internet filtering in Australia, it seems we need to ready ourselves for the next fight.

Data retention.

Throughout the filtering debate, those in power – (which is an interesting concept right now, given Australia’s currently hung parliament) – have been at pains to suggest that the internet is not a special case, and should be treated no differently to other forms of media, such as newspapers, television, and radio.

The quote of most concern to me is as follows:

“”It is important that we have the ability to retain the data,” Gaughan told reporters in Sydney today. “We can obtain intercepts … on pretty much everything. We don’t want to see what people are watching on TV, we want to see what people are looking at on the internet.””

So once again, the internet appears to have been elevated to the status of “special case” – but which is it really? Will the real internet please stand up and make itself known? Haven’t we been told for months that it is not special?

Roll up your sleeves people – the next fight begins right now!

Caption This Photo: Bob Katter Speaks!

Stumbled across this picture from earlier this year, when Bob Katter joined Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for what appears to have been a first-sod-turning ceremony for Nextgen Networks rollout of backbone fibre as part of the Broadband Blackspots program in outback Queensland. A great picture, and worth throwing out there for people to come up with some captions for it – particularly given the current political situation.

Fire away in the comments below!

NBN: A Lobby of Wireless Convenience

I found it most interesting that a group of Australian “telco leaders” have come out swinging against the proposed National Broadband Network (NBN) today.

“The alliance members are BigAir CEO, Jason Ashton; AAPT CEO, Paul Broad; EFTel CEO, John Lane; Pipe Networks founder, Bevan Slattery; Vocus CEO, James Spenceley’ Polyfone (a microwave network operator) CEO, Paul Wallace and Allegro Networks (a wireless network operator similar to BigAir) CEO David Waldie.”

With only a couple of exceptions, all of those named above operate SPECIFICALLY in the wireless market, and therefore have a very specific commercial interest in any expansion of the wireless market. Their comments, therefore, must necessarily be viewed in this narrow context.

Nobody is suggesting the that implementation of the NBN would do away with the need for wireless services – quite the contrary, wireless services will continue to play an important and expanding role in the telecommunications industry. Wireless is the only way to access data services when mobile, and there will be more need for wireless connectivity, but it is simply not the best way to access data services when in a fixed location, however they want to spin it with a distinct commercial angle.

The biggest question for me is one of timing. If this “lobby group” are so concerned about/interested in the NBN being proliferated through wireless means, rather than fibre means, since the plans for the NBN have been known for the best part of 12 to 18 months, why are the only speaking up now? Why has it taken them so long to bring their views to the table?

They see a commercial windfall for themselves, rather than an opportunity for Australia as a whole. It is exactly the commercial greed that has dominated and distorted the telecommunications industry in this country for far too long.

The NBN is a long term vision – not a shareholder driven, short-term profit making exercise.

Why The Coalition Broadband Plan is a Waste

There have been many many articles in recent times in regards to whether or not Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) plan is a waste of money. Certainly, the reputed price tag of the network – either $43b or $26b depending on who and what you believe and/or read – is a BIG price tag, but is the Coalition’s broadband plan – apparently much cheaper at $6.5b – really that much cheaper anyway?

On the surface, the Coalition’s plan – and let’s call it the Coalition Broadband Network (CBN) – is certainly much cheaper. At $6.5b versus $43b, that’s pretty much a no-brainer. Much like the NBN plan, it promises people at least 12Mbps, but not much more.

It is designed to actually BE cheaper than the Labor plan – to curry favour with voters, and make them seem more fiscally responsible. That seems to have worked in many people’s minds.

The Coalition does say that speeds of “up to” 100Mbps will be available – but that will only be in areas that are ALREADY capable of these speeds through HFC cable networks that ALREADY exist. If you don’t have HFC cable running past your house RIGHT NOW, you won’t be getting 100Mbps from the Coalition plan.

Their plan is “cheaper” – and that’s the only thing going for it – but is it cheaper, really? I don’t believe so.

Look at it this way – by 2016 the Coalition plan will see 12Mbps available to 97% of Australians.

Great.

Is 12Mbps fast enough, right now? Probably. Will be it be fast enough in 2016? Maybe. Will it be fast enough in 2018 by which time the Labor NBN plan would have delivered at least 100Mbps – (and probably 1Gbps) – to 93% of Australians? The answer is still “probably maybe”.

Will it be fast enough in 2020, when our population has grown, and the use of the internet has grown, and the use of high-definition video online will have grown? The answer now is “no way”.

So by 2020, we’ll have spent $6.5b on a network that has already outgrown its own usage model. What do we do then?

If we still have a Coalition government, do they roll out another $6.5b to “retrofit” their initial “CBN” to 24Mbps – (about as fast as you can go with copper, copper that will be ten years older, and ten years more degraded than it is now) – to “fix it” again for the future? Will the necessary structural separation of Telstra have occurred?

By this stage, it will have cost $13b – (not allowing for inflation over the next ten years) – and we might have 24Mbps. Will that be fast enough in 2022 when the upgrade is finished? Again, I really don’t think so.

So do the Coalition then admit defeat, and spend $43b – (again, not allowing for inflation) – on an NBN-style network, after already having spent $13b to give us a network that will be significantly slower than just about every other developed nation on the planet?

Is the real cost of the Coalition plan therefore $56b by 2022?

Do we really want to lag behind the rest of the world for another 10 or 12 years? Can we AFFORD to lag behind the rest of the world for that time? While every other country is enjoying the economic benefits that having a network with the sorts of speeds the NBN would offer?

Without a doubt, the Labor NBN plan at $43b is a god-damn lot of money – but it could be a whole lot cheaper than letting the Coalition implement what equates to a tin-can and string solution, that in the end will cost us a lot more than $6.5b.

In reality, that cost could be Australia’s prosperity in 25 or 30 years from now. Is that the price we really want to pay?

Twitter: Copyright and Etiquette

While there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to what you do – (or don’t) – post on Twitter, I think it would be a reasonable point of etiquette not to modify something someone has posted to suit your own view, and infer that the original person is responsible for the comment.

I struck a situation like this last night. It related to the ongoing drama involved with the resolution to who will govern Australia in minority, after the election this Saturday passed resulted in a hung parliament.

Mark Newton, a champion of the plight to de-rail the mandatory internet filtering plan for Australia – (which now appears to have succeeded) – made a comment regarding Greens Senator Scott Ludlam being a good choice to become Communications Minister in whatever form of parliament is negotiated into existence. Here is Mark’s tweet:

I completely agree with the thought, and feel that Senator Ludlam would be an excellent choice, given the foresight and level-headed thinking he has shown in this arena. I posted back to Mark in agreement with his sentinment here:

Sometime later, I noticed a “mention” of my twitter account against the following tweet:

As you can see, my previous tweet had been modified to promote one of those stupid – (yet often humourous) – Twitter accounts created to take the piss out of our politicians. A noble cause maybe, but trying to suggest that it was a comment that I had made, I find annoying.

I’m not pissed off, and there’s certainly nothing much I can do about it, even if I wanted to, but I thought it an interesting case of incorrect Twitter etiquette. Anyone reading the third tweet could be excused for thinking that the comment came from me, and in someway I endorse this particular Twitter account – which because I have nothing to do with it, I do not.

It raises the issue of who owns your tweets, and whether they can ultimately be “copyrighted”. The following article discusses that point rather well.

In the end, it raises questions that are difficult to answer in this “etiquette” situation. I don’t care that the person “liked” my tweet enough to reuse it – but would rather they take my name off it if they are going to modify it to suit their own ends.

That’s all.

Tech Heads: The New Political Force?

Well, the election was last night, and after an excruciating five-week campaign, we are all none the wiser as to who will be running Australia going forward, with the result looking set to be a hung parliament.

The current standings vary from media outlet to media outlet, with some having the ALP ahead, some having the Coalition ahead, and some having them on 72 seats apiece, four short of the majority of 76 seats required for any party to form government in its own right. Whatever the true figure currently is, it is clear that we will be waiting some time for a definitive result, depending on who sides with who amongst the independents, and the historic single Greens member of the new house, in forming a minority government.

It looks to be boiling down to four currently undecided seats – Corangamite in Victoria, Lindsay in New South Wales, Brisbane in Queensland, and Hasluck in Western Australia. Corangamite and Hasluck in particular look set to go right down to the wire, with Labor ahead in Corangamite, and the Coalition ahead in Hasluck.

There have been many key issues in this election, such as health, education, immigration and climate change. However – (despite my own particular interests in the area) – I believe the vote in the areas of technology policy could quite easily have been the tipping – (or sticking) – point that has created the hung result.

I am particularly reminded of Tony Abbott’s ”I am not a tech head” comment in regards to the proposed National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN is an extremely popular Labor policy within the tech community in Australia, and a clear Liberal misunderstanding of what it offers has undoubtedly cost the Coalition many votes amongst tech-inspired voters.

It also could easily have won it votes, given the significantly smaller price tag of its alternative – (but vastly technologically inferior) – solution to Australia’s broadband needs. This smaller price tag would undoubtedly have won over many people who also don’t understand the Labor proposal.

Equally on the other side of the fence, Labor’s almost universally unpopular policy for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering has undoubtedly cost Labor many votes amongst the so-called “tech-heads”.

Given that the result of the election looks to be coming down to very slim margins in a very small number of electorates, and the number of “tech-heads” in those electorates, imagine what difference a change in technology policy stance from either side might have made to voting in those electorates.

A Coalition that agreed to keep the NBN – (which it had vowed to scrap) – could have swept to power, giving us a clear winner, fast broadband, and no internet filtering. A Labor party that agreed to drop the internet filtering policy outright -(which it had vowed to push ahead with) – could also have swept into government, giving us a clear winner, fast broadband, and no internet filtering.

The apparent Greens balance of power in the Senate – with them winning nine positions around the country – will still likely see the death of the internet filter, as the Coalition did listen on that issue, but its complete lack of vision on the NBN may have destined us to uncertain political status, and another election.

It is becoming clear that the “tech-heads” now have a significant voice in the political landscape – and both sides of politics would be well advised to pay attention.

As last night may well have proven.

Is The Wicked Witch Finally Dead?

In July, Stephen Conroy announced to the waiting world that his internet filtering legislation would be delayed for at least year, pending a “review of the classification system”, amid claims that special interest groups lobbying for the filter had been tipped off to the announcement ahead of time.

Later, the Coalition announced that it would be joining the Greens and independent senator Nick Xenophon in pledging to vote against the legislation should it ever arrive in the senate – regardless of who wins the federal election next Saturday.

It seemed at that stage, the filter was doomed. With the Greens expected to continue to hold the balance of power in the senate, the Coalition numbers, along with the vote of Xenophon meant that Labor numbers alone would never see the legislation pass into law.

Not to be outdone, Conroy arrogantly promised to push on with the legislation, despite appearing to not have the numbers, either in the current senate, or the likely composition of the next senate.

However, it seems the tables might finally have turned. In a one-on-one interview released today, it seems that Conroy himself has finally admitted publicly that it is unlikely to happen at all.

When asked if the filter was effectively dead, and if there was any way mandatory filtering could be brought in without a vote in the Senate, Conroy responded:

“Genuinely, I don’t believe we can, I don’t think there’s a backdoor way we could do it. I think the only way we could do it is through Parliament.”

His “classification review” looks now to be setting up for a convenient “get out of jail free card” scenario. There are clearly no favourable conditions in the senate for the legislation, and he admits that he couldn’t get it through with it going to the senate. So does that REALLY mean the filter is dead?

Well, it is not an ABSOLUTE no answer, but it seems that Conroy himself finally realises that the writing is on the wall, and that his hugely unpopular policy is not only on life support, but it has just started flatlining. Will he call for the crash cart, or quietly put it out of its misery when the “classification review” is completed in around 12 months?

It is starting to look decidedly that way.