1990 ATCC: How Times Change

With the 2010 championship for V8 Supercars Australia nearing the endurance races, and the business end of the season, I thought it might be worth having a look at this summary of the 1990 championship – 20 years ago.

Interesting to see old names like Colin Bond, the late Peter Brock, Dick Johnson, and Win Percy strutting their stuff when cars were flexible enough to lead to keeping all four wheels on the road becoming difficult!

The Mallala round shown here was the competition debut of the Nissan GT-R in Australia – a vehicle regulated out of the championship by the end of 1992.

Also love the commentary over the package by Mike Raymond – done in a way that only Mike Raymond could!

Spammer Duh!

Got a chuckle at one of the spam emails trapped by my filters today – (take note: no scams or spams coming through my portal, Mr Conroy!):

Spam declaring itself as “posible [sic] spam”? How nice of the spammers to help like that!

The Filtering Bluff Revisited

A few days ago, I postulated that Stephen Conroy has to be bluffing with his pledge to “make changes at the classification board level” to get around what seems like an impassable road block in the Senate, thanks to the Coalition, Greens, and Nick Xenophon pledging to block any filter legislation.

As I suggested in the first article, such action would be a massive blight on the democratic process in this country, but just now, another thought came to mind.

If Senator Conroy believes that it is POSSIBLE to circumvent any possible outcome of a Senate vote on the legislation, and that his filtering proposal is such a good idea – in the light of all the opposition to the plan, why has he not circumvented the parliamentary process, and sought these changes at the “classification board level” already?

Hmmm. I’m now more convinced than ever that he’s bluffing, in line with my previous article. He should just keep on censoring his own contact details, and realise that he won’t succeed.

Why the NBN Should Win the Election

As we move into the final week of the federal election campaign, broadband network policy has been a real hot potato over the last few days.

The Coalition plan has been roundly attacked by many – despite being significantly cheaper than the government plan. The Government plan has been touted as “risky” and “a white elephant”. While there are undoubtedly risks in the Government plan – (as there are with the Coalition plan) – there is little doubt that it shows far more future vision than that of the Coalition plan.

There have been many opinion pieces on the NBN – particularly since it has become a far more publicly visible policy in the run-up to the election – but I have tried to hold back from plopping forward with my own opinion. I’ve wanted to absorb the details, and consider my thoughts before rushing out with one.

Here is where I stand on the main points thus far:

  • COALITION COST – cost is an emotive issue right now. On the surface, the policies of each party are poles apart – around $6.5b for the Coalition plan, and $43b for the Labor plan, and this will win the Coalition some votes. It is necessarily important to have a future view of these though – as even if the Coalition plan becomes reality, and “only” $6.5b is spent, for the most part, 12Mbps is the limit, which many people receive already. Some people will be lucky enough to get faster than that, with people on ADSL2+ in perfect conditions already exceeding 12Mbps RIGHT NOW, and might get as high as 25Mbps RIGHT NOW. Suddenly, spending $6.5b on a 12Mbps minimum seems like a waste. At such time that 12Mbps (or even 25Mbps) is not fast enough, what do we do then? Despite their love affair with wireless, wireless is highly latent – (more so than even ADSL over copper) – and far less reliable than cabled solutions, and businesses will not accept latent, unreliable connections. In 10 years from now when the results of the Coalition plan are outgrown, we’ll have to build an “NBN” anyway, and it will cost more than doing it right now. Is the real cost of the Coalition solution $6.5b to build their solution, plus $43b to build “an NBN” in 10 years from now, plus the lost economic activity from not having it in the intermediary? Since vast numbers of Australian people can already get these kinds of speeds, are they really spending $6.5b to cover 97% of Australia, or to cover the 15% that don’t already get it? Labor’s $43b suddenly doesn’t look so “big”.
  • LABOR COST – spending $43b on giving people up to 1Gbps is a SIGNIFICANT cost difference to the Coalition plan, and while many of the ICT policies of the incumbent Labor government are repulsive to me – (mandatory internet filtering being the obvious example) – I honestly believe that they have this right. The sudden announcement that speeds of 1Gbps would be available, instead of the initial plan for 100Mbps has demonstrated the most important advantage of rolling out the fibre network – future proofing. The Coalition network becomes useless when 12Mbps becomes not enough, however the NBN remains viable for a significantly longer period of time. The fibre being laid is reputedly capable of 40Gbps, and the change announced last week demonstrates that without a fibre change, speeds can be significantly increased without “ripping and replacing” it. In comparing a $6.5b network that will be obsolete in 10 years, or a $43b network that will measure its life in decades, and be significantly more upgradeable, the NBN has got to be a better option. This does not include the economic benefits available through the mere existence of a network with those kinds of capacities.
  • UPTAKE – many have commented on the the potential for the “low uptake” of the NBN once it is rolled out. I can’t see this – the rolling out of the NBN would see the parallel decommissioning of the existing copper network, thanks to the Telstra infrastructure deal, so even if you completely ignore internet connectivity, almost all people will have to migrate to the NBN for pure POTS service regardless. Anyone with any type of xDSL connection would also have to migrate that service to an NBN-based service – simply because the copper will be turned off. Uptake will necessarily be close to 100%.
  • SPEED – while the Labor announcement of last week – (curious timing notwithstanding) – has seen NBN speeds upgraded to 1Gbps rather than 100Mbps, it is true that most people would not want, need, or be prepared to pay for such speeds right now. Will they want, or need it in eight years from now? Maybe, and maybe not. However, if the Coalition broadband plan is implemented, when the need for much higher speeds arrive – (and it will) – it simply won’t be able to be achieved without starting again, and we will wish the NBN had been built anyway.
  • ACCESS – The Coalition have promised “at least 12Mbps and up to 100Mbps” for 97% of Australians. On the surface, that doesn’t sound terrible, but needs to be looked at a little deeper. Under their plans, speeds of 100Mbps will only be available in areas where there are existing HFC (Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial) systems in place. This will only cover some – (not all) – parts of Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane (via the existing Telstra and Optus HFC networks), and a few select regional centres where companies like TransACT and Neighbourhood Cable have also rolled out an HFC system, such as Geelong, Ballarat, Canberra, and Mildura. That’s it, nowhere else – only areas covered by HFC right now. If 12Mbps is the “legislated” minimum, nobody is going to go to the expense of installing new, expensive HFC infrastructure to provide 100Mbps – (which the NBN’s fibre would have done anyway) – when they can just run out through existing or upgraded ADSL2+ infrastructure, and still meet the 12Mbps “minimum” requirement.
  • BROADBAND vs INTERNET – the terms “broadband” and “internet” are NOT the same thing. Internet services can be delivered by broadband, but they can also be delivered by narrowband services such as dialup. Broadband can deliver internet services, but can also deliver far more than just internet. The Coalition has fallen into the trap of believing that the NBN is just about “fast internet”. It is not. It is about providing the telecommunications industry with the platform to provide new services well into the future – services to go far and beyond the realms of just “fast internet”. Services which haven’t even been dreamed up yet. It provides the scope for innovation that the Coalition plan simply cannot deliver.
  • WIRELESS vs CABLES – wireless is great, and I depend on it everyday to remain online when I am mobile and away from either my desk at work, or my desk at home. It is however, susceptible to interference from weather conditions and other radio interference, it is highly contested when you can have potentially thousands of services trying to access the same tower, highly latent, and much of the spectrum touted to be used is not available until at least 2014, when analogue television is turned off – presuming that that timetable does not slip. Optical fibre cables don’t go down when it rains, don’t have ridiculously high ping times, and don’t have the heavy and unpredictable congestion that would exist in a contended radio-spectrum environment. You can never be sure just how many people are going to be in a given cell at any given time, and therefore you have a network that is significantly more difficult to predict and manage, ultimately making it far more difficult to deliver the promised level of service.
  • STRUCTURAL REFORM – a truly key difference between both plans is the way in which each plan deals with Telstra. Telstra is primarily a privately owned monopoly, primarily driven towards returns to their shareholders, which it should be. Since it owns basically the entire “last-mile” infrastructure in this country, it can set network access prices for everyone else, to basically whatever it wants. Within reason of course, and the ACCC have been on their back about anti-competitive behaviour for a long time. There is, however, only so much it can do, and without taking the wholesale network away from them, nothing will significantly change. Small players will continue to be price-gouged by Telstra for network access. The Coalition plan actually reinforces their stranglehold on the last-mile market, by ensuring that the industry is still dominated by the copper infrastructure that they own, and will continue to have no incentive to upgrade. The NBN plan sees Telstra relieved of the network infrastructure, and NBN Co becoming the legislated wholesale provider, with the same access cost to everyone. This alone provides a more competitive landscape for the telecommunications industry. It will force incumbent providers to innovate and improve to earn the customer dollar, in the face of competition from smaller operations willing to do that little bit extra to win the business.

In the end, after fifteen years in this industry, and wrangling with a wholesale market dominated by Telstra for most of that time, I believe the time has come – (it actually came a long time ago) – to truly reform telecommunications in this country. Structural reform, which mainly results in the removal of Telstra as the price-gouging monopoly it has become since the last attempt to “reform” the sector, is the key to the future – not just of the telecommunications industry, but of the Australian economy as a whole.

Yes – $43b or $30b is a lot of money, but the NBN will be transformative, and drive our economy for decades. The Coalition plan is spending almost $7b on changing very little for most people, and doing nothing for the future of this country.

It is difficult for me to support the plan of a government that has so pig-headedly pushed a ridiculous plan such as mandatory internet filtering – however the Coalition, Greens, and independant Nick Xenophon have promised to defeat that plan in the Senate.

Even some of the staunchest critics of the filter – such as the EFA – loudly support the NBN.

How stupid will Australia look 10 years from now when it has an outdated, dying telecommunications network, the type of which the rest of the world will have already turned away from? We’ll be irrelevant on the world stage, and all because we condemned one excellent plan against a failed plan of internet censorship, which is seemingly doomed in the Senate anyway.

What Is The Good Senator Scared Of?

I was taking a look at electoral information for my electorate in preparation for next Saturday’s federal election. Checking out the information for Corio, I found something curious.

There are five candidates in the senate information without any contact information, all from minor parties and independents – except for one. Guess who?

Afraid of people giving you a call Stephen? Don’t want to have to defend your policies?

Abbott Not the Only “Non Tech Head”

Seems that it is not only Tony Abbott who does not understand the broadband policy of his own party, after claiming to not be a “tech head” when quizzed on the particulars of the policy, but also the party in general don’t seem to get it either.

Fast Broadband to Go to Colac, Lorne, Apollo Bay

“Liberal candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson did not know which communities would receive the 12mbps under the Opposition’s plan. She said that information would be collected and made public within six months of the election should the Coalition win government.”

Doesn’t the Liberal policy state that 97% of all Australians will receive a minimum of 12Mbps? The Labor policy is for 93% fibre (up to 1Gbps), 4% wireless (minimum 12Mbps), and 3% satellite (minimum 12Mbps).

That’s 100% of the population with a minimum of 12Mbps. Even at 97% of the population – (the same amount of people covered by the Labor using fibre and wireless) – the Liberal policy SHOULD match the Labor policy for coverage area – minus the satellite component – speed notwithstanding.

More and more, this Liberal broadband policy seems like a “back-of-a-napkin” plan, hatched at the last minute, and not “designed” to have any real technical merit, but more so specifically to be cheaper than the Labor plan. It will certainly not actually achieve much for the economy of Australia over the next 50+ years.

So yes – not only is Tony Abbott not a “tech head” – it seems the whole Liberal Party are not “tech heads”. They even make Stephen Conroy look like he’s got half a clue.

And that says a lot!

The Great Filtering Bluff

There has been great change in the dynamics of the internet filtering debate in recent weeks, particularly with the Coalition promise to block any such legislation in the Senate, in line with the stated policies of both the Greens, and independent senator Nick Xenophon.

Given the sheer weight of numbers a combined Coalition/Greens/Xenophon vote in the Senate would have over any Labor numbers, it seems that even if Conroy and the Labor party persist with passing the legislation through the lower house – (if they win the election on August 21) – that it is doomed never to pass into law.

Not to be outdone, Senator Conroy spoke on NSW country radio station 2CS earlier this week, stating that he would “seek changes at the censorship board level” to work around any blocking of the legislation in the Senate.

Sounds rather anti-democratic, doesn’t it? Well, such an action would be just that, but I actually doubt he would have any real ability to do so. More so, I believe his statement that he’ll circumvent parliamentary process to get his way, is nothing more than a double-pronged bluff.

With a number of recent major policy changes by the incumbent Labor government, such as the famous climate change policy backflip, and the change of heart over the so-called “Resource Super Profits Tax” on the mining industry, the Gillard Government is not ready for another major policy turnaround.

It would seem that fearful of another voter backlash from another embarrassing policy change, Conroy has been jumping up and down to sure up the appearance of government resolve towards the filtering policy. The election already appears to be a tightly run race, so every vote will count.

Changing their mind – (at least publicly) – before the election on yet another policy would promote an image of mistrust – particularly amongst swinging/undecided voters. Conroy and Labor know that the filter is doomed, but have to appear strong to the electorate to win votes.

So in the first instance, flipping again will lessen the number of swinging voters that swing in their direction come August 21st.

In the second instance, the fundamentalist Christian vote – undoubtedly the major lobbying force behind this policy in the first place, and constituting almost guaranteed votes for Labor almost on the basis of the filtering policy alone – would feel betrayed if the government backed down.

So Conroy and Labor are publicly standing up for the policy to win/save some votes now, knowing full well that even if they win the election and the legislation passes the lower house, that it’s doomed in the Senate.

The recent announcement that the filter would be delayed until a review of the classification system is completed provides the out for the government.

After the “review”, the government will have an excuse to change its position. They’ve saved some face BEFORE the election, and the policy will be – (they hope quietly) – taken outside and put out of its misery.

I feel Conroy and Labor are bluffing. They know its doomed, and what they’ve done is made sure that they can clean things up as quietly as possible later.

Twitter Advertising Model Appears

Seems that the much-anticipated – (yeah, well) – advertising model for Twitter is finally showing its face to the world.

The model calls for the ability for advertisers to pay for their tweets to be inserted into your Twitter stream, and for promoted topics to appear in the list of “trending topics”. I was sceptical at first as to how obtrusive they might be – the “Promoted by Verizon Wireless USA” is only a mouse-over event – so the little yellow “Promoted” badge seems okay at this stage.

If they stay as innocuous as the screen shot above, I think they’ve found the right balance.

Coalition Broadband Numbers Dodgy

There is a glaring and gaping hole in the Coalition plan announced yesterday to replace the National Broadband Network (NBN). Despite being a vastly inferior solution, it simply does not add up with their own statements made during the announcement.

Certainly, I’m not talking about whether their costings of almost $7b are “right” or “wrong” – (I’ll leave that up to the accountants) – but I could not help but be disturbed by some massive assumptions they appear to have made in regards to the formulation of their policy.

During the press conference, Liberal communications spokesman, Tony Smith indicated that there did not appear to be any indication of any likely “significant uptake” of the NBN once it is rolled out.

Coalition Unveils Broadband Policy

“Smith says the Government is spreading a myth that Australians want to pay for 100Mbps services, and realistically, the demand just isn’t there.”

Firstly, nobody is suggesting that everyone will want or need 100Mbps – there will be many options between 10Mbps and 100Mbps available for people to choose from, as demonstrated by these iiNet/NBN plans.

Secondly, the recent deal between Telstra and NBN Co to migrate all of Telstra’s copper-network-based customers onto the NBN as the network is progressively rolled out blows the Coalition argument completely out of the water.

Almost every premise in Australia will need to be connected to the NBN’s fibre network – (and therefore generate return to NBN Co) – because the decaying Telstra copper network would be decommissioned. Not only would this obviously be a significant uptake of the network, it would be close to 100% uptake in fibre-enabled areas. Even if 50% of the people who currently pay for a copper-based POTS service decided not to continue with a fixed line service on the NBN, the remaining 50% is still a huge number.

Sorry Coalition, but if even basic numbers and concepts like these are beyond your grasp, I can’t trust the rest of your numbers and concepts in regards to this. Especially when your proposal seems like it was baked up on the back of a napkin over breakfast yesterday morning before the press conference. You clearly do not understand the difference between “broadband” and “internet” – although related, they are NOT the same thing.

The Coalition completely missed the point for the sake of having a policy that looks good to the average Joe Schmo, who will only see the difference between $7b and $43b. Clever politics maybe, but terrible policy. Big fail for them on this one.

ACL: Out of Touch?

Without wishing to suggest either way as to whether the ACL as a organisation has a positive or negative effect on the current federal election campaign, I do have to wonder about some of their actions, or inactions, as the case may be.

I just took this snapshot from the front page of their website, and it seems they have not gotten around to updating some graphics:

The ACL claim to be “in touch” with the beliefs of Australians, yet haven’t gotten around to updating their heavily politically motivated website with an image of the new Prime Minister?! Something that happened weeks ago? Surely if they believe in their message enough, they should be studiously updating the information they present to the public, so as to remain relevant, and credible?

The ACL is an organisation which claims to speak for mainstream Australian beliefs in this election campaign, particularly on the issue of “bad stuff” on the internet, and that their beliefs in this regard must be applied to everyone. Well, ACL – myself, and many others – do not believe in your want to ram censorship down our throats. The Coalition and the Greens have called you out on this, and look set to deem the policy to failure.

Which incidentally it already was.

I have heard both the government and the ACL claim that the mandatory filter would not be censorship at all, when of course it really is. Censorship, which by definition is:

“Policy or programme of censoring”

So what is “censoring”? By definition it is:

“To delete (a word or passage of text) in one’s capacity as a censor.”

The same page defines “censor” as:

“An official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.”

Textbook. Censorship. Definition.

Senator Conroy himself actually said “blocking material is not considered to be censorship” – which we can now see is an idiotic statement – particularly in the light of the above definition.

This is why you and your friends over at the ALP are left standing with egg on your faces. You believe your own rhetoric on this issue so much, that you’ve completely lost sight of what it is you are proposing.

Censorship. I really hope that the Coalition and Greens stance to vote against the legislation is really annoying for you – because the whole policy has been annoying a lot of Australians for a long time.