CeBIT 2010: NBN cost not an issue
- 25 May, 2010 10:21
- Comments 4
The cost of the National Broadband Network (NBN) has been played down by industry players despite Federal Opposition, and some industry concerns, around the high price-tag of the national infrastructure project.
Speaking at CeBIT 2010, NICTA CEO Dr David Skellern said whatever the cost, the NBN was worth pursuing.
"Was $42 billion dollars spent on a handout at Christmas a good way to spend $42 billion? We spend a lot of money on all sorts of things I think are not very worthwhile," he said. "...Whatever [the NBN] comes in at, my belief is it's worth doing. I don't know how you'd get 100 per cent coverage if you didn't have the sort of network that is being planned.
"If you believe connectivity is going to be important in the future... then the cost of [the NBN] is what it is going to cost."
Dr Ian Oppermann, director at the CSIRO ICT Centre, said the cost of the NBN should be made in comparison with building other national infrastructure projects.
"Is it cost effective to build roads in remote parts of Australia? You wouldn't get a lot of road for $43 billion, but roads carry physical goods and you get services as a consequence. With the NBN you will get services and it's a part of the overall infratsructure of Australia," he said.
"In terms of broadband access today there is only something like 15 per cent of people who have access to take up broadband today. Move outside of the urban cities and you very rapidly run out of broadband services."
Alan Noble, engineering director at Google A/NZ said the NBN was cost-effective when compare to other infrastructure projects in Australia's history.
"If you look at other big investments from the last century and the one before, the construction of the overland telegraph from Adelaide to Darwin was a much bigger investment for the then very, very poor colony of South Australia, as a percentage of that colony's GDP" he said. "The same would be true of building the trans-continental railway. These were nation-building infrastructure projects that transformed the nation."
Eric Olson, vice president at security company Cyveillance questioned the cost to Australia of not building an NBN.
"There is the cost, but also the cost of not building it," he said. "For healthcare, education, and services - if you can assume of the presence of that delivery vehicle (the NBN) as ubiquitous, then you will accrue all kinds of cost savings and efficiencies and novelty in the provision of those services.
"There is also a question of what competitive disadvantage accrues to those outside the cities who do not have [the NBN] and what new efficient models of services and government services delivery is absent if you don't enable ubiquitous access."
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- Top 5 Threat Protection Best Practices
- Case Study: Danske Bank Group improves efficiency and reduces time to market
- Printer Usage and Cost Management Strategies for the Australian Mid-market, an Unrealised Opportunity
- Security Threat Report 2012
- Information Security Policies, Standards and Procedure
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Microsoft Office
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies









Comments
Phil Collins
Interesting comment from Google here supporting NBN, same day as so much coverage of Conroy's comments about Google.
Makes a mockery of all the online commentary hysteria about filtering etc.
The main game is infrastructure because it supports business. Conroy and Google are at one on that.
Andy
Why have a NBN that only covers 90% of the population, surely everyone has the right to fast internet speeds where ever you are. Those 90% targets sound a little like the initial mobile coverage estimates and there were a lot of disappointed people back then.
If the Libs scrap the NBN (which they should) then could I suggest they spend money on ensuring that all exchanges through out the country have ADSL 2+ DSLAM's. They could do this at a fraction of the cost and provide reasonably fast network speeds thru this network infrastructure. Lets crawl before we run.
Dave
Andy, I agree in principle wth what your saying, but ADSL2 is running like a bag of the brown stuff, where its enabled its patchy in performance, and the reasons are many as to why.
On top of that exisiting copper wire is approching end of life and needs replacing, the infrastruture is backed into a bit of a corner, and once you have peeled back all the spin, counter spin and sheer bulldust surrounding this subject, whats left is an aging wire thats eveyone is busy argueing is worth something, while actauly not using the words "scrap value"
Ben
Andy What you are saying has some merit but this was revised later to 93% and the rest will still have access to high speed wireless and satellite connections.
The current infrastructure is a joke. sure RIM's are cost efficient but they make it damn near impossible to get a reliable highspeed connection to anyone even if your lucky enough that Telstra has graced your RIM with an ADSL2 DSLAM. not to mention the age of the current infrastructure the copper wires don't last forever and the connection deteriorates with the wire.
Australia will be far better off when this is replaced and the copper can itself if in good condition be sold for a profit.
Post new comment