Australia Offers Faster Network - Internet Australia News

A top Australian telecommunications official waded into the heated political debate over the nation's digital future Thursday, saying a government plan to invest tens of billions of dollars into a new national fiber network would offer homes and business vastly faster connection speeds than originally promised.

NBN Chief Executive Mike Quigley. right, at an event in July.
.The debate concerns plans by Australia's ruling Labor party to spend as much as 43 billion Australian dollars ($38.6 billion) to make Australia's data and mobile-phone connections among the world's fastest, transforming Australia from a relative technology backwater to high-tech modern economy. The plan has been targeted by the opposition Liberal-National coalition, which has said it would replace the plan with a less costly alternative that gives the private sector a greater role if it takes power in an Aug. 21 election.

Mike Quigley, chief executive of state-owned NBN Co., which will oversee the network buildout, said the network will now be able to offer speeds of one gigabit per second. That's 10 times faster than the previously announced top speed of 100 megabits per second, and well above the baseline 12 Mbps pledged by the opposition.

Mr. Quigley told reporters Thursday that NBN has always maintained that the network had the potential to offer faster speeds. He disputed suggestions that NBN's announcement was politically motivated.

He also told a business lunch that offering such speeds will not have any impact on the cost of building the network, which he said "certainly won't cost over A$43 billion."

The Liberal-National argues the plan amounts to a nationalization of Australia's communications infrastructure, which was privatized with the initial public offering of Telstra Corp., the country's biggest telecommunications firm, under the previous conservative administration of Prime Minister John Howard.

"It's very easy... in the midst of a very difficult election campaign for the government to pluck figures out of the air and say, look isn't this going to be fantastic, but too many people have been too disappointed for too long by this government," Mr. Abbott told reporters Thursday. "I would counsel people against taking these kinds of airy promises, airy assurances at face value."

Separately, Telstra said Thursday that its net profit for the fiscal year fell 4.7% from the year before and warned that its earnings would fall further in the current financial year, as it battles declining revenues at its fixed line business and tough competition in its mobile operations in Australia and Asia. Macquarie analysts said the guidance suggests downgrades in the order of 15% to 20% for consensus market forecasts. Its shares fell 9.5% to A$2.94.

"Today, the greatest asset that Telstra has is our customer base and we have been losing too many customers. I cannot allow it to continue," Telstra Chief Executive David Thodey told analysts. Melbourne-based Telstra said net profit for the year to June 30 fell to A$3.88 billion from A$4.07 billion a year ago.

The broadband battle has become one of the defining features of the five-week election campaign, as the coalition attempts to pitch itself as more fiscally conservative than Labor. The election result is expected to go down to the wire with Labor only narrowly ahead of the coalition according to the latest polls.

The coalition is offering a scaled-back network that relies on a mix of fiber, copper and wireless technologies. It will provide A$2.75 billion to help fund construction of a national fiber-optic backbone, with another A$750 million expected from industry.

But, unlike the governing Labor party's plan, it will stop short of reaching individual homes--which Communications Minister Stephen Conroy describes as the "single largest bottleneck" to higher speeds.

The opposition plan also includes spending A$1 billion to upgrade much slower existing copper networks and A$2 billion on wireless networks.

Mr. Quigley said Thursday wireless technologies are "physically unable" to match fiber, which will be capable of "virtually unlimited" download capacity. In urban areas, wireless also would require the construction of significantly more wireless towers to reach even the baseline speed of 12Mbps, he said.

Read full article

The internet filter is dead! Long live the filter!

In a few short sentences, Mr Hockey killed the proposal. telling the Triple J current affairs program Hack that the opposition would oppose the policy, that it was bad policy, and that it would instead revert to the Howard Government policy of giving away filter software to end-users for free.

And that we would hear more about the policy soon.

As shadow communications spokesman, Tony Smith might have preferred to unveil such a strategically important election policy himself, and been given the chance to put the policy into some kind of context.

And God help Mr Smith if the policy was not already generally known among the Coalition front bench and back bench. Because if the shadow Treasurer let slip the plan to oppose the filter before colleagues like Guy Barnett or Cory Bernardi – among others – had been fully briefed, there would have been hell to pay (and it would be Tony Smith paying it.)

Because regardless of what kind of instant hero Tony Smith might have become today among opponents of the filter – it was an idea that held considerable support on both sides of politics.

And among Liberals and Nationals, there were strong voices on both sides of the debate – many in favour of siding with the Government on mandatory filtering, and many opposed.

What Tony Smith is going to have to explain to colleagues is why he is rejecting a complaints-based policy that used a URL blacklist that Labor effectively shanghai’d from the Howard Government.

The difference is that whereas the previous Government's blacklist applied only to domestically-hosted content, the proposed mandatory ISP-level filter was to have applied to offshore content as well.

If those content standards are good enough to be applied locally, why should content imported from overseas be treated any differently is one question he might be called on to discuss by colleagues.

Mr Smith is expected to provide more detail on the policy in the next several days, and the filter issue is almost certain to get an airing at the Communications debate next Tuesday at the National Press Club, in which Stephen Conroy, Tony Smith and Greens spokesman Scott Ludlam will share a stage.

Read on at source

The End of Internet as we Know it? Google-Verizon Deal Internet Australia News

For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."

New fibre cable to link Australia and US - Internet Australia

A fibre optic cable linking Australia, New Zealand and the US is to be built for an estimated $US400 million ($A443.58 million).

The high network efficiency, 13,600km Pacific Fibre cable will be built jointly by Pacific Fibre Ltd and Asian telecommunication services provider Pacnet, both companies said in a statement on Wednesday.

The cable will land in Sydney, Auckland and Los Angeles and will be ready for service in 2013.

The companies will co-own the cable and share responsibility for the cable supply contract,operations and maintenance costs.

They said they would begin selecting a vendor to build the cable shortly.

Pacnet chief executive Bill Barney said the investment was an important part of the company's strategy to expand its subsea cable infrastructure into Australasia.

He said the cable would support Australia's proposed national broadband network (NBN).

"As Australia and New Zealand look towards deploying national broadband networks that will raise broadband penetration and access speeds, this new cable that we are building with Pacific Fibre will deliver the enhanced international connectivity that is essential to support these broadband initiatives," he said.

View Source

iiNet pleased about agreement between government and Telstra (Internet Australia)

Internet Service Provider iiNet has recently stated that it welcomes the agreement between the federal government, NBN Co, and Telstra in connection with the National Broadband Network.

It was recently announced that an agreement had finally been reached between the federal government, NBN Co, and the communications giant Telstra with regards to the National Broadband Network. Internet Service Provider iiNet has stated that it is pleased that this agreement has been reached, adding that this will not only benefit consumers but will benefit the industry as a whole.

iiNet’s Chief Executive Officer Michael Malone said: “The NBN is the future of broadband in Australia and iiNet has always believed it will be better served by having Telstra involved rather than not. The NBN is the most significant reform to the Australian telecommunications sector in decades and will ensure all Australians will have access to fast, affordable and competitive broadband.”

He added: “From our initial examination of yesterday’s announcement, the agreement is consistent with the Federal Government’s earlier commitments of an open access network, structural separation and regulatory reform.”

Malone went on to state: “We are well placed to continue to grow under this new and exciting regime. We are NBN-ready and have already signed up our first NBN customers in Tasmania. As a market leader and innovator, we will now be able to compete on a truly open high speed network. Our customers will be the big beneficiaries of the NBN and today’s announcement brings those benefits closer.”

Source – iiNet

'Outright lie' that iiNet supports filter

"This is a policy that will be going ahead," he said.

But that drew an angry retort from iiNet today.

Chief executive Michael Malone said: "We do not and have never supported such a system.

"The proposed filter is fundamentally flawed, will not achieve its stated purpose and simply will not work.

"It is fundamentally bad policy. No western country opertaes a mandatory filter like this. This proposal lines Australia up with Burma, Saudi Arabia and China, and has rightly attracted criticism from technical experts, the industry, child safety groups and even the US government."

While iiNet had been involved in the government's consultation process, "any claim that our participation... is support for the government's policy is an outright lie", Mr Malone said.

"Our position is unchanged. This proposed filter is a waste of money that should be instead spent on additional law enforcement and education resources," he said.

The filter legislation is not expected to go before Parliament until later in the year.

READ FULL ARTICLE