Q&A with key Liberal Party broadband architect, Paul Fletcher

Liberal Party MP, Paul Fletcher, has been singled out by IT industry sources as a key architect of the Coalition’s Broadband plan. ARN asked him how many mobile towers would be needed under the plan and when the party decided to move against the filter
Paul Fletcher

Paul Fletcher

On your broadband alternative, how would you respond to the criticism that it would mean wireless towers down every street?

It is a ludicrous proposition to argue that the Coalition’s plan will involve more disruption and new infrastructure than Labor’s plan of building fibre to every home in Australia. Firstly, almost every new wireless base station is co-located on an existing facility. That’s been standard practice in the industry for many years.

So anybody who argues there will be lots of new towers I think frankly needs to double check what the current industry practice is. The person who has made this claim in the press this morning, Professor Rod Tucker, is a strong advocate of fibre. He served on Minister Conroy’s panel, which recommended building the fibre to the premises network. Professor Tucker is also the head of the Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society (IBES), which describes itself as Victoria’s NBN test bed in a press release issued last year and his centre is funded by the Brumby Labor Government.

So he is a respected expert on fibre and I am very happy to acknowledge his expertise and standing. But he is not a disinterested party and for him to be quoted as an objective expert on the question of fibre vs. wireless I think is not…well I think the facts of the situation ought to be explained.

We’ve spoken to many ISPs and most of them prefer the Government’s NBN while seeing some positives in yours. How would you respond to that? Are they being biased?

I would say that if you work in a company in an industry where there is the prospect of the Government spending lots of taxpayer’s money then you might well be attracted to that. And I speak with experience as someone who’s worked in a Government relations role for a large telecommunications company (Optus).

But the job of Government and the job of the Opposition as the alternative Government is to decide how best to spend taxpayer money on delivering benefits for taxpayers and consumers and weighing up how we spend money on broadband against all of the other legitimate and important claims on the public purse such as schools, roads, hospitals, defence and so many other important priorities.

So are the companies that have expresses interest in the NBN like iiNet, Internode and Optus fairly biased in their approach?

I definitely would not use the word ‘biased’ in relation to any of those fine companies. I want to make it perfectly clear that of course we would expect and encourage a vigorous debate and everybody should be welcome to participate. The simple point I make is this – everybody comes to that debate with a different perspective. If you are an expert in fibre optics and that is your life’s work then naturally you’ll argue for a fibre optic National Broadband Network as Professor Tucker has done. If you run a telecommunications company and there’s substantial Government funding for a business model which you think is of benefit to your company, naturally you will be supportive of that. And I don’t criticise that for a second.

Some people have pointed out that the 12Mbps ‘peak speed’ baseline you’ve promised for 97 per cent of Australians is not a constant minimum speed of 12Mbps.

What I’d say is we were very clear in the policy about what it is we are delivering. Our focus is on getting services to people who need them and don’t have them today.

Does that mean there is no minimum constant speed for 97 per cent of Australians under your plan?

Our policy is to deliver by 2016 a broadband baseline under which 97 per cent of premises are able to be served by a network capable of at least 12 Mbps peak speed. That is exactly the same claim Labor makes for the extensive use of wireless networks in its policy. Labor is using wireless technology and radio frequency spectrum in exactly the same way we propose to.

NBN Co CEO, Mike Quigley, came out and rebutted your plan point by point in all but name. Are you disappointed that someone who’s meant to be non-political has done that?

I think Mr. Quigley should inform himself about the operations of the caretaker conventions, under which Government employees do not express partisan or political views on the merits of one party’s policies or another during the course of an election. Quigley’s perspective is that he’s chief executive of the company charged with rolling out the NBN. It is hardly surprising that he would seek to make arguments about the merits of what he’s got a job to do.

Much has been said of Tony Abbott’s interview where he said he was not a ‘tech-head’. Are you disappointed your leader isn’t better educated on tech issues?

Absolutely not. The first point to make is that the priority for a leader is to set clear directions that must be followed to achieve objectives. Tony Abbott set a clear direction for Tony Smith who’s charged with delivering and executing the policy – a direction that emphasises value for money and delivering a broadband baseline.

Are you disappointed by the relatively small amount of support for your plan?

No, not at all. I think our plan has been, in the circumstances, pretty well received and when I say ‘in the circumstances’ the fact is, as I’ve mentioned, people come to this debate with particular perspectives and of course there’s a lot of people who quite like the idea of substantial public money being spent in a way that might give them business opportunities. I’m quite pleased with the reception our policy has received. Let’s keep in mind $6.3 billion is a lot of money. We’ve got a very good policy that focuses on areas of market failure to ensure people that are in black holes and don’t have services will get them as quickly as possible.

When did the Coalition decide it would vote against a mandatory filter in the Senate?

We’ve had a pretty consistent position on the filter and if you go back and listen to what Nick Minchin had to say when he was the Shadow Minister for Communications his position was very clear on that.

People like National Party deputy leader, Senator Barnaby Joyce, are fairly pro-filter and have pushed quite strongly for one. Has there been any controversy or dissension within the Coalition on this?

The Liberal Party is a democratic party and we always want to hear and consider all of the views. We’re also very consistent in saying that if there were a practical way to prevent unacceptable material being seen on the Internet then of course we’d consider it. But the point is that what Labor’s proposing simply does not work as a practical measure.

So if there was a practical mandatory filter that worked, would the Coalition be amenable to pursuing that?

I’m not going to discuss hypotheticals. We have a policy position based upon what is feasible today. That’s the position that Shadow Minister, Tony Smith, has made very clear.

The Government has brought out $466.7m for e-health and added more in the campaign launch for extra online Medicare services. Why hasn’t Tony Abbott announced any e-health initiatives despite calls from doctors?

I’ve got nothing additional to add on e-health other than to note a certain contradiction in Labor’s position. On the one hand they say that there’s a need for $43b of new broadband funding while on the other hand they’re making Medicare rebates available from July 1 next year for online consultations. Now if the infrastructure is there now for online consultations and the NBN won’t be widely available then there is a contradiction if today’s infrastructure is good enough for those consultations.

With so many big issues on the table, is broadband being largely ignored on the national stage? Do most people in this election care about this?

I think the test for that will be on Saturday. There are two clear broadband plans on from the two major parties with quite different approaches.

Register now for the ARN Security Forum 2013 on June 4 at the Sydney Mint

More about: ARN, etwork, iiNet, Internode, Optus, Quigley

Comments

Jim

1

So many of your questions were political. Given that Paul is an architect, some more technical questions would have been welcome.

David Ramli

2

Hi Jim,

That's a fair comment. I'll probably be chasing down other key players in the days to come, so please suggest some technical questions.

I'll do my best to get answers for you.

Best regards,

David Ramli

Argonaut

3

As Mr Quigley is a recognised subject matter expert with extensive international expertise and experience in the planning and building of very large networks, it seem somewhat of a cheap shot for Mr Fletcher to instantly categorise his comments as partisian political comment?

Mr Fletcher is also quick and at pains to ignore international developed economies introduction and expansion of FTTP/FTTH networks, as well ignoring mysriad large and massive network experts who confirm that wireless technologies and available spectrum simply do not exist to support the loading and usage expansion that Australia will and must experience.

Mr Fletcher soes not want to discuss hypotheticals, yet he claims that wireless technologies will support their version of the NBN, when it has not been built at that scope ANYWHERE on Planet Earth...?? Now if that is not a hypothetical then I do not know which Algerian disctionary he is using...

Next is his seemingly total lack of understanding of timelines and what ther difference between 1 year and 8 years is...

The NBN is slated for an 8 years build, and Medicare rebates for online consultations will be made available next year, which in some instances will work well and in many will not. I can sometimes do a Skype video call and sometimes I cannot, due to the limitations of the network capabilities and my copper access mode, as wella s the tyranny of distance.

If Mr Fletcher does not undertsand these technical and internet basics, what was he architecting, mobile phone voice networks???

The NBN is already, due to the deal with Telstra, going to require far less than $43bill to build, yet he seems ignorant of that fact as a good last aspect.

Good questions David, however his responses were lacking in technical substance and were primarily political responses in themselves.

John

4

Australia needs fibre technology to push the country into the next phase of the economy.

A fast reliable wired (fibre in this case) will enable more applications to be developed and used eg. tele-medicine, real-time full rate high-def video conference, video-on-demand for the masses, fast and pervasive commerce via the internet.

A next generation wired technology is and will be the primary and thus most reliable technology ie. least susceptible to disruptions and most secured. Wireless technology such as LTE will serve as secondary or backup infrastructure. The wireless technology projection remains this - its capacity, speed and cost cannot match the wired technology in the next ten years.

Leave it to the private sector? Take a look at the amount of time wasted between the Coalition and Telstra in getting them build the next generation network more than three years ago. If we had moved forward, a large percentage of the Australian population would be enjoying high speed access at lower cost by now.

The NBN policy is the weakest policy for the Coalition. Judging from the public comments made by Turnbull, Fletcher and Smith, it appears they are either out of their depths, don't have a good policy yet or oppose for the sake of opposing.

Richard Ure

5

Paul Fletcher is quick to draw attention to experts giving answers coloured by where they come from... yet HE is a politician with a party line to peddle. Come off it! You think of all the possible argument, he would let that one through to the keeper.

If questions are needed, how about how many subscribers will be covered by each tower? Given the maximum/minimum speeds promised is he really saying these towers will need no new locations. And if new locations are needed, how about a ball park figure as to how many?

Paul might think it is in order for Tony Abbott not being up to speed on spectrum issues but it would be nice if he even realised spectrum was needed and could only be cannibilised from other claimants.

ian

6

just another bonehead who live in the stoneage 12mb are you for real

Wayne Comber

7

I was disappointed with Paul Fletchers answers. Typical politician answer, which actually avoided answering the questions. A good example was the peak speed question.
The thing I was most disappointed about though was there was no questions about the elephant in the room, being Telstra. In Pauls book, Wired Brown Land, he detailed the role Telstra played in holding back the sector. Given this, he is now supporting Telstra not being separated, and indeed, further entrenching their dominance by paying to upgrade their exchanges. Its a big step away from his stance prior to being a politician. Some would say an about face. It certainly should have been addressed.

John

8

Come off it you guys, Fletcher is a man with heaps of experience and is odds on our next Communications Minister.

I've met him plenty of times and I know him to be a man of skill and understanding.

Bottom line is that the industry is biased and will happily take a boatfull of cash in an effort to build up revenue.

As he says, nobody blames the industry but you can't be surprised when somebody calls us out on bias!

I personally would prefer the cash spent on other things - the terrible state of health perhaps? Or just getting rid of the NSW governments!

Paul K

9

I had to laugh.

This might sound ok to someone who thinks saving $40+ billion is a good idea, since that seems to be the only arguement.

Why don't we talk about INVESTING much less then 40 billion in something our children, and most likely their children will use.

Or we could use the 3 billion a year it might cost to increase social security payments to $153 billion.

Fact is, we need this. We might delay a decade at great cost, but it has to happen.

People who have never voted Labour before will switch for this election.

I know I have.

Person

10

>Typical politician answer, which actually avoided answering
>the questions. A good example was the peak speed question.

To be fair, he pointed out that Labor's solution has exactly the same issue.

Have you been successful in getting the Labor party to commit to a guaranteed minimum speed in those regions of Australia that they would serve with a terrestrial wireless solution?

Likewise, this is exactly the same in Telstra's existing offering (NextG).

As someone in such an area (i.e. not so remote as to have only satellite as an option and not in an area that would get fibre under Labor's plan), there is essentially nothing to choose between Labor's offering and Liberal's offering (from a technical perspective).

Also, all this talk about speed is misleading because it only addresses the speed of the link between your house and the tower / exchange / whatever. That says nothing about the actual speed that you will get when transferring data, which is ultimately a more meaningful number.

Person

11

>People who have never voted Labour before will switch
>for this election.

Provided that they can stomach their internet being censored by the government using a secret unaccountable ever-expanding blacklist.

L.

12

"People who have never voted Labour before will switch for this election."

You enjoy that FTTF...Fibre To The Filter.

Schneider

13

If EVERYBODY picks up the NBN it will cost $30 per connection (not including paying of the loans or pay peoples wages or the internet) If 50% of people get it the stats predict a lot less that would be $60 per connection before admin and internet... I know most Australian won't pay that! Look at the costs people not simply at the technology. Yes if it was cheap this would be great it's NOT and therefore we need to look at the cost!!! No one question that fibre IS the fastest option BUT can we afford it? You might pay the $100 it will cost per month but will all your friends?

Ofor

14

Person: does it hurt a lot to carry that painful chip on your shoulder...?

L.: If you truly believe that the tussle over the filter should impede the NBN FTTH, then you are sadder than Abbott and Turnbull combined, and are trying to defeat the Lion in order to get the flea off his back...

Two completely different issues, with the filter easily contended without trying desperately to drag in the nationally critical NBN.

Person

15

Ofor, yes, the attack on one of the fundamental principles of democracy and of a free society that internet censorship represents does indeed hurt a lot.

Unfortunately it is Labor that is tying internet censorship to their vision for the medium term for broadband in Australia. A vote for Labor is a vote for both, whether you like it or not.

Speaking only for my own region, we have a choice between theoretical 12 Mbit/sec peak link speed from Labor + censorship or theoretical 12 Mbit/sec peak link speed from Liberal with no censorship. Would you blame someone in my region for favouring the "no censorship" option?

But even in the cities, where Labor plans to make fibre available, you have to ask at what price you would sell out your freedom?

David of Sydney

16

What Labor's policy does not take into account is that we are a mobile community with mobile phones, wireless laptops, ipads, etc. Wireless is the solution for 3rd world countries and that technology is leaping ahead. We want wireless broadband to meet new technologies. Fibre to the household will be obsolete before it is fully implelemented. Also at the cost of $160 a month the majority of Australians cannot afford to use NBN. We could have bought 30,000 new hospital beds with that same money, the economics do not make sense with NBN

BDF

17

@David of Sydney

Go and have a look at Internodes NBN prices for entry level for stage 1. $30 per month for 15GB and $50 per month for 60GB is great value for good reliable internet @ 25mbps. I think your way off on the cost of $160 per month when even the highest Internode plan does not reach that for 100mbps.

Yes people do use wireless services when needed outside the home but households can use Wi-Fi to connect to there laptops, mobiles especially VOIP, and IPads to Wi-Fi and save plenty of $$ rather than use their expensive, slow and unrealiable wireless provider.

Fibre is future proof and will sustain whatever bandwidth is required, reliable, competitive pricing, and will ultimately decrease internet and communication costs for the household. Wireless 3G broadband is not the solution for households wanting HD content since it is expensive, suffers from black spots, and will congest due to bandwidth bottlenecks at peak periods. This is what the Liberals policy does not tell you.....

Bob

18

The statement "if the infrastructure is there now for online consultations and the NBN won’t be widely available then there is a contradiction if today’s infrastructure is good enough for those consultations." doesn't make sense. Even if only 10% of the eventual capacity for e-consultations exists it makes sense to encourage them now. Both because the capacity will build over time and the initial small base will enable wrinkles in the system to be worked out. Better that than a "big bang" rollout in 2-3 years time.

Paul Foss

19

There is one major factor overlooked in the debate fibre or wireless and that is the amount of radiation we emit into the environment. We all know that electro-magnetic radiation does affect living tissue and the more we transmit, the more we will be affected. Fibre does not emit any radiation and is non polluting.

cajan

20

Just another politician. He lost the chance to be considered an impartial expert the day he took the coalitions shilling.
As i said another poxy polloie. What a waste.

Janine

21

I always thought the tech community was above being swayed by boat loads of cash. The NBN will become the porn superhighway of illegal downloads.
Why do we need to spend 43Billion to watch TV when our existing aluminium antennas do the job and why is the Govt subsidising this. Get set for another labour splurge the likes of 1972-1975

Simmo

22

@Janine
Pretty narrow minded approach to think that the Internet is just a porn superhighway. I guess that we could levy the same argument for the copper phone network given the amount of adverts on TV after midnight for "call 1900 xxx now for a good time" couldn't we? I think you're thinking too much in today's paradigms and not what could be with this network. The extraordinary effect it will have on business will open up opportunity that you couldn't imagine. There has been some inkling what it could do for health. I think it will have profound impacts on aged care and many other sectors too. It has to happen. Yes, there will be downsides, but the upsides far outweigh them.

Stuart

23

How is this a help when there are towns of less then 1000 people that have unreliable power supply !! (The Chronicle in Toowoomba)

Comments are now closed.
Related Coverage
Related Whitepapers
Latest Stories
Community Comments
Tags: Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society (IBES), broadband plan, Liberal Party, National Broadband Network (NBN), internode, iiNet, optus, paul fletcher
rhs_login_lockGet exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events.
ARN Distributor Directory
Find distributors by name | vendor | location
Channel Deals
/deals/aca-pacific/506_fujifilm-lto-media-promotion-end-of-financial-
ACA Pacific

Fujifilm LTO Media Promotion. End of Financial Year Offer.

More details »
ARN Vendor Directory
Find vendors by name | category

iAsset is a channel management ecosystem that automates all major aspects of the entire sales,marketing and service process, including data tracking, integrated learning, knowledge management and product lifecycle management.