OECD’s unedited comments on the NBN and telecommunications

The unedited text from the summary of the “OECD Economic Surveys: Australia, November 2010 report” on the NBN and telecommunications

The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) recently released comments calling for more telco competition im Australia and questioning the Government's NBN plans. Here are the unedited comments from the summary of the "OECD Economic Surveys: Australia, November 2010" report:

In the telecommunication sector, the government’s project of building a new fibre network, the National Broadband Network (NBN), holds the promise of delivering potentially large benefits.

However, as the cost amounts to 3¼ per cent of GDP, it also entails substantial financial uncertainties. The authorities’ strategy will improve Internet services for the entire population and promote a fairer competition between private firms on retail services.

Part of the plan is to shut down the existing copper network and the country’s main cable network. While establishing a monopoly in this way would protect the viability of the government’s investment project, it may not be optimal for cost efficiency and innovation. Empirical studies have stressed the value of competition between technological platforms for the dissemination of broadband services.

It would therefore be preferable to maintain competition between technologies in the broadband sector and, within each technology, between Internet service providers.

The existing regulation guaranteeing third party access to infrastructure, the National Access Regime (NAR) developed in the mid-90s, raises a number of issues concerning the appropriate balance between efficient use of existing networks and stimulating private investments. The implementation of the NAR implementation over the past 15 years seems to vary across industry. A detailed assessment would help draw lessons from the experience to date and finetune regulatory provisions.

Adequate and well-functioning infrastructure is a key ingredient to growth and wellbeing. The benefits to activity of efficient spending in energy, water, transport and communication sectors go well beyond their contribution to capital accumulation. Good infrastructure facilitates trade, bolsters market integration and competition, fosters the dissemination of ideas and innovations and enhances access to resources and public services.

These benefits are particularly important for Australia because of its size, the geographical dispersion of its population and production centres, and its remoteness from other markets.

Nevertheless, Australia has an important infrastructure deficit. This is in part due to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, while the rebound in capital spending at the beginning of the 2000s has been insufficient to deal with capacity shortages exacerbated by the strong demand generated by the mining boom, expected population growth, technological progress and environmental concerns.

To ease these shortages, the authorities have put bolstering infrastructure to the top of their economic policy agenda. This entails greater government expenditure in this area, but also structural reforms to optimise public and private investment choices and the use of existing facilities with better regulation.

Tags OECDcopper networksTelecommunicationsNBNbroadband

More about EmpiricaletworkOECD




Has the OECD got the decimal point wrong when they said "the cost amounts to 3¼ per cent of GDP"?

If the taxpayer cost is about $26 billion over eight years, and our GDP is about $1000 billion per year, then dividing $26 billion into $8,000 billion you actually get 0.00325 - which is 0.325%, not 3.25% as they said.



The OECD's comments are really pro-NBN:
- "a monopoly ... would protect the government's investment"
- "[The NBN as described] will improve Internet services for the entire population ... and promote fairer competition in retail services"
- "preferable to maintain competition between technologies" (pro, because the NBN only ditches inferior copper, delivering wireless to 97% that is relieved of congestion by the indisputably best fixed infrastructure, namely fibre to premises.)
And the final paragraph is a ringing endorsement, isn't it? It is laughable that anyone could characterise this as an attack on the NBN.



Umbria, you are entirely correct. Even if you take into account the entire (maximum) cost, not just the Government contribution, it works out at 0.54% of GDP over the 8 years.

It's a bit of a worry that the OECD made such a fundamental mistake.

I also agree that the overall thrust is pro-NBN

Comments are now closed


Latest News

John Grant to step down as Data#3 managing director
AWS re:Invent 2014 show floor (+25 photos)
Sophos launches Cloud Server Protection
SkyFii lists on ASX with $20 million market cap
More News
25 Nov
GovInnovate Summit
03 Dec
DC Infrastructure Solutions Professional
04 Dec
DC Infrastructure Delivery Professional
16 Dec
DC Infrastructure Solutions Professional
View all events