Broadband News and Technology

The expansion of broadband services in Australia continues to rise as does Australia's position in the World Broadband Rankings which now sees our nation coming at 11th (out of 58 nations) with a 72 percent take up in Australian households. The WBR results were released in the latest ‘Global Broadband Forecast: 1H 2009’ which was published by Strategy Analytics.

The Asia Pacific region dominates the WBR with 5 of the nations appearing in the Top Ten, including the number one position held by South Korea with a remarkable 95%. Strategy Analytics has stated that they expect this trend to continue in the Asian Pacific area between 2009 and 2013 with an additional growth rate of 15% predicted. Too bad it's Broadband take up only and not High Speed Broadband in Australia.

In case you were wondering, western nations such as UK and USA finished 15th (67%) and 20th (60%) respectively while Japan only came in at 16th with 64 percent and New Zealand finished in a measly 25th place with 57 percent take up.

Top Ten World Broadband Rankings for 2009
1. South Korea 95%
2. Singapore 88%
3. Netherlands 85%
4. Denmark 82%
5. Taiwan 81%
6. Hong Kong 81%
7. Israel 77%
8. Switzerland 76%
9. Canada 76%
10. Norway 75%
(11. Australia 72%) 

The ongoing Federal Court saga of AFACT vs. the peoples ISP republic of iiNet, is gaining momentum as accusations of 'on a fishing exercise' and 'an attempt to gain political mileage' are being thrown back and fourth across the courtroom.

It appears that AFACT, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft who attempting to prove that iiNet was involved in copyright breach, need to get their facts straight, or so iiNet are suggesting. 

In the latest development, iiNet has requested AFACT to surrender various documentation that includes similar copyright action taken against other ISPs. It's thought that this information could assist iiNet in understanding what were appropriate measures to stop iiNet's customers who committed online piracy.

AFACT appears to have back peddled by dismissing this action as nothing more than an attempt to obtain 'political mileage', while iiNet stated that AFACT is was on a 'fishing exercise' that would ultimately fail and were struggling to get a reasonable case together.

The fact is, iiNet are in real trouble and if proven guilty, ramifications could have dire consequences.  The whole P2P and file sharing network is at stake here, especially if iiNet is found guilty and a precedent is set.

The hearing continues next week with a ruling on the request anticipated.

Compare Broadband Plans with huge download limits right here at Broadbandguide.com.au

When an executive from a leading Australian ISP threatens to 'cut you off at the knees' one can't help but think theres something pretty serious going down. What's more the threat came across as if the person was drunk, nice!

"I think their term was that they threatened to 'cut us off at the knees' and 'make us their special project'. So it was a pretty interesting phone call," Mr Slattery said. "I think he was drunk."

Confused? OK, if you're not up-to-date with the scenario it goes a little something like this..... PIPE Networks, who is Australia's largest peering provider, has embarked on a project which consists on rolling out a 9000km submarine fibre-optic data link from Australia to Guam (U.S.). After this is in place and switched on, sometime in August 2009, it is believed that it should go a long way in making Broadband prices/usage limits more competitive and thus apply a little more pressure on the current duopoly of Telstra and Optus. Starting to get the picture?

You see, both Telstra and Optus, who are big players in the ISP market, also own huge shares in other cable links that deliver data in and out of Australia. Telstra have a 47% share in the Australian Japan Cable while Optus has a 40% stake in Southern Cross Cable. So up until now, these two Telecommunication providers have basically been able to control the price of broadband and data usage limits to a degree.

It's believed that the new PIPE Networks undersea cable will significantly reduce the cost of International bandwidth and force further competition within the Australian Broadband Industry. PIPE Network chief executive Bevan Slattery, who led the revival of the project from the clutches of the Q4 2008 financial crisis, said the journey had been 'arduous', while iiNet's managing director Michael Malone indicated that his company is seeking to pass on the cost saving to the consumer by increasing bandwidth limits which could be anywhere up to 15%. iiNet are one of two other  ISPs, namely Primus and Internode, who have invested in the submarine cable project.

If what Mr Slattery said about the threat is true, in my opinion it's pretty bloody bad form by a leading Telecommunication provider to carry on like this and threaten PIPE Networks ...This might be the nature of business, but I'm sure that most Australian broadband consumers out there would agree with me on that one. I just hope that iiNet and co deliver on their expectations and pass on the value to the consumer once the project is operational. Good luck PIPE!

The Australian Federal Government has slashed fundings for the Australian Broadband Guarantee subsidy from $271 million in the 2008/09 budget over four years, to $230 million over the same period in this years 2009/10 budget. 

Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy appear to have reduced spendings on initiatives such as the ABG in favor to support new programs such as Cyber Safety, the child protection initiative. The ABG funding reduction corresponds with the Governments $43 billion national broadband network plans to extend high speed broadband to regional Australia.

The Australian Broadband Guarantee was originally introduced as a $2500 incentive for National and Regional Internet Service Providers to offer Satellite, Wireless and ADSL services, with Internet access speeds comparable to metropolitan areas, to those in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia.

It seems that Broadband for the Bush will just have to wait, yet again, for the next 'Government Broadband Project' that will address backhaul and offer those Aussies who live outside major metro areas the high speed broadband services that they deserve.

The ABC has been earmarked as the future 'Australian Town Square' for the NBN digital revolution and a place where all Australians can come to speak, listen, be heard and learn from each other.

After receiving a very healthy $136.4 million in funding from the 2009-10 Budget, ABC managing director 'Mark Scott' stated that the increase was a vote of confidence for the future role of the ABC in Australia's digital revolution.

The handout, which is expected to be delivered to the ABC over the next three years, will assist in the development of a new advertising free digital children's channel that will broadcast high quality educational content. 

An additional $15.3 million, using the Rural and Regional National Broadband Network Initiative, will also be used to implement more than 50 ABC Broadband Hubs which expected to aid the development of community websites and portals.

Common sense Aussies should be outraged by the Australian Communications and Media Authority's (ACMA) heavy handed ultimatum that's forcing Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) to remove a link to an abortion site from their blog.

A deletion notice was issued to the EFA stating that if they did not to remove the respective link by 6pm on the following business day they would face $11,000 in fines per day as a consequence. The ACMA ruled that the content on the website was R18+ prohibited content.

A representative of the EFA 'Colin Jacobs' said that Australians should be alarmed at this action considering the principles involved. He stated that the link is part of a political discussion about the merits of Internet censorship and that there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.

This action by the ACMA is sure to raise concern and argumentation over the legitimacy of what should be, and shouldn't be classed as inappropriate content, especially if it has any political agenda.

Initial indications from many Optus customers suggest that they're far from happy with the Optus decision to rejoin the Federal Government's controversial Internet Content Filtering trial.

Broadband Industry analyst Paul Budde has also expressed his concern with the Content Filtering retort by Optus and stated that he suspects many Optus customers will be angered by such a decision.

“I thought the credibility of the whole situation was now so low that very few companies would actually put their weight behind it. It is clear the customers of companies such as Optus will not be amused about this sort of activity. So in that respect I am a bit surprised that companies do stick their neck out in a situation like that.” - Paul Budde

Not only does Mr Budde suggest that many Optus customers will be irate by the decision, he also ridiculed the Government's process as unacceptable for a democratic society, which is also a view that has been aired by a significant amount of the online informed.

The Federal Government push to have mandatory content filtering introduced has appeared very 'strong handed', and capitalising further on Mr budde's views, I too, am concerned with what might become, if such a potential precedent is struck.

Why is Senator Conroy and the Federal Government so adamant on obtaining 'control' of the Internet within Australia?

Ever heard of the metaphor 'opening a can of worms'? Well if there was ever a good example of this meaning, the whole Australian Internet content filtering censorship issue would be a great definition. The term 'issue' is argubaly being applied lightly here and possibly not the best adjective for describing this instance. Some may refer to it more indicatively as a 'farce', 'debacle' or 'complete ballsup', or stronger still, the capitulation of freedom. It's like C'mon Mr Conroy! How dare the current Labor Government treat the Australian society with such contempt and think they can get away with it? Then again, haven't they been doing this for years and years and getting away with it anyway? So what's the real principle driving force behind the Internet censorship push in Australia? Is it through 'Fear' and 'Total Control' that the Government elect to proceed down this path, or is it through the sheer concern for the people and the willingness to protect the flock?

In case you've just crawled out from under a rock, to date we have a Communications Minister that's been labeled 'pathectic', voted the country's worst in decades and one that's been basically accused of trying to undermine the Australian public by essentially wanting to control the Internet and hiding behind the excuse that he's trying to protect our children from pedophile predators. Of course we all care for our kids safety, but C'mon Mr Conroy, what do you take us for?  In various online forums and blogs many progressive thinkers and informed contributors seem wary of the consequences that such a mandatory reform may bring. Having the ability to completely control all of our media portals and freedom of speech is perhaps the major concern expressed by many.

There are of obviously many shortcomings involved with the Internet, exposure to graphic, violent and inappropriate content along terrorism elements are just some of the ramifications we face. But what price will we have to pay in order to try and eradicate this sediment and furthermore, can we succeed? At the end of the day a mandatory filtering approach may be perceived as an action taken by fearful Government to which it will only succeed in obtaining a fearful re-action.  The longer this debate is waged, the greater the issue will esculate and depending on mainstream public perception, it may very well see the Government being kept or booted out come the next Australian Election. I suspect the latter of the two.

After reading many comments and concerns in relation to mandatory filtering, and if I can condense the feedback into one sentence, it would chiefly revolve around the concerns of the whole filtering process, it's transparency and the 'accountability' of such. Simply speaking, what would stop the good hearted Senator from pulling any site off the Internet that he chose to, and regardless of what type content was displayed on it? I could name counteless types of hypothetical scenarios, and morever 'who would watch the watchers'?

Delving below the surface of the the subject at hand, I think its vital that a major decision making process of this magnitude require careful consideration, significant debate, feasibilty, ultimately required and extensive research into all possible outcomes, both positive and negative. Senator Conroy appears to be moving swiftly on this issue while waving his flag of 'protection', but many are suggesting that it's a veil of 'deceit' shielding alternative agendas as well. He was recently dealt another blow when he released a statement on the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) where Mr Conroy condemned a reported leak of prohibited Internet addresses while at the same time emphasising the online safety of our children. The Senator claimed that the black banned website list which appeared on the Wikileaks.org was fake and had the following to say on the matter -

"This is not the ACMA blacklist."

"The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible. It undermines efforts to improve cyber–safety and create a safe online environment for children,"

"The published list purports to be current at 6 August 2008 and apparently contains approximately 2400 URLs whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1061 URLs."

"ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."

Wikileaks responded (as below) to the threats sentimented by the Communication's Senator and ironically stood firm behind constitutional law themselves and in turn, basically threatened to have Senator Stephen Conroy extradited if he breached the law -

"Under the Swedish Constitution's Press Freedom Act, the right of a confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right," the organisation said.

"Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights."

Will Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy and the Australian Federal Government go ahead with mandatory Internet content filtering after so much negative feedback from the 'informed' public arena?

Results from an Australian Broadband survey conducted recently that attracted approximately 20,000 respondents overwhelming voted against the new content filtering proposal. The survey  found that only 1.2% who voted for Labor at the last election actually supported the proposed policy of Internet filtering, while almost 90% say they would opt out of a filter if introduced.

Although many of the participants in the survey are highly informed and or technically sound, it still asks the question of just how many people in mainstream society would also agree with the survey finding's. Furthermore, if this were to be the case, would the Federal Government proceed with an Internet content filtering policy just to 'check' so called election promises?

One irate content filtering opponent in a online news forum labeled the Government as 'hubris' and waved goodbye to democracy whilst saying hello to China/North Korea. A silly remark perhaps, or does this statement have a basis for concern? The general consensus of the survey results, and from many opinions found in corresponding online forums, suggests there's a significant amount of conjecture behind the underlying principles of what a 'mandatory filtering policy' may bring to the table.

The impeachment of 'Freedom of Speech' and a 'Big Brother' type government are two such concerns, and although this may sound a little overboard, many believe that whilst the general public have good principles and morals that would welcome the eradication of pedophiles and explicit material, which the Government have based their whole policy around, they feel that mainstream Australia may overlook the bigger picture and what's really at stake.

Does a 20,000 thousand strong survey that heavily weighs against the introduction of Internet Content Filtering warrant a reversal of policy? I suspect not, but then again it does give the Government something to think about.

Upsetting a minority is a 'rational transaction' that any Government obviously has to execute from time to time, however introducing a policy that evokes grave fears for 'human rights' that may, over time, grow louder and louder in the public sector, is certainly something that a Government cannot ignore.

If the writing wasn't already on the wall, the imminent fate of Telstra chief 'Sol Trujillo' was definitely made more evident after blundering the NBN bid. It's been officially revealed that the Telstra CEO will in fact step down on June 30th this year after 4 years with the incumbent.

During his period at Australia's largest telecommunication provider, Mr Trujillo says the results he's achieved in this respective time has made him incredibly proud. He certainly has Telstra's world leading Next G Mobile broadband network to his credit, however others would argue his success was limited, especially Telstra's shareholders.

There's no doubting that Mr Trujillo's almost ruthless approach at dealing with the Industry's challenges; it's competitors; Australian Government relations; and regulatory conflicts earned him some stripes if not stars, however history will possibly reveal down the track that the one thing that he didn't know too well was the environment he worked in and it's people.

So who's next in the seat? If the board share similar opinions to those just described, I'd be inclined to lean toward an in-house appointment. Telstra may be twice shy when it comes to obtaining a foreigner for the top roll, and someone that will be subject to an unfamiliar, and at times, hostile environment. My guess Telstra's next boss is an Aussie!

In a recent survey conducted by Aussie ISP 'Netspace', inital results showed that 78.9% of participants disagree with the Federal Government on making Content Filtering compulsory at an ISP level. If this is anything to go by at a national level, it appears that the Government has it blatantly wrong.

Around 10,000 customers took part in the survey, in which Netspace said was an 'overwhelming response'. Only a mere 13.6% supported a proposed content filtering mandate, with the remaining 7.1% undecided and 0.4% not responding. It really does send out a loud and clear message.... Australians do not want content filtering implemented at an ISP level!

Perhaps the average Aussie can see a bigger picture here than filtering child porn alone, and that it may refer to other fundamental principles such as the real motive for the introduction of filtering at an ISP level; Precedents that it will set; Effectiveness of an ISP filter to work appropriately; and the potential consequences that a decision like this may bring.

What are you concerns? Do they fit into any of the following categories:

A. Will an ISP filter stop illegal content completely? Industry experts are in agreeance and say 'No', as there are many different avenues to bypass or transmit content around an ISP filtering system.

B. What is the real motive behind an ISP content filter?  Is it to check election box promises? Control more than just illegal Internet content?

C. Once implemented, where does the filtering stop? Could the bodies in power that be impeach an individual's freedom of speech by removing content at will, regardless of agenda?

D. How much content will be 'wrongfully' removed by accident or otherwise?

E. What kind of consequences are involved for the ISP and end user? Will it slow down the Internet dramatically and or cause other types of technical conflicts?

I, for one, believe that it comes down to 'choice' and more to the point, a parent's responsibility, and that it should extend into respective Institutions (to a certain degree). However, just who should the primary responsibility of nurturing and protecting our children fall upon?

Are we now too busy to do this ourselves to the point that we need 'Big Brother' to intervene? Surely not. Could 'FREE' protection software act as an adequate alternative opposed to pre-emptive control, which in essence, may take away an individuals right to act 'freely'.

Internet content filtering should be available, but to what extent and controlled by whom? If you have something to say on this topic, by all means feel 'FREE" to post a reply.

Colin Jacobs, Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, has published a very interesting article on the controversial topic of Internet Censorship that includes findings from a study by Brooklyn Law School (Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship) which he has deemed a 'serious embarrassment'.

Outside Eastern countries, if the Internet Censorship plan was to be passed through the legislative process successfully, then Australia would become the first Western democracy to have such communist like controlling laws.

Mr Jacobs has begged to differ with the Government's censorship experiment by questioning it's legitimacy. In a Crikey.com.au blog titled 'The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan' the study has shown, through a process based methodology, that there are serious doubts over the legitimacy of such an experiment.

The study's author applies a process-based methodology to determining censorship’s legitimacy by asking four questions. Is the country open about its censorship plans and the reason behind them? Is it transparent about what is to be restricted? How narrow is the filtering? And finally, are the processes and decision makers behind the scheme accountable? While the Government earns praise for openness (Internet filtering was a central campaign promise), serious issues are highlighted in the other three areas.

The blog is certainly an interested read, so if you aren't up to speed on the whole Internet Censorship uproar, I recommend you check it out.

Furthermore, the 'Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship' study can be downloaded here.

 

When it was revealed that Telstra held back the activation of hundreds of ADSL2 DSLAM Exchanges across Australia in 2008, many people where left bewildered. On one hand it was very disappointing to learn that Telstra was basically holding back the access of High Speed Broadband to thousands of Australians and therefore holding back potential economic growth. Then again, Telstra, as per usual, makes business decisions based on the best intentions of their shareholders. Sour grapes or smart business?

Now that the incumbent has been dumped from the National Broadband Network process, it's forced the Telco to rethink their strategy and it's through this that another Telstra Broadband revelation has emerged. Sol Trujillo, Telstra's CEO, told a Citigroup EMT conference recently that Telstra is now capable of rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 technology that could deliver their Cable Broadband customers a staggering 100 Mbps broadband speed. WoW! Not only could they deliver 100Mbps high speed broadband connectivity, but using this technology Telstra could match the Broadband speed of the upcoming NBN. On top of this they could also roll out this 100Mbps network upgrade faster than any competitor could instill their own.

This technology basically means that Telstra could compete with, if not exceed, the speeds in which the new NBN technology is likely to bring. Of course Telstra's DOCSIS 3.0 technology integration would be limited to major metropolitan areas where Telstra's existing HFC network already exists, however this is still a very large chunk of Australia's population. So when can we expect this to happen? Once again, it sounds like Telstra are going to hold back until they are forced to do so by competitive pressure.

 - Sol Trujillo

"Well the [DOCSIS 3.0] technology is now real, the technology is being deployed and we have that also as an option if somebody chooses to compete and to compete with us, the only difference is we'll be there a lot quicker a lot faster a lot bigger, a lot more integrated and with more capabilities than anybody else."

Results from a recent survey conducted by AiGroup and Deloitte show that almost 75% of Australian businesses would upgrade to faster broadband if it were available. The highest demand came from remote and provincial regions.

Many businesses are under the impression that they would benefit significantly from faster broadband and that it would also increase financial activity. It's believed that a new national high speed broadband network would assist Australian businesses substantially to compete on a global level.

Source: AustralianIT.com.au

The current global financial crisis which has left the economy of many countries in turmoil has also forced Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to re-evaluate the distribution of the $76billion for infrastructure projects.

Mr Rudd has indicated that tough and unpopular decisions would have to be taken as a result of the financial crisis. Additional assessment criteria will also cover facets for the new national broadband network project along with many other developments. These guidelines include: How projects expand Australia's productivity; build global competitive advantages; develop cities and regions; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and improve our quality of life. All proponents will be expected not to overstate benefits and underestimate costs for potential infrastructure grants whilst being able to back up all their claims.

It appears that the time of rhetoric and talk is now over and the time for action is upon us. At least we may see commencement on the NBN project sooner rather than later if this latest announcement is anything to go by.