 | |
 | |
 |
So Tony Abbott wants to take the money that will be allocated to the National Broadband Network (NBN) over the next 10 years – ($35b) – and “build some roads“?
Interesting. Possibly – (and almost certainly) – quite useful.
Shall we have a look at just how much road a single NBN-sized chunk of funding might actually build?
 |
Well, just how much is actually quite difficult to answer.
Complex solutions where federal, state, and local government contributions are often part of funding a single road project make it almost impossible to scrape all the figures into a truly accurate amount.
So what to do?
Well, since the NBN will be federally funded, lets see if we can find out how much federal money is put into road funding each year.
| Public Road-related Expenditure and Revenue in Australia 2009 |
Table number five in this report gives us a figure of $13.9b for the financial year 2007-2008. Quite a lot of coin, but we now have a base line to work from.
Next, I figure we need to ask how much money does it take to build/rebuild a kilometre of road?
There is undoubtedly a lot of variation around, so lets look at few different road projects, and see if we can come up with an average.
First, how about the Geelong Ring Road, a $1.3b project to build a brand new 26km long freeway, where no previous road existed? That is about $50m per kilometre.
Next up, we have the Breakwater Road Project, also in the Geelong area, which sees the realignment of 1.3km of a major arterial road, which includes a significant bridge over the Barwon River, costing $63m. For this project, we see $48.4m per kilometre.
For the upgrade of an existing highway, we will take a look at the recently contentious Oxley Highway Upgrade near Port Macquarie in New South Wales. A 6km stretch is being upgraded for $158m, or about $23.6m per kilometre.
Finally, for the upgrade of a major freeway, namely the M80 in Melbourne. Approximately 38km of freeway is being heavily upgraded for $2.25b. This tips the scales at $59.2m per kilometre.
Across these quite different road projects, the average cost per kilometre – (71.3km, costing $3.77b) – comes to $52.88m per kilometre of roadway built or upgraded.
So the funds for a single NBN – ($35b) – redirected at road funding might see around 661km of road built or upgraded.
Sounds like a lot.
In fact, it is a lot of road – there is no doubt about that.
But…
…the NBN is spread over approximately 10 years, and while the spread of funding will not be the same across each year of the project, only about $3.5b per year on average goes towards it.
That is just 66.1km of road.
Now, I’m not going to say that 66.1km of road isn’t significant, but suddenly it doesn’t sound quite so impressive.
Assuming roughly the same amount of money is allocated by the federal government to road funding over 10 years – (this is not the case, the table clearly indicates the amount is steadily growing in real terms) – across the life of the NBN build, $139b will be allocated to road funding.
That’s 2,629 kilometres of road, versus the 661 kilometres that redirected NBN funds might be able to deliver.
Now, one can argue that 661 extra kilometres of new or upgraded roads is a good thing – and it is.
However, in conclusion, ask yourself how much of the $139b likely to be allocated – (at least) – to road funding in the next 10 years will the government recoup?
How many dollars will directly return to government coffers?
Almost none. There will certainly be significant economic benefits from having all that new and upgraded road out there, but having the NBN out there will deliver great benefit to the economy also.
The difference is, the money spent on it will return at the rate of at least $24 per subscriber, per month. At some point, all the money will come back.
How long that takes is a point of some debate – but remember, the road funding isn’t coming back at all.
Suddenly, spending $35b on a revolutionary telecommunications solution for Australia that will see us through for around 50 years, doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.
Does it?
[CAVEAT: Obviously, there will be some element of error in the cost per kilometre calculations in this post - obviously every single road project is different, and will include many different factors affecting cost. Including EVERY road project as part of these calculations is difficult. The comparison however is definitely an interesting one.]
Do not be fooled by the lack of news in regards to Australia’s planned mandatory internet filter. It is still on the agenda, and the powers that be who think we can’t protect ourselves and our children from the “bad stuff” still want to develop and deploy a censorship mechanism to deliver on their goals.
Maintain the rage.
 |
Which brings me to an article I read this morning regarding the prevalence of child pornography detections, arrests, and prosecutions – and all without a filter.
| Child Porn Use Out of Control |
“There was a 30 per cent jump, from 136 to 180, in the number of Australians arrested by federal police for child pornography offences last year compared with 2010.”
“The trend towards peer-to-peer file-sharing and live webcam streaming has thrown up new challenges for the AFP, but Mr Gaughan said authorities were making inroads.”
So it seems, even without a filter, we can start to eliminate the material that the filter will supposedly block.
Supposedly, of course, because the material the filter that will supposedly block, is trivial to bypass. Its ability to stop people who wish to access the material from doing so, is non-existent.
Redirecting the resources that would be committed to the filter to more AFP officers doing more work to detect the material, and locate offenders, rather than hiding the problem away, logically seems more effective – (and better for the children being abused) – than putting up smokescreens around the problem.
Potentially worrying however, was this:
“”We can find the peer-to-peer stuff, we have the tools to see people sharing known images. It’s like fishing with a hand grenade,” he said. “The next step for us is disruption, so that we can go through the [peer-to-peer] and just take them down. It took us a while to get to the point where we could block URLs, because we’re playing catch-up, but we’re talking to people about how we block known material on peers.”
Blocking URLs? It is not clear if this refers to the “voluntary filter” employed by some ISPs, which make use of an Interpol blacklist, but clearly the concept of straight URL blocking is entering their thinking.
This bring us back to the old question of who monitors what gets blocked or not? Who watches the watchers?
Nevertheless, this clear gain in the battle against child pornography on the internet without a filter should make the case for implementing one weaker.
Shouldn’t it?
We might not be that lucky.
A curious tweet just now from opposition communications spokesperson, Malcolm Turnbull, in regards to “ultrafast” internet being launched by British Telecom.
 |
Malcolm suggests in his tweet that this solution – (FTTC for most people, and FTTP for those who want it) – is better than the full FTTP network currently under construction by NBN Co.
Huh? What is FTTC?
| Fibre-to-the-Curb (FTTC) |
“FTTC is subtly distinct from FTTN or FTTP (all are versions of Fiber in the Loop). The main difference is the placement of the cabinet. FTTC will be placed near the “curb” which differs from FTTN which is placed far from the customer and FTTP which is placed right at the serving location.”
So he’s praising a solution that runs fibre down every street, while bagging the NBN FTTP network, which runs fibre down every street?
Yes, it’s not exactly the same as an FTTP rollout, but given his love for his FTTN solution, why praise a solution that is almost exactly what he is normally against?
Non sequitur.
Almost immediately after posting my previous article in regards to the erection of communications towers for the National Broadband Network (NBN) or for mobile telephone and data communications through the major telcos, I remembered something that I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time.
Innovation – or more directly – innovation in how these towers are deployed.
Looking beyond the health risk purported by some – (which have been largely ruled out by numerous studies, including those conducted by the World Health Organisations (WHO)) – the main issue for most objectors has been their visual impact.
For some years, there has been a communications tower in the grounds of the Harvest Bible College, in Dandenong North, Victoria, alongside the Monash Freeway. Here is a picture of the tower, courtesy of Google StreetView – (click for a larger view):
 |
Not exactly unsightly, right?
It is an example of the innovative outcomes that can be found if each side of the debate puts their brains together and comes up with an actual solution.
Food for thought in what will become an increasingly common argument as the wireless segments of the NBN rollout in coming years.
With rural areas around the Victorian city of Ballarat being included in the trials of the wireless component of the National Broadband Network, there has been much said about the erection of telecommunications towers around the region.
There’s even been uneven responses from within the same local governments.
 |
Well, at least there has been some sanity in the region about the towers:
| Learmonth Mobile Tower Goes Ahead Despite Objections |
“A TELECOMMUNICATIONS tower will be erected in Learmonth, despite six objections.”
“Councillors argued Learmonth was currently a communications black spot and needed the 35-metre tower to improve its mobile and wireless broadband coverage.”
I do understand that some people do object to these towers, and in a democratic society that right to object is fundamental.
But if you want to improve rural outcomes – (and Learmonth is a lovely little town) – you do have to improve services of all kinds in those rural localities. Including telecommunications.
Most of all, the comments from the locals are telling – (mind the spelling errors, these were copied verbatim):
“This is excellent news and we couldn’t be happier here in Learmouth. The Mobile, and other receptions here at Learmonth, are fairly ordinary. I knew of quite a few residents, who can’t get a Mobile phone reception at all. I know a few of the ones that are objecting to it we are quite amused, that the tower will be no where near their property.. Get with the times Crs Mcintosh, and Phillips, we are fed up with poor quality internet wei would prefer this any day than what was proposed, a couple of years a go the stinking Saleyards and Abattoirs.”
“Being a local to the lovely and historically significant Learmonth area, I fully support the erecting of the tower. ‘Serial complainers’ need to get a life!”
“Thank goodness common sense prevailed. Learmonth has very poor mobile phone signals, if any at all, and our internet is very slow at peek times. This will be our one shot at catching up with the rest of the world, so let’s take it. To those that complain about these towers being erected, perhaps you were unlucky you weren’t born in the stone age. Perhaps in the next lifetime you will be more lucky. Councillors McIntosh and Philips should do their home work as the tower will not be near any homes. I can’t bloody wait.”
While this tower in Learmonth doesn’t seem to be an NBN tower, with the noise being made around the region about them, perhaps looking at the Learmonth example – where common sense seems to be prevailing – would be more productive.
One does hope so.
There is nothing wrong with leading the world, and modern telecommunications is a key factor.
Do it for your children and grand children – they are the ones who’ll suffer in a broadband backwater if we don’t do it right.
I was wandering around Bunnings this afternoon, after finding a price on a new mixer tap to replace a seriously stuffed tap in our kitchen, when I happened upon this little gem of tackiness:
 |
A tower fan. With an “MP3 Input” – more likely, just a 3.5mm audio input jack.
And speakers. And a clock. Probably has alarms too!
Who would buy such a thing?
Too. Damn. Funny.
So Julia Gillard’s now famous lost shoe is apparently to be put on eBay to raise money for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy?
| Protesters Put The Boot Into Prime Minister |
They should think twice.
eBay – as one would presume – has a quite clear policy on the listing of stolen goods on their auction site:
“eBay strictly forbids the sale of stolen property. eBay strongly supports law enforcement efforts to recover stolen property that is listed on its Web site, and urges the prosecution of those who knowingly attempt to sell such items on eBay.”
 |
The more respectful thing would be to return the shoe – since yesterday's debacle is ultimately more about respect than anything else.
Right?
Some accelerometers arrived on my desk this morning for the project I’m currently working on – and I had to laugh at the packaging:
 |
Ribbed or studded for your accelerometering pleasure?
