Both speed and costs are important in broadband

Comments on Paul Budde “The Coalition's broad-bland plan”, 11/08/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Internet-telecommunications-election-broadban-pd20100810-877PX?OpenDocument&src=rot
I am an outsider to the debate of NBN and the alike. But I am not sure the view in this article is only based on visionary of grandiose without properly considering the costs and practical businesses.

There is a little difference in the costs of over $36 billion between $43 billion and $6.3 billion between the two models. It is a multiple of nearly 7. Isn’t that striking enough?

To me, the other article of “Taking the glitz out of broadband” by Stephen Bartholomeusz appears to be more balanced. It at least mentions the huge differences in the costs between the two models. Further it also mentions the flexibility side of the coalition’s model in terms of betting on future technologies in communications.

Understandably, the coalition model also has the flexibility to expand, if the needs warranted it, to households or premises, while at the early stage hospitals, universities and schools and other organisations, which may have stronger needs for super fast connectivity, can be accommodated by building fibre connections. That plan is expandable. There is nothing to prevent that from happening.

The black and white brush approach to characterise the two is unhelpful and misleading.

The key point is that a technology only approach without cost benefit studies is clearly not good for public policy. If any private companies do that, that is that businesses. But for public projects using taxpayers’ money, business case or cost benefit studies are a must.

We should not be hostage to any particular businesses or industry sectors or special interest groups.