Anyone who uses an Internet domain name – which means most Australian companies, educational institutions, government departments and not-for-profits – should know what’s currently happening with the domain names registration process. (more…)
Laurie Patton
-
LAURIE PATTON. Vindicated: NBN Co. boss admits multi-technology mix (MTM) flaws.
The departing head of the trouble-plagued NBN, Bill Morrow, has finally come clean. He has finally conceded that reusing Telstra’s ageing copper wires is creating major problems. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON: No balls. How Cricket Australia lost the media game
The on-field actions of a player created a crisis for Cricket Australia. However, its own mishandling of the affair – especially in its dealing with the media – added to an unfolding debacle. For years to come, world travel for Australians will involve tolerating jokes, and worse, about being from a nation of cheats. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. It’s not about the size of the population, it’s about where we’re all going to live
This week the ABC’s Four Corners and Q and A programs are focussing attention on an important issue facing 21st Century Australia – the size of the population. As is commonly the case with this subject, the debate is creating a fair amount of heat, but regrettably not all that much light. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Supporting call for innovation push – highlighting the need for a focussed approach including a national smart cities and communities strategy
We need our national innovation strategy to be targeted at solving identifiable problems and assessed according to its contribution to social benefit as well as economic outcomes. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Setting the Record Straight – The Australian newspaper publishes rebuttal to Internet Australia attacks
For former journalist and media executive Laurie Patton, spearheading Internet Australia’s campaign for #BetterBroadband meant becoming accustomed to the occasional sledge from the pro-NBN Co forces. However, a series of false and defamatory newspaper articles led to an out-of-court settlement and the publication of an ‘op-ed’ setting the record straight. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Unpopulate or perish – revisiting the Whitlam decentralisation vision in a digital age.
On the 45th anniversary of the election of the Whitlam Government Laurie Patton reflects on a forward-thinking policy that deserves revisiting for a digitally-enabled world. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Smart people make smart communities.
Many of my friends and colleagues have remarked on how my new role as inaugural CEO of the Australian Smart Communities Association (ASCA) is a natural extension of the work I’ve been doing promoting the need for #BetterBroadband. Connectivity is the cornerstone of Smart Communities. Innovation cannot occur without it, and innovation is key to creating more intelligent cities and enriching their communities. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. The Australian shoots the NBN messenger, as usual.
Three years ago, Internet Australia, the not-for-profit peak body representing the interests of Internet users, embarked on a mission to foster more informed debate about the National Broadband Network and its importance to Australia’s future.
It was – and is – the view of our board and members that we need something better than a network deploying ageing copper wires. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. The broadband debacle: NBN Co needs to eat its own dog food.
Whoever is in office three years from now will have the biggest ever infrastructure debacle on their hands if we don’t do something soon, writes Internet Australia’s Laurie Patton. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. NBN: How many more surveys before they get it? We are not impressed!
A raft of surveys have confirmed what everyone knows. We’re increasingly unhappy about the rollout of a technically inferior National Broadband Network. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. The case for mandating governance training for NFP boards
The not-for-profit sector performs a vital role delivering services that meet important social needs. It provides a voice for some of our most disadvantaged groups and individuals. Not-for-profit status also allows organisations of professionals to represent their members under a regulated legal framework. The sector oversees the collection and expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ money. So it’s critical NFP’s are well run according to the highest levels of good governance.
-
LAURIE PATTON and ROBIN ECKERMANN. Time for rational, informed debate about the NBN
We believe it’s time for the Government and the Opposition, and their respective sword carriers, to put down their weapons and strive to agree on a bipartisan NBN strategy that will deliver all Australians fast and affordable broadband – using modern technologies and an investment strategy that balances deployment costs with the demonstrable socio-economic benefits achievable through advanced fixed broadband. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Turnbull’s New Year resolution should be a fibre-based NBN for everyone
As we all make our New Year’s resolutions, here’s one for Turnbull: build us a better broadband network. It’s time to allow NBN to dump copper and revert to a fibre-based model. The sooner the better.
-
LAURIE PATTON. ‘Un-populate or perish’ – rethinking the Whitlam decentralisation vision in a digital age
There’s been quite a deal of media coverage lately about the need for better Internet access in regional, rural and remote Australia. Earlier in the year delegates to the annual Broadband for the Bush conference highlighted the communications challenges facing everyone living outside our major population centres while pointing to opportunities for better delivery of health services and education using emerging online technologies. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Essentially, our NBN is just not good enough (but please don’t say so!)
… And don’t tell Malcolm Turnbull, who was Minister in charge of the NBN.
This week’s Essential poll found that dissatisfaction with the National Broadband Network is both widespread and pretty even across the political spectrum. Only 22 percent of respondents believe the NBN will adequately meet our future Internet requirements [http://www.essentialvision.com.au/future-internet-requirements].
For those of us focussing on Australia’s potential to become an Innovation Nation and who’ve been watching the NBN debate with increasing despair this was no surprise. Although, as you dig deeper there appears to be a well-developed appreciation of the benefits of high speed broadband underlying peoples’ concerns. (more…)
-
Is there finally light at the end of the fibre-optic cable?
Over the past two weeks we’ve seen what many of us have been longing for – signs the Government has realised its national broadband network strategy is not working out as planned.
-
LAURIE PATTON. NBN: The Internet is for everyone
According to Twitter, #NBN ranked fifth out of the ten issues most mentioned on the #ausvotes hashtag. Ahead of immigration, marriage equality, super, jobs and tax cuts. So it is timely that we look at how we are going when it comes to providing access to fast, reliable broadband.
Last week the widely quoted Akamai ‘State of the Internet’ report confirmed our poor performance, ranking Australia 56th in the world on average peak speeds. That’s up four from last time, but still around 30 spots lower than we were just a few years ago. This marginal improvement is moot, however, given that our speed boost was the smallest gain in the Asia Pacific region. We are being left behind. (more…)
-
LAURIE PATTON. Broadband: It’s buggered in the bush
Last week’s Broadband for the Bush conference held in the rarefied atmosphere of Brisbane’s State Library revealed just how disillusioned people living in rural, regional and remote Australia have become with the state of their telecommunications services. Chief among the concerns expressed by farmers, welfare agencies, government officials and Indigenous leaders was the limitations of their broadband access, or indeed the lack thereof. (more…)
-
Laurie Patton. Generalists and specialists in the Australian public service.
Why the ‘theory of empty spaces’ hurts public sector performance
The other day I was talking to a friend who recently retired from the public service. After a career lifetime of studied discretion he now wears as a badge of honour his entitlement to express independent views. Many of these are critical of the processes that played a pivotal part in his rise to a very senior posting. I have a number of colleagues who are now “ex-job”, having also held extremely high level public service roles. I enjoy hearing about their work experiences more now that they are unencumbered by ambition than was ever possible as they climbed the greasy pole.
When I left university I briefly worked in the public service, before leaving to pursue a career that my friends euphemistically describe as ‘eclectic’. However, in a number of roles over the years I have had the opportunity to observe close-hand how public sector management operates.
The first piece of valuable advice I was given as a junior public servant what “keep moving”. Never stay too long in the one role, even if you love what you are doing. Upward progress requires continuous lateral movement. Apart from avoiding or evading responsibility when, from time to time, things inevitably go wrong constant movement allows you to gain a broad range of policy development skills. Policy skills generally outweigh any other consideration in the minds of selection panels for senior appointment I’ve since learned.
Someone once described life in the public sector as akin to a game of checkers. In checkers the aim is to get your ‘piece’ to the other side of the board as fast as possible. In the public service it is to move ever upwards towards the top, again as fast as is logistically practical.
In checkers the shortest route is straight ahead. However, the quickest route usually involves sideways movement. Waiting for the space ahead to become vacant, like waiting to assume the role held currently by your ‘one-up’ is not a viable strategy.
Constant movement from division to division, from department to department provides public servants with a wide exposure to issues and the ability to refine their policy making skills. More importantly, it enables them to maximise career progression. What is also does, sadly, is deliver an executive structure full of generalist. People who having never stayed anywhere long enough to become experts in any particular field themselves, invariably have limited respect for those with deep subject matter expertise.
I remain perplexed about the so-called ‘pink bats’ episode, where tragically a number of people died because they were allowed to operate unsafe working practices. Apparently nobody in the relevant department thought to ensure that OH&S regulations were followed by the companies they were funding to undertake what was widely seen a clever and worthwhile project. The first thing to note is that OH&S is largely a state responsibility anyway. But more to the point, how is an accomplished musician-turned-politician supposed to know to inquire about something as basic as workplace safety? Surely Peter Garrett was entitled to assume that this was under control and in someone’s eyesight? Someone with direct and relevant experience.
But the real flaw in the process, in my opinion, was presuming that anyone in a department that was otherwise primarily concerned with lofty issues like climate change and the like would necessarily have had any experience in industrial relations. Where was the subject matter expertise on which the minster was surely entitled to rely?
The impetus for this essay was the recent news that the federal public service has apparently enlisted the assistance of senior Telstra executives to help improve management performance. Having worked at Telstra along the way I found this mildly amusing. Telstra, like a certain university with which I had a close association a while back, seems to have pretty much ignored the last twenty years of public sector reform.
The public sector has undergone significant restructuring and re-assessed its management practices in recent years. It is arguably much leaner and more efficient at senior levels than it once was. But until the theory of empty spaces is no longer a viable career plan there’s a limit to how much better things can get.
In conversation with my erstwhile mandarin friend the other day I posed this question. Is it a given that a public sector organisation can never be as efficiently run as a comparable private business? We both refused to accept that this was the case. No more empty spaces please.
-
NBN stars collide – waiting for the Big Bang
Two stars collided in Canberra last week, but the big bang is yet to be heard.
-
Laurie Patton. Pirates of Perchance: How “site-blocking” could force up Internet fees but do little else
Last week both Village Roadshow and Foxtel finally launched court actions under the eight months old Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act designed to deal with Internet “piracy”.
The first thing that needs pointing out is that downloading video and audio content over the Internet is a not a crime as such. It is, however, in breach of the intellectual property rights of the producers and distributors.
The so-called “site-blocking law” was passed by Parliament in the middle of last year, following a concerted lobbying campaign on behalf of the content rights holders who claimed it was a problem requiring urgent action. So it is curious, to say the least, that it took nearly nine months for anyone to make a move. You’d have thought that if unlawful downloads are such a problem and are costing the rights holders serious money they’d have had their lawyers burning the proverbial midnight oil when the Bill was introduced into Parliament so that they were ready to proceed immediately it came into force.
International experience has found site-blocking is more effective as a PR stunt than a real solution. You close them down and they reappear in no time on another site and/or with another name. What’s more, serious offenders with a modicum of technical knowledge can always find a way to access what they want, lawfully or unlawfully.
Another practical issue is there are more than 400 ISP’s in Australia. As I have noted elsewhere, [Data Retention: How not to introduce complex legislation.https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/blog/?p=5315] no-one knows how many ISP’s there are and so, of course, no-one knows who many of them are even or how to contact them. So how do you ensure that “pirate” sites are effectively blocked if you only target a small proportion of ISP’s?
Graham Burke of Village Roadshow told Fairfax media“the high profile case helped educate people about the threat that piracy imposes on the creative industry to those who didn’t realise or understand the implications”. This perhaps belies what could be the ultimate motive for heading to the courts now. That and the embarrassment presumably caused to the government by not rushing to use a law lobbied for with such gusto. Others have reported that pressure was brought to bear by the government to finally see some action.
So we are going to inconvenience ISP’s and probably see everyone’s Internet access fees increase as a consequence of the costs of implementing site-blocking, all for a bit of PR?This is purely conjecture, but you have to also wonder if these court cases aren’t designed to create a legal precedent in Australia that could be used in other jurisdictions where “piracy” is a serious problem.
It’s not just the site-blocking idea that is problematic. Last year the government ordered the rights holders and the ISP’s (represented by the Communications Alliance) to develop a process for sending out warning letters to alleged offenders. A code was developed and lodged with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Coinciding with the launch of the site-blocking actions last week came news that the code has been abandoned because the parties couldn’t agree on how to fund the operations of the scheme. If the rights holders were serious and unlawful downloading was really costing them big bucks in Australia they’d surely foot the bill for the so-called “three strikes” warning notice scheme? Or could it be that they just don’t think it will work? In which case, why did they spend so much time working on the code? More PR?
Actually, there is scant evidence that these notice schemes are effective and they are somewhat expensive to administer. New Zealand has had one for some years but it is apparently little used. Understandably, then, why would either party want to bear the costs of running something that isn’t going to achieve much?
A recently released report from the International Intellectual Property Alliance showed that Australia hasn’t been on their global watch list of worst offenders since the late nineties. Internationally we are not seen as a major part of the copyright infringement problem.
The best way to reduce unlawful downloading is to make content available and easily accessible at reasonable prices comparable with similar markets overseas. This view is supported by Prime Minister Turnbull who, according to ZDNet, said last year that“Rights holders’ most powerful tool to combat online copyright infringement is making content accessible, timely, and affordable to consumers”.
Australians have been price-gouged for decades through “geoblocking”. Countless Australians have come back from the United States with much cheaper DVD’s only to find that they wouldn’t work on top-line DVD players (often produced by companies that are also content rights owners). Anyone who legally downloads music will tell you it is much more expensive here than if it were purchased via the same delivery platforms in America.
It would be in the best interests of content creators, perhaps as opposed to local content distributors, if we all accepted that the main reason why most people unlawfully download is that they can’t get what they want through legitimate channels. There is ample research evidence that people are willing to pay if they can get the content they’re after. Some surveys have shown that the people who “pirate” are also among the most active legal downloaders.
Netflix has enjoyed considerable success since entering our market last year, and two local SVOD platforms – Presto and Stan – are both signing up reasonable numbers of subscribers. This tells you that there is pent up demand for the very content that, otherwise, is unsurprisingly subject to “piracy”.
We’ll see how these new court cases go, but it is worth noting the very recent failure of the Dallas Buyers Club case, where the distributors of this film sought to identify and force downloaders to pay a retrospective fee for use plus damages.
Internet Australia is committed to effective protection of intellectual property rights, as an important incentive to innovate and create. However we are opposed to the “site-blocking” law and have argued that the government should conduct a formal review of its effectiveness two years after its enactment, in 2017, if not sooner.
Internet Australia maintains it is time to accept the pointlessness of current strategies to deal with unlawful downloading of video and audio content. And, just as airlines are not held responsible for the ‘knock-off’ DVD’s their passengers bring home from their holidays, we don’t believe that making ISP’s liable by using the Internet to block content is appropriate.
Laurie Patton is CEO of Internet Australia, the NFP peak body representing Internet users. As a former television producer he is personally committed to the protection of intellectual property rights through effective methods.
-
Laurie Patton. Utopia: the professor, the public service, and the need for change.
In an article in The Mandarin former Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department, Professor Peter Shergold, is quoted urging public servants to adapt and to show courage.
http://www.themandarin.com.au/60090-adapt-die-peter-shergold-manifesto-public-service-transformation
Shergold is spot on. But before things can change we need to be willing to accept that mistakes are made, even by the best of people.
Last week it was revealed that the team responsible for the Data Retention Act received a Secretary’s Award for “excellence”. To anyone familiar with this fetid exercise that must sound like a scene from the satirical television series Utopia.
As Internet Australia told a parliamentary inquiry the Act’s drafting is “fundamentally flawed” and clearly written by lawyers with insufficient knowledge of how the Internet works. The result is a flawed implementation process that has the industry up in arms. Even Telstra has demanded 18 months grace to become compliant. Imagine how the 400+ smaller ISP’s are getting on.
The data retention scheme was presented as an urgently needed weapon in the fight against terrorism. According to official timelines now being provided to the industry it will be a full two years from the date of Royal Assent before the Act is in force. And even then it is unlikely to achieve its purported purpose. When he was communications minister, Prime Minister Turnbull amply demonstrated, in the media and in private, that there are so many ways to work around this law.
If we must have data retention then surely we should aim to have legislation that might work? Legislation that doesn’t send Internet service providers broke or result in increased access fees for Internet users.
Internet Australia has called on the Government to bring forward a review due in 2018. It is time for the Attorney General’s Department to accept the true situation and recommend that this take place. That would be a good start to achieving the lofty ambitions proposed by the good professor.
Laurie Patton is CEO Internet Australia.
-
The media, those agencies and the Data Retention Act
The media’s attention this past week turned to the 61 “fringe agencies” trying to get access to our metadata. Many have missed the point that when Parliament passed the Data Retention Act the Government heralded the fact that it had cut the list of those able to access our private and personal information to the bare minimum. Most of the agencies asking to be added to the list now are precisely the ones that Senator Brandis told us didn’t have sufficient justification, even though they’d historically had unfettered access.
If any of these agencies, that include the RSPCA, local councils and racing authorities, really need any of this stored data they can go via the Federal Police, or their local police force. Provided that they are investigating a criminal offence and a genuine need can be established they should have no difficulty getting the assistance they require.
The Data Retention Act is supposed to ensure that authorised agencies have proper internal controls over who can access the data and under what conditions. The selection of those agencies needs to include an ongoing assessment of their ability to create and maintain the necessary security systems.
The risk for the Government is that if they allow any addition to the list they will generate another round of condemnation from the many civil society and technical groups that remain implacably opposed to data retention.
The bigger issue with the data retention scheme remains the fact that it will require somewhere around $300/400M in establishment costs (according to industry estimates and PwC) and who knows how much in ongoing compliance for the hundreds of ISP’s involved. The Government has only allocated $128M in set-up funding and nothing in recurrent support. So we will inevitably all end up paying more for our Internet services, including and especially industry. We could even see smaller ISP’s shutting up shop, especially in regional areas where they provide personal service not available via the large telcos.
Then there are the security risks. Telstra has warned of the danger of creating what are termed honey pots – that is, large collections of data which will be a great temptation to hackers around the world. The longer the retention period the more data that has to be held (we’ve gone for two years, whereas six to 12 months is where much of the world has settled). The more data stored the greater the risk of a security breach.
Many things in life come down to balancing risks. Nowhere in the world has there been conclusive evidence provided that data retention helps in the fight against terrorism, which was the Government’s rationale for this law. There is evidence that data retention can help with general crime detection. So the two questions we must ask are these; is the reward worth the risk and are we happy for access to our metadata to be available without a warrant? Sadly, little or no time was given to analysing these questions before the law came into effect – especially in the public arena. It’s not too late to revisit the question. Internet Australia has asked the Government to bring forward a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, scheduled for 2018.
Internet Australia has also highlighted the confusion facing ISP’s as a result of what it told the PJCIS in 2014 was “fundamentally flawed” legislation clearly written by lawyers who don’t understand how the Internet works. The Act took effect from October last year. Telstra told the Attorney General’s Department that it needs more time to sort out its compliance systems and has been granted an eighteen months extension. Industry intelligence suggests that hundreds of other ISP’s are likewise still trying to work out what to do. If more follow Telstra and ask for extra time to comply it could conceivably turn out to be more than two years from the time the Bill was introduced into Parliament and the date at which the scheme is actually operable. So much for urgency.
Law enforcement agencies had sought data retention powers for the better part of a decade or longer. However, successive AG’s from both sides put the issue in the too hard basket. Senator Brandis had no choice but to follow the instructions of Prime Minister Abbott who ignored complaints from civil society groups around privacy protection issues, and the evidence from security experts that they just won’t work as a weapon against tech-savvy terrorists.
It remains to be seen if Prime Minister Turnbull will eventually instruct his first law officer to rethink things. When he was Communications Minister he gave the appearance that he understood the issues and wasn’t convinced.
Oh, and did I mention that he went on television and told everyone how easy it is to find a way around the Data Retention Act anyway?
Laurie Patton is CEO Internet Australia.
-
Laurie Patton. Data Retention: How not to introduce complex legislation.
One of my first tasks shortly after joining Internet Australia (nee ISOC-AU) was to front the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). Our appearance at the hearing into the (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015) came at the end of a long day of mostly opposing submissions.
With our president and the head of our policy committee sitting beside me I boldly told the committee that the Data Retention Bill was “fundamentally flawed” and had clearly been drafted by lawyers who didn’t understand how the Internet actually works. How prescient those comments have proven to have been.
We highlighted the Internet’s critical role in our emerging digitally enabled economy and the danger in legislation that might cause people to lose trust in the Internet. We reminded the PJCIS of the debacle, back in March 2013, when ASIC’s well-meaning attempt to block a few shonky online operators had inadvertently shut down more than 1000 innocent websites.
We noted that international experience has not found data retention schemes to have had much effect. Indeed, during the limited public debate that accompanied the passing of the Data Retention Bill certain high profile individuals took to the media to explain the many ways that determined wrongdoers, or even completely innocent people, can easily bypass the long arm of the data retention law.
At the committee’s behest, we subsequently provided a confidential briefing paper listing some of the more significant problems with the legislation. When it brought down its report there were 39 amendments recommended, all of which were agreed to by the government and the opposition. Unfortunately, as is the way with these things, the PJCIS did not put its mind to the more difficult question of how to deal with the serious drafting issues we warned them about. Then, nor did the Attorney General’s Department.
No-one knows how many Internet Service providers (ISP’s) there are in Australia. This is because there is no requirement for ISP’s to be licensed. Estimates range from around 250 to more than 500. With few exceptions, each of these is required to comply with the Data Retention Act. This involves reconfiguring their internal IT systems and then storing a good deal of information that was previously discarded immediately after its use, or not long thereafter. They are required to keep it for two years. For large telcos this is probably not a major issue. However, for some smaller independent ISP’s, especially those in regional areas, the cost of complying could be so onerous as to see them go out of business.
Also appearing before the PJCIS hearing late in 2014, a senior Telstra executive warned that we would be creating “honeypots” – large masses of private and confidential data that would be very enticing to hackers.
The journalists union, the MEAA, raised its fear that the legislation would be used to identify sources, pointing to the important role that “whistle blowers” often play. At the last minute the media companies secured what some thought was a form of protection. Before they can use a journalist’s data law enforcement agencies must seek a court warrant. However, it is arguable that by the time they’ve trawled through the honeypots and subsequently discovered that the data belongs to a journalist they will have enough prima facie evidence to justify a warrant.
Nine months after the Data Retention Act received Royal Assent the implementation process is in disarray. It is likely that implementation is at least another year away. So much for a law that was needed urgently!
The drafting of the Data Retention Act is so complex and fundamentally flawed that there remains, after months of consultations and discussion with the Attorney General’s Department, widespread confusion and even some disagreement about what it requires of ISP’s.
Telstra, Australia’s biggest ISP, found the going too tough; seeking and receiving an 18 months extension on its requirement to comply. So imagine how the rest of the industry is going.
There is no guarantee that we will ever get to the point where all ISPs (however many there might be) are complying. And probably no way for the Attorney General’s Department, or for law enforcement agencies, to know how many are not.
Internet Australia recently raised with Senator Brandis our concerns about the implementation process, pointing to the poor drafting as a major contributor. His sensible response was “I’m always happy to look at fixing flawed legislation”. We have since written to Senator Brandis and to the Prime Minister’s office calling for an urgent review of the provisions of the Data Retention Act so that at the very least the drafting issues are addressed.
The history of the data retention scheme provides a spectacular case study in how not to introduce complex legislation. It is a classic example of a badly designed law that has been rushed through the parliament in the dubious belief that urgency was justified and would not impede the efficient implementation of a new regulatory regime. This haste in the design and implementation has almost certainly ensured ultimate failure to achieve the Government’s stated aims. It has also resulted in a lot of unnecessary cost to industry, and to consumers.
It is perhaps timely to observe that Prime Minister Turnbull has reversed an Abbott Government decision and recommenced the process for Australia joining the global Open Government Partnership. A bit more openness from the Attorney General’s Department would have been a good idea in the case of the data retention scheme.
Laurie Patton is CEO of Internet Australia, the peak body representing Internet users, and a chapter of the global Internet Society – see www.isoc.org
-
Laurie Patton. Malcolm Turnbull: NBN killer?
The ABC Online News headline on the 14th of September 2010 was pretty blunt: “Abbott orders Turnbull to demolish NBN”. In the article itself then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is quoted as saying: “The Government is going to invest $43 billion worth of hard-earned money in what I believe is going to turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale”.
Fast forward five years and the cost of the Coalition’s NBN is now put at $46-56 billion, with many experts maintaining that this significantly understates the likely real cost. Confusion and disagreement reign as to how long it will take to complete our much needed broadband rollout.
We’ve moved from a state-of-the-art fibre to the premises (FttP) strategy to the so-called Multi-Technology Mix (MTM), which heavily relies on using the ageing Telstra copper network and the not so old, but not very modern, Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) networks originally built for pay television. Both will require considerable remediation work before they are fit for purpose and there is a solid argument to be put that in the end we’ll have to replace much of them at some point anyway.
Meanwhile, we are told that our future rests on innovation. Internet Australia agrees. We have consistently drawn attention to NBN issues in this context, including the fact that we are way down the list of broadband enabled countries. Average connection speeds of 7.8Mbps saw Australia sitting at 46th position on global rankings in the third quarter this year. Surely an innovation nation needs to do better than that?
Much is being made of the lessons we can learn from countries such as Israel and Singapore. Fair point. However, what has allowed them both to become world leading technology hubs is a broad consensus on that being a national priority. To achieve our potential as a digitally enabled society we need a road map and consensus among all parties on the direction we should take. Underpinning that must be a speedy completion of the NBN.
This year saw the establishment of the Digital Transformation Office, modelled on an organisation of the same name and with the same purpose in the UK. The DTO is charged with streamlining access to government services online. This is a worthy objective, however Internet Australia’s concerns were raised when a visiting expert from the UK highlighted the potential downside from moving government service provision online. The message was that there have been both winners and losers over there. It is fine for people who have access to the Internet and are digitally savvy, but disadvantaged groups and individuals who are not connected can struggle to get access to essential government services.
2016 is the National Year of Digital Inclusion. See www.godigi.org.au. What better time to acknowledge that the NBN is not only necessary for our economic future it is also critical for our social development?
I’ve heard it said that Malcolm Turnbull tried to appear to be following his leader’s instruction to kill the NBN while actually doing his best to make sure that it survived. If that’s the case, then now, delivered to the top job, can we hope to see our new prime minister show his true colours? Will the highly regarded ‘tech head’ reverse the Abbott Government’s half-hearted approach to broadband just as he has reversed a number of other high profile, but unpopular, policies of his predecessor?
Sadly, the signs are not great. As internationally renowned industry expert, Paul Budde, was quick to observe there was scant mention of the national broadband network in the Government’s Innovation Statement this month. Others have argued that the MTM option was a political solution not a technology solution. If that’s the case then we should put politics aside for the sake of the nation and get on with building the NBN.
Opposition spokesman Jason Clare has indicated that a future Labor government would roll out more FttP, while conceding that it would not, immediately at least, abandon MTM where construction was under way or MTM had been deployed. Surely such an approach would appeal to Malcom Turnbull? Compromise and a bipartisan strategy might just be the answer.
It appears that one of the roadblocks in recent times has been that ‘big business’ either doesn’t get it, or hasn’t wanted to rock the boat by telling the Coalition (especially under Prime Minister Abbott) that we need the NBN and we need it ASAP. Now’s the time for the peak industry bodies and the country’s ‘top business leaders’ to speak up. We didn’t argue over the need to provide other essential services such as roads, rail, water and power, so why are we doing it over this piece of critical 21st Century infrastructure?
We can continue to debate technology choices, but we cannot wait any longer to get Australians connected. History will ultimately reveal the best Internet delivery technology for a vast country like ours. However, history will also certainly judge us poorly if we lag behind in the next era of global innovation because we failed to provide an open and accessible Internet underpinned by ubiquitous high speed broadband.
Laurie Patton is CEO of Internet Australia, the peak body representing internet users and a chapter of the global Internet Society – www.internetsociety.org
-
Laurie Patton. The ‘metadata’ Bill.
The House of Representatives has passed, with amendments, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014.
The Bill requires telcos and Internet Service Providers to store certain information (called “metadata”) for a period of two years. Metadata is essentially the information that reveals the parties to phone and email communications and other things such as the time and duration of a communication. It does not include the content of the communication.
When collected by law enforcement agencies this information will be analysed by sophisticated software using algorithms that have been developed over many years and shared by international security agencies. The output of this analysis will allow the agency to identify people or organisations of interest. The nature of that interest could be anything from terrorism to far less significant activities that might concern the authorities.
Once an individual or organisation has been identified and targeted for further investigation the agency can use a range of existing law enforcement practices to gain access to anything else they need to secure a conviction or to facilitate whatever other action they deem appropriate.
The Government and the Opposition both support the need for data retention. They cite advice from our law enforcement agencies and security services.
However, overseas there is a growing movement away from this form of government surveillance. The European Court of Justice recently overturned a ‘universal directive’ designed to harmonise data retention schemes in all EU member countries. The Court said “the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data”. It argued that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.
When you look at high profile incidents such as Sydney’s Lindt Cafe hostage taking, the Charlie Hebdo attack or when British soldier Lee Rigby was hacked to death in 2013, there is one common factor. The perpetrators were already known to the authorities. They were not identified as the result of a data retention scheme. The Internet Society*has noted that the Bill has not been subjected to a cost/benefit analysis.
Another concern is the security of the metadata once collected. Speaking at an industry event this week, Telstra executive Mike Burgess observed that the scheme would create a “honeypot” of private information that could be actively targeted by cybercriminals.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (“PJCIS”) scrutinised the Bill and recommended 38 amendments, all which have been accepted by the Government and the Opposition. The amendments include removing the ability of the Attorney-General to unilaterally add to the list of agencies able to access metadata and placing the definition of the metadata (the “data set”) in the primary legislation rather than the Bill’s accompanying regulations, where it would be easier for the Government to make subsequent changes.
This week a belated campaign by media companies, supported by Labor, resulted in another amendment that will see a Public Interest Advocate (“PIA”) appointed to address concerns that the legislation will be used to search for the identify of journalists’ sources. Law enforcement agencies will be required to obtain a warrant to investigate journalists’ activities and the PIA will be able to argue that it is not in the public interest for a warrant to be granted.
The implications for journalists and their sources also apply to others. Lawyers, doctors, whistle-blowers and anyone running an issues-based campaign could be targeted. It is also arguable that trade unions could be targeted if they are engaged in industrial action.
Then there’s the cost. The Government has put a $400 million price tag on the scheme. Is that a one-off charge? It can’t be. The cost of having the data collected and retained will be ongoing. It will be passed on through higher phone and Internet charges or it will have to be borne by taxpayers.
The PJCIS recommended that the Government make a contribution to industry costs. This is still to be negotiated. The Internet Society has offered the Government its technical expertise to assist in designing a model delivering an effective and equitable outcome.
It is thought that there are between 250 and 400 ISP’s of varying sizes. Some are owned by large corporations with deep financial pockets but others are small businesses providing a competitive service but with limited financial resources. Unless the proposed Government funded financial assistance package is structured to take this into account we could see a reduction in the number of ISP’s as some simply go out of business.
The costs of operating the data retention scheme that will be incurred by the law enforcement agencies have not been revealed. They will be significant.
Laurie Patton is Chief Executive Officer, Internet Society of Australia
* www.internet.org.au