=?utf-8?Q?_Helen_Coonan_still_doesn=E2=80=99t_get_?==?ut f-8?Q?IT?=

Even with the benefit of hindsight, Helen Coonan can’t see any errors in her
government’s approach to telecommunications policy – confirming that any
vision she may have had was certainly very blurry.

In this vein, it is not surprising to read in her interview with CommsDay
this week that she doesn’t think there is a need for a $4.7 billion
contribution to a National Broadband Network (NBN). She would clearly favour
a patchwork of piecemeal programs that have very little to show for
themselves.

According to Senator Coonan, the Howard Government had a “comprehensive
approach to blanketing the country with broadband” a wistful reference to
the pork-barrel politics that characterised her government’s venal approach
to public policy.

Over the years, billions of dollars where thrown at community-based projects
through programs like Networking the Nation (NTN), that provided few
tangible benefits because the programs didn’t have good performance
objectives. As the Auditor General pointed out in a 2003 report
(www.anao.gov.au), some of the “shortcomings” of the NTN program, and a
related program to form Rural Transaction Centres (RTC),

“can be traced to insufficient planning at the start of the programs.
Neither Department established the range of performance information and
targets needed for evaluation purposes, nor the associated data collection
processes that needed to be put in place.”

The audit report above looked specifically at the $494 million provided in
telecommunications grants for 797 projects in the period up to 2003, and
administered by a full-time staff of 68 for the two programs. The
countryside was literally peppered with little grants whose chief purpose
seemed giving the local MP the opportunity for a press release.

And she describes the current NBN as “the headless chook approach to
telecommunications policy”?

To be completely fair, most of the grants above were before Senator Coonan’s
time, though she can take credit for a further $1.1 billion announced in
August 2005 under the “Connect Australia” banner
(www.minister.dcita.gov.au), not to mention the $1 billion awarded to the
Elders/Optus consortium for the failed OPEL project.

In nine months Singtel and Elders where unable to put one service in place,
and now it appears the Senator is saying the point of Broadband Connects was
to set up a “new independent wholesale network” to maintain “competitive
tensions”.

By “independent” I assume she means non-Telstra, which begs the question how
much chance Telstra ever had? She says that NBN is “putting taxpayer money
where it is not needed” ignoring the fact OPEL was essentially about
duplicating ADSL services in outer metro areas – where SingTel could make
more money, and MPs cadge more votes.

Senator Coonan says she may have separated Telstra if she had been in the
portfolio earlier, and that she can’t understand the current “obsession”
with fibre, saying it’s not the “be-all and end-all”. This comes from the
Minister who gave the world the Broadband “Beige-print”, as it quickly
became known.

It’s policy foresight like this that makes me glad she didn’t have the
opportunity to separate Telstra, because if she had there wouldn’t be a
fibre-based NBN – just as there isn’t in the UK where separation has gone
too far.

Alan Poxington <wanke@iarseaustralia.com.au> wrote

> Even with the benefit of hindsight, Helen Coonan can't see any errors in her government's approach to
> telecommunications policy -
> confirming that any vision she may have had was certainly very blurry.

Let go of your dick before you end up completely blind yourself, child.

> In this vein, it is not surprising to read in her interview with
> CommsDay this week that she doesn't think there is a need for a $4.7 billion contribution to a National Broadband
> Network (NBN).

She's right. If Murdoch wants that, he's welcome to pay for it himself.

The current adsl2+ offerings are fine.

> She would clearly favour a patchwork of piecemeal programs that have very little to show for themselves.

Wota fucking pig ignorant liar.

> According to Senator Coonan, the Howard Government had a
> "comprehensive approach to blanketing the country with broadband"

She's right. Its what produced the current adsl1 and adsl2+ offerings.

> a wistful reference to the pork-barrel politics that characterised her government's venal approach to public policy.

Wota fucking pig ignorant liar.

> Over the years, billions of dollars where thrown at community-based
> projects through programs like Networking the Nation (NTN), that
> provided few tangible benefits because the programs didn't have good
> performance objectives.

Wota fucking pig ignorant liar.

> As the Auditor General pointed out in a 2003 report (www.anao.gov.au), some of the "shortcomings" of the NTN program,
> and a related program to form Rural Transaction Centres (RTC),

> "can be traced to insufficient planning at the start of the programs.
> Neither Department established the range of performance information
> and targets needed for evaluation purposes, nor the associated data
> collection processes that needed to be put in place."

Usual shinybum wank.

> The audit report above looked specifically at the $494 million provided in telecommunications grants for 797 projects
> in the period up to 2003, and administered by a full-time staff of 68 for the two programs. The countryside was
> literally peppered with little grants whose chief purpose seemed giving the local MP the opportunity for a press
> release.

And we ended up with very viable adsl1 and adsl2+ offerings anyway.

And that money came from the flogging off telstra anyway.

> And she describes the current NBN as "the headless chook approach to telecommunications policy"?

> To be completely fair, most of the grants above were before Senator
> Coonan's time, though she can take credit for a further $1.1 billion
> announced in August 2005 under the "Connect Australia" banner
> (www.minister.dcita.gov.au), not to mention the $1 billion awarded to the Elders/Optus consortium for the failed OPEL
> project.

The most comprehensive shafting of telstra that the world has ever seen.

> In nine months Singtel and Elders where unable to put one service in place,

The contract didnt require that, fuckwit.

> and now it appears the Senator is saying the point of Broadband Connects was to set up a "new independent wholesale
> network" to maintain "competitive tensions".

She's right, and Conroy has been stupid enough to bin that.

> By "independent" I assume she means non-Telstra,

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwits ?

> which begs the question how much chance Telstra ever had?

Irrelevant, they chose to make a non compliant offer.
That meant that they never ever had a chance.

> She says that NBN is "putting taxpayer money where it is not needed"

She's right.

> ignoring the fact OPEL was essentially about duplicating ADSL services in outer metro areas

Lie, and where it did that, it provided real competition, fuckwit.

> - where SingTel could make more money, and MPs cadge more votes.

And the customers got real competition where there was none.

And hilariously used telstra money to do that.

> Senator Coonan says she may have separated Telstra if she had been in the portfolio earlier, and that she can't
> understand the current "obsession" with fibre, saying it's not the "be-all and end-all".

She's right when almost everyone has access to adsl2+ now.

> This comes from the Minister who gave the world the Broadband "Beige-print", as it quickly became known.

Let go of your dick, child.

> It's policy foresight like this that makes me glad she didn't have the opportunity to separate Telstra, because if she
> had there wouldn't be a fibre-based NBN - just as there isn't in the UK where separation has gone too far.

And it remains to be seen if we get anything more fibre based than we currently have here.

> Over the years, billions of dollars where thrown at community-based
> projects through programs like Networking the Nation (NTN), that provided
> few tangible benefits because the programs didn't have good performance

The mobile side of NTN provided tangible benefits. Was MegaPOP an NTN
project too? If so, that provided tangible benefits.

However there was a lot of jibber-jabber fuzzy-wuzzy in NTN as well

> To be completely fair, most of the grants above were before Senator Coonan's
> time, though she can take credit for a further $1.1 billion announced in
> August 2005 under the "Connect Australia" banner

What the hell was Connect Australia?