No-One!

oh, hold on …the Government!

The Government awarded the contract for its National Broadband Network build to itself having ‘formally teminated’ the NBN tender.

The proposals submitted by Acacia, Axia Netmedia, Optus, Tasmania, Telstra and TransACT were ‘under-developed’ – especially Telstra’s effort.

The Australian Federal Government will establish a public private partnership to roll out ‘the largest investment in infrastructure’ in Australia’s history. In five years time the Government will sell down the company as a wholesale and open access network operator.  

The Government also announced a discussion paper to seek public comment on ways to improve telecommunications regulation to make it work more effectively in the interest of consumers and businesses.  The Government is keen to break Telstra’s ‘monopoly’ hold on telecommunications services in Australia as the owner of the once public telecommunciations infrastructure and the largest retail service provider in the country.

It’s hard to believe that the Government doesn’t have a pre-prescribed view on what form telecommunications de-regulation (the separation of Telstra’s operations) should take given the size ($43billion) and scope (fibre to the home) of its public private solution.

The Regulatory Reform paper canvasses a range of options for reform, including:

• streamlining current regulatory processes, by allowing the ACCC to set up-front access terms for companies wanting access to Telstra and other networks;
• strengthening the powers of the ACCC to tackle anti-competitive conduct by allowing it to impose binding rule of conduct when issuing competition notices;
• promoting greater competition across the industry, including through measures to better address Telstra’s vertical and horizontal integration, such as functional separation;
• addressing competition and investment issues arising from cross-ownership of fixed-line and cable networks, and telecommunications and media assets;
• improving universal access arrangements for telephony and payphones; and
• introducing more effective rules, requiring telephone companies to make connections and repairs within set time-frames.

The Government is seeking submissions by 3 June 2009, before making final decisions and introducing legislation into the Parliament.

The net result of this anouncement is delay. The Government is taking on a high risk project – public private partnerships don’t have a fantastic track record in Australia. Many are suffering from a lack of private funding.

The Government directly references Telstra’s control of the last mile as one of the reasons for failing the NBN tenderers - citing their exposure to extensive legal liabilities which make the business case for building the network unpredictable and untenable.

The biggest obstacle between the Government and a national high speed broadband network continues to be Telstra. Its appropriate for Telstra to protect its business interests having been fully privatised by the Federal Government just over 2 years ago.

Could this new approach by the Government be designed to provide an incentive for Telstra to separate its wholesale and retail operations and partner with the Government to establish the nbn, which would make it the ideal purchaser of the network assets in 5-years time.

It also provides the Federal Government with an opportunity to stimulate the national economy through job creation and big fees for consultants as we embark on YET ANOTHER episode in the long drawn out saga of a high speed broadband network spanning the country.

Finally, combined with the proposed Internet filter this strategy will provide the Government with a great deal of control over the Internet – lets hope they wield this power in a truly open fashion.

This extract from the Government Panel Evaluation Report provides a succinct summary of the decision making process.

Huh? What’s the point of social media if no-ones listening?

Blogs, forums and other forms of social media provide Government with access to a large amount of public feedback and sentiment. Of course they should be monitored. They provide a litmus test of public opinion. The Government needs to invest in the ‘comprehensive digital monitoring service(s) for print and electronic media’ in order to do this.

One would like to think that advisors and Ministers are listening to online conversation as this enables them to shape legislation and details to respond to the needs of the community.

Or perhaps the Government wants to monitor in order to identify sources of opposition and stiffle dissent.

Social media is driving community, media and our institutions through a transition. Governments are more than happy to use social media during election campaigns to gain power.

The real question should be: What are the Government’s objectives for social media monitoring? One can’t help but be a little cynical in the context of the Federal Government’s Internet Filter.

K-Rudd’s online activity has declined signficantly since coming into power.

The future of social media will be bright as long as Governments and corporations recognise the value of online discussions and the insights they provide rather than seeking to control or place limits on what can and cannot be discussed online. The conversations are occuring (and have always occurred) – heavy handed Governments will drive the online discussion underground (in a digital sense) which is the worst possible outcome.

I see nothing wrong with monitoring per se. It’s essential.

There are numerous free and paid tools out there for managing and monitoring social media. We use Radian6, which is by the best tool that I’ve come across (and I’ve seen quite a few).

Do you think the Government’s Internet Filter will filter out dissenting and opposing voices in addition to the pornographic and illegal content (its stated aim)?

This post takes issue with the not very popular Senator Conroy’s seemingly contradictory statements on the issue of social media monitoring. Conroy and K-Rudd will be announcing the winner of the NBN tender next week.

Here’s a snapshot of social media discussions that may be of interest to Minister Minchin:

Telstra’s chairman, Donald McGauchie has labelled the reasons for the exclusion as ‘trivial’.

Telstra’s initial proposal was an attempt to disrupt the process. I doubt they expect such a ballsy response from the Government.

Its possible that Telstra will somehow be invited back to the negotiating table. Some have argued that it’s in the national interest for Telstra to build the network or at least be considered alongside the competition.

The other bidders include Signtel Optus, Melbourne-based Acacia, Canadian group Axia, the Tasmanian Government and Canberra utility group TransAct.

The likely outcome of this development (apart from a major dip in Telstra’s share price).

First off, a media war whereby Telstra paints itself as the victim. The company runs the risk of generating considerable bad will if it is not able to do this and its engagement with and commitment to social media will be put to the test.

Second, delays to the process. Legal claims and counter-claims.

Third, Telstra going it alone by investing and building out its current cable, Next G (which doesn’t work in parts of Perth’s CBD) and DSL networks resulting in the eventual Government-sponsored NBN competing head to head with an obstructive and reactionary incumbent.

Fourth, enforced separation of Telstra’s wholesale and retail assets.

The net net result: A continued hiatus for Australia’s broadband network and the digital economy.

This country!

It has not submitted a bid for the contract ‘due to a number of unresolved issues in the Government’s Requests for Proposals’: 

• The lack of clarity around possible further separation
• The 12-month negotiation period under the RFP
• Concerns about the use of Telstra’s detailed information
• The proposed commercial terms issued by the Commonwealth

Today’s deadline was for companies to submit bids.

Most people agree that Telstra is the only viable option for the Australian Government. The Telstra ’counter proposal’ means that the company is still in the running without making a commitment. The company has created a negotiating point with the Government. Telstra is ’willing to engage in discussions with the Government’.

How will Conroy and the Federal Government react? It seems their hands are tied. One wonders how easy it will be for the Government to break up a recently privatised company.  

Hopefully, this won’t result in months of back and forth, he said, she said (as we saw with the previous Government). 

Is this the first step in a long drawn out wrangle between Telstra and the Government that will only serve to further delay the process and muddy the waters? I think it could be.