Tag Archive for 'broadband'

Build the use case - coverage or speed?

I’ve been taking part lately in a broadband strategy group looking to improve Internet access in North Canterbury - it’s an important discussion that I’m happy to be part of. I’ve got pretty annoyed however about the hollow platitudes that get thrown about things like “broadband would give this country an immediate 10% productivity boost” - the sort of thing that sounds good but means nothing without empirical data.

Over on Simon’s excellent blog I cam across this vidcast of Bernard Hickey from interest.co.nz, Ernie Newman from the Telecommunications Users Association and Rob O’Neill, Editor of ComputerWorld. All these players are smart, well-respected people. Put them all together however and you get the same sort of self-serving comments that fire up the rabble but do nothing to improve the validity of the debate.

I commented on Simon’s vid but thought I’d copy my comment here to elicit further dialogue.

Stuff that I disagree about

  1. At 1′20″ Bernard lists what broadband means for him - all of what he lists I can perform with dodgy DSL sited 5km from the nearest exchange, So the issue would not seem to be speed so much as general access
  2. 3″ 10 Bernard says we’re stuck with a 1970’s infrastructure which is plain wrong - if one looks at the speed and coverage increase over the past decade one can see that, while progress could definitely be better, we’re still ahead of many of our OECD competitors
  3. At 3′20″ Bernard says we need the biggest pipes we can get - I contend that in fact we need the widest spread pipes that we can get - we can supersize them once we have the coverage
  4. Ernie says at 3′40″ that Gen Y live their lives online which is a fact but a) how much of that is actually productive (there is a difference between surfing porn and providing some gain for the country and b) much of what Gen Y surfs isn’t overly bandwidth intensive - thus coverage rather than pipe size is key
  5. Rob’s point re increasing bandwidth requirements for new media are valid to a point - but the cost vs speed is a very important issue that given our population and geography cannot be overlooked
  6. Bernard’s comments at 7′00″ re upload capacity would seem to be red herrings - has he looked at the offerings that give FLS both up and down which are already on the market in New Zealand
  7. Bernard’s contention that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders would be freed up to become digital business people if only they had sufficient speed is nothing without hard empirical evidence of the same. People bandy around claims of 10% productivity gains instantaneously with better broadband - that sort of claim demands empirical proof
  8. At 9′20 Bernard claims that cloud software requires good pipe size - not correct - I use almost entirely cloud based services on a shonky connection over 5km from the nearest exchange
  9. At 14′52″ Bernard says that health, media and accounting would somehow move from monopolies to market services with better broadband. None of these services are particularly broadband dependant and using Xero as an example of a monopoly busting global business is just a muddied mixed and confused message
  10. At 15′30″ Rob uses his example of a “robotic accountant” - the example he gives is entirely do-able on even dial-up (or heaven forbid) voice
  11. Bernard’s ridiculous assertion at 16′15″ that one can’t transmit a 100 page document with anything other than massive pipes is plain wrong. He should try using Zoho some time to prove himself wrong. Also bizarre is his following assertion that a single cable across the Tasman is somehow a major risk for TradeMe (which is primarily a domestic service not requiring international connectivity).
  12. At 19′ Ernie uses online commerce as a reason for better broadband speeds and uses TradeMe as an example - sorry but TradeMe is perfectly accessible over dial-up so the TradeMe use case just doesn’t stack up

Don’t get me wrong - I’m all for better connectivity but we need to separate the coverage versus speed discussion - my contention is that widespread coverage is a much more important issue than higher speed

Broadband uptake survey

GigaOm pointed out a couple of new pieces of research about broadband penetration, speeds and consumer demand in the US. It’s a pretty interesting report but there are a couple of parts that stand out for me;

Low income broadband uptake dropping

Closely linked to the current economic downturn, and the housing bubble burst in the USA, the Pew survey found that households with annual incomes of less than $20,000 have started to cut back on broadband spending. Their broadband adoption rate has dropped from 28% in 2007 to 25% in 2008. I’m a little surprised that the slowdown happened this quickly - I would have thought broadband would be one of the later areas to be cut by households - this study shows that is not the case.

Consumer demands for higher speeds

There is much discussion in New Zealand at the moment about the penetration vs speed argument around broadband - should we focus on increasing the penetration rate or the availability of higher speed offerings. Interestingly, another recent study found that in the US nearly 72% of cable broadband subscribers, and 62% of Telco broadband subscribers are happy with their broadband connection’s quality and speed. Only 24% are interested in getting faster connection and a mere 11% of broadband subscribers would pay an “additional $10 per month to double their Internet speed.”

In addition, the Pew report shows that 35% of dial-up users want broadband prices drop - given flattening Telco revenues that is unlikely to happen. Overall 62% of dial-up users say they are happy to be remain at the speeds they are currently on.

Summary

A distinction needs to be made between business connectivity and consumer connectivity. The research would seem to indicate that ramping up investment in higher penetration of DSL may be unwarranted. This of course pre-supposes that an adequate base level of service already exists - which in all markets (other I guess than South Korea) is debatable. However targeted roll-outs of high speed access where business users need it would seem to be a no-brainer.

Finland and New Zealand, a comparison…

It would be an understatement to say that broadband in NZ is a topical issue.  Most of what I read isn’t objective or well thought out. I’ve said before the stated goal of the government to “get us into the top half of the OECD” is a nonsense without thinking about and supporting commercial enterprise to use these digital links and create wealth from it.

So I was really interested in this report from the ISCR. It’s really worth a read. It describes and compares the demographics and telecommunications infrastructure of the two nations and seeks to explain why Finland are 6th and NZ is 19th on the OECD lists.

It raises a bunch of questions to me,  how about you? I’m really keen to get the thoughts of our readership community about this. More on this subject here and here.

A neutral perspective on broadband in NZ

At the recent telcon9 conference in Auckland, Michael Cranna, managing director of Epitiro Technologies had some interesting things to say about our broadband. Epitiro is a global provider of broadband benchmarking data and hence is apparently as neutral as they come. While Cranna admitted that we’re a work in progress, his comments give some cause for optimism. Key points;

  • Our focus should shift from penetration to speed (a contention that I don’t 100% agree with)
  • Our current average BB speed is 3Mbps which is comparable to the UK (but behind Australia)
  • Our results are close to the international benchmark
  • Our planned, and announced future investment put us “up there” with the rest of the world

There were criticisms, but Cranna said our new regulatory framework puts us in a good position going forward - at last some optimism!