Stuart Corner
Friday, 19 September 2008 12:09
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 4
Not in the UK, certainly if the latest in-depth examination of the issue has got it right. Perhaps Australia could learn some lessons from it.
A couple of weeks ago
I had a go (the latest of several actually) at the Australian Government for not doing sufficient homework on the myriad issues surrounding a national broadband network before deciding to throw close to $5b of taxpayers' money at the project.
The occasion for that tirade was the third of a series of in-depth studies produced by the UK's Broadband Stakeholders' Group (BSG) looking at various aspects a national broadband network for the UK; this latest entitled "The costs of deploying fibre-based next-generation broadband infrastructure".
The report was funded jointly by the BSG and by the UK Government's Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). Its aim was "to provide a key quantitative input into the independent review of next-generation broadband infrastructure and services being conducted by Francesco Caio at the request of BERR."
Francesco Caio's report has just been published, so I cannot resist the temptation to once again compare and contrast the Australian approach with that of the UK. You can find Caio's terms of reference
in my earlier article . However the Caio report has reframed its response to these ToRs to group its conclusions and recommendations around a number of key questions.
(1) Is the delay in the development of NGA [next generation access network] translating to a competitive disadvantage for UK businesses and UK citizens?
(2) Will the market deliver an investment in NGA on its own, or should the Government intervene now through subsidies or a structural change in regulation to get the roll-out of NGA started?
(3) Is there a role for the Government to play in the development of NGA infrastructure and, if so, what type of initiatives ought it to pursue?
CONTINUED
