InternetNZ 2020 vision

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › InternetNZ 2020 vision

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65277 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 262292 14-Jan-2020 16:11

InternetNZ has published a blog post "2020 vision: our Internet predictions" and it is an interesting read for those of you that want a glimpse of what could be happening this year

t gets harder and harder each year to make predictions about the Internet in New Zealand as technology changes become faster and faster. Last year our Engagement Director Andrew Cushen scored 1.5 out of 4 with his 2019 predictions.

This year we've pulled together thoughts from across the organisation about Internet security, policy, and domain names. And of course, it's an election year. So there's bound to be interesting implications.

1 | 2 | 3

4243 posts

Uber Geek

# 2392071 14-Jan-2020 16:22

2 people support this post

2020 will be a year where the Government actively considers its role in Digital Identity in New Zealand. The policy foundations will be laid (in the public and private sector) for interoperable identity solutions

Oh please no..... over the past 10 years the government has poured $100s of millions down the rabbit hole that was iGovt, now RealMe,

I mean in the last few years IRD spent over $1 billion on new IT and it still has a separate ID system, If DIA can't get the tax man to use it what hope is there....

evilengineer

238 posts

Master Geek

# 2392077 14-Jan-2020 16:31

One person supports this post

I predict that my internet connection will still suck in 2020. 🤥

Talkiet

4294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2392080 14-Jan-2020 16:35

9 people support this post

evilengineer:

I predict that my internet connection will still suck in 2020. 🤥

And I predict the majority will continue to be brilliant by international standards :-)

On the other hand, I am VERY unimpressed with the commute time from Rolleston to Central Auckland. They should build a hyper-express tunnel train that runs every 30 minutes.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

evilengineer

238 posts

Master Geek

# 2392087 14-Jan-2020 16:51

Talkiet:

evilengineer:

I predict that my internet connection will still suck in 2020. 🤥

And I predict the majority will continue to be brilliant by international standards :-)

On the other hand, I am VERY unimpressed with the commute time from Rolleston to Central Auckland. They should build a hyper-express tunnel train that runs every 30 minutes.

Cheers - N

Which totally does me no good at all.

You can stick your hyper-express tunnel. Universal Fibre, I say! 😀

In all seriousness, that digital divide is coming back with a vengeance. If 100mbps is considered a "basic" connection in fibre areas then why not a next-gen RBI to provide the same to the unlucky 13%?

Talkiet

4294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2392092 14-Jan-2020 16:59

evilengineer:

In all seriousness, that digital divide is coming back with a vengeance. If 100mbps is considered a "basic" connection in fibre areas then why not a next-gen RBI to provide the same to the unlucky 13%?

Cost.

There will be some locations that are just too expensive to service (Let's say someone living in Fiordland out of cell coverage and living in an area of native forest by himself where there's no clear view of the sky and because of conservation restrictions, no ability to put up a satellite dish). Let's say it will cost $20m to tunnel in from 30km away where the nearest fibre is...

Assuming you accept that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for his access to be built, you have accepted that there are some "unlucky" people that are going to miss out on taxpayer funded high speed access builds. So assuming that's all the case, it's now just a question of where that line is drawn.

$30m for a single connection? Nah

$50000 for a single user? Sorry, as a taxpayer I think that's a rubbish use of my tax dollar.

What's your number? How much of our money is acceptable for the government to use to build a high speed connection to someone that currently doesn't have it?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
11488 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

# 2392098 14-Jan-2020 17:12

Talkiet:

evilengineer:

I predict that my internet connection will still suck in 2020. 🤥

And I predict the majority will continue to be brilliant by international standards :-)

On the other hand, I am VERY unimpressed with the commute time from Rolleston to Central Auckland. They should build a hyper-express tunnel train that runs every 30 minutes.

Cheers - N

come now Neil, do you really wanna be able to be summoned every 30 mins on demand up here ;)

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

Talkiet

4294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2392100 14-Jan-2020 17:14

2 people support this post

hio77:

Talkiet:

evilengineer:

I predict that my internet connection will still suck in 2020. 🤥

And I predict the majority will continue to be brilliant by international standards :-)

On the other hand, I am VERY unimpressed with the commute time from Rolleston to Central Auckland. They should build a hyper-express tunnel train that runs every 30 minutes.

Cheers - N

come now Neil, do you really wanna be able to be summoned every 30 mins on demand up here ;)

Well... I love trains and anything's gotta be better than flying domestic in NZ, so yeah :-) I'm ok with it :-)

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

antoniosk

1977 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 2392180 14-Jan-2020 18:48

One person supports this post

wellygary:

2020 will be a year where the Government actively considers its role in Digital Identity in New Zealand. The policy foundations will be laid (in the public and private sector) for interoperable identity solutions

Oh please no..... over the past 10 years the government has poured $100s of millions down the rabbit hole that was iGovt, now RealMe,

I mean in the last few years IRD spent over $1 billion on new IT and it still has a separate ID system, If DIA can't get the tax man to use it what hope is there....

you can use realme with IRD. You can also use it with ACC’s business portal - I built that - or you can use a Google ID or MS ID. But at 10yrs old realme needs serious upgrade and change, and the requirement for a common digital identity hasn’t gone away

________

Antonios K

evilengineer

238 posts

Master Geek

# 2392192 14-Jan-2020 19:30

Talkiet:

Assuming you accept that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for his access to be built, you have accepted that there are some "unlucky" people that are going to miss out on taxpayer funded high speed access builds. So assuming that's all the case, it's now just a question of where that line is drawn.

Your Fiordland land example is a bit of strawman argument.

Between the current 87% and the unachievable nivarna of 100% I'm going to say the line could easily be drawn significantly north of 87%.

The powergrid and phone networks don't crap out at 87%. But of course they were built before the free market hegemony took over.

Talkiet:

What's your number? How much of our money is acceptable for the government to use to build a high speed connection to someone that currently doesn't have it?

But apparently it was deemed acceptable for government money to subsidize the current high speed build, including contributions from those unable to receive the benefits, when free market orthodoxy says that either the private sector would have got around to building it eventually or should have been free to carry on screwing the maximum amount of revenue from what was already there.

Talkiet

4294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2392204 14-Jan-2020 19:49

You've utterly missed my point...

I'll explain my analogy...

I assert that some people living in NZ would under any reasonable evaluation not be worth investing taxpayer funds into, in terms of building broadband infrastructure. My crazy example was just to ensure that I placed one end of the illustrative continuum at a point where no-one would say they thought it was a reasonable level of investment.

It's very easy to say "North of 87%" and maybe that's true, but "significantly" north of 87%? That means nothing to me... Would you say the govt should kick in $50k for everyone that wants BB but can't get it today? $75k, $100k?

The phone and power networks are simpler than the current BB network, and the scale of cost difference especially in civil works when they were built compared to now is likely to be pretty high. In addition to that, the lifecycle of the power and copper phone networks has been truly astonishing - their payback period has been many decades.

With 30 seconds of googling I found figures that suggest about $1000 per household passed was funded by taxpayers for UFB. The 2017 fact sheet also indicated that once the full UFB program was complete we should easily be in the top 5 OECD countries by proportion of the population that can access fibre. (Note, I haven't fact checked that with a more recent source myself)

It sucks that there are going to be places that aren't economic to serve with Fibre - but that's where RBI and RBI2 etc come into play.

NZ has a spectacular BB infrastructure today, and an excellent pathway to a better one over the next few years.

To suggest that it's lagging in any substantive way, ESPECIALLY complaining about fibre footprint sounds like you're unaware of what's actually happening (and how we compare to other countries) or are personally affected and upset by it (which is totally understandable).

Cheers - N

ref: https://www.crowninfrastructure.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RBI2-MBS-and-UFB-expansion-fact-sheet-31-August-2017.pdf

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Lias

3943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 2392227 14-Jan-2020 21:33

One person supports this post

Unless someone manages to bend the laws of physics, wireless spectrum is going to have limitations, RBI is going to stay capped, and it's just never going to be an acceptable substitute for a wired connection any time soon.

Sure it's not possible to run fibre to hermits up in the southern alps, but there are plenty of small towns with dozens of people that are not even getting basic DSL. A couple of examples, I spent part of my childhood living in Rangiwahia, and my parents are shortly moving to Nopera / St Omer. I get UFB is never getting deployed in places like this, but they should be putting a fibre backbone through to virtually every small town, and using that to feed DSL, local community fibre rollouts, local WISPs etc.

Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

ripdog

470 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 2392271 15-Jan-2020 05:58

3 people support this post

Talkiet, you're missing the point. The phrase 'digital divide' refers to the people who either currently or in the future are/will be unable to participate fully in society due to a lack of connectivity. As the role which the internet (and specifically high-speed internet) plays in society increases, the losses incurred by those who miss out increase dramatically. These losses will not only be monetary, but also socially and civic participation.

In the past, governments around the world realised that the electric, road and telephone networks had usefulness beyond that of a simple luxury - even though they were initially considered luxuries (well, maybe not roads). Governments realised that these services had become part of the fabric of society itself, and thus had to be extended to everywhere practical - not just everywhere profitable. High-speed internet is rapidly approaching the level of importance of these existing networks, and government investment must continue to reflect this importance, by allowing for a constant expansion to the fibre network until it reaches about as far as the telephone or power network.

Talkiet, you're a telco employee, and you're looking at the issue through the lens of a businessman. However, in order to build a society, you can't leave those who are unprofitable out in the cold. You can't leave them with an inability to properly access education, government services, banking services, communications, future TV/radio replacements, etc. The cost will be tremendous, yes, but the good news is that it doesn't have to be done in a single burst. A regular allotment in the annual budget for annual expansion of the fibre network would eventually get the job done without breaking the bank.

Of course, if Starlink succeeds, the whole issue might become more-or-less moot. Then the question arises whether we want our isolated communities utterly reliant on a US-based company for their internet connections...

Talkiet

4294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 2392294 15-Jan-2020 08:24

2 people support this post

I don't think I am missing the point. I understand what you're saying (and you've explained it clearly), but I just don't believe that it will always be worthwhile investing taxpayer money to connect some locations.

As I tried to point out earlier, if you will agree that there are SOME uneconomic locations to service, then we're already in agreement in principle - and are only arguing about how much taxpayer money we spend to connect isolated pockets of society (down to single users in Fiordland?)

Take another example... Say I was to build myself a house in the middle of nowhere - should I expect the taxpayer (or Spark, or VF, or Chorus) to connect me for a nominal fee? (ie. I don't cover the cost of network extension?)

If the answer is "No" then again, we're in agreement in principle.

If the answer is "Yes" then should I also expect the taxpayer to extend the power infrastructure, mains water and sewer system to my new place? Again, at no real cost to myself?

When someone builds in the middle of nowhere today they can install off grid solar, drill a bore and build their own septic solution.

Part of the cost of choosing to live outside of current communities, or in such out of the way places that fibre doesn't exist there is that you are likely going to be responsible for some things yourself that in more densely populated areas are able to be economically funded by taxpayers.

I struggle with the concept that for some reason the taxpayer should be funding their broadband bill.

While I am a telco employee, I'm approaching this from the perspective as a member of society and a taxpayer - I just happen to have a high level understanding of the costs and complexity involved.

I'm going to say it again and would appreciate a specific response - if you would agree that there are any locations that are so uneconomic/remote that the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for connecting BB services, then we're already in agreement.

I think that has such an obvious answer it doesn't need any further explanation myself.

(Actually I just saw you yourself said "and thus had to be extended to everywhere practical" - practical in what sense? That sounds like you are conceding there are some locations that won't be practical. If so, then again, we're in agreement)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Handle9

2741 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 2392297 15-Jan-2020 08:43

One person supports this post

There are compromises inherent in where you live. If you live in the city you get small sections, high house prices, traffic, town sewerage, town water and fast internet.

If you live in a more remote location you need a septic system, rain water tanks and bad internet. You also get lots of land, cheap housing and no traffic.

evilengineer

238 posts

Master Geek

# 2392305 15-Jan-2020 08:51

Well said Ripdog.

And that's where free market economics and traditional "cost/benefit" analyses totally miss the wider societal gains which are hard to quantify and wouldn't accrue to the fibre companies or telcos in any event.

The success of the UFB project and our position in OECD broadband tables are to be commended. But that's no reason to rest on our laurels and leave the remaining 13% of the country, who also contributed in the first place, out in the cold when a good proportion of them could be provided with better. Even if it takes another 20 years.

There are loads of places beyond the current fibre boundaries which were deemed uneconomical for UFB but which are sufficiently populated to completely swamp the local RBI tower if everyone signed up.

1 | 2 | 3