Both major parties are trying to convince voters that their plan is better than their competitor’s.
So, is it true that the Coalition’s broadband plan will cost more for regional households and businesses?
Albanese’s statement seems to conflate the cost of provision with the cost of access. The National Broadband Network’s (NBN) wholesale price is based on provision, access and usage:
The government’s NBN rollout includes both the deployment of technology – fibre, fixed wireless and satellite – and the provision of the connection to the premises itself. All of this is provided to the end user at no up-front cost in all but the most exceptional cases.
The Coalition’s policy brings the optical fibre connection to one of about 60,000 neighbourhood “nodes”, or kerbside cabinets, where that fibre connection is then adjusted and linked to the existing copper wire to the home. This technology is known as Fibre to the Node (FTTN) and is intended for 71% of premises.
The policy also provides for 22% of premises being connected by fibre all the way to the home for many new housing estates and where the copper has degraded to the point that fibre is more cost-effective.
Those who won’t be connected by fibre to their home can pay for their own connection or possibly co-fund their connection with local councils or private entrepreneurs (this would then split the cost of connection, making it cheaper for individual households).
If all this technical explanation is confusing, here’s a way to think about how both policies work. Suppose our major roads were sealed, minor roads were gravel, and access roads to homes were dirt. The ALP’s policy is like having all roads sealed, with 93% of access roads being sealed and the remaining 7% being upgraded to gravel. The Coalition’s policy is like having all minor roads sealed, but access roads will only be sealed if this is cheaper than gravel. If you want a sealed road to your home, you are welcome to pay for it yourself.
Albanese claims a self-funded connection under the Coalition’s plan will cost A$5000. It is unclear whether he means this is a typical figure, or a worst case. The comparable figure in the UK is between £700 to £1500 although other sources claim up to £3500. Shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has quoted around A$3000 based on the UK figure for a 500 metre connection from the local node.
But using these UK figures can only give us a ballpark estimate of what it would cost in Australia. The UK and Australian circumstances are different, with different levels of urbanisation and costs of labour.
Whatever the actual figure will be, there seems to be broad agreement that it is thousands of dollars, and this will be a significant barrier to the take-up of optical fibre.
The government’s policy has a set uniform wholesale price – that is the price of access to the NBN that NBN Co sells on to internet service providers. For regional users, it’s more likely that they will be getting a satellite connection rather than fibre to the home. This technology is more expensive to provide but the cost of access would be the same. Effectively, this means the cost of accessing fibre in the city is cross-subsidising the more expensive satellite technology used in the country.
But the Coalition policy is subtly different. It has a cap on its wholesale price, meaning that the price could be lower. If there was more infrastructure competition, particularly if a competitor found a cheaper alternative technology, this could drive lower costs and lower wholesale pricing. To compete effectively NBN Co would then need to lower their own wholesale pricing.
History suggests price competition might occur in affluent parts of Sydney and Melbourne, and to a lesser extent in Brisbane, Perth and possibly Adelaide. But competition is unlikely to appear on a significant scale elsewhere in the country, including regional areas.
Modelling of this competition effect provided by the minister’s office suggests a wholesale price difference under the Coalition’s plan of just 7% by 2019 for a 12 megabits per second service. This is a difference of around $1.40 per month or $17 per year. A stronger example, including at a higher data rate, may have demonstrated a higher price.
But with the government’s current modelling, it hardly compares to the broader cost differences associated with the current city-country divide of private and government delivery of services. It’s important to note that reliable internet access would mean other costs of living in regional areas, particularly transport and education, could be reduced.
Albanese’s claim that it will cost $5000 for a fibre connection to your home under the Coalition’s plan is no more reliable than the Coalition’s estimate of $3000, as there are so many potential cost variables – but clearly the cost will be in the thousands of dollars.
On the second claim about differences in regional and city prices, modelling provided by the minister’s office suggests an almost trivial wholesale price differentiation of around 7% by 2019.
Matthew Sorell is Senior Lecturer in Telecommunications and Multimedia Engineering in the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide. Peter Gerrand is an Honorary Professorial Fellow in telecommunications at the University of Melbourne.
This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
