I’ve purposely kept out of politics here on my personal blog during the election campaign (ok, so I have Twitter and Facebook for that) but with one day left before the election I wanted to reflect on the great disappointment that is both major parties in Australia on broadband.

On one hand, we have a big spending Labor Government who wants to spend $5000 per person rolling out fibre to the home for 93% of Australia, while creating a new uber-Government controlled monopoly.

In the Liberal Party we have….um….how does one describe their NBN policy: words like bizarre, arcane, and wacky come to mind. Spokesman Tony Smith is possibly the only politician in Australia with the ability to make Stephen Conroy look good, and the weird obsession with wireless beggars belief.

On the balance, the ALP policy is the better of the two evils, but it is an evil.

The reality of high speed internet in Australia today is over 1 million homes in Melbourne alone have had access to high speed fibre for over ONE YEAR, and yet it was never switched on. That’s fibre rolled out by private enterprise (in this case Telstra.) It was never switched on because of uncertainty caused by the NBN.

Both Telstra, and Optus are/ were rolling out high speed internet along the east coast, but now the NBN has either stopped that, or slowed it greatly.

Yep: the Government’s push for the NBN has actually SLOWED access to high speed internet. Go figure.

Big Brother

The primary problem with the Government’s NBN proposal comes down to two things: their exclusive involvement, and the cost of the network.

This is a Government with a history of mismanaging projects.

History shows us that Government monopolies rarely offer the best service. I’m old enough to remember Telecom Australia….and if you can remember them as well, I don’t need to explain the point.

Sure, the counter argument is that private enterprise won’t provide universal (or near universal access) but it can and would provide it to many homes in the Capital cities. Better still, in many cases private enterprise would compete against itself, driving efficiencies a Government monopoly can not provide.

But the Liberal Party has gone extreme the other way. If a social objective is to provide near universal access with superior technology (that is, fibre) you can’t completely leave private enterprise to do it themselves. I’d also argue that you shouldn’t be subsidizing private enterprise in metro areas either, which the Liberal Party proposes to do: there’s a case for Government subsidy in regional and remote areas, or even NBN like Government provision of services to those areas as a social aim of high speed access, while leaving private enterprise to compete in the cities.

But problem remains that neither party seems to be able to embrace the middle ground.

Telstra

One key aspect to any broadband policy must be the structural separation of Telstra, but again both sides fail. The Labor Party supports it (and rightly so) but what point is there of splitting Telstra up only to replace the Telstra copper network with a Government owned fibre monopoly? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

The Liberal Party opposes the split, and I’ve never understood why other than this weird argument that well…they sold Telstra as one package, and it should stay that way. Of note, it never stopped the New Zealand Government, who a year or two ago split the privately owned Telecom NZ…and the world didn’t come to an end in NZ.

The only way to truly encourage proper competition in broadband is to open up access to Telstra’s exchanges and pipes via splitting Telstra so the wholesale arm treats all comers equally, and a Liberal Party that doesn’t see this doesn’t really support proper competition at all.

So now what?

As much as the ALP’s NBN policy is flawed, it’s the outcome of the two policies that would offer (hopefully) a better result for Australia. It’s just ashame that it will cause epic Government debt, cost 2-3x more than they think it will cost, and probably won’t be finished until 2020 or later.

{ View Comments }

{ View Comments }

My thanks to the team as always, without whom this wouldn’t be possible. Now lets not mention the ads though: July=northern summer= not good, but we’re getting closer to the good ad months now. If we can keep the traffic up coming into Oct/ thanksgiving/ xmas….

{ View Comments }

Upcoming shows I have tickets to

July 31: Stephen Fry
August 8: Kevin Smith
August 27: Joss Whedon

Also, money permitting, I’ve got press credentials for BlogWorldExpo in Vegas in October, so that will be my first big trip this year.

{ View Comments }

So I’ve finally bitten the bullet and started writing an ebook some 3 or 4 years after I first thought it would be a good idea.

The topic will be blog traffic, and everything I know about obtaining it.

But I have a small favor to ask: I’m looking for questions to go in the book. While a lot of the book will talk about technique and strategy, I want real questions from real people to break things up.

If you have any question about generating blog traffic, be it with a particular technique or anything you might think is relevant, ask away in the comments.

If I select your question for the book, your name and site will be featured with the question! (obviously you should include your actual name and offer your URL with the blog comment in the correct fields etc )

Well, presuming you have a site and want it. If you don’t want your name in the book, let me know.

Also, if I have your email you’ll get an answer to the question as well, although will be in the next few weeks vs say the next day or two.

I have ZERO idea how many people will be exposed to the book (obviously I’m hoping millions ) but I’m confident that we should be able to get to maybe a few thousand minimum.

Thanks
Duncan.

PS: if you’re interested in selling it, affiliate details will be ready hopefully in the next 2 weeks, stay tuned.

{ View Comments }

This is test post using a new plugin from The Guardian.

This article was written by Chris McGreal in Washington, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 5th July 2010 18.14 UTC

The leader of the Republican party in the US, Michael Steele, is under pressure to resign after he suggested that the US cannot win in Afghanistan and described the conflict as a “war of Obama’s choosing”.

Steele’s comments highlighted divisions among those conservatives who support the war and others, particularly within the Tea Party movement, who object to the billions of tax dollars being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One leading Republican senator said the latest in a string of gaffes by Steele “could not have come at a worse time” for the party, prior to November’s midterm elections.

Steele made his comments at a political appearance in Connecticut last week in a speech attacking Barack Obama’s presidency. Although the war in Afghanistan was begun by former president George Bush in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, Steele sought to shift responsibility to Obama.

“This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” he said. “It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonising Iraq, while saying the battle really should be Afghanistan.

“Well, if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?”

Although Steele has sought to defuse the crisis by saying that he supports the war and that American forces must prevail, John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who serves on the Senate’s armed services committee, denounced his remarks and questioned whether he could remain party leader.

“I believe we have to win here. I believe in freedom. But the fact is that I think that Mr Steele is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican party,” he said.

Senator Jim DeMint, also a Republican, said Steele’s comments were inaccurate and called on him to “apologise to our military, all the men and women who’ve been fighting in Afghanistan”.

Another influential Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, also a member of the armed services committee, said he was angered by Steele’s comments. “It was an uninformed, unnecessary, unwise, untimely comment. This is not President Obama’s war, this is America’s war. We need to stand behind the president.”

Other leading conservatives have called outright for Steele to resign. Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president and a rising star in the party, said he must step down, as did William Kristol, editor of the influential Weekly Standard.

Republicans are already struggling to put on a united front after the Tea Party laid siege from the right to a number of the more moderate of the party’s senators. Steele’s comments also risk damaging support among military families in the run-up to the midterm elections, after he undermined fundraising efforts through a scandal in which it was revealed that he approved the spending of $2,000 at a bondage-themed strip club.

Part of Graham’s concern is that Steele’s statement will highlight differences with some influential voices in the Tea Party movement, who object to the war partly on the grounds of its huge cost.

One member of Congress aligned with the Tea Party, Ron Paul, has come out in support of Steele.

“The American people are sick and tired of spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military,” he said. “Michael Steele has it right, and Republicans should stick by him.”

It is not the first time that questions have been raised about Steele’s leadership since he took over as chairman of the Republican party on the same day as Obama was sworn in as president.

Some party leaders began to question whether they had made a mistake as Steele committed the first of a series of mistakes. He became embroiled in a dispute with the influential rightwing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh over who really leads the Republicans. The growing belief that it is Limbaugh was reinforced when Steele was forced to make a humiliating apology for calling Limbaugh’s views ugly and incendiary.

Steele has also divided the party by supporting challenges to three Republican senators – Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter – because they backed Obama’s stimulus package.

Since he took office Steele has troubled conservatives by calling abortion “an individual choice” and liberals by belittling a woman whose mother had died because she could not afford proper healthcare. He also did himself no favours when, in response to his Republican critics, he told GQ: “I ask God, hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don’t go out and kick this person’s ass.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

{ View Comments }

Good until Dec 31, 2010 for first order. Order must be min $20.

Menulog Restaurant Delivery Guide
Get $10 off on your first delivery order using this voucher code: 88D3F5
Note: Available for participating restaurants only (which display the “accepts vouchers”) sign

{ View Comments }

From the exit post on New Matilda:

Looking to the experience of media start-ups in the US and the UK, we have realised that the days of the single-revenue media outlet are over. Nowadays, small outlets are finding new ways to fund their work through what Texas Tribune founder John Thornton calls “revenue promiscuity”: “you have to get it everywhere and often”.

They are trading on the quality of their journalism and their trusted brands to build relationships with other media outlets to which they provide niche content. And they rely on a broad and growing base of philanthropists, funding bodies, foundations and individuals who see that as the media industry cuts costs, the survival of public interest journalism requires them to put their money where their mouth is.

Well, it’s a triple backflip summersault from an editor that claimed that there was no future in online media.

But it is spoilt a bit by stuff like this

These outlets are doing important work to fill the gaps left by a shrinking media industry, often with little money and few staff

Actually, the media industry is thriving. The HERITAGE media is shrinking, new media is thriving. And that’s half the problem with how New Matilda was run, and was certainly a problem at Crikey when king luddite Jonathan Green ran the shop: neither considers themselves to be part of new media.

This also doesn’t help

When we re-launch, our primary aim will not be to drive hits back to our own site — the model that advertisers dictate is king — but to inject new, quality journalism and analysis into the Australian media environment. In this way we hope to inspire enough of you out there to deem us worthy of your financial support.

She doesn’t seem to understand that traffic isn’t just about ads: if you don’t have enough readers, you’re not going to get enough financial support from ANY source.

{ View Comments }

Saw these ads on Problogger Jobs today (and yes, I read Problogger Jobs once every week or two: competitive intelligence )

Seeking Australian mum bloggers to write about what they love to write about
Freelance SEO-aware online copywriters, Sydney
Head content angler (suit editor, sub-editor), Sydney

All the jobs are for blog(s) coming out of McCann Worldgroup, a Sydney based “advertising, marketing and communications agency.”

It naturally tweaked my radar: what’s a marketing firm doing creating blogs.

This paragraph in particular caused the radar blip (emphasis is mine):

“We’re currently on the lookout for Australian mums (with kids under 10) who can write their socks off. We’re working with a variety of large companies on building great content-rich websites, many of which will focus on mums. ”

Now this isn’t a publishing company, this is a advertising, marketing and communications agency, a company that would normally place ads on other sites, not create sites, at least the sort they are proposing here.

So I turned to Twitter, and in particular to Laurel Papworth for a radar check. The thought was “am I reading too much into this?”

A little later Mark Pollard, the Strategy Director and McCann Sydney responds.

I responded in terms of the description of the site: note McCann states that they are “working with a variety of large companies on building great content-rich websites.” That line suggests that the sites are being made for the companies, not the sites being made for the inventory to sell to (one would presume) advertisers.

But apparently this doesn’t raise any alarm with Pollard, which in itself is interesting. I originally asked Laurel what she thought of it because I was looking to see both sides (and Laurel has a fine radar for these things), but the other side seems to be lost on Pollard.

Ah yes, putting “real names” to blog posts negates any relationship between the content they are writing, and the advertisers the site(s) have been set up for.

Sounds a little bit epic fail to me.

I could well be wrong, and if Pollard would like to share the editorial guidelines with me that show that there will be a clear separation between editorial and advertisers, I’ll cop that my radar is wrong.

Thing is: so far it doesn’t read that way.

Perhaps it’s not astroturfing, but we know what happened in the United States when the line between advertising and content blurred, don’t we.

Argue away in the comments, and try to convince me otherwise: as I last said to Pollard on Twitter:

And I mean that sincerely. But getting defensive in replies on what is a genuine interest in the ethical issues that could come into play here doesn’t endear confidence.

{ View Comments }