For those wanting to get some more understanding of the thinking, assumptions and vision behind the Federal Government’s FTTP National Broadband Network plans, then I have a suggestion. Go and read what Paul Budde, the telecoms researcher-cum-industry activist has to say about the subject.

I say this because it is becoming increasingly clear that Paul Budde and Stephen Conroy are very much on the same page when it comes to their vision for the industry.

On 28 April, Conroy gave a speech to the National Press Club that began by comparing the economic impact of his NBN plans to that of electricity in the late 19th century—and then proceeded to name check a number of emerging applications and services that he believed would be enabled by the NBN, specifically smart grids, e-health, e-learning and e-government.

The interesting thing is that Paul Budde had been saying exactly these same things on his blog over the preceding weeks. On 17 April, Budde compared opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull’s criticisms of the NBN to defenders of gas lights over a century ago who failed to recognise the transformative effects of electricity on the economy, in subsequent posts, he has emphasised what he sees as the central role of e-health, e-government and e-learning in driving traffic over the NBN.

Whether Budde and Conroy’s convergence of views is a case of “great minds” or a case of one influencing the other is a moot point—one thing is clear, the two definitely share a lot of ideas about NBN issues.

Over the past few years, Budde has facilitated various groups—the Wholesale Industry Group, the FTTH Special Interest Group, the Digital Economy Industry Working Group—that have purported to develop industry views on these topics and then presented them to Conroy and others in the parliament.

Budde has made some interesting claims for the influence of these groups.

“It is very pleasing to see that a range of the issues that we have been dealing with as an industry group have been addressed in the government’s new FTTH plan—and that in some cases the government has actually delivered more than we asked for,” he wrote recently on a now deleted page on his website.

“We most certainly helped to get the message across—not just to minister Conroy but also to other cabinet ministers. We met with the minister on several occasions. He showed a genuine interest in our group and in our work, and has indicated that he is interested in meeting with us again.” He has also spoken of meetings with other senior ministers in the education and health portfolios, Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon respectively.

DINNER WITH THE MINISTER: Budde’s influence will be exerted again tomorrow at a “FTTH and Digital Economy Roundtable & Dinner with Senator Conroy” at Sydney’s Observatory Hotel. Budde says the event is sold-out, the hotel’s website suggests its conference facilities cater for around 45-60 or so people. Budde is conducting a roundtable with himself, FTTH advocate & Opticomm manager Stephen Davies, a Consultel speaker and a CSIRO manager, Allen Kearns, leading the discussions.

(As an aside, Davies and the CSIRO have interesting connections to the NBN debate—both Davies and Budde were the strongest public critics of Henry Ergas’ negative economic analysis of the government’s plans last week, while the CSIRO has been cited by newspaper commentator Malcolm Colless as playing a central role in the “cobbling” together of the NBN policy. When I challenged both Davies and Budde to present an alternative and equally rigorous economic analysis for CommsDay publication, they declined to do so).

Attendees of tomorrow’s event will then spend 2 hours preparing a “statement” which will be presented to Conroy over dinner that evening. Budde describes this process and event as an expression of “the industry’s national vision for FTTH and the digital economy”.

Now it’s not clear whether Budde and the paid attendees of his $675 event tomorrow can be said to speak for the entire industry, especially if one compares his various interest groups to more accepted and conventional representative organisations such as the Communications Alliance, the Australian Telecommunication Users Group and the FTTH Council Asia Pacific. It is also very clear that the largest player in the industry, Telstra, has studiously shunned Budde’s efforts—he publicly complains of this fact.

Although Budde speaks of hundreds of organisations supporting his interest groups and efforts, curiously, he names few of them.

However, a report in the Business Spectator from 15 April said CEOs from “Fairfax, Austar, Optus, iiNet, Internode and GoTalk” were involved in the Budde-facilitated lobbying of government. I’m not sure if this means the six CEOs and Budde literally went into ministerial offices and presented a common case, but the report suggests Conroy has been endorsing the Budde-led efforts with his ministerial colleagues.

This report went on to quote Budde saying the lobby efforts had also won over Finance minister Lindsay Tanner and Energy minister Martin Ferguson to his NBN thinking and was now working on the two environment ministers Peter Garrett and Penny Wong.

So what is this thinking exactly?

Well, given the apparent influence Budde now has on policy the least I could do was drop $75 on buying his 12-page analysis of the NBN, titled “Critical Considerations”. I recommend that those who want to know exactly what seems to be informing Conroy’s policy do the same, as this report certainly seems to flesh out many of the assumptions and ideas behind the government’s NBN plans.

In essence, Budde believes that the NBN can unleash myriad economic and social benefits, but only if there is a “trans-sector” commitment to using the infrastructure. What does he mean by that? One example: power utilities need to get behind the NBN and use it to develop smart grids that can re-balance power supply and demand, and facilitate activities such as links with “with distributed energy systems, especially in relation to wind and solar energy generated by individual people. The network can also be used to facilitate the management of the infrastructure needed for e(lectric)-cars.”

Likewise, government should exploit the e-health potential of the NBN—for example, enabling video monitoring of home-bound patients might reduce the demand for hospital beds, as well as video conferencing for patients in areas without medical facilities. Budde is most expansive in his vision for e-learning and what he terms “remote diagnostics”, describing a number of different applications. Two examples: “Here’s me playing a musical instrument—are my fingers in the right places? How’s my intonation, tone, expression; and Here’s a look at my washing machine trying to run and the sound it makes—can you help me repair it without coming out?”

PAYING FOR IT: Budde’s analysis is light on how he thinks this is going to return its costs other than to sketch a “shopping mall” analogy, but again, he seems to share some common views with Conroy.

For example, Budde writes “As the government has indicated, this infrastructure will be essential for healthcare, education etc. As a consequence all homes will need to be connected as, by law or by custom, many of these essential services need to be available to everyone, not just to those who take up a commercial subscription.”

This accords with what Conroy told this correspondent on 7 April in a phone conversation following the FTTP announcement. He emphasised that the NBN would “not be a subscription-based service”, adding it would be connected and, presumably activated on some level, to all premises regardless of whether they chose to subscribe to a service or not.

Think about that for a minute. This is probably the most dramatic change in the cost-revenue equation of telecommunications since the first commercial telephone service. People will be automatically connected to a live FTTP line and able to access some telecommunications services without directly paying for them, presumably these are to be funded through the “avoided costs” of public service provision, ie through diverted taxation revenues and government spending.

It’s a huge step into the unknown, and has about as much empirical grounding as the scientific imaginings of a Philip K Dick novel. It is, nonetheless, almost official government policy.

So there you have it. Paul Budde—is he the most influential man in Australian telecommunications today? I’ve made my case. I am eager to hear perspectives on what others think about the Budde phenomenon given that he seeks to represent the collective views of the industry. Over to you...

Grahame Lynch