Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Official Information | Apr 03, 2009 11:44

I'm very pleased with this week's Media7, which marks both our 50th show and our one-year anniversary. The first part of the show is an interview with Tim Pankhurst, the departing editor of the Dominion Post, which covers a fair bit of ground.

We discussed what journalism training does and doesn't provide (recruits have to be taught "to recognise a news story", says Pankhurst), and the importance of spotting gifted investigative journalists such as Phil Kitchin and giving them the space to do their work.

And the remainder is a discussion of the Official Information Act -- how it works and how it doesn't -- with Nicky Hager, DomPost chief reporter Haydon Dewes, and PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott. Simon Pound provides a tutorial on how to make your own OIA request.

Oh, and you might find the Newsmash at the end of the show amusing.

It's on ondemand now with other versions available via our TVNZ microssite.

I also thought I'd try embedding the YouTube versions here for once:

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Update: Here's an edit of just the Newsmash ...

And no, I'm not sure why the clips are in different aspect ratios.

Brian Edwards has a new website, Brian Edwards Media. The idea is that his considerable opinions will sustain traffic to the site, which also provides a home for his media consultancy.

Drinnan speculates that TVNZ might be interested in acquiring the now-collapsed Alt TV.

I'm impressed with this month's Metro magazine -- especially with Donna Chisholm's cover story on the Capri clinic and its, er, colourful founder, Tom Claunch. If Chisholm's new role as "editor at large" is going to produce this kind of writing, I think that's a good thing.

The free concert by Pitch Black and the Lewis McAllum Orchestra in Beresford Square tonight looks like a good one. We have a Public Address dinner nearby this evening, so if you go to the gig, you might just see the legendary David Haywood.

(48 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Quantum Faster | Apr 01, 2009 10:28

In June last year, Maurice Williamson, in a presentation to the Telecommunications summit, undertook that, if elected, a National government would invest to ensure that 75% of New Zealand homes would enjoy connection to "ultra-fast" fibre-optic cable by 2014.

The speech was somewhat controversial with the industry delegates, principally for its partisan tone, but also for its grounding in reality: the target espoused by Williamson was not, in fact, realistic. Nonetheless, the promise to "ensure fibre to the home of 75% of New Zealanders by 2014" was touted throughout election year.

Key himself enthused to students in at Waitara College that they would be able to "download a movie in seven seconds". That implied gigabit Ethernet via fibre -- a fairly big call when you look at the cable run between Waitara and the nearest regional centre, New Plymouth.

This year, Williamson is not the Minister of Information Technology, and the discussion paper released yesterday by the man who is, Stephen Joyce, sets far more modest goals.

So much so that it is quite possible that the proportion of homes enjoying what John Key described yesterday as "quantum faster" internet (should someone tell him that a quantum is a very small thing?) in the six years from the earliest start data, 2010, will not be 75%, but zero.

Oddly enough, this is more like the goal outlined when the investment policy was first announced, almost exactly a year ago. In that speech, Key promised thus:

National's medium and long-term vision is for a fibre connection to almost every home, supported by satellite and mobile solutions where it makes sense to do so.

Our initial goal is to ensure the accelerated roll-out of fibre right to the home of 75% of New Zealanders.

In the first six years, priority will be given to business premises, schools, health facilities, and the first tranche of homes.

In the paper released yesterday the government's objective is cited as connecting "priority broadband users such as businesses, schools and health services, plus green field developments and certain tranches of residential areas." The window for 75% residential connectivity has been extended to 2020, which, if not exactly realistic, is markedly less of a fantasy than 2014.

There are frank and frequent references to market failure in the paper. "There is also a role for public investment," it says, "where existing private sector investment programmes are not aligned with the government's desired timeframe for infrastructure deployment." -- because the kind of investment implied by the government's timeframe is not commercially viable.

There are some other subtle, but important, changes. The monolithic structure of a proposed "FibreCo" is gone. Instead, a Crown Fibre Investment Company (CFIC) will invite investment proposals from Local Fibre Companies, with which it will work on the installation of open-access fibreoptic networks in individual regions. The appropriate rate of return will be a matter of negotiation.

Also, last year, National talked about fibre to the home -- now, it's more like fibre past the home. The policy concentrates on "dark fibre" -- this is, cable installed but not fitted with termination equipment, which actually constitutes about half the cost of fibre to the home. LFCs will, under certain circumstances, be able to fit termination equipment, but that will largely be the role of telecommunications retailers.

Which is where is gets interesting. Under the draft regulations announced yesterday, a company that offers retail services will not be allowed majority control of an LFC. The likely upshot will be considerably more onerous than the operational separation required of Telecom by the Labour government. Telecom will be forced to sell its physical networks business, Chorus, if it really wants to play.

So the paper's contention that the policy represents a light hand in the market for government doesn't really wash at all. It's a very significant intervention.

Likewise, the claim that the project will avoid competing with, or duplicating, existing networks doesn't wash. Telecom is in the process of extending the useful life of the copper network maintained by Chorus by spending $1.5 billion installing roadside cabinets to bring DSL equipment much closer to every home -- thus shortening the copper runs and greatly increasing the potential speed of the network.

What signal is being sent to Telecom -- and for that matter, to such companies as Vodafone and Orcon, who are already installing their own equipment in unbundled Telecom exchanges? Should they persist with that investment in existing infrastructure if the government is saying that the copper will be built over in fibre? Do we in fact face the prospect of a freeze in investment by existing telcos?

It would make sense for the fibre running to the new cabinets to be extended out from the cabinets, rather than duplicated -- but that fibre is the property of Chorus. Even if Telecom sells off Chorus, the fibre to the cabinets will not be open-access. We can only guess at what kind of negotiation would be necessary to make that work.

There are some notable omissions amongst the ideas canvassed in the paper. The word "peering" does not appear once, even though connectivity between the local fibre networks will be essential. Will the project-- which almost ejects traditional telcos at the local level -- be subject to the same old business practices at the next tier up of the network? And strikingly, there is no mention of international connectivity. Will Kordia still be allowed to build its proposed trans-Tasman cable? We don't know.

It's also a given that the $1.5 billion in joint investment over 10 years will not amount to half the total cost of the project, or anything like it. This is a $6 billion job, assuming the skilled labour (which is presently either employed or contracted to Chorus) can be readily found.

And I wish the government would stop citing HD TV as a killer app for the new network. We already have two efficient means of delivering HD TV -- Sky's satellite network and Freeview's terrestrial one. Further, the kind of network configuration that provides the very high speeds implied by HDTV (especially on-demand) is quite different to -- and much more expensive than -- one that would simply run cable past your house. It's the difference between sharing a pipe and having your own pipe all the way back to the exchange. John Key's government already seems to have a knack of holding itself hostage to its own soundbites.

But, lest I seem too negative, the idea is, in spirit, visionary. Ubiquitous fibre is as close to future-proof as you'll get. It's just that as it charges towards that future, the government may find it isn't wise to walk all over an existing infrastructure that is not only working now, but working better than it ever has.

PS: We still have some room for this evening's recording of Media7, featuring an interviewing with the departing editor of the Dominion Post, Tim Pankhurst, and a panel discussion on the state of the Official Information Act with Nicky Hager, Haydon Dewes and PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott. If you want to come along to The Classic before 5.30pm, hit Reply and let me know asap.

PPS: Internal Affairs minister Richard Worth has been assiduously removing unflattering news from his own Wikipedia article. There's plenty more here. Oh dear.

(379 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Imagining Auckland: no thanks, actually ... | Mar 30, 2009 11:20

I can see that it's going to take a while to develop a fully informed opinion of the Auckland super-city plan, but you can place me right now in the camp of people deeply concerned about the potential loss of our community boards.

The Western Bays community board is by far my closest contact with local government, and I know that several of its members have an enduring commitment to our local area. I can see a direct connection between the matters considered by the board over time and what actually happens in our community.

Do I want to lose that -- as proposed in the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report? No, I do not. And I don't see a corresponding gain in a supercity that would balance such a loss of local democracy.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what to make of arguments that focus on the alleged peril of Auckland's influence on national politics. Keeping Auckland dysfunctional to protect the rest of the country hardly seems fair to the people who live here.

And I would like to see rates from across the region support things, like the Zoo and the Auckland War memorial Museum, that are really regional assets. [Update: yes, regional councils do contribute to the museum ...]

But for now, no. Whatever "streamlining" local government means, if it removes the layer of democracy closest to me, then I'm not interested.

--

I neglected to link to last week's Media7 programme, which covered the uncertain future of the advertising industry, with a romp through the Auckland-Wellington cultural rivalry for dessert.

The hi-res ondemand version is here, the podcast is here, and it's also on YouTube.

The Auckland-Wellington segment is somewhat germane to the above, so I'll embed it here:

Note the presence of a high-quality button! (You have to start the clip playing for it to appear.)

This week's programme covers the Official Information Act, with a panel including Nicky Hager, Haydon Dewes and one other to be confirmed. There will also be an interview with departing Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst.

If you'd like to join us for the recording at The Classic in Queen Street on Wednesday (we'd need you there by 5.30pm at the latest, and be done before 7pm), hit reply and let me know.

PS: Another review on Leo's game blog: he sizes up the PSN download Burn Zombie Burn. Also, he lists his forthcoming reviews and posts a funny cat video.

(137 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!