Not because it was technically infeasible, which it isn’t. Fibre-optic has long reach: one provider said UFB will go 40 to 60 km, whereas the faster variants of copper-delivered DSL struggle at distances over 500-700 metres.
Fibre is also robust tech. In Australia, which tied its national broadband network into an expensive and difficult-to-undo knot, the NBN Co agency said the copper network had four times as many faults as fibre.
Furthermore, it will cost Australian taxpayers big bucks to maintain the copper network as it continues to degrade. But it’s not a problem New Zealand has apart from in rural and remote areas.
That copper was getting long in the tooth and no longer fit for its extended purpose was known many years ago. Nevertheless, fibre was new tech in a conservative telco and ISP industry.
It wasn’t at all sure the will was there to invest in and build the backbone networks required to support massively fast connections for residential and small business users.
However, as always with big infrastructure projects, it’s a must to take stock of how UFB has performed over the years. Not in terms of speeds, as there are few complaints there, but economic benefits.
Chorus said it did not believe anyone updated the initial 2010 report on the economic benefits of taking the fibre build from 75 per cent to 87 per cent of the population.
A new report that looks at the positives and negatives of UFB over the years would be a great thing to have and to learn from.
It should consider massive global events like the Covid-19 pandemic leading to lockdowns, and having a more resilient communications network when climate emergency kicks in properly and we need to keep producing nevertheless.
Did the UFB lead to the current telco industry consolidation, knocking out smaller players that didn’t have the scale to compete?
Does the UFB act like a conduit for over-the-top (OTT) giants like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon which effectively pay providers nothing to reach their customers (and this is an old telco grumble, and a real can of worms at the same time)?
How much does UFB access dictate where we live and work, with better incomes because it’s possible to work from home, shop and do other everyday things?
A recent Chorus-commissioned report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) suggests in a roundabout way that fast broadband really matters.
NZIER reckons that ensuring people and businesses outside the current UFB coverage, about 13 per cent of the population and a sizeable number of organisations, get connected would reap economic benefits of around $16.5 billion over 10 years.
There’s clearly enough money in the rural and remote market to attract global low-earth orbit satellite providers such as Starlink and OneWeb, which are in cahoots with Vocus in both Australia and New Zealand.
You can now get a $2000 government grant for rural and remote areas to help get better broadband.
This, unfortunately, doesn’t mean providers can deliver souped-up versions of Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI), creative fibre rollouts, or wireless service options.
Instead, it looks like that money will go into Elon Musk’s pockets as it handily covers the relatively high cost of SpaceX Starlink customer premises equipment, with a few months of subscription charges on top.
That does seem a suboptimal outcome, just to meet an infrastructure necessity similar to electricity, which reaches most parts of the country.
Having more information about the existing UFB that would support as close to 100 per cent coverage of fast broadband would seem to be a clever national investment.
