After more than two weeks the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) finally managed to get most of the OPEL coverage maps onto the internet.
Now we know the reason for the delay.
The scale of the misuse of public funds is blindingly evident, and will be one of the enduring scandals of this government.
The maps confirm that money is being pumped into areas where infrastructure already exists, including provision of duplicate ADSL services in a number regional cities and large towns where Optus should be able to provide them on a commercial basis (this is even leaving aside the outer metro areas which Optus may claim are part of its extended rollout – designed to muddy the waters about their "cash and in-kind" contribution)
Why is this important? The government is underwriting otherwise profitable deployment putting money straight onto the SingTEL OPEL bottom line.
On top of the outrage of funding commercial ADSL infrastructure, there is still doubt about OPEL’s ability to provide the wireless coverage it claims through WiMAX technology. In publishing the coverage maps the department has created such a sweeping set of disclaimers (www.broadbandnow.gov.au) they must be the public administration equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”.
I have reproduced just three of the six disclaimer points:
- Coverage portrayed on the national map is not to scale in order to better allow visualisation of site enablements.
- Depictions of WiMAX and other wireless coverage on these maps do not take into account local topographic features.
- The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts makes no guarantee about the suitability of these maps for any purpose by any person whatsoever.
Putting this into plain English:
- This is an artist’s impression of a network, so what you see is not what you get.
- If you live in a claimed wireless coverage area, you still won’t get an OPEL service if you live behind a mountain, in a valley or among a lot of trees.
- Don’t blame me if the information is wrong, because I told you it was.
DCITA has been quick to welcome the finding of the Auditor General (www.anao.gov.au) that it had correctly followed its own guidelines in awarding OPEL the contract, in response to issues raised by Senator Conroy.
But the Auditor General only looked at process – reporting, administration, accountability – not whether the technology selection was correct, whether government policy objectives are right, or if any stated objectives will be matched by appropriate outcomes.
No, the Auditor General’s office will review the OPEL project in 2008-2009, after most of the almost $1 billion funding has been spent/wasted.
As with HiBIS, any “wrinkles” in a program will only be reported after the fact. Earlier this year the ANAO reported that DCITA had referred three cases of potential fraud under the HiBIS program to the Federal Police during 2005 and 2006. This was because of “anomolies” (www.anao.gov.au) found in 4000 claims worth nearly $10 million.
Strangely, it was only in May 2007 that we heard about it – the few who were listening anyway.
It raises serious issues about the ability of government to make complex technology decisions and administer quasi-commercial projects.
Next, they will be applying the same expertise to the micro-management of FTTN.