nowwearetalking is about telecommunications and you. It's where you can become involved, have your say, and Telstra listens - on issues affecting all Australians and the telecommunications industry. nowwearetalking is managed by Telstra. Find out more about this site.

Customise Page

Customise topic view

Please select items below for your custom page.

Re-organising your page

Log in here

Forgotten your password?Use ssl security

Register now

Use ssl security

Customise topic view

Customising your topic view will tailor your user experience by only displaying content which is relevant to the topic/s you have selected.

This setting will apply site-wide and will remain applied until you wish to change it.

Customise your modules

Customise your modules allows you to add or remove panels of content which appear on the homepage.

These can be added to or removed from the homepage at any time.

Re-organising your page

The technology laws of telecommunications economics: Law 3



Topic: Broadband , Telstra , Consumer & Technology

Tags:    blog  dr-hugh-bradlow  technology  telecommunications  transport  white-paper


Law 3: "Telecommunications efficiency is driven by scale economies"

Like any transport business, the efficiency of a telecommunications network increases with the size of the transport entity, providing the networks are well utilised. I don’t think that anyone would deny that overall (in terms of cost, greenhouses gases, etc) a large bus filled with people is much more efficient than each of those same people driving separately in small cars.

By corollary, it is only efficient to build large infrastructure when the demand is high enough. We have large freeways where there are major traffic thoroughfares, but clearly it would not be economic to build 4 lane highways to each and every front door in the city. Similarly, while there are many airports around Australia, the airlines do not fly jumbo jets to each and every one of them.

In some senses, broadband is analogous to the road leading up to our house. We are trying to increase the speed from a single lane suburban street to a 4 lane highway. Of course there are many ways in which the analogy breaks down, but in the economic sense the thing that does not change is that the willingness of the consumer to pay for the service has to exceed the cost of delivering it.

In a White Paper published in 2006 entitled “Australia’s Communications: preparing for the future”, Juniper Networks presented a quantification of this notion by defining 2 measures (which originate from CIMI Corporation (www.cimicorp.com) in the USA):

  1. Demand Density: is roughly equivalent to the ability, per unit area, to pay for telecommunications services. Not surprisingly high population densities, high income and large family units all contribute to a larger ‘Demand Density’. Australia’s Demand Density, according to the Juniper White Paper is roughly a tenth of the US’s and about 30 times smaller than the EU.
  2. Access Efficiency: is the cost of connecting users to the telecommunications networks. Australia’s Access Efficiency is 15 times less (worse) than the US’s and about 24 times worse than Europe’s.

In short, anyone who expects the cost of broadband access in Australia to be the same as Europe or the USA is probably innumerate or living in the wrong country.

 

Comments

Andrew
18 March 2008
4:01pm

Comment Permalink

.. and hence, higher telecommunication charges in Australia compared with overseas are not due to a failure of competition, but due to our society and geography.

Cyrus Allen
18 March 2008
7:24pm

Comment Permalink

Hugh, an excellent articulation of key structural issues unique to Australia that pours light on just how ridiculous the ACCC's unfair policies are.

Paul Hampton-Smith
19 March 2008
9:31am

Comment Permalink

The comparison of Australia as a whole to other countries as a whole is too simple when talking about Demand Density and Access Efficiency. It's a bit like saying that Australia's average daily temperature is too high for the snow skiing industry to be viable. What would be more realistic would be to compare Australian rural with overseas rural and Australian urban with overseas urban, then acknowledge at a policy level that the provision of broadband is more costly in more sparsely populated areas. Why shouldn't broadband to the bush be subsidised in the same way that the government subsidises most other rural services?

Stephen Smith
19 March 2008
10:36am

Comment Permalink

Interesting points. Not sure geography is a significant factor given that over 95% of the Australian population lives close to a major city which is a higher % than most European countries. What is probably significant is the number of people in the whole of Australia that require a service is less than the population of London spread over those major cities. So demand is lower. However, even where demand is high (like in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne), there are three layers of government making it prohibitive to lay optical fibre at the same time electrical cables are laid. Only by combining all of the Political, Economical, Socialogical, Technological and Industrial (PESTI) factors can we understand how difficult it is to reduce the prices to customers.

Mark Evans
19 March 2008
12:24pm

Comment Permalink

Hugh, a great analogy and one that helps most people understand what Telstra is trying to do and sheds light on some of the difficulties faced on a day to day basis. I think your comment regarding "... willingness of the consumer to pay for the service has to exceed the cost of delivering it." is key. I fully expect and I am happy to pay a fair and reasonable price for a service but would like to see Telstra be more competitive. Regards Mark

Andrew
23 March 2008
11:36am

Comment Permalink

To Mark Evans - the problem with Telstra "being more competitive", is that we're comparing Telstra, who services the whole country, with overseas run companies who only serve the high density (therefore lower cost) cities of Australia. I think we would see a much, much more "competitive" Telstra, if either other ISP's were forced to match the footprint of Telstra's services (which would dramatically increase their costs), or Telstra stopped supplying services in areas they make a loss on, and only matched these "more competitive" companies. In fact, this is very closely related to the point of Hugh's post in the first place.

Add a comment

 

You need to log in to post a comment