Dancing with gorillas vs. herding cats

I was at a conference at the weekend where Senator Kate Lundy of Australia spoke about the need for the federal government to better work with the regions. She emphasised the need for a region-by-region solution rather than one size fits all.

Switching contexts, it struck me that she had identified a major problem with our own Government’s recent change to provide better rural broadband. This is the 25% of New Zealanders living outside the footprint of the government's urban initiative, UFB. The target set in September 2009 is “Over 80% of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5Mbps, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1Mbps.”

Most of these rural New Zealanders are not rich farmers. They are everyday Kiwis who want good Internet connections at reasonable prices. And, there is enough evidence to show that the Internet is already improving their economic and social lives. Faster Internet connections, even if it is only 5 Mbps, are desperately required.

Rural street waiting for good broadband

 Photo CC licence from Squiggle

Minister Joyce last week announced that the Government is “now seeking national coverage proposals, rather than region by region proposals.” Three reasons were given for the change- capability, financial strength, and meeting the Government’s targets.

This is where the fundamental issues lie.

Most central governments translate national interest and objectives into a single, one size fits all approach. They look at efficiency, talk about value multipliers, and the imperatives of meeting targets they have set.

However, we don’t need a one size fits all approach to rural broadband. Regions are better served by local initiatives that take into account the specific circumstances of the region. These local initiatives will have deeper and richer roots in the local community. They are likely to better tailor their offerings to local requirements, be it the technologies used, types of plans, and support. Agility and innovation are more likely.

The example of Manawatu-based InspireNet is, well, inspiring. With the help of the Tararua District Council, they’ve got on with the job and are delivering now. They may well have a future role as a local partner to a national provider but it’s never easy or possible to dance with gorillas.

Undoubtedly there are arguments that favour a national solution for better rural broadband. The Government identified three of these. Others have highlighted consistent pricing, leveraging scale, and some regions underserved.

All of these arguments are debateable. At the very least, the arguments in favour of a national solution need to be evaluated, challenged, and options developed. Then there is a need to publicly discuss possible trade-offs. For example, more granular coverage targets vs. a national provider cherry-picking regional rollouts to achieve the national target. Or, scale economies vs. supplementing existing infrastructure investments per region. What about national interest vs. community involvement and administrative efficiency vs. imaginative approaches?

There has been no opportunity for this debate. That’s unfortunate.

Also, there are lessons from past successes to consider. Such as the way television was rolled out to country areas.

As the Government is now unlikely to change its mind, one can only hope that the detailed negotiations with the chosen national provider will try and minimise the downsides. As Minister Joyce said when announcing rural broadband targets, “The last thing we want is to see a rural / urban digital divide develop in this country... Rural communities are an integral part of our economy and we cannot afford to let them fall behind.”

Indeed.