[AusNOG] Aust Govt will build National Broadband Network, no company will be awarded the tender.

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

Can we ignore this post?

I wrote it pre-caffeine and didn't mean to send it.

MMC

Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> So,
> You seem to be advocating doing nothing and hoping it all works out in 
> the end?
>
> By which time we've spent another 25years or more in regulatory hell 
> without the certainty you admit you'd like because Telstra will still 
> be gaming the system.
>
> Yay.  Sign me up now so I can kill myself.
>
> MMC
>
> lists wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>     *From:* Matthew Moyle-Croft <mailto:mmc at internode.com.au>
>>     *To:* Bevan Slattery <mailto:Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>
>>     *Cc:* lists <mailto:technical at halenet.com.au> ; ausnog at ausnog.net
>>     <mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
>>     *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2009 11:40 PM
>>     *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Aust Govt will build National Broadband
>>     Network,no company will be awarded the tender.
>>
>>     So,
>>     What do you propose as a valid alternative?
>>
>>     The alternative is let the market do it commercially.   Some new
>>     estates have fibre to the home, the design is being experimented
>>     with in these commercially viable places, which will result in a
>>     much wider roll out when the applications exist and a business
>>     case can be made viable.  Done this way will result in lower
>>     capital expenditure and lower access prices.
>>
>>     - FTTN is a crap idea (so crap that even Krudd and Conroy could
>>     see it).
>>      
>>     It is not a crap idea, it is a means to an end for Telstra.  No
>>     other company would do it this way.  However picture it this way,
>>     you need to crawl before you walk.
>>      
>>     - The current Cu CAN is starting to near end of life and is
>>     straining to provide broadband at the speeds they want to everyone.
>>      
>>     I think you are exagerating that a bit.   You and I may want
>>     faster access, but we are not representitive of the market.  What
>>     percentage of customers subscribe to 8000/384 or beyond
>>     services.  It is not high and it needs to rise to make the FTTH
>>     business case stand up. The growth is still not suggesting that
>>     the need will result any time soon.  Many people do not have the
>>     means to pay more than $40 per month.  Many pensioners tell me
>>     $30 is all they can afford for internet.
>>      
>>      Even fixing this would require something looking much like FTTN
>>     anyway (eg. nodes to fill in black spots etc).
>>     - It's only going to get more expensive to do (inflation etc).
>>      
>>     I am not sure that assumption is correct either. the price of
>>     much of the FTTH equipment is continuing to fall.  Customer
>>     electronics were $1000  3 years ago, now they are $400.  My
>>     supplier tells me they will halve over the next couple of years.
>>     As demand rises the cost of passing a home will fall based on
>>     customers connected etc etc.  It may cost $100 today to install
>>     the cable and $105 in 2 years time, but the cost of financing the
>>     $100 for it to be idle is more than $105.  I am finding the price
>>     is still falling not rising at all.
>>
>>     I'm not convinced this is commercially infeasible, but it's a
>>     close call I'll admit (and mostly hinges on take up rates).
>>      
>>     it absolutely hinges on take up rates, which is going to be
>>     influenced by the price to the consumer which is influenced by
>>     the cost of deployment.   My fibre network would be many times
>>     larger than it is now if there was some business certainty around
>>     government regulations.   It was a government departments
>>     interpretation that stopped it dead in it tracks. The issue has
>>     now expired, but all the uncertainty around NBN etc delays
>>     further deployment.  This whole issue could be solved by
>>     regulation.  In saying that there needs to be incentive for
>>     network owners to deploy such infrastructure. 
>>
>>     But if the government wants to do something game changing then
>>     what's the real problem in doing so?
>>      
>>     It will kill innovation. It duplicates existing infrastructure
>>     that was paid for by shareholders, it is to expensive and
>>     governments are not good at keeping a lid on costs, and there is
>>     currently no business case.  These issues need to be addressed
>>     and answered before big commitments are made.   How do you recon
>>     your employer would like have their investments being put at
>>     risk?  Or how would you feel if you had invested a ship load of
>>     money into a network to have that investment put at risk.  This
>>     will affect a much larger section of the industry than just Telstra.
>>
>>     Many people seem to be saying this is a bad idea and yet propose
>>     no alternative which has any real consideration.
>>
>>      
>>     I don't remember anyone saying FTTH is a bad idea, many including
>>     me are saying there needs to be a business case to support it. 
>>     In order for the business case to gain traction, there needs to
>>     be research into how to deploy it commercially.  Governments are
>>     never good at that.  Telstra has a massive cost advantage in that
>>     they already have 95% of the network in place to
>>     support deployment to the 90% the government is proposing to
>>     build to. 
>>      
>>
>>     regards Tim
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090412/04389c88/attachment.html>