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

[lists]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bevan Slattery" <Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>


>> MMC,

>> You seem to be advocating doing nothing and hoping it all
>> works out in the end?

> That's a rather sad indictment of your employer and like minded
> competitive carriers.  It's certainly not what I outlined.  Your just
> clutching at throw away lines to refute my position and conveniently
> forget to address the many issues I put forward countering your claims
> in your emails.  Frankly unlike you, I actually (personally) commit
> serious money in telco infrastructure on the basis of financial return.

As do many other ISP's and carriers which collectively improve what is 
available to consumers.

> I am told by the Government that I have 'failed' the market.  I am
> offended by that statement.  I have to restrict my investments in the
> backhaul business due to the massive industry uncertainty mostly caused
> by Government

Absolutely correct.  It is government policy and regulation that has failed 
not the market

> (let alone previous Governments failure to separate
> Telstra) that started with Telstra's FttN plan in 2005/6/7 which was
> being discussed behind closed doors with Government, Opel/BBC in 2007/8,
> FttN in 2008/9 and now FttP in 2009-2010 and beyond.

Which will only cause more uncertainty into the future and delay 
infrastructure roll outs.  Even when you try and tell either Kate Cornick 
from conroys office or DBCDE they are either unable or unwilling to listen 
and understand what you are saying.  They can't see the wood for the trees. 
The ABG program is a good example.  DBCDE would rather satellite was the 
only option than to listen and understand how the program can be done 
better.  They do not understand how customer demand works and are to rigid 
when it comes to approving terrestrial solutions such as Wimax and FTTH 
which deliver better long term outcomes and cheaper solutions to customers. 
I hope that they read this.  Quite frankly all DBCDE needs to do is set 
specifications, correct the regulatory framework, set incentive levels where 
viability does not exist and get out of the road and it will happen if they 
get those things correct or if a valid business case exists.  The more I 
think of an NBN run under the DBCDE the more I see cost blow outs and a 
jolly white elephant.  As I have repeatedly said to DBCDE this industry is 
dynamic and changes very quickly.  3 months can see a business case 
superceded by a better business case, although at some point we all need to 
just bite the bullet and do something.


> I push the envelope (and nearly paid incredibly dearly) to advance this
> country's telecommunication infrastructure with the assistance of
> forward thinking and like minded people such as your employer, the guys
> at iiNet, TPG, and Primus.  I know what it takes to do this stuff.  I'm
> not some geek lurking on the list with his moralistic or high-brow
> perspective of what should be done.

Well said

> I have the support of 2,200 shareholders who want to change the market.
> We built fibre to 200+ exchanges which at last estimate service over
> 5,000,000 people on the east coast.  I am building a submarine cable at
> a cost of $200M to reduce the cost/bottleneck of international capacity.
> Not bad for a company that started with an $80,000 datacentre and a
> Cisco switch and router bought from Ebay back in 2002.  Not bad for a
> company that is trying to invest in building a better backbone in
> Australia against a backdrop of successively failed government policy
> and interference.

and this should be recognised by governement

> I don't appreciate spending time and countering your views so you can
> glibly disregard what I say (when it pulls apart your argument) merely
> for you to create a new front of general accusations.  However, I'm sure
> if you keep it up long enough you might actually hit something
> worthwhile.

>>  Yay.  Sign me up now so I can kill myself.

> Huh.  That is an amazing statement Matthew.

It is just silly and adds nothing to the debate

>  You are saying that what
> the competitive industry including your employer is doing is so painful
> and dreadful that you are thinking of killing yourself.  Perhaps you
> should consider resigning and telling Simon to go shove it because for
> all their protestations about investment in competitive infrastructure,
> they are wasting their time (and yours).

> Tell him and others it's time
> to stop investing in DSLAM's,

Which given the current NBN decision I suspect they will, which is a road to 
no where.

> time to stop releasing FttP broadband
> solutions

Which will provide the necessary catalyst for larger future deployments. 
Remeber the saying you crawl before you walk

> (that was 2 weeks ago right?), time to stop pushing us to
> build to new exchanges, to stop helping out getting backhaul to fibred
> estates, particularly against this horrendous investment backdrop.  It's
> time to stop trying to solve the international cable problems, time to
> stop promoting competition in backhaul - well I suppose tell him to
> ultimately stop competing.  It would appear that what we are doing is
> useless and for you personally unfulfilling.

> For all your posts in this forum you've essentially said you want to
> sign up to a press release by the Federal Government even though they
> haven't had the courtesy of even working out what it will cost or what
> it will return.  Truly a 'build it and they will come'.  It doesn't
> matter what it costs and I don't know whether there is any revenue to be
> gained by this, but after x years we should 'float it'.  My god this
> thing is the biggest dot-com business plan ever.  It makes the Liberty
> One prospectus look like a business plan from Harvard.

It will do more to cut margins and reduce competition than the current 
poorly constructed regulations have, which in the end will lead to less 
investment and solutions being offered.

> Let's not dress this up into something it's not.  It is proposed to
> being sold to mums and dads as an economically responsible and solid
> investment in which there will be a financial return.  This is a
> completely government controlled entity that has no experience, no
> systems, no IP, no provisioning systems, no wholesale systems, no
> business plan, no idea of market sensitivity, no research on what the
> best coverage to return mix is, but what they do have is the backing of
> the taxpayer whether they like it or not, the ability to implement
> legislative changes to further promote their cause.

Which equals a mess financially, technically and operationally.  Perhaps 
that is why DBCDE want ABG providers to disclose how we are doing what we 
do, so that they can poach out R&D and the cost minimisation methods we use. 
Believe it or not the latest requirement is that we supply them with our 
bank statements and other personal info as well including directors 
guarantees and the like.  They already have our audited financial statements 
and other commercial in confidence info.  Why on earth would they need that 
info, other than to feed it into their NBN group for consideration. 
Perhaps they will rejig one of our business plans to do NBN.  I doubt they 
would be clever enough to understand that one size does not fit all 
situations.  I don't know how the 5 tenderers feel about the events of last 
week, but I guess there will be very little trust left there.

> As I have said previously, I could possibly support it, but unlike you I
> would require the case to be strenuously tested by experts in the
> various areas and with public scrutiny.  I guess I'm just old fashioned.
> You know, do the business plan before the business and investment type
> thing.

I totally agree

Regards

Tim