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

[Craig Meyers]

Something else to add to the business case - 
 
Online annual sales to June 2006 in Aus- $11B[1]. So that's $1B in
direct GST revenue.
 
[1]
http://www.jhemans.powerup.com.au/internet_statistics/australian-interne
t-ecommerce-statistics.htm
<http://www.jhemans.powerup.com.au/internet_statistics/australian-intern
et-ecommerce-statistics.htm> 
 
One of the benefits in the govt doing this; Govt could spend $1B a year
on internet infrastructure and still be in the black. I guess the
counter argument is that's a bit over-simplified, but then there's also
the other indirect taxes - company taxes, personal taxes of the
employees etc...

>From a federal government perspective, the revenue from this
infrastructure is more than just the direct revenue.
 
I'm thinking allong the lines on how other infrastructure like non-toll
roads/highways, water infrastructure etc... are financially justified.
 
 
 
-- Craig Meyers

	-----Original Message-----
	From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Matthew
Moyle-Croft
	Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2009 10:45 AM
	To: lists
	Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net; Bevan Slattery
	Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Aust Govt will build National Broadband
Network,no company will be awarded the tender.
	
	

	On 14/04/2009, at 8:43 AM, lists wrote:

		


			

			It would be good to see debate focus on how a
business case could be put together, rather than snipping at what some
say.  Personally I can't see how a business case can be put together to
build from scratch.  I still remember the commindicos and one tels and
others.  Great ides, but in the end they didn't work.  For mine, show me
a business plan and I will be converted.  A press release does not cut
it for me. 


	Whilst normally large scale modelling etc is left to expensive
consulting firms etc, I think it might be worth trying to spend time
building our own as an "open" model.   I'm sure it'll be an iterative
thing - start with broad sweeping numbers and refine and we have the
knowledge to build a reasonable one at some level. 

	Important things are to capture sensitivities, assumptions (what
and from whom etc), as well as an alternate model that takes in anything
the government says to try and "reverse engineer" what they say.

	A simple and dumb spreadsheet to start with leads to some
interesting graphs when you look at sensitivity to:

	- take up rates (0-10m)
	- cost of money and ROI
	- size of build 
	- backhaul assumptions/costs/build
	- %age underground/above ground
	- %non-FTTP
	- type of FTTP (pt-to-pt, PON style etc)
	- aggregation sites - how many? where? what if I have or can buy
backhaul (eg. from PIPE)?
	- what happens when you build to x% of the population or say "x
km from CBD of major cities etc".

	We can start with really simple assumptions and just leave
places to refine them.   But having graphs to show what's happening and
why it will/won't work given certain assumptions or what assumptions we
might want to make to get a working model I think is very valuable.

	MMC
	
	
	
	-- 
	Matthew Moyle-Croft 
	Networks, Internode/Agile
	Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
	Email: mmc at internode.com.au    Web: http://www.on.net
<http://www.on.net/> 
	Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
	Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090414/f2e8eae3/attachment.html>