[AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB

Tue Sep 17 20:55:14 EST 2013

Actually tim they don't have to take money first. They can issue bonds.
It's called debt. Like a home loan but think bigger.

Also we are talking about the edge of the network. You buy from your ISP
which is where the differentiation is. As has been said on this forum as
well if ISPs want to offer synchronous services over the NBN then that have
the ability to do that.

It's not like every side street is a toll road is it?

Also are people saying we shouldn't support the people producing our food?
Because that's exactly what your saying if you don't want to cross
subsidise the network. After all the major cities aren't full of farms now
are they.

Nick Gale

E: nick.gale at westernpower.com.au

On 17/09/2013, at 6:45 PM, Tim McCullagh <technical at halenet.com.au> wrote:

  Following Roberts argument below

Then why shouldnt the government mandate that all Australians can only buy
Australian built cars.

No more need to Government assistance to the car industry as they will then
have the economies of scale, put aside the issue of whether those are the
cars we want to buy in the same way as the nbn is providing an asyncronous
service when I want a syncronous service.

The whole argument comes down to a mater of choice and does the government
know best, put aside the issue of the fact that the government does not
have any money.  The Government has to take it off someone before it can
give it to someone else.

Regards

Tim

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com>
*To:* Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
*Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:25 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB

TPG will only build it where it suits them.

Consider the fact that has been widely used (and I've never seen it
questioned) that the NBN as  whole has a proposed 7% yield, whereas
commercial interests will seek a 15% yield before they will invest.

If we say 5m properties total with an average yield of 7%, but 1m of those
(the ones that will get covered by stuff like TPG are saying they will
offer) with an average yield of 15% (so just OK for commercial investment).
Those 1m properties end up being serviced by commercial interests, leaving
the govt to service the other 4m properties, which now have an average
return of only about 5% - not so attractive to the government now, is it,
or to consumers in that 80% who just had their monthly price bumped up.

Again - the benefit of the NBN is near-ubiquitous broadband access to all
of Australia, at an equitable price for all. It becomes a service to the
nation that enables the country to keep up with other nations as the world
becomes globalised and connectivity becomes the differentiator between the
rich and poor globally.
On 17/09/2013 7:04 PM, "Paul Wallace" <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au> wrote:

>  Version 1…****
>
> TPG build it & if the offer is then low cost plus very fast, people will
> buy it.****
>
> In those circumstances the tax payers pay nothing****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> In the Conroy model …****
>
> The tax payers pay for 100%****
>
> All fresh competition, possibly including the TPG FTTB rollout is banned**
> **
>
> All copper is disconnected****
>
> All HFC is disconnected****
>
> .. thus allowing Mr Conroy to triple the price, provide lousy service via
> ‘the PMG-2” and you get the worlds most expensive broadband.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Hudson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:55 PM
> *To:* Tom Lanyon
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We’ll do our own FTTB****
>
> ****
>
> Of course it has an impact on the NBN. The NBNs price model is, amongst
> other things, dependant on scale and the number of premises connected.
> Reduce that number by a few million, and the per-port price will rise
> significantly, and those in less profitable areas ("the bush" as an
> example), won't have their pricing subsidised by the commercially lucrative
> connections (in "the city)".****
>
> On 17/09/2013 6:47 PM, "Tom Lanyon" <tom+ausnog at oneshoeco.com> wrote:****
>
> On 17/09/2013, at 6:09 PM, Jake Anderson <yahoo at vapourforge.com> wrote:
> > On 17/09/2013, at 5:14 PM, Nick Gale <nickgale at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Are you saying we should have the ability for NBN competitors? If so
> why?
> >
> > Because if you don't then private enterprise will build a bunch of
> little fiefdoms where it will be uneconomical for anybody else to try to
> take market share with diminishing returns, and as a bonus all those areas
> in "the bush"       that the population as a whole is rather fond of won't
> get any services at all because its not "economic" to do so.
>
> None of which would be an issue, assuming that this is all occurring in
> parallel to the NBN, right?
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
 ------------------------------

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
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/20130917/52b41304/attachment.html>