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

[Paul Wallace]

Or ...

You can let TPG run their network out to the 500k dwellings they mentioned

And therefore be able to build the NBN for much less.

If they don't overbuild the Optus & Telstra HFC networks, currently passing around 28% of all Australian households (http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/15/turnbull-confirms-hfc-areas-last-to-get-fttn-if-at-all/)  .. well that would save a further fortune.

.. add to that the savings gained from NOT then additionally paying those two operators the billions of dollars the previous Gov sought to pay them to decommission their networks & we're out to somewhere around .. lemme see ... if the whole NBN build is going to cost $37billion & you reduce that build by 28% then that's a savings of $10.36billion!

$10.36billion saved
Add the $2billion the previous Gov wanted to pay Optus to decommission it's HFC network then totals $12.36billion
The portion payable out of the $12billion to Telstra for a similar outcome is probably unknown .. but let's just call it the same as Optus for the sake of the argument; $2billion

Now we're totaling a 14.36billion saving

Add your $600million make it's around a $15billion savings ..

Should I continue?

Oops, I think I probably double dipped on the TPG dwelling saving & the 28% HFC coverage ... so did that bring it back to $47 per house passed? .. er nope!

-P







From: Jake Anderson [mailto:yahoo at vapourforge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:43 PM
To: Nick Gale
Cc: Paul Wallace; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB

$47 per house covered at completion (600M/12.7M).
yup you can run fibre to everybody's house for $47 more out of the governments pocket than running VDSL.
Keep that in mind when you buy your $150 vdsl modem ;->


On 17/09/13 21:37, Nick Gale wrote:
We do. On the current estimates the difference between the two plans FTTN/FTTH is what 600 million over the life of the project. Chump change over 10 years.

------------------------------------------------
Nick Gale

T: (08) 9425 5029
E: nick.gale at westernpower.com.au<mailto:nick.gale at westernpower.com.au>

E: nickgale at gmail.com<mailto:nickgale at gmail.com>

P Please consider the environment before you print this email.

On 17 September 2013 19:34, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au<mailto:paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>> wrote:
So who pays the interest Nick?



From: Nick Gale [mailto:nickgale at gmail.com<mailto:nickgale at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:13 PM
To: Paul Wallace
Cc: Robert Hudson; Tom Lanyon; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>

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

Actually you have an error there. In both models the tax payer pays nothing. The build is funded by govt debt.

Yes you end up paying it back but not through tax through service charges.

Nick Gale

E: nick.gale at westernpower.com.au<mailto:nick.gale at westernpower.com.au>

On 17/09/2013, at 5:04 PM, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:tom%2Bausnog at oneshoeco.com>> wrote:
On 17/09/2013, at 6:09 PM, Jake Anderson <yahoo at vapourforge.com<mailto:yahoo at vapourforge.com>> wrote:
> On 17/09/2013, at 5:14 PM, Nick Gale <nickgale at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog





_______________________________________________

AusNOG mailing list

AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto: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/20130917/4ec13041/attachment.html>