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

[Paul Wallace]

Probably mostly a sustainable argument Paul ... :)

... but still, the Gov would be delighted to see the ALP forced into triggering a 'double dissolution' in the early days (by voting down fresh reversal legislation obviously)...  you'd have to think they would be at short odds to pick up some extra seats (Sophie Mirabella would be delighted to have another run) & so the prospect of going again so early & whilst their leadership is vacant would be anathema to Labour.

I think that an attempt by the Gov to reverse this utterly regressive legislation would be both meritorious as well as a good strategy to force Labour into a corner.

Turnbull is a Barrister by profession ... he'll be all over this legislation so don't be surprised if they trot out reversal legislation very early on.

-P







From: Paul Brooks [mailto:pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:35 PM
To: Paul Wallace
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB

On 17/09/2013 10:28 PM, Paul Wallace wrote:

There's only ONE question I'm interested in at the mo ... namely, whether the Government will allow one of its departments to tell TPG that their intention to roll out a FTTB network is in breach!

Its not in breach - it complies. We went over that earlier in the evening. Given the way directors and lawyers feel about ASX announcements, I suspect they have fairly solid idea of precisely how and why what they are doing is perfectly legal and compliant with the relevant legislation.
There are exemptions, caveats and loopholes, and the TPG/PIPE network as pre-existing infrastructure seems to fits right through them. (The caveats and loopholes had to be there to avoid issues of "sovereign risk" and avoid being forced to compensate existing infrastructure owners, a la the Kerrigan defence). Boiled down - you can't build (much) new stuff, but you can use stuff that was already built - providing you don't change it (much).
(IANAL, this isn't formal legal advice - but I can read the Act, and so should can everyone else)

P.





















On 17/09/2013, at 10:15 PM, "Tony" <td_miles at yahoo.com><mailto:td_miles at yahoo.com> wrote:







________________________________

From: Nick Gale <nickgale at gmail.com><mailto:nickgale at gmail.com>



I really want to see the review Turnbull does. I would like to see the difference in maintenance and operation costs between FTTN and FTTP to see just how much it costs to maintain all the powered nodes and copper. I think that would be enlightening especially if you extrapolate over the 50 - 70 year lifespan you get out of a full fibre deployment.







I wouldn't hold your breath. The cynic in me suggests that it won't be done independently and the answers/conclusions that it comes to will reflect what Turnbull wants it to say. If it was being done properly it'd take at least half of the allocated 60 days just to get the terms of reference sorted out.



_______________________________________________

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/20130917/59bac7df/attachment.html>