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

[Joshua D'Alton]

A recent update:
http://delimiter.com.au/2014/02/05/turnbull-sends-tpg-share-price-tailspin/

I haven't been able to determine the legal side yet, but perhaps some
others have given the share price, or maybe just a bunch of punters making
assumptions..


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> ZZZ Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2013 6:25 AM
> *To:* Bevan Slattery; Robert Hudson; Paul Wallace
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> I think those who yearn for a government owned telecommunications monopoly
> probably haven't experienced one, and don't know the difference that having
>  competition has made in regards to service costs, diversity of different
> services, both in variety and range of quality (silver service down to take
> away), and other economic benefits such as employment in the industry,
> vendor opportunity etc.. Ausnog itself, and the economic benefits the
> conference provides, wouldn't exist in a government telecommunications
> monopoly environment, so these conversations and debates wouldn't even be
> occurring.
>
>
>
>
>
> (Regarding PMG, I've recently seen people who remember it saying that it
> stood for "Public Money Grabbers".)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au>
> *To:* Robert Hudson <hudrob at gmail.com>; Paul Wallace <
> paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 September 2013 10:51 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We'll do our own FTTB
>
>
>
> ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR REPORTERS***
>
>
>
> > But take a look at the HFC rollout maps, and tell me just how successful
> market forces have been in providing decent infrastructure to everyone.
>
>
>
> Do you care to provide an understanding of the history of how this
> occurred?  (read below)
>
> > Take a look at the inequality of access to decent telecommunications
> infrastructure provided by an organisation who are legally obligated to
> provide fair access for all (and still fail miserably to do so).
>
> It seems you are arguing that where there is no competition the standard
> of service often fails to keep pace/be inferior (which I agree with).  So
> I'm not sure what your argument is.
>
> > How well has the model you propose worked so far? Really?
>
> Bandwidth to Australia in 2000 cost $6,000/mbps.  TCNZ, Optus and Verizon
> risked $1.1B to build Southern Cross.  Competition ensued.  Bandwidth
> dropped to $2,000 in 12 months and some 8 years later to $250/mbps in a
> comfy duopoly.  PPC-1 was built and bandwidth dropped to $60/Mbps within 24
> months.  Wholesale for big bandwidth is now (close) to sub $10/Mbps.  I
> expect that with the new submarine cable systems coming online in the next
> 3 years transit/bandwidth will be around $1/Mbps within 5 years.
>
>
>
> It's important to note the previous NBN Co CVC fee was $20/Mbps from the
> house to the POI and increasing.  That is 2000% more than international
> bandwidth costs before half the network is deployed...
>
>
>
> There was a Government owned monopoly.  Then there were entrepreneurs who
> committed to invest in infrastructure where they could afford to in order
> to improve the value for you, the punter.  Names like Malone, Teoh,
> Hackett, Marburg, Preen, Baxter, Bhartia, Ashton, Kestelman and companies
> like AAPT, Powertel, Primus, Internode, iiNet, Vodafone, 3, RequestDSL,
> Eftel, BigAir, Optus, TPG, Netspace, Westnet, IP1, Amcom, Comindico, PIPE
> Networks, Nextgen Networks have all invested money to deliver greater value
> and competition to the public.
>
>
>
> If it wasn't for Optus committing Billion$ to build the original HFC
> network to bypass the last mile monopoly then there would probably be no
> HFC network at all.  Sadly at the time the Government owned
> telecommunication company engaged in "van following" to overbuild the
> competing carrier (Optus) and halt their progress.  It worked.
>
>
>
> And Telstra's commitment and build out of NEXTG was remarkable and leading.
>
>
>
> It was competition from carriers committed to building DSLAM's that saw
> the HFC networks reduce their pricing as ADSL became more available and
> more importantly more AFFORDABLE.  It took Internode, iiNet, TPG, Primus,
> Netspace, Eftel etc. to offer auto-trained ADSL2+ before others provided
> same and they ended up providing that nationally.  For a shareholder based
> company to invest they have a higher standard and level of return to
> achieve, because for said companies the risks are higher and the Directors
> could go to jail if they get it wrong.
>
>
>
> > And again - the NBN does *not* cost us (the nation) $37b. Or even $90b
> if you choose to believe Turnbull's build costs.
>
>
>
> Sorry but it does "cost" money.  However, what determines whether this
> cost is an expense or an investment is the realistic and real prospect of
> returns.  Now I personally believe that the cost to construct is
> substantially higher than the $37B.  But hey what would I know?  I also
> think the commercial "return" would not be commercial.  My guess would be
> somewhere around 3%-4% with the CVC fee at the current $20/Mbps levels.
>  I'm not saying that this is not acceptable (or acceptable), I'm just
> saying that this is realistic.  I also acknowledge there is a cost to
> maintain the copper.  I'm not sure what that is, but there is also a cost
> to maintain the fibre (considerably less though).
>
> > It costs us the interest on those amounts, but only until the loans are
> paid back/bonds mature (and the rates are stupidly low)- and then the
> country owns a modern, high tech infrastructure that will drive the nation
> forward.
>
> There are numerous examples of government investment in infrastructure
> with the expectations of commercial returns - returns that never eventuated
> and investments that were written down or written off (Aussat?).  It is
> only an investment until it proves to not yield a return.  Some pop and
> some don't.   The deployment time for a FttP will take at least 9 years so
> it will be sometime to do so.  Also a CVC fee of $20/Mbps is counter
> productive and a direct imposition to reduce the economic benefit of the
> FttP investment.  Again I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm just
> saying people need to be realistic and the CVC needs to either go , or be
> drastically reduced - that will impact yield (by how much?).  Let's not get
> started on the PoI's...
>
>
>
> As for the FttN NBN the reality is that Telstra is the most logical
> candidate to roll it out.  So TPG either have to wait for the (almost)
> inevitable mid-span copper cut or take much of the risk out of play for
> many of their subscribers.  They chose the later.  It's not "cherry
> picking" it's common sense.
>
>
>
> I'm not going to advocate loudly it should be one technology or another,
> but those on this list not paying $79/month for an ADSL1 256kbps/64kbps
> connection with a 300MB monthly download quota should perhaps respect what
> competitive infrastructure investment delivers.  The whole "government
> owned telecommunications infrastructure monopoly protected by legislation"
> has been done before it was called the Post Master General and it sucked...
>  Big time.
>
>
>
> [b]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140213/2c1287b0/attachment.html>