[AusNOG] Complexity is not an excuse for an industry-wide cop-out (was Re: Conroy quit.)

[Alan Maher]

The nature of the beast is that XYZ large company tenders for a contract to
provide connections to a certain area.
Then in turn, they sub contract to various other smaller players at a 
rate that
ensures they make a profit, and the little guys wear all the risk.
This is normal in construction generally.
When the little guy strikes a problem, the big guy says "so what?"
And the little guy goes under, or walks away.
Quality? I don't think so.


On 20/09/2016 7:59 p.m., Jared Brown wrote:
>> From: "Alan Maher"
>>
>> Anyone who has visited NZ might have a clue that the topography ensures that
>> the cost of dragging any kind of cable internally is expensive.
>    While undoubtably true, this topography premium certainly should be included in the regulated rate for local loop charges. My question basically boils down to, are there any market structure (failures) similar to Australia that structurally make it unfeasible to have good broadband in New Zealand for $55(ish) plus a possible overseas bandwidth premium? The cost of the local loop does not appear to be one.
>   
>> Who ever is cheapest wins the job, and whether they perform, or screw
>> up, is something that is not visible to the consumer.
>    That sounds like a failure of procurement. Is the government agency lacking in oversight or qualifying bidders, or is this just a case of occasional nuisances that gets sorted in the background once the government catches up on the shoddy work being done and gives the contractor the boot? Or is the government losing money on the crappy installs? You'd think there'd be both oversight, inspections and proper acceptance reviews of work delivered plus penalties for non-conformance and tardiness.
>
>
> Jared


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus