Actually, former telecommunications infrastructure economics analyst. He used to do that for Reuters, Bridge and HP, but now he is an environmentalist.
T. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Cooney Sent: Friday, 13 December 2013 9:00 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: NBN Petition You're lucky to have a telecommunications infrastructure economics analyst in the family to advise you on these matters. On Dec 13, 2013 7:57 AM, "Tony Wright" <tonyw...@gmail.com <mailto:tonyw...@gmail.com> > wrote: It’s actually worse than that Ken. My brother has just gone through the strategic review and done a like for like comparison. To make the two reviews comparable, he applied the same contingency to FTTP that Malcolm’s review applied to FTTN (10% instead of 20%.) There is no justification for different contingency levels, given that there is no FTTN experience as yet. In fact, for the same reason, FTTN should have a higher contingency and not the other way round. Doing that, the cost of FTTP drops to $58 billion dollars. Secondly, he took the HFC serviced premises out for a true like for like comparison. This dropped the FTTP price by around $15 to $20 billion. $58 billion - $15 billion = $43 billion. Or, roughly the cost of the FTTN! It seems strange, does it not, that a direct comparison was not made? From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> ] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 9:19 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: NBN Petition That’s in the Strategic Review (as a scenario on page 100). How will that 1gbps be delivered? By replacing everything with FTTP. Apparently the cost of that will be $4bn (in NPV terms) than doing it right now. Every upgrade scenario on that page calls for replacing substantial chunks of the current proposal with new stuff. Effectively meaning most of what Turnbull’s proposing today will simply be temporary. Cheers Ken From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 5:36 PM To: g...@greglow.com <mailto:g...@greglow.com> ; 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: NBN Petition Come on, Malcolm has promised you 1Gbps by 2030, what more could you want? (Meanwhile, my bro’ should be enjoying his 1Gbps early next year, unless they decide to crush that delivery for political reasons.) From: GregAtGregLowDotCom [mailto:g...@greglow.com] Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 5:14 PM To: 'Tony Wright'; 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: NBN Petition I love the idea of the country building infrastructure. It’s the speed of public projects here that concerns me. For example, we’ve been talking about high-speed rail for how long? China started planning in the early 1990’s and by 2015 looks like they will have completed 18,000 km of high-speed rail. We’re talking about a project (Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra) of what? About 1700km ? And first train to run in the 2060’s? Clearly we have a different situation to them but is that really the best we can do? Have it finished in time to probably made obsolete by some other technology? I’ve travelled on quite a few high-speed rail systems but it’s hard to imagine that many of them were planned 60 or so years ago. Mind you, it would still beat the Redcliffe rail link in Brisbane. At least the current QLD govt has let a project that should see it being complete in 2016. Given it was first gazetted in QLD parliament in 1895 (no typo there), that’s been quite a project. Regards, Greg Dr Greg Low 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 <tel:%2B61%20419201410> mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 <tel:%2B61%203%208676%204913> fax SQL Down Under | Web: <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com From: Tony Wright [mailto:tonyw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 5:01 PM To: 'ozDotNet'; GregAtGregLowDotCom Subject: RE: NBN Petition Of course, I’m interested in why they are so interested in building non-productive infrastructure, such as roads, that we spend, maybe 1 hour a day on, yet we often spend 8+ hours of our time, many of them productive (for some of us, anyway), on computers, yet they won’t invest in a productive venture. One makes a profit for the country and is in need of an upgrade (NBN/Internet). The other is generally good enough and throwing more money at it isn’t going to give us much of a return and certainly not foreign money (Roads). From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 4:51 PM To: g...@greglow.com <mailto:g...@greglow.com> ; ozDotNet Subject: RE: NBN Petition From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of GregAtGregLowDotCom Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2013 4:38 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: NBN Petition If you were trying to run a commercial business based on rolling out an NBN, where would you start? Would it really be the back of Ballarat and Tamworth or would you roll it out in high-density areas in Sydney/Melbourne that are already screaming for it? A political or public service might do the former when they are spending other peoples’ money. A business would do the latter. I guess it would depend on a lot of things. I’m not an expert on rolling out telecoms infrastructure, but I guess I’d need to ensure that I had good information and processes first, so starting in less complex areas might make sense. Secondly, I guess it isn’t cheap cabling older apartment blocks in inner-city Sydney – they were built in the 1920s through 1970s, and probably have no Ethernet cabling in the building. The cost of retrofitting these buildings even just for HFC has meant that the majority aren’t connected. If I was also mandated to cover everyone in the country, then I’d be covering all the new greenfields sites, so that they aren’t reworked. >From what I understand, it isn’t just sites in Tamworth that are being >covered, but some in metropolitan areas as well. I guess, if this was a commercial operation, it would be done differently. But I don’t know the whole picture (and I doubt you do either). And as I said before, we may have to accept some compromises. If each one of us had our own caveats on providing our support for this project based on implementation details, nothing would be done. You’re insisting on more commercial savvy, and the next person will insist that the priority should be those people who don’t have access to any comparable technology (i.e. all those on RIMs and pair-gain and whatnot that can’t get ADSL2/ADSL today) Cheers Ken
