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" <[email protected]> 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:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *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:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Tony Wright > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 December 2013 5:36 PM > *To:* [email protected]; '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:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *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 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913fax > > SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com > > > > *From:* Tony Wright [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *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:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 December 2013 4:51 PM > *To:* [email protected]; ozDotNet > *Subject:* RE: NBN Petition > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *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 > > > > >
