On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 at 15:22 Tony Wright <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote: > That was the ramp up phase though. It was always going to take some time > to ramp up. Look at what the alternative gave us: a two year delay and a > network that's not fit for purpose. >
Ultimately the blame for why you didn't get fibre to the everywhere lies with a combination of overly optimistic project assumptions by the government and gross incompetence on Quigley's part. As CEO the buck stops with him. 5,000 premises per day fibre lead in installations was never going to happen. The period from the start of the project to Quigley's self-assignment on gardening leave ran for four years - which is a very long time. In that time, he achieved very little and ran the number of SC0 premises through the roof. Their continued insistence of focusing on premises past instead of premises serviceable was what put the bullets in the gun that killed them If you listen to Simon Hackett's talk here: https://simonhackett.com/2013/07/17/nbn-fibre-on-a-copper-budget/ He goes into some depth on the extent of the issues - and some of them were particularly egregious - Quigley's personal best is having a team designing and building the wireless network portions with radio gear that uses different spectrum to the spectrum they had bought off the government (and they are the government). If Quigley had performed and hit his numbers, the project would have continued and it would have been political suicide to upset the apple cart. Unfortunately for the fibre boosters, Quigley and the government of the day put the gun to their own head. > Even if they kept the old network and simply rolled it out slower we would > have been better off. > [ ... ] You're right if you ignore opportunity cost. The implementation of the legislation for the NBN largely froze out private investment. David. -- David Connors da...@connors.com | @davidconnors | https://t.me/davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363
