news As first reported by Communications Day, Telecommunications sector veteran David Havyatt has been appointed temporary special advisor to Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy starting today.

The executive’s LinkedIn profile shows that he is currently the Principal at Havyatt Associates Pty Ltd, his own telecommunications regulatory and public affairs consultancy, and an analyst at DigEcon Research, which is the research wing of Havyatt Associates specializing in policy issues associated with the digital economy. He has also been Assistant Secretary at the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Havyatt has rich experience in corporate positions at AAPT, Hutchison Telecommunications, Telstra and Unwired Australia (now Vividwireless). He brings to his new role a great depth of knowledge of the communications sector, having served on the boards of the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF), the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), and chaired the Endeavour Credit Union. He has also been a parliamentary candidate for the Australian Democrats.

Havyatt has been known to be a straight shooter who does not mince words. In an ITNews column in September this year, he was vocal in his censuring of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 2011 in which Senator Brown is proposing a restriction on the construction of mobile towers. Indicating that the new position would call for a more politically correct stance, Havyatt admits in his farewell post on his outspoken blog Anything Goes that, “Writing a blog is inconsistent with the role.”

Havyatt Associates provides services on regulatory policies, regulatory affairs, compliance and disputes, and it is this expertise that Conroy would want to tap into to help set new regulatory standards in the digital era.

opinion/analysis
David Havyatt is one of the executives that I most respect in Australia’s telecommunications sector. He knows virtually everything and everyone, and has, in the past half-decade that I’ve seen in him in action, never been afraid to speak his mind about everything going on. What’s more, he has a fine, analytical mind and a scalpel-like wit, which he regularly applies to topics ranging across the whole telco sector and beyond — especially into lefty politics.

Will he be able to continue speaking the truth as he’s working alongside our sometimes-feisty and demanding Communications Minister? It’ll be interesting to see how things go. Personally I wouldn’t have picked Havyatt as someone that Conroy would hire, but then again, he’s dealing with some fairly complex issues at the moment — issues that Havyatt has a deep understanding of.

Image credit: David Havyatt. Opinion/analysis by Renai LeMay

Related posts:

1. Conroy releases key telco reforms
2. Conroy mocks IT portfolio “campaign”
3. Insider Robin Payne appointed NBN Co CFO
4. Telstra NBN prices aren’t final: Conroy
5. Turnbull has no NBN plan, says Conroy

Tweet

1. Michael Wyres
   Posted 12/12/2011 at 9:47 am | Permalink | Reply

   A little out of left field, but agree that he’ll excel in such a role.

   • toshP300
     Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:08 am | Permalink | Reply

     “a little out of LEFT field”….

     well said.

     what’s so surprising about Conroy hiring Mr H — he’s been a vocal defender of Labor’s NBN.

     • Michael Wyres
       Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:17 am | Permalink | Reply

       Duh…you really think he’ll hire someone who’s against it?

       Worst. Comment. Ever.

       • toshP300
         Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:41 am | Permalink | Reply

         Penchant. For. Self. Emphasis.

         • Michael Wyres
           Posted 12/12/2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

           Most. Obvious. Troll. Ever.

           :o)

           • toshP300
             Posted 12/12/2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

             only thing that will save Labor’s NBN is a khaki election.

             how handy is the Australian Association of VoIP Consultants at provoking international incidents?

             ^.-

             • Noddy
               Posted 12/12/2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

               Burn them witches!

             • Noddy
               Posted 12/12/2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

               Actually, seriously. You seem anti NBN, and any communication player other than Telstra. Then you say you would not buy Telstra shares for your dog. Why is it you want Telstra to maintain exclusive control of Australian communications? Not only that but want them released from having to provide any services to unprofitable areas?

               • toshP300
                 Posted 12/12/2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

                 *Why is it you want Telstra to maintain exclusive control of Australian communications? Not only that but want them released from having to provide any services to unprofitable areas?*

                 i never said that. worst form of trolling is to put words into other people’s mouths.

                 the self-serving demonising of Telstra by sections of the industry who’s only real interest is their bottomline and the political push for a radical and draconian NBNco-style of “industry reform” are closely-intertwined.

                 i/ cherry-pickers like Optus & Co don’t really care whether FTTP or FTTN gets rolled out. all they really care about is structural separation of Telstra or maximum dismemberment of their major competitor. they would even welcome forced divestment of HFC, Foxtel and/or mobile assets. that’s why none of the big players in the CCC have condemned Malcolm’s push for FTTN; conversely, iiNet is publicly endorsing it as the most cost-effective solution; just as long as they get structural separation which is what they are really after.

                 ii/ from DBCDE’s point of view, (IMHO) all they really care about is guaranteeing that regional/rural Australia gets the same communications infrastructure upgrades as metro. that’s why they came up with this NBNco concept with watertight uniform wholesale pricing, i.e rolling back all the industry reforms and reinstating cross-subsidies that were removed 10 years ago and described by the ACCC themselves in report after report as economically-inefficient. it’s all about pursuing ideological goals of “equity in social access to (white elephant) infrastructure”. and they think slapping on the burden of “uniform wholesale pricing” on metro markets will pay for regional fibre.

                 and this leaves Telstra stuck in the middle of this political football, where on one side, you have the industry of cherrypickers calling for structural separation for purely selfish corporate motives (to gain retail market share) and, on the other side, you have the Labor politicians taking advantage of this false construct of the “Telstra bogeyman” to justify draconian and radical policies such as renationalising the fixed-line infrastructure and imposing a legislated monopoly. Conroy himself admitted in 2010 Senate Estimates he never previously advocated structural separation of Telstra… the current plans for structural separation are a convenient by-product of having to shutdown the copper network to make NBNco viable.

                 this is why the “demonising of Telstra” is central to how this NBN debate has evolved with different parties using it for different reasons to pursue their own selfish ends. so, a deconstruction of this debate full of mixed motives necessarily involves deconstructing the “Telstra bogeyman” myth.

                 • Noddy
                   Posted 12/12/2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

                   Sorry if I misunderstood your position. But when you keep saying it’s unfair that others cherry pick when Telstra can’t I get that impression. The reason Telstra can’t was it was a condition of their sale and it seems too late to cry unfair. If Telstra weren’t encumbered this way they would either not have been sold or been sold at a much higher price. If sold for a higher price some compensation would be required for companies to put infrastructure in non profitable areas (as there was for a while).
                   The structural seperation of Telstra only became necessary when they seemed unable to provide access to the network in a fair fashion (as required under terms of their sale). When they started selling retail plans with prices lower than wholesale they opened themselves up to regulation.
                   “slapping on the burden of “uniform wholesale pricing” on metro markets will pay for regional fibre.”
                   Aren’t we doing that already for copper? I guess comes down to ideology and other areas of government planning. Decentralisation is still something that a lot of people want. It is hard to get people to move out of cities without supplying equivalent or even trying to swupply adequate services.
                   I don’t think of Telstra as a bogey man. But they are a company sold with conditions. Conditions they should honor. Any particular reason you believe they shouldn’t or that they have honoured them? Was it fair selling retail cheaper than wholesale?

                   • toshP300
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink |

                     *The structural seperation of Telstra only became necessary when they seemed unable to provide access to the network in a fair fashion (as required under terms of their sale).*

                     ISPs are free to build backhaul to every one of Telstra’s 5000 exchanges and access the copper via ULL which is available at every one of those exchanges. both the cost of building backhaul to these exchanges and the cost of ULL in the different bands are completely beyond Telstra’s influence and control. it’s not Telstra’s fault that ISPs only want to cherry-pick certain lucrative markets and avoid serving the rest. competitor ISPs having 65% of the metro market share – if Telstra has tried to block competitor entry, they’ve done a pretty shit job.

                     *When they started selling retail plans with prices lower than wholesale they opened themselves up to regulation.*

                     cherrypicking ISPs don’t want to build backhaul and pay the high ULL rates (set by the ACCC) to access the less lucrative markets in the higher ULL bands. this is “fine”. however, they then expect Telstra to wholesale access to them via the TW bitstream product at prices akin to band 2 ULL rates. but this makes a mockery of the ACCC’s steep, upward-sloping ULL curve because this ULL curve is supposed to reflect Telstra’s cost base (higher cost in regional areas). if Telstra ends up only earning rental rates at the bottom of the curve, what’s the point of having a steep curve and saying this is your actual cost curve?

                     *Decentralisation is still something that a lot of people want. It is hard to get people to move out of cities without supplying equivalent or even trying to swupply adequate services.*

                     state govts are doing the opposite. they are loosening building and planning laws and promoting high-density subdivisions and conversions in inner-city to discourage urban sprawl. building or extending infrastructure to outer-suburbs is very expensive when some inner-city services are already losing money.

                   • Noddy
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 7:15 pm | Permalink |

                     “if Telstra ends up only earning rental rates at the bottom of the curve, what’s the point of having a steep curve and saying this is your actual cost curve?”

                     Yet Telstra was selling retail in these areas at prices below this supposed cost curve. How can you afford to put in back haul and DSLAMs when your competitor prices their plans cheaper that you pay for ULL alone? It’s that forcing competition out of the market? If Telstra wholesale operated as set down in the condition of sale Telstra retail would be paying those same costs and therefore running at a loss on every country plan.

                     “building and planning laws and promoting high-density subdivisions and conversions in inner-city to discourage urban sprawl”
                     I wasn’t talking urban sprawl, that was never part of decentralisation. I am talking out having business in country areas. Citys like Bendigo, Ballarat, Horsham.

                   • Noddy
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink |

                     Here’s an example of pricing. My mother lives in a country area, she gets a small 10GB plan from Telstra for $19.95. Notice how Telstra prices don’t differentiate between city and country? Explain how an ISP could sell her a plan and make a profit.

                   • toshP300
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 8:52 pm | Permalink |

                     *Yet Telstra was selling retail in these areas at prices below this supposed cost curve. *

                     yes, they cross-subsidise at the retail level. these ISPs’ entire business model is built around cherry-picking the metro ULLs and operating on razor-thin margins. so, of course, they are unable to cross-subsidise. basically, the whole access pricing model is f–ked. that’s why the metro/regional cross-subsidy is embedded at the wholesale level under the NBN to prevent cherry-picking. that’s exactly what Telstra wanted, but the ACCC said, “no way.” but, somehow, NBNco is allowed to do what Telstra was barred from doing.

                   • Noddy
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:06 pm | Permalink |

                     I guess it comes down to the flat rate they want to charge. According to the reportfrom Telstra to the ACCC in June 2011, the average cost of a ULL is just over $24. If so selling a retail plan at $19.95 is going to be a big loser on average across the country. Especially when you add GST. They must be subsidising with the more expensive plans. That’s an average loss (if their own figures are real) of nearly $7 a month on just the ULL, DSLAM and backhaul would make that even higher.

                   • Noddy
                     Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:14 pm | Permalink |

                     Actually, scrap that. They also get the money for the phone, budget line with pensioner discount. Pretty damn tight but could make a dollar or two.

                   • Rob
                     Posted 13/12/2011 at 6:46 am | Permalink |

                     @ToshP300

                     “yes, they cross-subsidise at the retail level. these ISPs’ entire business model is built around cherry-picking the metro ULLs and operating on razor-thin margins. so, of course, they are unable to cross-subsidise. basically, the whole access pricing model is f–ked. that’s why the metro/regional cross-subsidy is embedded at the wholesale level under the NBN to prevent cherry-picking. that’s exactly what Telstra wanted, but the ACCC said, “no way.” but, somehow, NBNco is allowed to do what Telstra was barred from doing”.

                     But yet, even though the NBN will rid us of such a f-ked situation, which you even acknowledge, you still wish to return us right back there, by feverishly supporting the Coalition’s FTTN network and deriding the NBN?

                   • toshP300
                     Posted 13/12/2011 at 8:50 am | Permalink |

                     *But yet, even though the NBN will rid us of such a f-ked situation, which you even acknowledge, you still wish to return us right back there, by feverishly supporting the Coalition’s FTTN network and deriding the NBN?*

                     you have to differentiate between:

                     (i) the capital base of NBNco

                     (ii) the pricing mechanism for recovering the sunk capital

                     NBNco is massively overcapitalised. that is the biggest single objection to the whole NBN project. the fact that it is a government monopoly merely makes it worse. the generalities surrounding the pricing mechanism they have employed make sense in terms of maximising the chances of recovering the capital.

                     however, cross-subsidies are inefficient (as the ACCC has long recognised). building super-expensive infrastructure to serve sparsely-populated bush areas makes it even worse (i.e. increases the burden on metro markets). so, the best way to reduce the burden of cross-subsidies is for the Government to directly subsidise rural broadband. via this approach, uniform wholesale pricing will not create such a heavy burden on metro users and will minimise economic inefficiencies. this is precisely what the Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office of the Productivity Commission recommended in the recent report.

                   • Rob
                     Posted 13/12/2011 at 9:21 am | Permalink |

                     Ok then ToshP300. Rather than accept the NBN which will rid us of the regulatory quagmire you just spent umpteen comments deriding, because the NBN is Labor initiated and relinquishes Telstra’s monopoly, you’d prefer the f-ked, cherry picking parasite situation, after all.

             • Noddy
               Posted 12/12/2011 at 2:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

               And a short (10 lines max) answer that makes sense if you feel like answering.

     • Renai LeMay
       Posted 12/12/2011 at 10:22 am | Permalink | Reply

       I would say that Havyatt has his reservations about the NBN, as most people do — he hasn’t switched his brain off about the matter.

       • toshP300
         Posted 12/12/2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink | Reply

         Optus, iiNet and Internode have been hedging their bets all along…

         for example, in reaction to Malcolm’s NPC address, the general reaction is: “yes, that’s fine… the important thing is making sure Telstra is permanently dismembered via structural separation, everything else is negotiable…”

         none of them have come out and attacked the viability of FTTN like Mr H has on no less esteemed a forum as delimiter itself. (iiNet has said in a recent BizSpec interview FTTN is the most cost-effective solution.)

         note how Internode in the latest Commsday presentation was still pushing for the Government to fund the NBN like a general infrastructure project, i.e. bring part of the project cost onto the Federal Budget and not try to recover the full cost via wholesale access fees. the unspoken implication of this is that NBNco will face major challenges trying to recover the capital cost even with the Telstra and Optus deals.

         on the other hand, Mr H has completely dismissed any questions over the viability of NBNco as a stand-alone, commercial enterprise (i.e. all of the equity and debt funding will be repaid with interest as they fall due).

         Conroy + Mr H = NBN ideological bedfellows

         (also, both share a visceral distaste for Mr Henry E.)

         sorry, nothing surprising about his appointment.

         • Dean
           Posted 12/12/2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink | Reply

           Why should it be a surprise?

           To me, the only really surprising thing is the idea that Conroy would even consider an advisor necessary in the first place. He doesn’t seem like the type to take advice…

           • alain
             Posted 13/12/2011 at 8:32 am | Permalink | Reply

             Perhaps he and Gillard thought the NBN spin needed to be elevated above ‘ The Coalition will destroy the NBN’ and ‘ Nation Building’.

             Their new advisor knows more big techie thingo words.

             lol

             • Rob
               Posted 13/12/2011 at 8:45 am | Permalink | Reply

               Yes about time they had someone to counteract ‘white elephant and ‘hurting taxpayer’, spin.

               • Noddy
                 Posted 13/12/2011 at 9:09 am | Permalink | Reply

                 I wonder how much the Liberal idealism will hurt the taxpayer. Let private enterprise build a network for our nation. Duplicated structure in prime areas, waste. Competing in those areas each trying to get their investment utilised. Either competition will keep the prices low to consumers at the expense of the companies that paid for the multiple infrastructures. Bad for the company also means bad for the share holders and employees, Australia takes a hit there. If they play nicer with each other and don’t fight over supply they have no incentive to keep the prices low, consumer loses. Areas away from cities will not be serviced or require government susidies to have roll outs in their area (as was the case with ADSL). Australia loses. There is a high cost to a free market economy when you are trying to provide something for the whole country. It might be idealism causes a whole lot of pain. I’d rather see the so called communist model employed myself. Roll it out in a even handed way across the country. Set prices by regulation and then let is supply the population and hopefully paying back it’s cost over time than the Liberal idealist alternative. The alternative that sets companies whose goals are to extract the most money from the least investment fight across the country and somehow come up with a fair priced service to the whole country? Yer, right. That will only happen when the government starts giving them hand outs to service certain areas.
                 One thing that was brought up was various schemes that were a disaster for Labour. The insulation scheme, the schools scheme. What happened with them? The money was given out as payment and incentive to private enterprise to do the work. What happened? They hovered up as much money as possible, overcharged, underbuilt, a whole range of shonky business practices. Yer, hand out money all over the place to build a network for Australia. I am sure every companies goal would be to minimise the cost to the government and provide the best service at the lowest cost they could… oh sorry, I am not living in an idealism. They will do what compaies do, get as much money as possible with the least outlay and try to continue to get the highest return on it. Silly me. Oh well if that is the price we have to pay for Liberal idealism it’s got to be well worht it.

               • Noddy
                 Posted 13/12/2011 at 9:33 am | Permalink | Reply

                 Idealism and politics just shouldn’t shouldn’t so blind. “We build by hitting things with a hammer, we think that is best”, “We don’t like that, we build by cutting things with a saw”. Each trying to build a house will probably get there, though I wouldn’t want to buy the end result. But sticking to their idealistic way of doing the job is just no efficient. Idealism should bow to realism and use the method best suited for the job to achieve the best outcome.

       • alain
         Posted 13/12/2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

         @Renai

         ‘I would say that Havyatt has his reservations about the NBN, as most people do’

         He does? – jeez it must be hidden in the small print of some past article somewhere then, his media profile from what I have read is all about NBN support all the way, CBA is not required, FTTN is a waste of time etc etc.

         But of course if he does question any aspect of the NBN rollout (assuming we get to hear about it in the public domain anyway), Conroy will ignore the advice, like he does with any other advice contrary to the Labor political position on the NBN.

2. deteego
   Posted 12/12/2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink | Reply

   Mr Havyatt was about as impartial as a sponsor regarding the NBN, so this really aint a surprise

   • Rob
     Posted 12/12/2011 at 11:50 am | Permalink | Reply

     Or perhaps unlike some, Mr. Havyatt understands the NBN and has no political dead weight to carry.

     • deteego
       Posted 13/12/2011 at 12:37 am | Permalink | Reply

       Or, and much more realistically/likely, he is very biased supporter of the NBN

       Its why I stopped reading his articles on it news, most of them were just drivel (same deal with David Braue on ZDNet)

       • Rob
         Posted 13/12/2011 at 6:41 am | Permalink | Reply

         So rather than listen to all the information from both sides, so as to form an educated position, you just disregard any info, even from respected experts in their field such as David Havyatt, which you disagree with?

         • toshP300
           Posted 13/12/2011 at 9:00 am | Permalink | Reply

           deteego is correct. no exaggeration.

           to the naked eye, Mr H’s resume and credentials look “impressive” on the surface. but the stuff he writes for ITnews and on his blog is the biggest load of rubbish and pure drivel.

           a lot of it is clearly ideological and political. i expected more valuable insights from reading articles written by an industry insider, but i never got any.

           • Rob
             Posted 13/12/2011 at 9:17 am | Permalink | Reply

             Funny you two having the exact same view about Mr Havyatt and even both used the word drivel.

             Seems it’s unanimous then, he must be an honest man, if you guys dislike him so, because frankly, I consider what I have read from you too, the actual drivel.

         • deteego
           Posted 14/12/2011 at 7:33 am | Permalink | Reply

           No I prefer to read journalists who provide a more balanced opinion, such as Renai or Dobbie from ZDNet.

           I mean I could read information from zealots, but it would be a waste of my time

           • Rob
             Posted 14/12/2011 at 7:55 am | Permalink | Reply

             And therein lies the problem.

             If info is automatically ignored as being biased by anyone, how will they ever leanr anything but that which they already know?

             Which incidentally, may be flawed.

             It demonstrates a close mind and an unwillingness to accept that another could actually know more than oneself.

             http://www.havyatt.com.au/about_DH.htm

             Having read this short blurb, I’m sure both Renai and Phil would agree that in relation to Telecommunications specifically, David Havyatt, is an expert in this field, whereas they, perhaps modestly would admit to being experts in their field, IT Journalism.

3. Richo
   Posted 13/12/2011 at 3:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

   I worked with David Havyatt for a number of years – he knows his onions, and is nobody’s patsy