Interesting that you mention wastage in infrastructure. Isn’t that all contracted out?

Agreed we need this but outsourcing to a company that have a proven track record in Asia would have been a better move.

We will see…

Remember how long it took the record companies to realise pretty much the same thing while their business model was being ravaged by pirates. And then it was something from the computer industry itself — iTunes — which delivered salvation.

Problem is imo Markie, these people are entrenched in the old ways, where they have made their $b’s and just want it to keep ticking over with minimal effort.

The print media (especially with their pay TV arms) as such, find the NBN a threat, rather than like Telstra (of all unlikely candidates) who are finding new ways to profit whilst offloading costly obsolescence!

Then of course we have the political aspect of government built?

We’ve already seen them hone in on the increase in cost and the hold-ups, whilst bluntly refusing to even factor why these have occured (exactly as predicted they would days before…LOL).. dear oh dear.

So NBNCo really can’t win and never will.

The same old whingers will always, even if completed, paid for and a complete success, still complain that the money would have been better spent here or there, the speeds aren’t that fast after all, there’s no value and they will of course say it was all a ‘wasteful white elephant’.

As you say, 3.9% isnt a cost blowout, its an accepted variation on the original estimate. Its so far within reasonable limits its not funny. Even a 10% increase in costs isnt a huge deal. Not when plenty of other projects, both public and private, blowout to the tunr of 100% or more.

The ATO’s change program was originally expected to cost about $400m, yet in the end cost nearly $900m… Thats what a blowout is refering to, not a paltry 4% increase above original guesses.

If anything, 3.9% should be applauded for being so close. It reflects the attention put into the original plan, and how much effort went into getting things right before a single step was taken. It demonstrates that The Plan is based on information that can be relied on, something you cant say about a lot of other projects…

“a bursting of a container (as a tire) by pressure of the contents on a weak spot”
Ignoring the “weak spot”, I don’t think 3.9% increase in pressure would burst a tire.

“an uncontrolled eruption of an oil or gas well”
I don’t see the increase in expenditure on the NBN as “uncontrolled”. This I think this is the most important comparison.

The term “blowout”, really does seems inappropriate.

It comes from the term that is used to signify what happens in oil drilling when the cap on the well gives way. Like BP in the Gulf a couple of years ago.

It describes huge amounts of oil spurting out and the complete destruction of any equipment on top of the well. In terms of in finances, It’s used to describe huge cost overruns….I’m not sure about you, but I’m pretty sure 3.9% increase of costs over 10 years couldn’t be considered a blowout…..the term was first used to describe this Corporate Plan by…..drumroll…..The Australian!

*Doesnt even bother looking surprised*

You could see the negative spin forming after the first idiot from the Australian asked his questions at the press conference. He just wouldn’t let it go….

I have been involved in many Telecommunications infrastructure builds over the years and a 10% cost over-run potential is built into most build contracts.
As for a six month time over-run is a project spanning a decade, you are joking right?

Given the unknown factors present at the start of this project, the only word to describe how close practice is to projections trult is amazing.

Any group which spouts a politicised position simultaneously claiming that NBN is costing too much, is not needed, is taking too long to build, will be supplanted by new technology ‘in a few years’, will be aborted as soon as they take power, and is not being rolled out fast enough or widely enough – is lacking in more than a bit of comprehension.

The ‘build drop’ is opt out but the connection to the actual network (receiving and having an NTD connected) is still opt in.