news Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has mocked the tenure of outgoing NBN Co chief Mike Quigley in leading the National Broadband Network Company, comparing the respected executive to the “Captain of the Titanic” in what Turnbull claimed was an inability to get the job done with respect to the NBN.
A former global Alcatel-Lucent executive of 30-years standing, Quigley led NBN Co from mid-2009, when he was appointed as its first employee, through to the September Federal Election. Slightly after that point, he retired, with the Coalition appointing former Telstra and Optus chief executive Ziggy Switkowski to fill his shoes temporarily as executive chairman, until a permanent replacement is found.
Last week, Quigley gave a wide-ranging speech to TelSoc, a society focused on the telecommunications industry which hosts regular networking activities and lectures. At the event, held in Telstra’s offices in Sydney’s CBD, the executive was presented with the Charles Todd Medal for “outstanding services to telecommunications in Australia”. The executive is widely considered one of the most respected Australian telecommunications executives, due both to his time at NBN Co as well as his time at Alcatel-Lucent. The full speech is available online, along with PowerPoint slides Quigley used at the event.
Both sides of politics generally consider the rollout model of the NBN to have broadly failed, with its external contractor model at the heart of the problem. Quigley acknowledged this in his speech. However, the executive also outlined a number of other accomplishments which he felt NBN Co achieved during his four years leading the company.
They include, in Quigley’s words: Building from scratch a company of close to 3000 people with all of the processes and systems needed; Launching a successful Interim Satellite service; Building a Long Term Satellite solution that is on schedule and on budget for services beginning in mid 2015; Rolling out a Fixed Wireless network; Building a Transit Network to support all access technologies, which is on budget and on schedule for completion by 2015; and the Development of OSS/BSS IT systems that have been proven to function at scale together with the establishment of a National Test Facility and a Network Operations Centre.
In addition, Quigley noted that NBN Co had successfully developed and launched a suite of Products covered by NBN Co’s wholesale agreements; Getting close to the finalisation of a 27-year Special Access Undertaking agreement; Building a Greenfields fibre capability that can complete more than 30 new developments a week, anywhere in the country; Building a Customer Connect capability that had connected more than 100,000 end users and which was rapidly growing the ability to deal with with the exceptionally high take-up rates that were being experienced; And a growing capability to build the [local network/distribution network] component of the Brownfields network at a cost that preserves the integrity of NBN Co’s financial plan.
Quigley finished his speech by advising the company’s new management to get on with the job of fulfilling the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node vision for the project and not to politicise it further. He noted that the project would have been more successful had it enjoyed bipartisan support from both the Coalition and Labor.
In addition, in a separate interview with The Guardian Australia, Quigley stated that it was his opinion that Labor’s version of the NBN was “one hurdle” away from being on track to be completed on budget and on time.
Quigley told the publication that the last big hurdle was finalising contracts for digging holes for the NBN infrastructure. “I expected the most difficult part of the project to be the huge IT systems we have to deal with – I didn’t think we were going to have a problem with digging holes in the ground,” he said.
Speaking in Parliament last week (YouTube video here), Turnbull, who has been a long-standing critic of Quigley dating back to his appointment as Shadow Minister three years ago, said that one of the problems with the NBN in regions such as Townsville was that the previous Labor administration, “for purely ideological reasons”, refused to allow NBN Co to use Fibre to the Basement-based NBN rollout mechanisms, forcing the network to use an almost universal Fibre to the Premises rollout scheme.
“This is pure ideology,” said Turnbull. “As a consequence, nearly half of all the premises in Townsville that are supposedly passed with NBN fibre cannot connect at all.”
“The Labor Party has often struggled with getting over these final hurdles, such as actually connecting people to the network. So imagine my surprise yesterday when the former NBN Co CEO said, ‘Were it not for one more problem and the network could have been built on time and on budget.’ He said, ‘I didn’t think we were going to have a problem with digging holes in the ground,'” said Turnbull.
“Given that the project involved digging holes in every street and every front garden in Australia, it is remarkable this problem came as a surprise. It does cause me to wonder what the proponents of other mismanaged ventures could have said as they reflected on the failures: ‘I didn’t think we would have problems with icebergs’—captain of the Titanic. ‘I didn’t think we would have a problem with frostbite’—Napoleon.”
Speaking in Parliament after Turnbull, Shadow Assistant Communications Minister Michelle Rowland took Turnbull to task for his repeated attacks on Quigley over the years.
“I do want to mention—and it was mentioned in question time today—the Minister attacking Mike Quigley yet again,” said Rowland. “He has a habit of doing that, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as I am sure you well know, having been a member of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network with me in the previous parliament.”
Rowland said she did not want to attack NBN Co’s new executive chairman, Switkowski. However, the MP questioned Turnbull’s judgement in appointing Switkowski. Rowland pointed out that Switkowski had been approached by Turnbull for potential assistance with the NBN “well before the election”.
“He also confirmed that he worked at NBN Co. now for three and a half days a week,” Rowland said, highlighting Switkowski’s divided commitments. “How much does three and a half days a week make per month? He is making $50,000 a month. I know that is beer money—Bollinger money—for the minister, but for the rest of us it is not an insignificant amount.”
Turnbull has previously attacked Quigley a number of times in public, seemingly with no justification. On several occasions the MP sharply criticised Quigley’s involvement with his previous employer Alcatel-Lucent, over corruption allegations in South America. However, it was shown that Quigley had no connection with the allegations.
On another occasion in July this year, Turnbull erroneously claimed Quigley had been “fired” from his role as NBN Co chief executive, despite the fact that the executive had actually retired from his role. The comments appeared to leave the Liberal MP open to the possibility of defamation action due to damage to Quigley’s reputation.
opinion/analysis
The difference between Mike Quigley and Malcolm Turnbull could not have been be more starkly displayed last week.
The politely spoken and dignified Quigley laid out, in extreme technical detail, what he thought NBN Co had accomplished over his time leading the company. He did so to a technical audience, who he no doubt hoped to pass on some lessons to. He acknowledged NBN Co’s mistakes. And he exhorted NBN Co’s team to support the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node-based policy.
In response, Minister Turnbull mocked Quigley in Federal Parliament, using the highest-profile venue available to him, comparing the respected executive to the Captain of the Titanic and accusing him of naivity when it came to the NBN project. Turnbull further did not acknowledge any of Quigley’s accomplishments in virtually single-handedly setting up the NBN Co that exists today. You know. The NBN Co which will be delivering Turnbull’s NBN policy.
None of this is a surprise. Turnbull’s behaviour towards Quigley over the past three years has been nothing short of appalling. He has slandered the executive at every opportunity, tried to embarrass and discredit him, put him under extreme amounts of pressure, and even threatened to have him removed, should he not resign of his own accord under a Coalition Government. It’s probably a good thing Quigley retired when he did.
In response, Quigley has gotten on with the job and offered Turnbull nothing but politeness. Never once, that I’ve seen, has he grown angry towards the Member for Wentworth or lost his temper. Instead, he offered Turnbull private briefings on the NBN (which Turnbull never took up) and even pushed NBN Co’s staff to support Turnbull’s rival policy in Government.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. Let’s see who can deploy the NBN better. Quigley had four years to set up the project. He failed on some fronts but succeeded on many others. In the process, he kept his dignity intact and earned the undying respect of most of Australia’s technology community. Whether you agree that it’s justified or not, Quigley’s name is always spoken in my hearing by technical people with respect. Almost universally, those same people speak Turnbull’s name with frustration and anger … sometimes contempt.
Let’s see whether Turnbull can do better than Quigley over the next four years and earn that respect back. He better get hopping. As NBN Co’s own internal evaluation of the Coalition’s NBN policy has shown, the Minister has a job of work ahead of him. And there will be many of us who will be writing mini-report cards for the Duke of Double Bay along the way. Karma’s a bitch; I hope Turnbull expects much of the same vitriol coming his way that he dealt out to Quigley, if he fails to live up to his NBN promises in turn.
Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting
“In response, Quigley has gotten on with the job and offered Turnbull nothing but politeness” Aye totally agree with this. Turnbull is just making himself look worse, just get on with the job mate?
Soth writes….
” Turnbull is just making himself look worse, just get on with the job mate!”
+1
Turnbull, let go of your dick, this is not a pissing contest. Quit making excuses and get the job done.
To think that I once respected Turnbull
I’m looking forward to Turnbull’s political career to start falling apart when FTTN becomes a spectacular failure.
That’s Abbott’s Plan B.
If the draft report hasn’t been delivered then it’s already starting.
As for 25Mbit in under 3 years time, that’s never going to happen.
If anyone really expect politicians to act differently, they need their heads examined :O
I thought that was Abbott’s Plan A. Give the most credible threat to his job the task of destroying one of the most popular government projects of the last three decades.
+1
Abbott is setting up Malcolm for a fall. What a cunning plan, give the most popular member of the government and biggest threat to Abbott’s leadership the task of ballsing up one of the most popular policies.
I’m surprised Malcolm is going along with it
Good article Renai.
Keep it up.
Pfftt… This is normal Renai journalism. Get used to it!
:P
Fucking sigh. What is Turnbull’s problem?
Can’t build his own network so he tries to mock the last mob?
Well he was a merchant banker after all, a subspecies not renowned for integrity, honesty or class…
Let us not forget the World wide GFC, largely caused by Merchant Bankers packaging close to worthless junk loans as AAA securities with the active assistance of the “Experts” (the ratings agencies) and the financial and other media.
Deja Vu
Actually one of those merchant banks responsible was the one MT worked for. So using the same standards he holds Quigley to, MT caused the GFC.
Lol, this is one fat chicken that will come home to roost in 2016, when the majority still don’t have even 25mbps, the target of the FTTN.
I saw that attack during Question Time. It was shocking and totally uncalled for..
PS.. Did Malcolm deliver the review to the Senate as ordered?
Money certainly doesn’t buy class…
I’m glad you commented on this. I thought Turnbull’s behaviour was quite appalling. It is one thing to engage in the hurly burly, the repartee, the cut and thrust of political plays with equals and political opponents. It is another thing entirely to use the House to engage in an attack ridiculing people in the private sector, even if they were the CEO of a GBE.
My estimation of Mr Turnbull has fallen another level and I’m left scratching my head wondering just how low he can go.
Edit: Like the 5 mins edit time :)
the hypocrisy here is, if Ziggy S had been appointed by labor or in any other fashion employed in a way that conflicts with Turnbulls ideology he would have absolutely savaged Ziggys corporate record and talked on and on about Telstras share price and the state of copper under the guy.
As far as I can see Mike Quigley made very few mistakes in his tenure at NBNCo. Sure there were problems, but they didn’t came from inside NBNCo. They came from outside, such as the ACCC, the Minister, Telstra, the contractors, and last but certainly not least, Malcolm Turnbull.
So kudos for Mike Quigley for achieving what was achieved.
I await with bated breath for Mr Turnbull to achieve half as much.
Presumably he won’t have to put up with a human wrecking ball named Malcolm Turnbull while doing it.
Almost all of NBN Co’s delays during “construction” phase can be attributed to contractors. Even though it was already late, had the contractors done their jobs on time, the project would likely be seen as successful and perhaps even insulated from political changes.
The biggest mistake NBN Co made in this regard was accepting contracts with construction mobs which were obviously ridiculous. They originally put the work out for tender – then called the whole thing off when the tenders were “too expensive”. In hindsight it’s pretty clear what those tenders actually were, was realistic, and it was likely the government of the day rather than NBN Co who interfered to stop the normal tender process. Then NBN Co somehow got these contractors on board at rock bottom rates; as a result they got rock bottom work and constant delays. Yes, the onus is technically on the construction partners to fulfil the contract they’ve damn well signed, but I suspect they’d do a much better job of it if it wasn’t putting them so far in the hole.
Michael, I agree and this is confirmed in Renai’s article “its external contractor model (was) at the heart of the problem.”
You’re also right to say that In hindsight it’s pretty clear that those original tenders were actually realistic and getting contractors to sign contracts at rock bottom rates resulted in rock bottom work and constant delays. They’d do a much better job of it if it wasn’t putting them so far in the hole.
So the question must be asked. With generous no-interest, no repayments funding why did NBN Co. need to get contractors to sign contracts at rock bottom rates? A clue to answering this is here. Between July 2010 and June 2013, NBN Co. blew out its salaries and overheads budget by 92% to $1480 million (out of total funding of $7500 million). Just 33,600 FTTP premises were connected in 3 years. How many additional holes in the ground could have been dug for this $709 million blow out in overheads?
Steve,
If the government had paid more, it would have cost more.
And we’d have the inevitable figures, only explaining that the Project was off the rails on expenditure; such waste and expense! This criminal government!!!!1 Blah blah blah.
You can’t call it both ways and be taken seriously.
A Tender process will always have low-ball bids. The government was operating under strong pressure given the funds allocated; it could have rejected some bids, sure – but ultimately if the bid is successful, the expectation would be for the work to be completed, as priced.
The same will be true for any changed build.
Okay Brendan, but the question remains “How many additional holes in the ground could have been dug for this $709 million blow out in overheads?”
“And we’d have the inevitable figures, only explaining that the Project was off the rails on expenditure; such waste and expense! This criminal government!!!!1 Blah blah blah.”
No Brendan, if expenditures were within or close to budget, nobody could say the Project was off the rails on expenditure, nobody could say such waste and expense! I for one would be supporting the project going forward. The problem is that the Project was actually far off the rails on expenditure and waste and on all NBN Co.’s own KPIs.
“A Tender process will always have low-ball bids. The government was operating under strong pressure given the funds allocated; it could have rejected some bids, sure – but ultimately if the bid is successful, the expectation would be for the work to be completed, as priced.”
From 15 years on complex bids and contracts on both sides of the fence, I can tell you that if you accept a bid that is below competitive market price without understanding how, the contractor will fail to deliver 100% of the time. The bidder will either fail to deliver on schedule, on cost or on quality, or on all three, or the contractor will declare bankruptcy and leave the project in the lurch.
No the question doesn’t remain, because it’s self-referential.
How many more holes could you dig if you:
– had spent more money (over and above the current allocation) and or
– had less contractor issues due to problematic bids, and or
– didn’t lose two years to telstra negotiation, and or
– didn’t have asbestos remediation
If you can’t see that that question, is redundant – no one here can help you. ;)
The problem with that ‘if you accept..’ is that NBNco wasn’t in a position to have access to an ever-lasting gob-stopper of funding.
It had an allocation and had to work within that. Sure, contingency exists, but ultimately you can’t (just) blame NBNco for attempting to get value out of the works committed.
Contractors in some cases did this assuming they would be able to somehow gain more funding to cover short fall. And failed as a consequence of doing so.
wait a minute; 30 billion dollars of contracts were “rockbottomed” because of 600 million dollar budget blow out?
(that’s if I believe your figures)
Indeed PeterA…
It’s just a continuation of strange (one can only surmise, political subservient) logic coming from the same peole who say things such as 50% of FttN CAPEX can be used for FttP… to try to justify the same FttN topology they opposed 6 years ago and referred to as fraudband…
Forgetting (or ignoring) of course the more pertinenet half… that they endorse 50% ($14.75B) becoming immediately obsolete/wasted…
:/
“wait a minute; 30 billion dollars of contracts were “rockbottomed” because of 600 million dollar budget blow out?”
$709 million blow-out in the 3 years July 2010-June 2013. In addition to actually blowing out by $709 million in 3 years, NBN Co’s estimate of these costs to 2021 rose from $3.7 billion in December 2010 to $7.9 billion in August 2012. So the total blow-out was $709 million actual and a further $3500 million blow-out forecast for the next 7 years. i.e $4.2 billion in all.
“(that’s if I believe your figures)”
The figures are in the NBN Co. plans and reports. Believe them or not.
Now tell me, where did you get the 30 billion dollars of construction contracts from?
I have concerns with the validity of how you derive “budget blow-out”, based on the way you have interpreted select report and survey metrics; endlessly using that as some kind of published fact makes it difficult to accept a lot of your argument.
“I am right, you are wrong because < insert statistical interpretation here > makes me right” features in almost every response.
“I have concerns with the validity of how you derive “budget blow-out””
NBN Co Corp Plan 17 Dec 2010 Pg. 135 Section 10.5 Operating Expenditure
Operating Expenses- Other ($ million): FY2011 $232 FY2012 $241 FY2013 $298
Total FY2011-FY2013: $771 million
Total FY2011-FY2021: $3,672 million
NBN Co Corp Plan 6 Aug 2012 Pg. 77 Section 9.8 Operating Expenditure
Operating Expenses- Other ($ million): FY2011 $331 FY2012 $449 FY2013 $700
Total FY2011-FY2013: $1,480 million
Total FY2011-FY2021: $7,850 million
Blow-out FY2011-FY2013: $1480 – $771 = $709 million
Blow-out FY2011-FY2021: $7850 – $3672 = $4,178 million
“I am right, you are wrong because (insert statistical interpretation here) makes me right” features in almost every response.”
steve says: NBN Co. Indirect Opex blew out 92% ($709 million) between FY2011-FY2013 and is forecast to blow out 114% ($4,178 million) between FY2011-FY2021, according to the 2010 and 2013 Corporate Plans.
Brendan is right, steve is wrong because (insert statistical interpretation here) makes Brendan right.
Try it.
Wow…
All that and yet when a simple 60 day plan by the other mob isn’t done by the 60th day, you will argue it’s not late…
Amazing :/
iirc the period between 2010 and 2012 was when the deals for inclusion of Optus and Telstra customers was done – where they agreed migration of another set of customers (HFC IIRC).
if you recall reportage at the time, there was an increase in operating costs in the plan because there would be in the order of another million lines done, necessitating a bit more outlay on the front end hitching them in but more revenue at the back and essentially the same rate of return (it moved by .15 % or something).
might this be the ‘blowout’ you are seeing in the numbers here? i could be completely wrong, but looking at those dates rang a distinct bell in my mind, as far as changes between the two points in time go….
Steve, there has not been the blowout in OPEX you are claiming. Changes in accounting methods has meant some of the OPEX classified as other has now been classified as direct.
It you take total OPEX, direct plus other you will see the “blowout” you are claiming so far in OPEX is actually 33 million under what the 2010 plan forecast.
Hi Lionel. Maybe you’re right. Total opex 2011-2013 shows a $39m increase between the 2 plans and a $3.2bn increase to FY2021.
The 2012 plan notes:Increased level of indirect costs from staff increases as well as other General and Administration costs; It notes 12 other cost increases but makes no mention of accounting changes. Whoever put this document together did NBN Co’s public image no favours.
Thanks for the clarification.
700 million is an insignificant blowout.
The Federation Square project put together by former Liberal Premier of Victoria blew out by $1 Billion dollars (more today as I haven’t adjusted for time).
And that’s just a few buildings and a large square.
I’d hate to see where the project would be if Jeff Kennet and his chronies were working on it.
Matthew Wright: “700 million is an insignificant blowout.”
$700 million blow-out in 3 years. $4,178 million blow-out in 10 years. Just on overheads.
Matthew Wright: “The Federation Square project put together by former Liberal Premier of Victoria blew out by $1 Billion dollars (more today as I haven’t adjusted for time). And that’s just a few buildings and a large square.”
Hmm. Let’s check the facts:
“The original design which was costed at between A$110 and $128 million …Construction began in 1998. In 1999, following a change of government, the incoming Labor administration ordered a significant design revision…Budgets on the project blew out significantly and with long delays, mainly due to the cost of covering the railyard and modifications to the design and among the cost-cutting measures was the replacing areas originally designed for paving with concrete.The final 2002 cost of construction was approximately A$467 million ”
Sorry Matthew, the facts trump the myth…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Square
$4,178 million blow-out in 10 years.
Conjecture…
Hmm Red Square blew out x 4, because a (change of) gov. stuffed around with it… sounds familiar eh?
While I agree with the article that Turnbull has gone off the rails here (he can be critical of a persons performance without indulging in silly ad hominem attacks which just make him look like an ass), and Quigley wasn’t the personal rubber stamp for every contract signed by NBNco, as the CEO responsibility for the bungles that occurred on his watch falls to him. That includes contractor shenanigans. I get a house built, I’m not going to chase the builders subbies for him, that’s his problem. I contract with him to get the house built, he’s responsible.
NBNco, while vastly greater in scale, operates under the same principle. The CEO is either capable of handling the responsibility of running the company including delegating staff to deal with contractors, or he is not…
I’d predict that if the entire system is a shambles in 2016, you and others will not hesitate to lay all the blame on Turnbull/Switkowski with nary a mention of those pesky contractors? (which would be quite justified) So why is the same onus of responsibility excused for Quigley?
Yes we will all blame Zig and Mal…
Simply, because the precedence has already been set…
Now, whether we will have any leeway in judging whether any missed targets etc are genuine, unlike the previous FttP detractors did, is another story. But again the precedence has been set there too… apparently nothing but strick adherence/meeting of all targets/estimations and complete transparency was accepted previously, so…
…being so, with transaprency already at best clouded (according to the reports I have read) and the one and only review promised already 30% behind schedule…guess what?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/2/technology/can-turnbull-avoid-nbn-timetable-mishap
An illuminating comment, I cannot vouchsafe for the accuracy, but worthy of follow up
“Oz Bubble, Mon, 2013-12-02 12:12
There is another story here which is not being reported and that is how difficult it is to get on the NBN.
Darwin has had the NBN in the city for months now and it is impossible to get connected to it because Telstra obfuscates the process. The staff claim ignorance and say they can’t find a port/connection/ their own butt cheeks. Yes, it has been frustrating but when you consider that it is not in Telstra’s best financial interests to have the public on the NBN, it is no real surprise.
Asking a vested interest to put its customers on something they don’t own is always going to be fraught with danger – for the customer.
This is the real reason for the slow uptake of NBN by the public. You can’t get connected, even if you want too and its available.”
“Let’s see whether Turnbull can do better than Quigley over the next four years and earn that respect back. He better get hopping.”
Especially since Quigley left him with a head start (NBNCo already established, backhaul network mostly in place) and everything that Turnbull has promised is quite underwhelming already. In my opinion, if he can’t deliver on these already low expectations then he will have to fall on his sword or be sacked as he will have zero credibility left.
“Almost universally, those same people speak Turnbull’s name with frustration and anger … sometimes contempt.”
+1 for contempt
‘I didn’t think we would have problems with icebergs’—captain of the Titanic.
‘I didn’t think we would have a problem with frostbite’—Napoleon.
‘I didn’t think we would have a problem with copper’—Malcolm Turnbull.
lol
LOL, Gold Mate!
The behavior of Malcolm is beyond disgrace, every corner of the IT industry supports FTTP. The longer his defamatory remarks, unacceptable behavior and ideological positions continue the more politically isolated he and his party will become.
I had a very good conversation with a non-technically minded person on the weekend that described the situation well and they where also slightly conservative.
During the 80s, 90s and early 00s Australia had a reliable communications network that went to nearly every home and business. It also satisfied their needs. Asian Countries had no infastrucuture expecially fixed-line services.
Today these places are deploying FTTP or already have in the previous 5 years and other reliable utilities while we are getting the last breath out of copper that is fallen beyond viable repair. The networks in these counties are so established that demand for 1Gbps up and down has resulted in upgrades to their FTTP networks.
If we don’t catch up to the booming digital economy excpecially when Asia is rising, Australia will be Detroit, but with massive holes very where.
If Mike Quigley is captain of the Titanic, that would make Ziggy the captain on the costa co cordia, doing stunts for his friend Malcolm Turnbull on the Island.
I’m reminded of Fitzcarraldo.
I’d call it like this:
Quigley=Captain of the Titanic
implies
Turnbull=Captain of the Iceberg
(Ah, just noticed that Sean and Simon beat me to the punch below :)
Haderak, Sean, Simon: “I’d call it like this:
Quigley=Captain of the Titanic
implies
Turnbull=Captain of the Iceberg”
But from Renai’s article, “Both sides of politics generally consider the rollout model of the NBN to have broadly failed, with its external contractor model at the heart of the problem. Quigley acknowledged this in his speech.”
which implies Turnbull=Captain of the external contractor model? Hmm, that doesn’t fit the facts.
The external contractor model was developed by NBN Co., under Quigley’s captaincy. So the only analogy that fits with the article (and the facts) is:
Quigley=Captain of the Titanic
Quigley=Captain of the Iceberg
I never thought this would need saying but here we go
The analogy was not meant to be taken seriously.
An analogy that mirrors the facts is funnier than an analogy that distorts them.
Are you suggesting that Turnbull has not been trying to derail the project from the beginning?
Are you saying Malcom has not been trying to sink the SS NBNCo using the missed targets?
Are you suggesting that Turnbull was responsible for the external contractor model that was at the heart of the failed rollout model?
“Are you suggesting that Turnbull has not been trying to derail the project from the beginning?”
Are you suggesting that an opposition should not hold the government to account?
Are you saying Malcom has not been trying to sink the SS NBNCo using the missed targets?
Are you suggesting the SS NBNCo didn’t miss the targets, or are you suggesting that NBN Co should have not been held to account for missed targets, or are you suggesting that SS NBN Co., is a sensitive princess that sinks when criticised?
I really can’t be bothered this has no real point
The difference between Quigley and Turnbull? One word… integrity.
If Quigley was the captain of the Titanic, then Turnbull would take great glee in captaining the iceberg, with no other reason than ‘because he can’.
Because he’s “vessel agnostic”.
I for see the next 3 years to be a train wreak which no one will be able to look the other way when it happens
Well, yes, Malcolm. Labor’s implementation of the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in this country did inevitably have problems. Only a fool would think such an endeavour wouldn’t.
Perhaps you’d also like to comment on the Howard government’s communication infrastructure “achievements” next time you dare to criticise Labor’s and Quigley’s handling of the NBN. Shouldn’t take long. Flogging off the only organisation most capable of building the NBN should just about cover it. Such vision…
A rep from the NBN came to our council offices the other day and told us that swathes of our region that were slated for fibre will have to settle for wireless. Is this widespread now?
Yup.
If contractors weren’t already digging holes in the ground, the Abbott government has torn up the contracts. So all the work on planning, gaining access to actual dirt in which to dig holes and permission to do the digging, gone.
According to Tony, the work of rolling out a network only really starts when there are people in the street digging holes.
Kind of offtopic, but an interesting point. In my Hobart suburb we were due to have fibre services activated in July 2014. Of course it’s no longer on the NBN map.
Over the last month or 2 we’ve had PSG Solutions, Telstra, Visionstream and unmarked vans and trucks pouring over the pits in each street, threading rolls of stuff along (draw tape, fibre – I have no idea).
Does this count as “work commenced” even though they’re not actually digging holes?
Not according to Turnbull; that is why he changed the maps.
God knows if it actually true. (Some of it I wonder might be an NBNco employee taking Turnbulls dictatate that nothing that isn’t “work commenced” appear on the map really really literally, and only showing stuff where it is 1001% commenced and unavoidably FTTP)
I was in the same boat my house has reappeared on the map with a new work commence date. I think this so MT can say look at how much quicker we did the FTTP area than Labor. We only commenced this area in Dec 2013 and it is already connected 3 months latter. Choose your own numbers to count and you can make any old crap no different to the “stopping the boats” debate http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/scott-morrison-not-telling-full-story-asylum-seeker-arrivals/5119380
Choose your own numbers to count and you can make up any old crap.
Not true according to the new maps work has not commenced until the holes have been dug and the pits have been roped and the only thing left is the fiber to be pulled. Only on the day the fiber roll turns up on site has any work commenced.
lol… thanks for the link… that’s the funniest youtube video… Malcolm at his best :-) With umpteen NBN reviews to come, Labor’s NBN is going to be the gift that keeps on giving for the Coalition.
So you are in full support of taking someones words out of context for political gain?
You do know that the Nobn (no broadband network) can’t deliver the promised 50mbps by 2019 – let alone 25mbps by 2016.
Councils also have the power to veto the green cabinets as well.
Not to mention the issues with those on rims/pair gains and those with degraded copper.
In 2016 when this new policy has proved a failure, I will be here to say “I told you so”.
As for the nbn being the policy that keeps on giving – after the nobn has been shown to be the political equivalent of the titanic, that will be the political gift that keeps on giving.
“You do know that the Nobn (no broadband network) can’t deliver the promised 50mbps by 2019 – let alone 25mbps by 2016.
In 2016 when this new policy has proved a failure, I will be here to say “I told you so”.”
Okay meck01, labour has set the benchmark at 380k premises passed, 120k premises activated in 3 years.
In 2016, if this new policy fails to pass 380k premises and activate 120k premises, feel free to say “I told you so”.
Can’t benchmark them and you know it, if they scraped all contracts, telstra agreements, pit problems, etc then started from scratch, then let the benchmarking begin.
“if they scraped all contracts, telstra agreements, pit problems, etc then started from scratch, then let the benchmarking begin.”
You mean the construction contracts, telstra agreements and pit problems,etc. that were at the heart of the failed rollout model? Of course these will have to be scrapped and started from scratch. So with your requirements met, the benchmark remains at 380k premises passed, 120k premises activated in 3 years.
We now look forward to Malcolm passing 10m homes in 2.5 years with FttN, as his minions said was the benchmark as per BT…
In fact the figure magically jumped to 16m in 2.5 years :/
But 10m by March 2016 will suffice…
I didn’t know Telstra had finished with its renegotiation with NBN Co?
I will concede that the Labor NBN did not complete what it had PLANNED by now, but Malcolm Turnbull has made a political promise for 25mbit for all by the end of 2016. That is a very different beast, but you know that don’t you.
I tip my hat to you, or rather, feed it to you. Nice troll.
“Malcolm Turnbull has made a political promise for 25mbit for all by the end of 2016. That is a very different beast, but you know that don’t you.”
You’re right of course. A political promise is not a plan. Let’s compare apples with apples then. Kevin Rudd made a political promise in 2007 of a National Broadband Network completed by 2013. How’s that for a benchmark?
“I will concede that the Labor NBN did not complete what it had PLANNED by now”
Rest assured you that I will be out front holding the Coalition NBN to its plan. But thus far there’s only a political promise.
“Let’s compare apples with apples then. Kevin Rudd made a political promise in 2007 of a National Broadband Network completed by 2013…”
Yes it was FttN.
Oh yes the same FttN apples the now government and their supporters here opposed and referred to as fraudband.. but now is the integral component of their own plans 6 years later…
How embarrassing for you all.
It was originally by 2016. It’s been changed since…
“It was originally by 2016. It’s been changed since…”
Nope. In fact it was by 2012. Where’s my minimum 12Mbps?
Labor’s 2007 NBN promise word for word, October 2007. (Labor’s promise was technology-agnostic) http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1309098630/6:
“In an historic move, Federal Labor will revolutionise Australia’s internet infrastructure by creating a new world class National Broadband Network.
Labor will invest up to $4.7 billion to establish the National Broadband Network in partnership with the private sector. This will be over a five-year period.
Together with Federal Labor’s Education Revolution, the National Broadband Network plan will provide a platform to build and expand Australian business.
The National Broadband Network will connect 98 per cent of Australians to high speed broadband internet services – at a speed more than 40 times faster than most current speeds.
Federal Labor will increase speed to a minimum of 12 megabits per second. This means business, education and household services on the internet including entertainment will happen in “real time”.”
You opposed FttN 12Mbps in 2007 and now complain because you got your wish :/
Thanks steve. Maybe there was a decimal point error. 1.2 Mbps by 2012. There, we have already exceeded expectations for some of the population. ;-)
Ha ha. I like it Andrew. And another decimal slip turned $4.7bn into 44.5bn.
One more decimal slip and we’ll have $445bn. And 2021 can turn into 2210
… and once the (on time *sigh*) overdue review tells us FttN is the way to go (surprise, surprise) we will be well on our way to fulfilling the $445B and 2210 theory.
Starting with the $14.75B you already told us would be automatically wasted with FttN…
*rolls eyes*
Haha Steve, you don’t get to set the parameters upon which the project(s) will be judged, but nice try. Your overly simplistic troll abjectly fails to consider any realities about how construction projects work – there is always a hell of a lot of fundamental work required before any project delivers on final objectives. How much Transit network has been completed? How many FTTP premises can be connected without the Transit network? How far behind schedule is the Transit network? When is the bulk of the Transit network scheduled to be constructed? How many FTTN premises can be connected without the Transit network?
Here’s a few hints: most of the Transit network is due for construction in 2015, you can’t connect any premises, either FTTP or FTTN, without the Transit network, keeping Transit network construction on schedule is crucial for delivery of FTTN – in fact, FTTN is essentially the Transit network plus Nodes, hence Turnbull’s claims about delivery of FTTN by 2016 – delivering nodes should be a hell of a lot easier than deploying PON fibre and connecting premises. Until you realise it won’t be as simple as just dropping the nodes on the network because the copper won’t support the service in many cases, so now you have to manually test every single connection, dramatically increasing both cost and time… But I digress.
My point is you can’t simply criticise one network based on an erroneous metric deliberately designed to present progress of the project in the worst possible light (misleadingly so) and then simply build on top of the foundations of that previous project with a new one that by definition is already partially constructed and claim you have succeeded where the last project failed when most of your new project is simply the old project plus some dramatically scaled back, less ambitious, lower performing, less reliable, obsolete hacks (or shortcuts) to get it finished.
TrevorX: “My point is you can’t simply criticise one network based on an erroneous metric deliberately designed to present progress of the project in the worst possible light (misleadingly so) ”
Hi TrevorX these metrics are the (only) targets NBN Co. set for itself in its Corporate Plan. See Section 1.4 “NBN Co Targets for June 2013: NBN Co has identified a number of specific high level deployment targets to be achieved by 30 June 2013.” The only targets specified are premises passed and premises connected.
Every NBN progress report and NBN Co.’s Media Release of 4 July 2013 also specifies these (and only these) as the key metrics or KPIs.
So when you describe these NBN Co. defined metrics as “erroneous metrics deliberately designed to present progress of the progress in worst possible light (misleadingly so)”, are you saying NBN Co. designed erroneous metrics deliberately designed to present progress of the progress in worst possible light? Are you alleging an internal NBN Co. conspiracy to present progress of the project in the worst possible light?
TrevorX: “Here’s a few hints: most of the Transit network is due for construction in 2015, you can’t connect any premises, either FTTP or FTTN, without the Transit network,”
Renai’s article says “Both sides of politics generally consider the rollout model of the NBN to have broadly failed, with its external contractor model at the heart of the problem. Quigley acknowledged this in his speech.” Are you contesting this and saying instead that the heart of the problem was the Transit network?
“delivering nodes should be a hell of a lot easier than deploying PON fibre and connecting premises. Until you realise it won’t be as simple as just dropping the nodes on the network because the copper won’t support the service in many cases, so now you have to manually test every single connection, dramatically increasing both cost and time…”
I understand. Essentially you are saying that while delivering FTTN nodes will be a lot easier than deploying FTTP PON fibre and connecting premises, on the other hand there is the risk that the copper won’t support the service in many cases, so you have to manually test every single connection, dramatically increasing both cost and time…
So manually testing every single copper connection and risk of needing to remediate the copper must be managed within the 4-5 times capex and 3-4 deployment time between FTTP and FTTN. In other words the copper risk needs to be managed within the ~$2000 per premise cost differential. Okay, I get it. Thank you for the information.
“Hi TrevorX these metrics are the (only) targets NBN Co. set for itself in its Corporate Plan. See Section 1.4 “NBN Co Targets for June 2013: NBN Co has identified a number of specific high level deployment targets to be achieved by 30 June 2013.” The only targets specified are premises passed and premises connected.
Every NBN progress report and NBN Co.’s Media Release of 4 July 2013 also specifies these (and only these) as the key metrics or KPIs.
So when you describe these NBN Co. defined metrics as “erroneous metrics deliberately designed to present progress of the project in worst possible light (misleadingly so)”, are you saying NBN Co. designed erroneous metrics deliberately designed to present progress of the project in worst possible light? Are you alleging an internal NBN Co. conspiracy to present progress of the project in the worst possible light?”
Don’t be obtuse. You’re conflating short term milestones with final project objectives and stated outcomes. No one is debating that those milestone targets were missed – long before the LNP attained government NBN Co had instituted measures designed to address the causes of those delays. Who knows, further analysis of the situation with the intention of eliminating or reducing ongoing delays may have found further efficiencies and measures that would help NBN Co deliver the final project sooner and more cost effectively, but that’s no longer going to happen.
“Renai’s article says “Both sides of politics generally consider the rollout model of the NBN to have broadly failed, with its external contractor model at the heart of the problem. Quigley acknowledged this in his speech.” Are you contesting this and saying instead that the heart of the problem was the Transit network?”
Hmm, I’m not sure there’s much point continuing to entertain debate with someone so obviously trolling, but here’s me giving you the benefit of the doubt – use it well, I won’t give you this opportunity again.
Stop trying to work what my ‘intentions’ were and go back to the questions I posed about the Transit network and answer them. My point was (I think, clearly) that the Transit network crucially underpins rollout of the PON stage, that without the Transit network you can’t deploy the PON fibre or connect premises, that the Transit network is broadly on track but its limited current coverage necessarily limits the scope and scale of initial PON construction and connection, so you can’t judge the project as a whole on the number of end premises connections when you only have a fraction of of the underlying backhaul available, and then attempt to compare it with a similar metric of a future ‘alternative’ network that will have almost all of the underlying backhaul Transit network complete.
It’s like criticising a car manufacturer with a lot full of assembled but unpainted cars for having delivered zero cars to customers, taking over the project, painting the cars (just as they were scheduled to be anyway) and congratulating yourself on succeeding by delivering all orders where the previous project had delivered none, completely ignoring the fact that most of the work ad been done before you even showed your face.
Of course FTTN will connect more premises than FTTP did, because it is further along on the same project.
“I understand. Essentially you are saying that while delivering FTTN nodes will be a lot easier than deploying FTTP PON fibre and connecting premises, on the other hand there is the risk that the copper won’t support the service in many cases, so you have to manually test every single connection, dramatically increasing both cost and time…So manually testing every single copper connection and risk of needing to remediate the copper must be managed within the 4-5 times capex and 3-4 deployment time between FTTP and FTTN. In other words the copper risk needs to be managed within the ~$2000 per premise cost differential. Okay, I get it. Thank you for the information.”
Again you’re conflating specific aspects with overall viability and success of the project. No, that’s not ‘job done’, it’s just one example where sweeping simplifications have been applied to a complex scenario. The copper being of smaller gauge means nodes must be closer, resulting in more nodes than estimated based on international examples. The state of the copper where it hasn’t been adequately maintained means it either needs replacing or the Nodes must be closer. The lower population density in Australia means more nodes will be required compared with international examples. Turnbull’s estimates based on international examples don’t account for specific realities of the Australian copper telecommunications network and thus his ‘back of the envelope’ costings must be inaccurate.
But again, cost isn’t the whole story, because the LNP plan involves dramatic changes to competition clauses, so you have higher costs in one side with significant reductions in revenue. So not only are they intending to deliver an inferior network that will cost more to operate, they’re doing it with such a massive reduction in revenue the project is no longer financially viable.
You want to talk about metrics evaluating the success of the project? How about comparing annual profitability projections in 2050? If FTTN will have paid for itself and be returning similar levels of profit to the government that FTTP would have, at least all we’d be left with was an inferior network that coil be upgraded, without it costing the country a fortune. But that won’t be the outcome – FTTN will cost Australians a fortune in direct costs to tax payers, as well as delivering an inferior network and legacy of private telecommunications ghettos.
Okay, maybe you’re right. Perhaps if NBN Co. had been more transparent with their accounting and less simplistic with their metrics, people would feel more comfortable about the project’s progress. But the only metrics published in the public domain are premises passed and premises connected. And the total capex, opex, overheads and funding is not broken down to any degree of detail.
So basically what we have from the plans and reports is: $4.5bn capex to FY2013, which is 12% of total planned capex to 2021, and 100,000 homes connected, which is 1% of the total planned to 2021.
That’s what the public sees.
Since I spent a significant amount of time doing this analysis it is worth you having a glance at my comment from the previous thread as I believe this is what was being talked about with regards to erroneous metrics.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/06/nbn-fttn-analysis-devastating-coalition/#comment-631993
PS Current NBN connections are ~$2400 per premise actual cost.
Cheers AJ. Okay, I’ll take a look.
Thanks AJ. Okay, I’ll take a look.
AJ, see http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/06/nbn-fttn-analysis-devastating-coalition/#comment-632083
“PS Current NBN connections are ~$2400 per premise actual cost.”
Current NBN connections have a larger proportion of greenfields over brownfields than in the total. And very few MDU premises have been connected vs. 34% in the total, so this $2400 can only rise and the deployment rate will likely fall from current.
This is confirmed in the capex forecasts to 2021. Fibre capex to 2021 is $4007 per premise.
Could you provide a reference for that?
NBN Corporate Plan 2012 Pg 75 Exhibit 9-7: Forecast Capital Expenditure
Fibre and Transit: FY2011-FY2021 $28,478m
Other Capex: FY2011-FY2021 $5,748m
Fibre and Transit: FY2011-FY2040 $30,817m
Other Capex: FY2011-FY2040 $7,856m
NBN Corporate Plan 2012 Pg 75 Exhibit 9-6: Forecast Premises Passed and Connected by FY2021
FTTP Premises Connected FY2021: 8.513m
Total Premises Connected FY2021: 8.745m
NBN Corporate Plan 2012 Pg 72 Exhibit 9-2: Forecast Summary Financials (Nominal Dollars)
FTTP Premises Connected FY2040: 11.464m
Total Premises Connected FY2040: 11.863m
Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2021 = Fibre and Transit Capex FY2011-FY2021 / FTTP Premises Connected FY2021 + Other Capex FY2011-FY2021 / Total Premises Connected FY2021
Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2040 = Fibre and Transit Capex FY2011-FY2040 / FTTP Premises Connected FY2040 + Other Capex FY2011-FY2040 / Total Premises Connected FY2040
Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2021 = $4003
Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2040 = $3350
In comparison to the FoD figures being bandied around (in todays dollars) that’s down right cheap (cheaper) for proper FttP…
Wouldn’t you say?
And that’s not even factoring the $14.75B you already admitted would be wasted on FttN…
Steve, Can you please not quote facts. It is supposed to be 1/3 exaggeration, 1/3 hatred and 1/3 politically biased nonsense.
Oh, you mean like these non exaggerated, non-political “facts” from your friend, Andrew…?
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/06/nbn-fttn-analysis-devastating-coalition/#comment-631830
I particularly like the Labor are lousy at, well everything and the govt’s overdue report isn’t late, non-political part…as well as the “decade” old NBN, non-exagerrated part…
But please continue to harp on about the previous corporate plan, while the rest of us discuss the current plan… perhaps a few OPEL figures would be nice too!
Next please…
Hi AJ, NBN Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2021 = $4003, Av. Capex per FTTP premise FY2040 = $3350
NBN Av. Capex per premise (FTTP+Satellite+Wireless) FY2021 = $4,272
Coalition Av. Capex per premise (FTTP+FTTB+FTTN+Satellite+Wireless) FY2019 = $1,605
consisting of FTTP: 22%, FTTB: 32%, FTTN 39%, Wireless: 4%, Satellite: 3%
Under FTTH Council and OECD definitions, FTTH and FTTB are variations of FTTP.
So effectively, FTTP: 54%, FTTN: 39%, Satellite+Wireless: 7%
Coalition policy achieves a 63% or $34bn saving in capex ($2,672 saving per premise) and 5 years in time essentially by connecting MDU’s with FTTB instead of FTTH and switching 39% from FTTP to FTTN.
P.S. “Conroy cautiously admitted that the government’s insistence that high-speed fibre-optic cable should be rolled into every MDU in the country was one of two decisions that had slowed the NBN project.”
“I think around the construction area, the model that they pursued in a couple of areas, which was impacted by decisions that we took along the way, would be things I’d look at, and want to have, if I could look back in time, more of an understanding of.”
2010 KPMG/McKinsey implementation study released before the 2010 election:
“If cost overruns related to MDU installation are widespread, this would threaten the ability of NBN Co to achieve the coverage requirement within the government’s initial expenditure estimate,” the report found.
“$34bn saving in capex”‘
Wow, that’s a pretty good saving from a 37.5B CAPEX.
So, the Coalition is going to build the transit network, put up sats, build wireless, rollout 60K nodes, all for the bargain price of 3.5BN? Well, if you haven’t used bogus maths to come up with that saving and it’s real, I’ve changed my mind and fully support the Coalitions plan.
FFor your further information, Lionel…
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/11/turnbull-requests-labors-secret-nbn-docs/#comment-632208
Just what is it with a government that has to mock and deride leaders in their field… respected experts… their predecessors…. their opponents…. their constituents…
Serious serious issues there. Toxic karma.
Toxic karma… lol… that’s when the head of a GBE flagrantly breaks all conventions and rules and comes out in support of one political party during an election campaign (Labor NBN can do 1Gbit!!). Karma is a bitch.
So telling the truth is now an admission of support for Labor?
Ohhh now I get why you tell so many lies and make up so much rubbish. You’re clearly admitting your support for the Liberal party.
I like the way the Minister for Communications is captioned in the picture using something that looks rather like a Windows 98 dialog box.
I am disgusted. But isn’t it typical Turnbull to belittle and try to humiliate? This tack will fail him and his party. If he thinks he has scored all he has done is slid further into the gutter.
actually, i think it will ultimately be seen as an own-goal.
that tactic of belittling and humiliation i find offensive, and i honestly wonder, if the MT of the constitutional convention could meet the MT of today, read some of his swipes, would he be appalled? i know i am.
Malcolm Turnbull is appalling. Lack of leadership, mean spirited and dishonest. The early days of this government are worrying – it seems to be all about payback and vitriol.
It seems that Mr Turnbull is a good fit with Tony Abbott…
Neither of them appear to be able to govern properly, the only talent they have is slinging mud at others.
Australia voted for this Abbott sideshow, that’s what it boils down to. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they serve two terms in government either.
TurnBULL has a scapegoat in Quigley which he will use as much as possible when he fails to meet his targets, we all know that’s going to happen.
Politicians need to start being held accountable for what they say, it’s only then that we might see some changes in their behavior.
Ok… Can someone please remind Turnbull, Abbot, et. al.
THE ELECTION IS OVER. YOU HAVE WON THE ELECTION
STOP ACTING LIKE YOUR STILL IN OPPOSITION MUD SLINGING MODE.
Half of the people could not give a rats ass anymore on what the other mob did or did not do. Do what you’ve been elected to do and get on w/ the bloody job of implementing your FTTN.
All your doing is wasting precious time and effort slinging people who no longer have any direct effect on what you are rolling out.
Hopefully Turnbull will have to eat his own words. Both Malcolm Tony are cowboys going around putting down people they don’t like…..arggghhhh grow up and be more respectful to the opposition AND the public. I wonder people who chose Tony & Malcolm still feel the same for them now? As an Australian, I’m ashamed of both of them representing my country!
Renai, you should be careful publishing articles like this. Adolf Turnbull and his contribution to policy on transparent government has sacked boards and department heads. Be afraid, be very afraid.
I used to have a lot of respect for Malcolm Turnbull…….. used to.
I’m really curious… since FTTP supporters “lose respect for Malcolm” on an extremely frequent and regular basis… how long does it take for you guys to “to regain respect” so that you are able to “lose respect” all over again whenever Malcolm bashes your sacred FTTP plaything?
“bashes your sacred FTTP plaything”
I find it very amusing (and telling) that you equate bashing Quigley with bashing FTTP…
It appears that you are incapable of seperating mud slinging political agendas with the actual technology and science behind it.
This is very much in line with the type of “leadership” we are now seeing…
I am very happy for you, and very sad for the bulk of Australia
Malcolm is not bashing the Quigster. He’s just pointing out his patently ridiculous statements. E.g. Quigley’s reference to “nonsensical assumptions to justify pre-determined political outcomes” ironically describes his so-called “business plan” with sky-rocketing ARPU projections produced to justify Rudd Conroy political diktat to build FTTP regardless of cost and practicality.
Righty oh boy-o.
Another comment like this and off you go.
Politeness. Rationality. Evidence. These are the souls of Delimiter comments …
I think this might be a tactic. If you ridicule something enough, then perhaps people will start believing it – and believe that the alternative that you offer is better.
Fortunately there are too many people who are smarter than that. (I.e. smarter than a mentally retarded baboon.)
I think your characterisations of Turnbull’s and Quigley’s behaviors are reasonably fair and accurate, although they also simply fit the pattern about how politicians (on both sides) create theater in Parliament and how senior public servants are bound to be more restrained through where they sit in the chain.
It is worth noting that if Quigley kept his head down and was not widely quoted in the media last week pushing angles that rubbed against the new governments policies, Turnbull likely would not have responded accordingly
I share your views that this current governments progress to date in rolling out a “sooner, cheaper” model have been poor, and particularly so in regards to transparency (maintain the rage) but I would be loathe to deify or excuse Quigley and previous NBN Co management – their execution and spin were worthy of contempt. Yes, foundations were laid but the bottom line as you have written about (to the howls from the fanbois) was that they didn’t deliver what was promised and opened the project up to a post-government change
Well said and perfectly put, Mack. Good to see a mature, level-headed and fair comment to a mature and level-headed article.
I’m so *#&@ sick of this characterisation. Why do people find it so difficult separating political ideology and rational thought? If I’m a ‘fanboi’ of anything it is rationality, evidence and facts. It follows that my passion (and career) is in the sciences.
Fibre communications are the only long term, cost effective solution – that’s just a fact. The ALP FTTP NBN project is the only telecommunications project in Australia that planned to deliver a fibre network, therefore it was (and remains) the only project worthy of consideration to deliver a fibre network. Turnbull has made much of the international FTTN examples supposedly delivering at a quarter the cost and a fifth the time that FTTP would have taken, and yet we have him offering us a dramatically scaled back FTTN network that is essentially just the Transit network component of the FTTP NBN with Nodes bolted on, for a saving in public debt of just $900 million.
In fact, he developed his cost estimations by taking the PON costs estimated by NBN Co and multiplying them by 0.25, because rough estimates from international examples suggested FTTN was a quarter the cost of FTTP. But even that overly simplistic primary school maths didn’t result in a commensurate saving to the public purse because of the complexity *ahem* of private funding and the fact that the whole project is being funded by debt, not tax payers. But Malcom and LNP supporters don’t seem too good with complexity…
Most FTTP NBN supporters will freely admit that the original plan/project could have been improved upon, but instead of tweaking the details to deliver the correct solution faster and more cost effectively (or even just ‘on time and budget’) the LNP are instead trying to throw out the correct solution in order to deliver an ideology.
So with no alternative plan or project to deliver fibre, we’re left with a choice between two projects which can only be evaluated (and supported) in their entirety. One of them has had teething problems, but is financially sound and will deliver a fibre network that is not only zero cost to the government, but will generate income for it. The other is financially unsound, will not pay for itself, will cost tax payers billions in direct costs, will allow the establishment of telecommunications ghettos split up between the major telcos and ISP’s (a situation that will plague the country in perpetuity), all to deliver a vastly inferior network.
A fanboi is someone committed to supporting a cause or position based on ideology and irrespective of facts and evidence. For the most part, FTTP supporters are the definitive opposite of that. The term can only accurately be applied to LNP FTTN supporters, because their position is pure ideology flying in the face of demonstrable facts.
Sorry, ‘… will deliver a fibre network… ” should have been ‘… would have delivered a fibre network… ‘
TrevorX “If I’m a ‘fanboi’ of anything it is rationality, evidence and facts. It follows that my passion (and career) is in the sciences.”
That is good to hear, same here. Can I ask you a question, and I do so respectfully. Have you read the coalition policy document and background paper and the references therein? alongside of course the NBN Co. plans and annual reports?
I ask this because until recently I was a FTTP fanboi before I was convinced by rationality, evidence and facts that while FTTP may be the technically purer model, a hybrid model would be as effective and more cost-effective in the real-world.
Of course if you work for NBN Co. like many here ….
“I ask this because until recently I was a FTTP fanboi”?
And a Labor voter?
So from one extreme (well 2) to the other…
Seriously, swallowing the ever changing figures is one thing, but pleeeaaase :/
Live in NZ for a year, move around to different offices and units, report back with your FTTN thoughts.
“Live in NZ for a year, move around to different offices and units, report back with your FTTN thoughts.”
I commute regularly to NZ (Christchuch) and compared to the 2.5Mbps ADSL2 back home, even the serviced apartment connections are great.
“If I’m a ‘fanboi’ of anything it is rationality, evidence and facts. It follows that my passion (and career) is in the sciences.”
The scientific method requires a mind that is always open to evidence that may weaken the current hypothesis. Opinions like “fibre communications are the only long term, cost effective solution – that’s just a fact.” suggest a mind closed to contrary evidence, which is contrary to scientific critical thinking processes.
For example “international FTTN examples delivering at a quarter the cost and a fifth the time that FTTP would have taken, and yet we have him offering us a dramatically scaled back FTTN network that is essentially just the Transit network component of the FTTP NBN with Nodes bolted on, for a saving in public debt of just $900 million.” would lead to the following critical thought process:
“if international FTTN examples are delivering at a quarter of the cost than FTTP, yet a dramatically scaled back FTTN network is saving just $900 million, then either the FTTN costs were over-estimated or the FTTP cost forecasts were underestimated. Let’s find evidence for and against this.”
“In fact, he developed his cost estimations by taking the PON costs estimated by NBN Co and multiplying them by 0.25, because rough estimates from international examples suggested FTTN was a quarter the cost of FTTP.” Critical thinking would query whether there is any evidence supporting this supposition. Do you have evidence that “he developed his cost estimations by taking the PON costs estimated by NBN Co and multiplying them by 0.25?”
“A fanboi is someone committed to supporting a cause or position based on ideology and irrespective of facts and evidence. ” Quite so.
“A fanboi is someone committed to supporting a cause or position based on ideology and irrespective of facts and evidence.”
Yes it is steve, thanks for the frank admission…
Mack,
Turnbull has been using Parliamentary Privilege to personally attack Quigley, and indeed NBNco, for the entire term of his [Quigley] tenure.
It is one thing to challenge an entity. Another to make it personal. And this has become very obviously personal.
Quigley was unable to respond whilst CEO of NBNco. It’s the functional equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. He is now not CEO, and frankly can say whatever the hell he wants.
Turnbull is very quick to mock and deride others, however does not take responses well. It’s difficult to respect a political bully; because when questioned, that is what the Member for Wentworth becomes.
God forbid we have a tall poppy.
Turnbull having a lack of morals is no surprise, anyone remember Utegate?
I hear Turnbullshit had an arse hole transplant and the arse hole rejected him!!
“Politeness. Rationality. Evidence. These are the souls of Delimiter comments …” lol….
That’s it. I’ve had enough of your snide comments. Seeya.
Pure class that Mal.
Andrew: “Steve, Can you please not quote facts. It is supposed to be 1/3 exaggeration, 1/3 hatred and 1/3 politically biased nonsense.”
Ha ha, yes Andrew. Facts mess with their minds.
Seriously what kind of logic is used by someone who….
a) Uses estimations/figures and claims them as “factual”… which are cherry-picked from within the very document (the now defunct Corp Plan) they claim was a failure?
b) Continues to do so over and over at every thread, regardless of the topic?
c) Says FttN is the better cost alternative, even though the govt spends are almost identical for each and the same person has already stated that half of FttN the investment ($14.75B) will be wasted?
d) When asked a couple of simple questions, instead of answering says, err, umm, “I will no longer correspond with you…”?
e) Claims one side of politics lousy at everything and supports everything the others do, whilst simultaneously claiming no political bias?
f) Claims the NBN has weighed us down for a decade when it was only announced in 2009?
g) Cherry-picks more estimations from the “failed [sic] doc” (now defunct Corp Plan) and twists them with more cherry-picked figures from ABS and on each occasion comes up with different figures for people with connections which aren’t fixed (4.2m – 6.6m and others in-between, que?) and nonetheless claims to be factual?
h) Says wireless only homes will impede FttP subscriptions and as mentioned came up with (4.2 – 6.6 million, connections who aren’t fixed, from his cherry-picked figures) because NBNCo previously highlighted wireless only homes as a risk. Then claims because the current govt. didn’t highlight this as a risk to FttN it’s therefore only a risk to FttP?
I) Claims to have sub 4 Mbps fixed connection… BUT obviously, isn’t one of the 4.2 or was it 6.6m wonderful wireless only homes…LOL
The list goes on…
Amazing :/
Lionel: “$34bn saving in capex”‘
Wow, that’s a pretty good saving from a 37.5B CAPEX.”
Hi Lionel. Yes. It is a pretty good saving. In fact the total capex saving is $54.6bn, which is even better, right?
1. The NBN $37.5bn Capex is to 2021, at which time only 8.7 million premises are connected. (NBN Corp Plan 2012 Exhibit 9-2: Forecast Summary Financials).
2. If you look at Exhibit 9.5 Capex Profile, you will see that the capex is steady at ~$2bn per year from 2022 to 2027. For 2028, Exhibit 9.2 gives the capex as 1.5bn. So to 2028 the total NBN capex is $50.9bn, at which time 10.3m premises are connected.
3. Annual capex is not shown in the corporate plan for the period between 2029-2039. Extrapolating the 2022-2028 linear trend of $1.9bn per year gives total capex to 2039 of $72bn. Exhibit 9.2 gives capex for 2040 as $3bn.
4. So, in 2040 the total NBN capex is $75bn and 11.5 million premises are connected.
5. In 2019, the total capex under the coalition policy is $20.4bn, at which time 12.7 million premises are connected.
To summarise:
NBN Capex to 2021: $37.4bn to 8.7 million premises. $37bn/8.7m premises = $4,310 per premise
NBN Capex to 2040: $75bn to 11.5 million premises. $75bn/11.5m premises = $6,522 per premise
Coalition Capex to 2019: $20.4bn to 12.7 million premises. $20.4/12.7 premises = $1,603 per premise
“I’ve changed my mind and fully support the Coalitions plan.”
That choice is a privilege we are fortunate to still enjoy. The corresponding responsibility is to be fully informed of the facts.
“1. The NBN $37.5bn Capex is to 2021, at which time only 8.7 million premises are connected. (NBN Corp Plan 2012 Exhibit 9-2: Forecast Summary Financials).”
Yes, connect, yet 100% have been passed and can connect to the NBN.
“2. If you look at Exhibit 9.5 Capex Profile, you will see that the capex is steady at ~$2bn per year from 2022 to 2027. For 2028, Exhibit 9.2 gives the capex as 1.5bn. So to 2028 the total NBN capex is $50.9bn, at which time 10.3m premises are connected.”
Yes, there will be ongoing CAPEX expenditure past the initial rollout for new homes, businesses and upgrades. I assume the Coalition ongoing CAPEX could be much higher since GFast or FTTH upgrades will be far more expensive.
‘3. Annual capex is not shown in the corporate plan for the period between 2029-2039. Extrapolating the 2022-2028 linear trend of $1.9bn per year gives total capex to 2039 of $72bn. Exhibit 9.2 gives capex for 2040 as $3bn.
4. So, in 2040 the total NBN capex is $75bn and 11.5 million premises are connected.’
Yes.
“To summarise:
NBN Capex to 2021: $37.4bn to 8.7 million premises. $37bn/8.7m premises = $4,310 per premise
NBN Capex to 2040: $75bn to 11.5 million premises. $75bn/11.5m premises = $6,522 per premise
Coalition Capex to 2019: $20.4bn to 12.7 million premises. $20.4/12.7 premises = $1,603 per premise”
What a completely bogus calculation, do you expect anyone to fall for that?
“That choice is a privilege we are fortunate to still enjoy. The corresponding responsibility is to be fully informed of the facts.”
Do you think I am a moron? Who do you think you are fooling with this stuff?
1. “Yes, connect, yet 100% have been passed and can connect to the NBN.”
“Passed and can connect to the NBN”.? The NBN has passed whole suburbs and nobody can connect. Apartment blocks are passed but no MDUs can connect Townsville CBD has been passed but businesses can’t connect. How much of the $37.6bn capex between 2022 and 2040 is to connect up the remaining 2.8 million premises, broken out from upgrade costs? How many of the 2.8 million are apartment blocks passed but no resident can connect?
2. “Yes, there will be ongoing CAPEX expenditure past the initial rollout for new homes, businesses and upgrades. I assume the Coalition ongoing CAPEX could be much higher since GFast or FTTH upgrades will be far more expensive.”
The coalition policy covers rollout of 50-100Mbps to 12.7m premises to 2019.
G.fast is not in scope of the roll-out. Fibre-on-demand upgrades are on a co-payment basis post-roll-out are and not included.
P.S. $2000 million capex every year just for new homes and upgrades? That is mindbogglingly incredible.
BT’s entire roll-out to two thirds of the country or 19 million homes cost a total of £2.5 billion. ($4bn) . That’s total project cost – capex + opex £130 ($220) per home
For NBN Co.just the capex for new premises and upgrades is the entire BT roll-out cost every two years for the following 18 years and beyond!!
The 2007 election promise was for a National Broadband Network by 2012 for $4.7 billion. For NBN Co. this is just 2 years’ of capex and just for new premises and upgrades post-rollout.
And rational people actually supported this plan?
Rational people do not let their political obedience sway, nay dictate, their opinions and comments…
We look at all the evidence and come up with a weighted opinion based on facts. Such as almost identical govt. spends, superior product, the Telstra factor remedied, superseded copper not relied upon, return on the investment, costly upgrades not required and especially add ons (vectoring G.Fast…FFS so as to still be woefully inferior, seriously) etc, etc
And the facts clearly are in favour of FttP.
Irrational people are given direction upon their expected outcome (in this case the lesser FttN by their political masters) and instructed to argue the cause accordingly. As such they cherry-pick and fluff up information to suit this direction.
Such as repeating estimations from their own party’s policy as fact and also cherry-picking info from the other sides previous Corp plan and fudding it up, even though they have already claimed the plan they quote from failed?
Then they refuse to factor the costs (dierect and indirect) of bringing FttN up to FttP specs in the future. Oh but they have told us 50% of the FttN bulid can be reused (forgetting on the flipside, that that’s a clear admission of 50% – $14,75B wastage)…
Amazing :/
Comments are closed.