news Telecoms industry commentator Paul Budde has said that while the NBN rollout is currently “in a good place”, “storm clouds” may lie ahead as a lack of investment causes issues further down the road.
Writing on his blog, Budde acknowledged that currently NBN Co is making a success of meeting rollout targets, saying: “If we take the politics, the disappointment about the second-rate infrastructure, and the wholesale/competition issues out of it, then there is no doubt that NBN Co is now in a good place with the rollout of its multi-technology mix broadband network.”
While it is a pity that this “well-oiled machine” cannot be used to deploy fibre to the premises/distribution point (FTTP/FTTdp) instead of fibre to the node (FTTN), Budde said, there is a “good chance” that the company will hit its 2017 target and possibly improve on it.
However, the future is not all necessarily looking bright, according to the telecoms consultant.
Although NBN revenues are up, he said, the financial future of the company remains “very uncertain” with government money “running out” at the end of financial year 2016/2017 and remaining doubt as to how NBN Co will raise the rest of its investment.
This raises the possibility that the government may have to provide the funds, since under the current circumstances it would be “very difficult” for NBN to raise the money privately.
“Competition in the multi-dwelling market is growing, especially from TPG; and at the same time new high-speed wireless technologies are entering the market with much better broadband services and they are cherry-picking in some of the high growth broadband markets,” Budde said.
Additionally, the company’s “current second-rate NBN based on older technology” and an ACCC review, which will deliver its outcome in 2017, creates further uncertainty – all of which, Budde suggested, will make it difficult to get private investors interested.
In order to keep up with customer demand and compete with companies offering better alternatives, the NBN will “eventually have to be upgraded to full FTTP, or at least FTTdp”, he predicted – and that could require an investment of at least double the current approximately $20 billion needed to complete the current rollout.
“This also means that there will be an overlap in investments. In other words, some of the current investments will become stranded before they can be properly written off,” Budde said.
According to PwC, the value of the current multi-technology mix NBN once completed would be little more than $25 billion – or as Budde put it: “roughly half the cost of building it”.
“So, while from an infrastructure deployment point of view the company needs to be congratulated on the current results, at the same time it will have a massive job ahead to get its investment and business models in place based on the upcoming realities,” he concluded.
Image credit: Paul Budde
^ this deserves its own article
So Turnbullstein’s Fraudband will have to be “Government Funded” because no moneylenders are willing to back it.
He also states that “Private Investors” are unlikely buyers of a technology that has cherry pickers raiding the pot.
The “Government” will then have to fund the upgrade to FTTP.
Isn’t that something we have always known, that Fraudband’s current round of investment will lose the sunk cost of all those nodes when FTTH is deployed.
It’s obvious “Investors” aren’t going to touch an obsolescent project when placed for sale will require another huge round of new investment.
It’s pretty clear that the whole idea of a short termism bandaids Turnbullstein concocted is just going to lead to another long debate about the same subject, then another long term Government funded project.
With most of the Taxpayer funded billions provided to this project being written off.
It’s pretty clear that the Philosophy of this “Government” that 25mbps is all that people need, was blown out of the water in the 3 years since 2013, with demand for bandwidth rising very quickly. People are currently holding back on higher speeds purely because the cost structure is out of wack and based on speeds, not volumes. FTTN is also very unlikely to give to most customers a Tier 3 and above speed. The 25/5 is simply the effective “maximum”.
I think you could syndicate the rights to a mini-series on that alone.
It’s more likely that the LNP will flog it off at a bargain basement price to Telstra or Fox, and then sit back rubbing their pudgy hands with glee at having privatised (i.e. destroyed) another public asset.
The LNP don’t LIKE governments owning and operating things. Have alook at what Mike Baird has sold and is trying to sell in NSW.
There’s no doubt the rollout is finally on-track (except for the delims). We could go to any of the charts I’ve produced.
Budde is correct about a number of issues raised in his blog; NBN revenue (FY16 $421m) well below it’s expenses ($1,993m), ACCC review creates investment uncertainty, MTM dropped infrastructure competition (like FTTH), shaky business case (speeds underperforming, costs exploding) and new competitors cherry-picking profitable markets. Combined it all makes it “very difficult for NBN to raise the money privately”. Then these issues (and more) have been pointed out for several years.
But like many of the fiberartzi he quickly goes off reservation; customer demand is not outpacing deployed techs and there’s no evidence for the need for “full FttP, or at least Fttdp” deployment. Actuals show average provisioned AVC across all techs continues to decline YoY and 1.09mbps CVC / customer is the restricting factor (as my analysis showed; fanboys zero). Based on his unsupported claim he comically concludes an overlap of investment is required;-)
PWC estimation of the value of the company (like all valuations) is on revenue, not capex (basic stuff). Given NBNCo is clearly capturing the majority of available revenue (84% choosing 25mbps or less) the valuation for FTTH would be roughly the same (slightly lower direct opex). However, MTM at far less CPP than fibre (1/3 to 1/2), remains way ahead when interest, depreciation and amortisation included.
The expected costs to taxpayers of the NBN “investment” will be tens of billions, a full fibre rollout significantly greater (add tens of billions). Watch taxpayers front up the additional funding required to completion (or provide their guarantee).
8th year yet the company’s still not generating enough revenue to even cover their escalating wages bill ($609m). A policy disaster! Sorry for the “confusing” numbers, back to the squealing…
Lol your chart you provided which you change to not show certain effects lol.
On track after how many years of the policy you could have written being wrong so many times in cost and time and taken 2 years plus to get there own cost and time frame correct if it is lol.
Well Richard why would fttn be the same value when fttn is generating a quarter of fttp revenue.
Yes thanks to the policy will add more than the “tens of billions”. As thanks to the S1.5 (lol still thinks it’s comparable to the mtm) shows that it’s not the $2B cheaper to do fttp later but “tens of billions” more again to upgrade later.
So piggy the “remains way ahead when interest, depreciation and amortisation included.” is that calulated on the 5 year life span of the mtm lol.
But then your charts you provided why the fttn and hfc are rolling out fttp. As either hfc or fttn has not beaten the faster fttp RFS. All the charts say is they have more areas being connected with more man power which they could have done same for fttp. So again where is the fabled faster rollout going to happen
Does anyone speak JK? If so please translate.
Lol Richard and his desperate games again. Looks like your not the smart man you claimed to be as your turning into a devoid. But then you had fallen for hook, line and sinker the counter factual lol
@jk you still don’t understand S1.5. How’s your $1.6 cost differential going? (do we need more; chuckles)
Lol Richard
“We were not asked to do that. The question by the government was, ‘If we were to look at moving right now back to an FTTP environment, what would the number be?'”
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/5da16dd3-ceb5-45be-994e-c57ab82d8e67/toc_pdf/National%20Broadband%20Network%20Select%20Committee_2015_09_14_3789_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/5da16dd3-ceb5-45be-994e-c57ab82d8e67/0000%22
But apparently the s1.5 is undefined lol but please you “apparently” a smart man aren’t you lol. Here fishy fishy
@jk right. Just like Morrow wasn’t able to ignore Quigley’s spend. That’s how time works (surprised?).
The spend…Dick?
You mean the funds spent to get NBNCo off the ground, to develop the company, run backhaul, do all the preliminaries, etc, etc that Morrow now enjoy’s and doesn’t have to fund, as it’s already done for him?
Kudos you are awakening from your cultist stupor…
That’s how time works (surprised?)
Apology accepted
Lol Richard
So what now your claim labor original fttp rollout to compare with the mtm has to include the $27B cost blowouts of the mtm so far lol. Here fishy fishy.
but then how much did quigley spend when morrow took over $6-$8B. But the less the ten billions is tens of billions to you poor numbers man. Here fishy fishy.
@jk exposing your ignorance is fun (as it has been for several years); doesn’t need encouragement.
SR13 has its numbers, CP16 theirs. Calculation for each different.
You appear to believe Quigley had finished building. You hilariously made the same mistake with your $1.6 differential figure.
However what is know Quigley’s FTTH CPP never got close to forecasts, neither the speed of his rollout. Both add cost. Life-to-date PP&E and Intangible Assets of various components was published in their FYQ4 financial report. Start adding the various tech CPP for the forecast cost (as if you could;-).
Lol Richard
Morrow statement again
““We were not asked to do that. The question by the government was, ‘If we were to look at moving right now back to an FTTP environment, what would the number be?’”
So you new claim for fttp
is the rollout of fttp
switching to mtm and do nothing but have blowout cost of $27B
Then switchback to fttp.
As the to comparable figure to the mtm
Your ignorance is bliss here fishy fishy.
Remember JK you are corresponding with someone who was arguing against the SR scenarios, when he didn’t even know WTF the scenarios actually were…
GOLD..
@jk Unsurprisingly that isn’t my claim, you still don’t understand how to cost projects.
Transit, Sat, FTTH(G) & FW costs same in both plans. Last mile costs for FTTH(B)/FTTN/FTTB/HFC significantly different (largest component) as are additional IT to handle MTM, but offset by earlier revenues (majority captured). Rollout delayed for switch, however given the resource restrictions unlikely to be any better than Morrows performance anyway. We did this years ago, basic stuff.
Lol Richard say again you didn’t claim it lol
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/17/turnbulls-nbn-hardly-target-says-labor/#comment-760366
“CP16p39 S1.5 $74-84b v S6 $46-56b”
At least your back to your lying ways here fishy fishy
@jk right; the post correct (S1.5). Back to those iPad sales I guess (prices marked);-)
So fishy fishy
So you new claim for fttp
is the rollout of fttp
switching to mtm and do nothing but have blowout cost of $27B
Then switchback to fttp.
As the to comparable figure to the mtm
Could ask you the same thing Dick, from all of your posts all we get is brain fart after brain fart. Who knows you might actually have a good point in there but with your incoherent ramblings that we all see its extremely difficult to make out what that point actually is.
If you didn’t give me so many LOL’s with your ramblings i would just bypass your comments completely, im sure im not the only one either.
Maybe you could try writing it down on a piece of paper first or atleast proof read what you write?
Cheers.
@k strange then my post drive almost all comment traffic on the site.
We’d discusssed your contributions…ok finished.
Richard’s drivel “drives comment traffic”. Proud of drivel, he is!
@t and another
Wow Richard again referring to Richard as his smoking gun… because normally he says Budde has NFI, unless of course Budde agrees with Richard at times or it can in some way be interpreted as agreeing…
Keep doing those partial apples/oranges – start-up/non-start-up (all the work done for them)”anal”ysis too, and of course…
And more importantly, keep bluntly refusing to even address let alone factor, (‘your plans”) pre-Sept 13 promise of $29.5B fully costed, ready to roll (which took two years to roll – or 3 years according to you in the De Lorean, Mr Numbers, remember Sept 2013 – Sept 2016… ROFL) 25Mbps for all Aussies by 2016?
Shhh, keep repeating what the masters tell you Ricky, good boy.
You’re welcome
“customer demand is not outpacing deployed techs and there’s no evidence for the need for “full FttP, or at least Fttdp” deployment.”
The mere fact of DOCSIS 3.1 rollout plans in major HFC markets including the NBN shows that there is demand. In the US, without FiOS and Google Fibre encroaching on cable turf, DOCSIS 3.1 wouldn’t be talked about, let alone being in rollout roadmaps.
“Combined it all makes it “very difficult for NBN to raise the money privately”. Then these issues (and more) have been pointed out for several years.”
I agree.
So where is the fabled 25 Mbps by the end 2016 to allow more revenue? Where is the MTM components? I mean, the FTTH part is winding down, but more infrastructure is needed for a greater footprint … leading to more revenue.
So where is it? Is this Malcolm’s “arthritic snail” moment? Malcolm and Mitch (but more Malcolm, considering it was mostly his watch) have some explaining (Malsplaining? Mitsplaining? Morrowsplaining?) to do.
“a full fibre rollout significantly greater”
That can’t be proven Richard, it was never close to being completed. The Strategic Review had their terms of reference wrong.
“8th year yet the company’s still not generating enough revenue to even cover their escalating wages bill ($609m).”
Just priming for a fire sale to a certain aggressive corporate provider ready to milk the Australian public for another generation (or three). Profit at the expanse of near ubiquitous connectivity which is stunningly near sighted because of the subsequent entrepreneurial opportunities that ubiquity can offer.
I guess minerals will save us … according to the Coalition.
“So where is the fabled 25 Mbps by the end 2016 to allow more revenue?”
I’ve never claimed it, called out their timetable before 2013 election. Policy blowouts addressed (again) months ago:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/05/24/hypocrisy-afr-launches-bizarre-attack-labor-nbn-raids/#comment-740082
“I mean, the FTTH part is winding down, but more infrastructure is needed for a greater footprint … leading to more revenue.”
Right FTTN/B & HFC winding up (impressively), as is revenue (though not enough to cover costs).
“That can’t be proven Richard, it was never close to being completed.”
It doesn’t need to be completed. As explained before (forgot?) we (private sector) always evaluate multi-year projects before their completion. Costs and revenue forecasts are revised on actual performance (like the analysis you claimed didn’t exist). CPP & ARPU actuals today known (even published; quarterly) from 2+m premises passed.
“Profit at the expanse of near ubiquitous connectivity which is stunningly near sighted because of the subsequent entrepreneurial opportunities that ubiquity can offer.”
MTM provides the same level of coverage. What “entrepreneurial opportunities” aren’t captured (rofl)?
“I guess minerals will save us … according to the Coalition.”
Mining a great industry for Australia, an area of significant comparative advantage. The IT “geniuses” here won’t come close even with demanded public sector internet (don’t understand the basics eg 0ms latency, light to bits layer 1 not 2, contention, …). Yet another cost burden to be carried by the few net taxpayers.
Is revenue winding up for fttn – the latest report says otherwise.
1.5 x the capex for 1/5th the users and 1/20th the revenue.
Thanks to Mal and co – This is now a mess!
@j doesn’t think FTTN revenue is increasing (chuckles).
Also shown in their “latest report”:
CPP FTTH v FTTN ~+95% ($4,411 v $2,257)
and from the ACCC’s “latest report”:
Avg Speeds FTTH v FTTN ~-14% (32.65 v 28.54)
Double the cost, negligible difference in AVC revenue; no reason CVC revenue should be any less (avg well below any techs capabilities).
NBN was a mess from it’s inception (called out at the time). “Mal’s” switch to MTM has diminished Quigley’s corporate dysfunction, but the costs to taxpayers remain massive. Mal should have walked away.
822,652 active users on fttp
revenue $225M fttp
Average $309 per user
119,694 active users on fttn
Revenue $10M fttn
Average $84 per user.
But apparently “negligible difference”
@jk doesn’t understand ARPU, 12mtgs revenue v less, nor delay between RFS and connection profiles ( early adopters v retirement). Classic;-)
Wait wait Richard you going on about a 12mth vs less when I am just following your standards for the SR a full rollout vs not full rollout lol.
LOL indeed FTTN revenue is increasing… well it will when it starts… in Sept 2016, according to you Dick…
After all SFA revenue to a little over SFA revenue is still an increase no matter how inconsequential and lame.
And tell us again how the UK passed 60m premises )oh that’s right it was 16m (as I told you)…
Yes we must believe your numbers, after all they’ve (and the writing of shitty MTM) have all been so great so far…
ROFL at you and that busted ego
@jk not my standard, yours! $1.6b difference misunderstanding as ridiculous as your activations @ 30jun / 12 months revenue when one tech winding down, the other ramping up (and not even available for 12 mths). Don’t worry you won’t get it, few delims will. Murdoch will be along to explain it (rofl).
Lucky those iPads have price tags;-)
Lol Fishy boy sorry it is your standard your happy to compare a rollout figures that completed y21 vs one that not complete in y21.
Let’s look at your wind up shaw we. Now fttn and HFC RFS areas has not been faster than FTTP which mean all they are doing is more areas at the same time could have easily done that with FTTP lol.
Lol it’s a pity that you don’t either lol fishy boy. How’s the counter factual going btw. At counter factual which isn’t a counter factual Lol. But fishy boy can’t help believe it lol. Even still when I think the statement saying it wasn’t.
Unless it’s your standard to falsify and spin and figures oh wait.
But then we can’t forget those Lying claims too. What were they oh.
Conroy threat Telstra to not upgrade there HFC lol (no citation)
We would all have better net if it wasn’t for Conroy (no citation)
Claim $b would have been spent if it wasn’t for Conroy but then Apparently there was no $B to be spent on the best policy ever claimed by you, bit of a contradiction there by you lol. (no citation)
@ Richard… you claimed the Coalition’s policy was as if you could have written it… and strangely (cough) I don’t recall you ever saying it couldn’t be done in the timeframe and for the $’s they promised…
So feel free to offer the weasel words, but no banana.
You’re welcome
@alex there’s many things you don’t recall. You understand even less. Sharing your “wisdom” (abuse) back on ZDNet I see.
Indeed I don’t reacll you ever being right about anything… just lies and cultist BS..
And guess what I (and HC) were completely right…
You’re welcome
Rizz it’s fm funny in the same link fishy boy provided HC caught him regurgitating Turnbull lies lol.
So did you or did you not endorse the Coalition’s policy, costings and timetable as if your own…?
@alex I did not. Addressed dozens of times.
BS…
You said government out as per your disproved cult theory, but yet lauded and still laud each and every move the current government makes regarding the plan you could have written..
Stop having an each way bet and each endorse MTM as promised or call it the fuck up as we can all see it for… as much as doubled in cost and blown out by 4 years for a mere 25Mbps …
Unbelieveable
either not each (as explained I no longer have an edit function)
@alex I endorsed the reusing of existing infrastructure, the rest is your made up BS.
I’ve been extremely critical of the continuation of the policy, (expensive) failure is assured. The comparative cost re overseas upgrades tragic.
However Quigley’s failure is undeniable to all but the biggest fanboys, Morrow’s comparative performance outstanding.
25+mbps not demanded, nor for the foreseeable future. 1.09mbps CVC the embarrassment (thanks Conroy). Contention, neither you or Brisy line boy knew anything about a big issue given video the driver of growing data consumption (no, not a contradiction). Then all pointed out for years to your foul-mouthed abused.
LIAR… you cleary said you could have been commissioned to have written the Coalition’s policy..
Did you or did you not?
Now before answer I did not and again having your own fucking words re-posted as HC did ti humiliate you just whimper off tail between legs…again.
You’re welcome
So fishy fishy the 45% demand for 100Mbps in NZ is not in the foreseeable future but then that’s now not the future. But the like minds of you fishy boy we would still all be on dialup.
Rizz I think our fishy boy he believes his own lies lol
@alex Brisy line boy posted the full post, here again http://zd.net/2bwsy09
Yet another 2013 post showing remarkable insight, highlighting your failure’s denial (comically continuing). Of the points raised infrastructure competition has been dropped, I again critical.
I suggest you take some time and read it (hopefully comprehend it, but not expecting miracles).
Not responding to your bile is all it deserves. You know nothing of financials not IT, actually gloated your ignorance.
@jk if you take cost out of the equation everyone will take the highest speed available. What backhaul is provisioned for those 100mbps sync speeds? (Rofl).
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it;-)”
yep re read it lol.
Lol fishy boy you said demand wasn’t there. That’s your excuse so your claim New Zealand users are not paying for 100Mbps now. Much like you claim then didn’t claim the claim again and the counter factual fishy boy.
But then Tutnbull did say his cost to the user would be cheaper yet they are chargeing to same cost as FTTP while supply a cheaper connection lol
@jk even your selective quoting doesn’t support Alex’s fantasy. Should have dropped the wink.
Even with the link they can’t comprehend it. Surprise;-)
Look Rizz fishy boy has gone delusional.
Let’s look at more your comment lol
“use of existing infrastructure”
Except infill hfc with fttn or give west coast Tas sat lol
“priority for areas where market failed”
But they are doing the opposite aren’t they fishy.
“access to infrastructure for competition”
What did Turnbull do to tpg lol
“CBA”
Lol half the country only requires 15Mbps by 2023 lol. Then why aren’t we sticking with adsl2+ lol.
But the clincher “The Liberal policy document includes everything I’ve been posting about for years”.
Would that include the $27B blowout 4 years behind target too since “It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it;-)” poor fishy boy
@ji pleads to Alex for support;-) classic!
Lol fishy boy turns to the troll tactic oh how the mighty has fallen how about you be a real man and address the points I brought up. But then we both know your can’t be that.
JK look, Richard has no support because everyone else can see…and is, as a consequence and as usual, just having another typical jealous rage. Even his trusty lap dog can’t argue and is MIA *guffaws* (again/still)
But to be open minded and fair (something Richard can never grasp) let’s at least look at Richard’s interpretation shall we…
Richard says: although I said, in relation to the Coalition’s MTM plan –
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
Of course I wasn’t literally saying –
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
What I meant was –
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
So if you can’t see the difference between, what I said –
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
and, what I meant –
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
Well you are an uneducated fool and a fibreatzi, squealer who is unworthy to breathe the same air as Richard “It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it” ****e.
The defensive (by attacking…lol), thin skin is almost as delicious as the partial, cherry-picked idiotic, Richard says “anal”ysis.
Rizz I look through google translate to try and find fishy boy language to translate his
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
To try and comprehend what he means other than
“It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it”
but number cruncher wasn’t in there.
@jk at least their selective quoting has dropped the wink;-)
Sorry fishy boy can’t understand you
“The Liberal policy document includes everything I’ve been posting about for years”.
Hook line and sinker once again
Lol fishy boy still doesn’t have the balls to address his own comments lol
@ Richard…
Serious;y if you truly believe as you just quoted and weren’t just being the atypical far right goon (you know gat a haircut and get a job – think Red for that 70’s) that there are only a “few net taxpayers” what including “you”…ROFL… then I’m afraid your are even more completely lost in your own stupid cultist make believe world than we first though
“I’ve never claimed it”
I never said you did. The Coalition did however.
“Right FTTN/B & HFC winding up”
At the pace of an “arthritic snail”? *chuckle*
“It doesn’t need to be completed”
Sure it did, particularly when you want to take advantages of the economies of scale.
“MTM provides the same level of coverage. What “entrepreneurial opportunities” aren’t captured?”
Because it’s not about coverage, it’s about ubiquity of a standard service, it’s about being easier to commission services that are simpler and more reliable thanks to no unstable copper mix of technologies versus the MTM with copper. It’s about setting the standards bar much higher by simply removing the most unstable part of the infrastructure, last mile fixed copper.
“Mining a great industry for Australia”
It was … but it’s not as great as it used to be, particularly this year. And Australia is reaping the disadvantages of relying too much on it. There’s thousands of laid off mining company employees that might disagree with you there Richard.
@m best you addres your point to the coalition then.
Snail with arthritis, interesting;-)
Don’t need completion before projects can be evaluated. Your position is delusional. What “economies of scale”? Should be good.
“ubiquitous connectivity” becomes layer-1 choice;-) so no opportunities missed.
Mining is still a great industry; impact on declining govt revenue a problem only because they spent like drunken sailors (see NBN). Perhaps you believe the NBN would change the employment prospects of retrenched miners (rofl).
Ah yes the old each way bet…
I could have written the Coalitions policy… oh it’s fucked, well address your point to them then…
PRICELESS
You’re welcome.
“@m best you addres your point to the coalition then”
You talked about the difficulty of raising money privately. Revenue is part of that. 25 Mbps by the end of 2016 is a part of that as well. It was in response your point Richard.
“Snail with arthritis, interesting”
Yeah I thought it was ridiculous as well when Malcolm used it the first time.
“Don’t need completion before projects can be evaluated. Your position is delusional.”
So … you don’t think economies of scale aren’t important when addressing the other … what is it now … ~71% of premises in Australia were to be tacked on (representing the FTTH rollout) to the ~22% that the MTM has.
Your comment is invalid Richard.
““ubiquitous connectivity” becomes layer-1 choice;-) so no opportunities missed.”
Uh huh … so where is the choice for any of the 93% to upgrade their connections to FTTH? A choice vetoed by the provider (fibre on demand, yeah right) isn’t really a choice Richard. And I don’t see TPG reaching that level of penetration.
“Mining is still a great industry;”
Sez you Richard.
“Perhaps you believe the NBN would change the employment prospects of retrenched miners ”
Not at all. My point was that mining isn’t the basket it used to be. Yet that’s exactly what this Coalition government wanted. Other industries need to step up.
And IT engineering (whether that’s cloud, web or general software applications) can leapfrog into the mainstream when a simpler 3 tier architecture is all that the designers need to design for. With unstable copper, it’s a crap shoot, with the bar set so low, it stifles innovation.
Then again, the Coalition and innovation (particularly IT innovation) don’t really go together. It’s their ideology unfortunately.
Take the Atlassian guys:
“‘I think the [Australian] federal government has its head so deep in the sand that it couldn’t see the opportunity.
‘I don’t think they’re missing [it], I think they’ve completely missed it and they’re determined to avoid it.
‘I don’t pretend to understand why. But they are determined to avoid it in any shape or form for, I think, to the huge detriment of the country in 10 or 20 years’ time.’ – Mike Cannon-Brookes (Altlassian co-founder)
That form of thinking from our government is what caused the Atlassian guys to go to the Nasdaq … likewise with the NBN.
To quote another splendid guy … particularly relevant to Australia …
“I coulda been a contender” – Marlon Brando
@m write no economies of scale examples except the vibe, projects can only be evaluated on completion (yet performed all the time), mining isn’t a successful sector (massive sector, contributing billions), n-tier applications cant be deployed on copper (problem given its used all the time), innovation requires govt (when that exists of an advertising campaign), companies list on the Nasdaq because of LNP govts (not access capital).
Anyway back to the comparative success of Morrow’s management, copper delivering last mile successfully for hundreds of millions and Budde’s blog.
“@m write no economies of scale examples except the vibe”
Says Richard with his vibe?
“projects can only be evaluated on completion (yet performed all the time)”
You’re getting “projects” confused with “milestones” Richard.
“mining isn’t a successful sector (massive sector, contributing billions)”
Where did I say that? That’s just you attempting to redefine what I said Richard. And as usual, incorrect.
“n-tier applications cant be deployed on copper (problem given its used all the time)”
Not what I said either. I do worry about your comprehension.
” innovation requires govt (when that exists of an advertising campaign)”
Never said that either. Are you really this navel gazing and mis-interpretive on purpose?
“Anyway back to the comparative success of Morrow’s management”
Depends how you define success. Although to be fair, it’s not really Morrow’s fault. He’s hemmed in by the Coalition policy.
“copper delivering last mile successfully for hundreds of millions”
Copper has had it’s time … it’s been great for the last century, but it can’t keep up with the growth of connected devices at home any more, at least, not for timely delivery of consumer network services.
It’s just a shame Australia has to take the harder road at the expense of a political ideology of “we need to be different from the other guys”.
And so it begins:
M: claims economies of scale
R: asks for examples
M: provides none
R: calls M out, nothing but the vibe
M: accuses R of the vibe (no understanding of economics or accounting)
M: claims projects can’t be evaluated before completion
R: points out it’s regular practice to review before completion
M: denies, squeals milestones (no understanding of project management, financial reviews)
Repeat…
“M: claims economies of scale”
“R: asks for examples”
“M: provides none”
Given that economies of scale is a concept, and the example I gave you was ….
“~71% of premises in Australia were to be tacked on (representing the FTTH rollout) to the ~22% that the MTM has.”
… your whinge has already been addressed.
“R: calls M out, nothing but the vibe”
“M: accuses R of the vibe (no understanding of economics or accounting)”
I simply applied your own metric to your answer. And you have no understanding of infrastructure projects Richard. You’re a number cruncher … which unfortunately isn’t realistic when the rubber meets the road in infrastructure projects. You’re the ones that are hand wringing while others fulfil the project outcome. If you’d like to focus on milestones, be my guest, but they are not the outcome the project was commissioned for.
“M: claims projects can’t be evaluated before completion”
“R: points out it’s regular practice to review before completion”
Already addressed, with milestones vs the project goal. You’re still thinking they’re one and the same Richard.
“no understanding of project management”
I find it interesting that you think you’re qualified to make that call.
@m economies of scale isn’t just a concept. Examples everywhere, just not your use of it.
You have no understanding of infrastructure projects Murdoch. You’re (well) nothing…
which unfortunately isn’t realistic when the rubber meets the road in any projects.
Milestones;-) only one for you completion.
who do you think crunches the numbers on such projects;-)
I find it interesting that you think you’re qualified to make any call.
So Richard – “It is almost as if they commissioned me to write it (it being the debacle known as MTM)’ ****e… I really should just write your name as you posted it again, above anyway, in a link, but to keep you from whining even more, if that’s possible…
So how is that crunched MTM ($29.5B) number (but now pick another number from a fucking hat anywhere between $41B and $70B according to the same such number crunchers)… going?
I agree with Murdoch, WTF would you and your ilk know about anything?
Enjoy your disproved cult gullibility;-) – see what I did there *sigh*
You’re welcome
“@m economies of scale isn’t just a concept. Examples everywhere, just not your use of it.”
Errrr .. Richard, it is a concept. And there are examples of it. Was do understand the differing percentages of 93$ coverage of FTTH vs 22$ coverage I hope. You can do the math I’m sure.
“You have no understanding of infrastructure projects Murdoch”
I have nothing to prove to you Richard about my capabilities. Suffice to say, your opinion differs from some others outside this site.
“Milestones;-) only one for you completion.”
I am not sure what you mean when you use incorrect grammar or syntax. Please clarify what you mean. I would expect a numbers man to be a little more exacting.
“who do you think crunches the numbers on such projects;-)”
People such as yourself. And don’t get me wrong here .. your number crunching is valued greatly. It can provide lessons on improvement and allow management to refocus resources if need be.
But here’s the thing Richard .. the numbers aren’t the goal … the project outcome is. They’re a tracking mechanism and guideline for improvement while the project is underway. Don’t make out like they’re anything more than that. They’re part of a means to an end, not the end itself.
“I find it interesting that you think you’re qualified to make any call.”
Others in my professional vicinity can make that call about me. I just hope I do a good job, but it seems to be working well professionally so far.
If you are reduced to sloppy goading Richard … then that’s nothing new on the internet, and you have nothing left to discuss because you’ve reached the end of it. But that happened a long time ago I would say. I’m just a recent witness to join the crowd .
@m “Errrr .. Richard, it [economies of scale] is a concept. And there are examples of it.”
It is not an abstract idea but the term used to describe the savings of producing some product/services in larger qualities. It applies differently to difference processes, indeed some scale with higher unit costs. For example buying fibre in large quantities is almost always cheaper, but not a significant cost component here. entering premises for FTTH is expensive and labour intensive (pointed out several years ago) and doesn’t scale well. Quigley often spoke of failing costs and ramped up deployment; problem was his output never matched the talk (again identified with analysis of published data as it was released; under him not very often).
Actual CPP is double Quigley’s forecast. Solid sample size of some 1m premises more than enough to revaluate budgets. Again happens all the time; indeed fundamental practice of any large project.
“Was do understand the differing percentages of 93$ coverage of FTTH vs 22$ coverage I hope. You can do the math I’m sure.”
I am not sure what you mean when you use incorrect grammar or syntax. Please clarify what you mean. I would expect a letters man to be a little more exacting.
“It can provide lessons on improvement and allow management to refocus resources if need be.”
Not when every identified issue is shouted down by the innumerate. The policy is a very expensive folly, deserves to be called out.
“But here’s the thing Richard .. the numbers aren’t the goal … the project outcome is. They’re a tracking mechanism and guideline for improvement while the project is underway. Don’t make out like they’re anything more than that. They’re part of a means to an end, not the end itself.”
Almost right; numbers also used to assess the project’s actual v forecast outcomes. fanboys unable to see what the data shows, many gloating of their ignorance; yet provide zero themselves.
If you are reduced to sloppy goading Murdoch … then that’s nothing new on the internet, and you have nothing left to discuss because you’ve reached the end of it. But that happened a long time ago I would say. I’m just a longtime witness in the very small (2?) delim crowd of knowledgeable and experienced posters. Why not join us and comment on the blog?
“It is not an abstract idea …”
Sure it is. As you’ve alluded to, it can be applied differently. However ….
“Quigley often spoke of failing costs and ramped up deployment; problem was his output never matched the talk ”
The ramp up was not allowed to accelerate, as you well know. The Coalition put an end to that immediately after the 2013 election. So before you cast blame on Quigely, make sure that it’s warranted.
“Solid sample size of some 1m premises more than enough to revaluate budgets”
“Again happens all the time; indeed fundamental practice of any large project.”
I agree. But here’s the rub. The project is very different from Quigley’s rollout. That started immediately after the 2013 election.
“I am not sure what you mean when you use incorrect grammar or syntax. Please clarify what you mean. I would expect a letters man to be a little more exacting.”
You mean syntax don’t you. I’m sure you can work out a percentage sign, but just in case you can’t ….
““Was do understand the differing percentages of 93% coverage of FTTH vs 22% coverage I hope. You can do the math I’m sure.””
Now if you’ll please clarify your point.
“Not when every identified issue is shouted down by the innumerate. ”
The different being Richard, is that you don’t have a project manager’s overview of the NBN. You’re operating from incomplete knowledge. Unless of course you care to state how you managed to acquire internal NBNCo project management material in order to draw your conclusions. You cannot hope to evaluate accurately if you don’t have all that information. That’s your disconnect, right there.
“… numbers also used to assess the project’s actual v forecast outcomes. ”
Yes. Assessing the actuals against the forecasts is only part of the ongoing tracking process for project delivery. I see we agree.
“If you are reduced to sloppy goading Murdoch ….”
You really do make a donkey of yourself Richard.
No it isn’t. Its a term used to describe…(wait, already answered). It isn’t already applicable, like your incorrect usage.
“The ramp up was not allowed to accelerate, as you well know.”
The ramp up didn’t accelerate. Quigley ran the show for 4.5 years!
“The project is very different from Quigley’s rollout.”
What is different about the FW, Sat, Transit, FTTH, funding model,…
FTTN/B & HFC replaced FTTH. MDUs all stuck at service class zero before FTTB. FTTH CPP known today at scale, double Quigley’s CP forecasts.
“Now if you’ll please clarify your point.”
Point already made, you claimed economies of scale. Identify them.
“The different being Richard, is that you don’t have a project manager’s overview of the NBN. You’re operating from incomplete knowledge.”
I don’t need “complete knowledge”, I’m drawing my conclusions from published data.
“Assessing the actuals against the forecasts is only part of the ongoing tracking process for project delivery. I see we agree.”
How else is it measured, the “vibe”? (rofl)
You really do make a donkey of yourself Murdoch.
” It isn’t already applicable, like your incorrect usage.”
Richard, you might think you’re the authority on this terminology, but you are not.
“The ramp up didn’t accelerate. Quigley ran the show for 4.5 years!”
And a lot happened in that time before any fibre was put into the ground. I suspect you know that. Were you expecting cable to be laid the day after NBNCo was formed?
““The project is very different from Quigley’s rollout.”
Are you kidding? 71% of Australia now does not get fibre, and you’d like to call that the same rollout?
“What is different about the FW, Sat, Transit, FTTH, funding model,…”
Oh …. the funding model. So if it’s so bad, why hasn’t Morrow/Turnbull/Fifield along with the Department of Finance done anything about it?
“Point already made”
No it wasn’t Richard. I was asking you to clarify this …
“Milestones;-) only one for you completion”
That statement doesn’t make sense.
“I don’t need “complete knowledge”,”
You do if you want to claim authority.
“I’m drawing my conclusions from published data.”
Which is only a small minority of rollout data. Your conclusions are likewise tainted by this.
“How else is it measured, the “vibe”?”
Ummm … I actually agreed with you Richard. You even quoted me. The difference between us is that you’re trying to claim the whole project was a failure. I’m saying that cannot be determined unless the FTTH could have been allowed to complete. No amount of transient statistics that you throw out there can change that.
“You really do make a donkey of yourself Murdoch”
*chuckle* You do realise that every time paraphrase me, you reinforce public opinion of your character right?
@m “Richard, you might think you’re the authority on this terminology, but you are not.”
I’m not claiming to be an “authority”; however “economies of scale” meaning and application is well understood to a high school commerce student (better at my Masters level).
“Were you expecting cable to be laid the day after NBNCo was formed?”
Not day one, but 4.5years? Installing fibre had been performed in many markets prior, including here. Conroy chose to start a GBE (despite zero commercial experience in anything), Quigley chose his contractor model. Quigley prepared the very CP’s by which I’m measuring his success/failure.
“Are you kidding? 71% of Australia now does not get fibre, and you’d like to call that the same rollout?”
I didn’t, however deploying FTTH the area the company failed at the most!
“So if it’s [funding model] so bad, why hasn’t Morrow/Turnbull/Fifield along with the Department of Finance done anything about it?”
Because politically none of them want to bring the expense back into the budget. Again I’ve been extremely critical. ABS btw rules on the commercial return. All available information shows it farcical to believe a positive return will be achieved; ABS like many govt depts failing in their most basic responsibilities.
“You do if you want to claim authority.”
Publishing charts showing the company’s brownfield forecast v actuals from data published by the company is factual. Analysing ACCC data highlighting underperformance re senate estimates evidence is too, as is provisioned CVC,…
“The difference between us is that you’re trying to claim the whole project was a failure.”
What isn’t a failure? What comparative upgrade (there’s many) has spent as much and achieved as little?
“I’m saying that cannot be determined unless the FTTH could have been allowed to complete.”
I’m saying such determinations are made of failing projects everyday, most terminated before completion (as this should’ve been).
“No amount of transient statistics that you throw out there can change that.”
What “transient statistics”; Brownfield forecasts in CP13-15 for 31DEC2013? Brownfield Premises Serviceable passed @ 11-Aug-16? ACCC market data @ 30Jun2016?
*chuckle* The uniformed delims’ opinion of my character means zero, never has. Easy to garner their approval and inane +1; know nothing, post only abuse and bile. The paraphrasing highlights the vacuous nature of your parts of your comments.
Not day one, but 3 years? Installing fibre to the node and HFC had been performed in many markets prior, including here. Still rolling out slower than FTTP. As RFS as mostly the same except fttn still hasn’t beaten FTTP RFS record. But apparently that a success for you Lol.
Lol post only abuse and bile talking about your self there again fishy.
no money left because of the faulty copper blowouts perhaps ? They have crippled it on purpose. People are slowly waking up they’ve been sold a DSL dud. Yet scammed to pay as if it was fibre.
They haven’t rolled out anything at all.
Telstra will buy it as-is and sit on it for a couple of decades more, re-cementing its former fixed-line monopoly and unassailable market dominance. There, that’s certainty for you.
Its interesting if FttH was the Rolls Royce does that mean FttN is the Bugatti Veyron (considering it will cost us at least twice what its worth/could be sold for)?
LOOL XD – I like the turn on it’s head funny you wrote; +1 LIKE :)
If only FTTN could atleast out drag race the Roller; Instead of the other way around.
Sipping wine in refined luxory, leaving the Veyron in the dust; Now that’s an investment smart people would like to have :)
Veyron mechanics way overcharge you too ..hehe ;)
Later, RIPP.
It is no surprise that finding money for this would be difficult. The big money are smart enough to know it is not worth putting more money into copper. Spend more than $50 billion on this network only for it to be worth half price when it is finished? Putting more money into this would just be pissing it away. Not that it hasn’t already happened.
It’s almost like this guy got an early draft of the new NBN corporate plan that was released today.
“Houston, we have a problem!”
Comments are closed.