Comments on Alan Kohler "The NBN board has run away. Why?", 23/09/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/23/information-technology/nbn-board-has-run-away-why
Alan, while your analysis has obvious merits, there are ways both to allow competition and to make the NBN profitable you have not considered.
Competition is to create a level playing field for all participants and not to create entry barriers. As long as NBN is not allowed to be a monopoly and treat it and other competitors equally, competition can be achieved.
While NBN profitability is dependent on the level of cross subsidies from urban to rural areas, this could arguably be achieved through, say, a national charge to all suppliers to urban areas including both the NBN and non-NBN ones. The income from this can be used to subsidise rural users or suppliers to rural areas.
The upshot that is most important is to allow competition for innovation and efficiency. Other policy objectives can be achieved through other means.
Under this framework the Coalition's NBN policy may not necessarily create a board problem for any NBN Co. Further, the Coalition government is unlikely to ask any board to do the impossible.
Showing posts with label NBN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NBN. Show all posts
2013-09-23
2011-04-15
ACCC's disdainful stance on the NBN Co monopoly
Comments on Henry Ergas “Regulate the regulators”, 15/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/regulate-the-regulators/story-e6frgd0x-1226039354279
The stance of the ACCC on the issues of NBN monopoly and Telstra reflected a strong revengeful body as a result of its past experience dealing with Telstra, not too dissimilar to the government's.
It used its power to do so, but was probably abused its legal position and betrayed the public and particularly the shareholders of Telstra unfairly.
That has been very unfortunate for the ACCC and the nation.
In a sense, the whole drama showed the ACCC has not acted in the interest of the public and consumers by agreeing the NON Co. monopoly.
We've already heard the NBN Co. has used its legislated monopoly position to unfairly deal with a number of issues, including delays of construction of homes due to its requirement that have to be done in a particular way and its inability to have sufficient flexibility to empower other companies to meet technical standard with their won creativity to minimise costs.
How will the NON Co monopoly be better and not worse than Telstra’s dominant market position is an open question and anyone’s guess.
Under the current market conditions, other companies could build their own facilities to compete with Telstra in terms of infrastructure and market shares, such as those that have already been built fibre or hybrid ones to homes, e.g. TransacACTEWAGL lines in the ACT.
Under the NON Co monopoly, no one will be allowed to do so, in their words, for cheery picking!
How could the ACCC endorse such a poor arrangement, apart from its what the government has wanted to do.
The stance of the ACCC on the issues of NBN monopoly and Telstra reflected a strong revengeful body as a result of its past experience dealing with Telstra, not too dissimilar to the government's.
It used its power to do so, but was probably abused its legal position and betrayed the public and particularly the shareholders of Telstra unfairly.
That has been very unfortunate for the ACCC and the nation.
In a sense, the whole drama showed the ACCC has not acted in the interest of the public and consumers by agreeing the NON Co. monopoly.
We've already heard the NBN Co. has used its legislated monopoly position to unfairly deal with a number of issues, including delays of construction of homes due to its requirement that have to be done in a particular way and its inability to have sufficient flexibility to empower other companies to meet technical standard with their won creativity to minimise costs.
How will the NON Co monopoly be better and not worse than Telstra’s dominant market position is an open question and anyone’s guess.
Under the current market conditions, other companies could build their own facilities to compete with Telstra in terms of infrastructure and market shares, such as those that have already been built fibre or hybrid ones to homes, e.g. TransacACTEWAGL lines in the ACT.
Under the NON Co monopoly, no one will be allowed to do so, in their words, for cheery picking!
How could the ACCC endorse such a poor arrangement, apart from its what the government has wanted to do.
2011-04-05
NBN will do advertisement for the government - indirectly
Comments on Charis Palmer “Inefficiencies that will plague the NBN”, 5/04/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Heating-up-the-NBN-debate--The-NBNs-fundamental-fl-pd20110329-FE69K?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
Given that only the whole sellers or larger ISP providers will need to deal with the NBN Co and most consumers and business users of the NBN do not need to know anything about the NBN, why there is any need for the NBN Co to do that education at all is a mystery.
Father the government has created and given NBN Co monopoly on landline communications and there will be no alternatives available. Why does it need to waste that money?
It has all the hallmarks of using/abusing/wasting taxpayer’s money – this time indirectly to do advertise for the government.
A creation and puppy of the ALP government, it has to show loyalty to its political master!
Given that only the whole sellers or larger ISP providers will need to deal with the NBN Co and most consumers and business users of the NBN do not need to know anything about the NBN, why there is any need for the NBN Co to do that education at all is a mystery.
Father the government has created and given NBN Co monopoly on landline communications and there will be no alternatives available. Why does it need to waste that money?
It has all the hallmarks of using/abusing/wasting taxpayer’s money – this time indirectly to do advertise for the government.
A creation and puppy of the ALP government, it has to show loyalty to its political master!
2011-04-01
NBN Co. in trouble already!
Comments on Joe Kelly “High prices force NBN to suspend cabling tender process and look elsewhere”, 1/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/high-prices-force-nbn-to-suspend-cabling-tender-process-and-look-elsewhere/story-e6frgaif-1226031831542
Here is the problem with the NBN Co. business plan that uses unrealistic assumptions and projections.
Employment is tight and construction activities do not allow for the price that the NBN Co. has assumed in its plan.
What do you do if there is more demand for labour than supply, or more construction activities than the current capacities can meet? Of course that means firms have to offer higher wages for labour and higher prices for materials to attract more resources or even to keep their existing ones.
Now the NBN Co. is saying tender prices are too high and have to suspend the cabling tender process.
This is just an example of what will emerge in building the NBN in Australia in the future, costs overrun and blowout.
Didn’t the NBN Co. consider this when making its business plan? What a joke it is!
Here is the problem with the NBN Co. business plan that uses unrealistic assumptions and projections.
Employment is tight and construction activities do not allow for the price that the NBN Co. has assumed in its plan.
What do you do if there is more demand for labour than supply, or more construction activities than the current capacities can meet? Of course that means firms have to offer higher wages for labour and higher prices for materials to attract more resources or even to keep their existing ones.
Now the NBN Co. is saying tender prices are too high and have to suspend the cabling tender process.
This is just an example of what will emerge in building the NBN in Australia in the future, costs overrun and blowout.
Didn’t the NBN Co. consider this when making its business plan? What a joke it is!
2011-03-31
A new way, new model and new framework to tap into the NBN possibility
Comments on Rob Burgess “A model to unlock NBN profits, 31/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-e-health-Medibank-Private-Jo-Wright-pd20110331-FFRUH?OpenDocument&src=sph
Dare I say that on top of that model, productivity can be further boosted by developing and applying more intelligent softwares to analyse and model cases such as a person's historical medical conditions to generate results otherwise not available or difficult to derive either on a consistent framework and basis or at all. It would be able to assist in the diagnose and form a whole integrated health wellbeing care in the medical case for example.
It will require the cooperation of experts in any fields and modelling and software professionals. But it will raise productivity and quality of many services to a whole new level.
Such a model would be truly an expert intelligence system.
Such an expert intelligence system can, of course, be applied worldwide, with even unprecedented economies of scale.
Dare I say that on top of that model, productivity can be further boosted by developing and applying more intelligent softwares to analyse and model cases such as a person's historical medical conditions to generate results otherwise not available or difficult to derive either on a consistent framework and basis or at all. It would be able to assist in the diagnose and form a whole integrated health wellbeing care in the medical case for example.
It will require the cooperation of experts in any fields and modelling and software professionals. But it will raise productivity and quality of many services to a whole new level.
Such a model would be truly an expert intelligence system.
Such an expert intelligence system can, of course, be applied worldwide, with even unprecedented economies of scale.
2011-03-28
NBN design's fundamental flaw
Comments on Paul Budde “The NBN's wires are crossed”, 28/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Co-Stephen-Conroy-broadband-pd20110325-FAA4E?OpenDocument&src=rot
For whatever reasons, why is there a need to replace the copper wire between an exchange and most households?
It is understandable that there may be a need for the bulk of a communication system to be fibre-optical where capacity and speed are required because there can be many households to use it.
But for an individual household, if there is only a line for a household that only affects the speed for that household, copper wire by any means should be able to satisfy the needs mentioned even based on current technologies?
I think it is a fundamental mistake to have the NBN as to the households, as opposed to the nods. And that is where the huge wastes will occur, rather unnecessarily.
New technologies and the increasingly more use of wireless just make the current NBN design more problematic.
For whatever reasons, why is there a need to replace the copper wire between an exchange and most households?
It is understandable that there may be a need for the bulk of a communication system to be fibre-optical where capacity and speed are required because there can be many households to use it.
But for an individual household, if there is only a line for a household that only affects the speed for that household, copper wire by any means should be able to satisfy the needs mentioned even based on current technologies?
I think it is a fundamental mistake to have the NBN as to the households, as opposed to the nods. And that is where the huge wastes will occur, rather unnecessarily.
New technologies and the increasingly more use of wireless just make the current NBN design more problematic.
2011-02-07
Change the NBN plan now
Comments on Andrew Harris “Bringing NBN investment undone”, 7/02/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Co-business-case-wireless-Gillard-Yasi-pd20110204-DQVU4?OpenDocument&src=sph
It is high time for the government to drastically change its NBN plan to a much more economically competitive one.
It should go back to the initial plan of to the nods before the current NBN concept to homes.
It should leave to the private sector for the rest part of any connection to homes using whatever the most competitive technologies are. It may be a combination of fibre to the home for some, or use the existing copper to the homes, or wireless with newly built fibre infrastructure as the its support, or even use the newly built fibre infrastructure for a small area wireless facilities, as well as use satellite wireless.
What this means is that it should only proceed with a flexible plan of fibre for the long haul and backbone infrastructure.
If Labor continues with its current NBN plan, it will waste tens of billions taxpayers money. That is not only extremely irresponsible, but also border to economically criminal behaviour.
For that matter, politicians who continue to support the current NBN plan in the federal parliament will be equally guilty.
It is high time for the government to drastically change its NBN plan to a much more economically competitive one.
It should go back to the initial plan of to the nods before the current NBN concept to homes.
It should leave to the private sector for the rest part of any connection to homes using whatever the most competitive technologies are. It may be a combination of fibre to the home for some, or use the existing copper to the homes, or wireless with newly built fibre infrastructure as the its support, or even use the newly built fibre infrastructure for a small area wireless facilities, as well as use satellite wireless.
What this means is that it should only proceed with a flexible plan of fibre for the long haul and backbone infrastructure.
If Labor continues with its current NBN plan, it will waste tens of billions taxpayers money. That is not only extremely irresponsible, but also border to economically criminal behaviour.
For that matter, politicians who continue to support the current NBN plan in the federal parliament will be equally guilty.
2011-01-07
The Obama needs Conroy argument absurd
Comments on Paul Budde “Obama needs Conroy”, 7/01/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstra-NBN-Barack-Obama-Verizon-broadband-pd20110105-CT2QW?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
If you insist with your headline, then the American debts would be much higher.
The NBN has so great uncertainty and there is no indication that it will be economically viable if it were a private company.
By any standard, it is premature to use the Australian NBN to argue for other countries to follow suit. The evolutionary process of the NBN is a disgrace for any public policy: from initial planned about $4 billion public funding to over $40 billion.
Is there any other more irresponsible government in the world than the one that did that?
You mentioned vested interest in the US, what about here in Australia?
In that light, where do you stand?
If you insist with your headline, then the American debts would be much higher.
The NBN has so great uncertainty and there is no indication that it will be economically viable if it were a private company.
By any standard, it is premature to use the Australian NBN to argue for other countries to follow suit. The evolutionary process of the NBN is a disgrace for any public policy: from initial planned about $4 billion public funding to over $40 billion.
Is there any other more irresponsible government in the world than the one that did that?
You mentioned vested interest in the US, what about here in Australia?
In that light, where do you stand?
2011-01-03
Swan - what can we say about him?
Comments on Wayne Swan “Conservatives are the new nabobs of negativity”, 3/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/conservatives-are-the-new-nabobs-of-negativity/story-e6frg6zo-1225980655211
Swan says: "Almost alone in the world, we now have the luxury of setting ourselves up for the big economic opportunities by investing in the things that will give us an edge: knowledge and skills, environmental sustainability, and the digital economy."
Let's look at the 3 areas he included here: education, environment and digital one by one. For education, Labor government undoubtedly had the BER. But unfortunately the BER has had so many wastes that greatly reduced its effectiveness.
For the environment, the Labor government has had the home insulation program that it had to stop it due to rots through abuse the program and the safety problems that program generated.
For the digital issue, the government has got the NBN going now. The difference between this and the other two is the very long time of the NBN project and the huge investment. Further there is no business case study and cost benefit analysis.
Swan in this post argues the negativity by others. Looking at what the Labor government has done the above so far, how can people not feel negative? How much more wastes will Swan oversee as the Treasurer?
Swan should look at himself to find where the problems lie.
PS: due to length limit, the original comments could not include more. But when I read more of that post, the more I felt Swan's hypocrisy. On resource taxation, they had to scrap their RSPT and replace it with their MRRT. They had done it not because of pressure from the opposition, but from the mining sector. Further they brought down their own first term prime minister, due to problems with their RSPT.
On the NBN, the government tried to prevent the release of relevant information to the parliament and delayed and delayed releasing the limited information they promised to do it.
So whose problems are they? Who are more negative?
He should be ashamed what he has done to the nation in terms of wastes, his role in them and his role in replacing Rudd and being promoted.
Swan says: "Almost alone in the world, we now have the luxury of setting ourselves up for the big economic opportunities by investing in the things that will give us an edge: knowledge and skills, environmental sustainability, and the digital economy."
Let's look at the 3 areas he included here: education, environment and digital one by one. For education, Labor government undoubtedly had the BER. But unfortunately the BER has had so many wastes that greatly reduced its effectiveness.
For the environment, the Labor government has had the home insulation program that it had to stop it due to rots through abuse the program and the safety problems that program generated.
For the digital issue, the government has got the NBN going now. The difference between this and the other two is the very long time of the NBN project and the huge investment. Further there is no business case study and cost benefit analysis.
Swan in this post argues the negativity by others. Looking at what the Labor government has done the above so far, how can people not feel negative? How much more wastes will Swan oversee as the Treasurer?
Swan should look at himself to find where the problems lie.
PS: due to length limit, the original comments could not include more. But when I read more of that post, the more I felt Swan's hypocrisy. On resource taxation, they had to scrap their RSPT and replace it with their MRRT. They had done it not because of pressure from the opposition, but from the mining sector. Further they brought down their own first term prime minister, due to problems with their RSPT.
On the NBN, the government tried to prevent the release of relevant information to the parliament and delayed and delayed releasing the limited information they promised to do it.
So whose problems are they? Who are more negative?
He should be ashamed what he has done to the nation in terms of wastes, his role in them and his role in replacing Rudd and being promoted.
2010-12-21
Kohler must be dreaming!
Comments on Alan Kohler “Now that's a broadband business plan”, 21/12/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBNCo-NBN-broadband-pd20101221-CBS76?OpenDocument&src=rot
Alan, are you kidding, or what?
Are you assuming that the NON Co. people involved, or the government ministers and what staff involved are so dumb that in the current political environment they choose a conservative estimate?
I am not sure you have had a good sleep, or you are still in some dreaming world.
Wake up, get some sanity please!
I hope you have not lost your soul of good analysis.
Alan, are you kidding, or what?
Are you assuming that the NON Co. people involved, or the government ministers and what staff involved are so dumb that in the current political environment they choose a conservative estimate?
I am not sure you have had a good sleep, or you are still in some dreaming world.
Wake up, get some sanity please!
I hope you have not lost your soul of good analysis.
NBN now and in the future
Comments on Simon Hackett “NBNCo's point of disconnect”, 21/12/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBNCo-NBN-Internode-Telstra-pd20101221-CBR9N?OpenDocument&src=rot
You don't think the NBN Co. will become the ghost of Telecom Australia or another Telecom Australia? I hope you confidence is well placed!
Even now there is the problem about the number of points of interconnect.
What would happen when the government is out of the present pressure it is under now?
You don't think the NBN Co. will become the ghost of Telecom Australia or another Telecom Australia? I hope you confidence is well placed!
Even now there is the problem about the number of points of interconnect.
What would happen when the government is out of the present pressure it is under now?
Faith is not good enough for NBN
Comments on Jennifer Hewett “Stepping out on faith rather than fact”, 21/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/stepping-out-on-faith-rather-than-fact/story-e6frg9px-1225974158720
For a national project of the scale of $43 billion, is faith a good enough criterion for a responsible government to decide to go ahead?
It appears this may have some similarity to or the attributes of the Wall Street Madoff ponzi scandal.
There must be more independent and more convincing studies on the costs and benefits of the NBN and on alternative technologies to prove whether it would be economically sound or not.
The government, already wasted so much of taxpayers' money on the BER and pink batts, will commit gross negligence if it doesn't commission independent analyses.
For a national project of the scale of $43 billion, is faith a good enough criterion for a responsible government to decide to go ahead?
It appears this may have some similarity to or the attributes of the Wall Street Madoff ponzi scandal.
There must be more independent and more convincing studies on the costs and benefits of the NBN and on alternative technologies to prove whether it would be economically sound or not.
The government, already wasted so much of taxpayers' money on the BER and pink batts, will commit gross negligence if it doesn't commission independent analyses.
2010-12-20
NBN report not believable
Comment on Lauren Wilson “NBN to repay taxpayers 'with interest', says Julia Gillard, citing business plan”, 20/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-return-to-be-lower-than-in-commercial-plan-business-plan-shows/story-e6frgaif-1225973839279
It looks like to be too good to be true - first the NBN speed jumped dramatically, and cost then came down.
Now it only needs 70% taking up rate and would make profits.
It appears unconvincing and incredible.
There should be a public inquiry on NBN costs and forecast of revenue and profits.
Nothing short of that can deliver public confidence and reasonable governance.
How can people believe what Minister Conroy and Prime Minister Gillard say on NBN costs, given that they keep changing their stance?
Conroy and Gillard are corroding the trust of the public on government policy and politics.
They, instead, should pay the due and reasonable respect to the nation and the public by upholding the proper standard of governance at the national level.
It looks like to be too good to be true - first the NBN speed jumped dramatically, and cost then came down.
Now it only needs 70% taking up rate and would make profits.
It appears unconvincing and incredible.
There should be a public inquiry on NBN costs and forecast of revenue and profits.
Nothing short of that can deliver public confidence and reasonable governance.
How can people believe what Minister Conroy and Prime Minister Gillard say on NBN costs, given that they keep changing their stance?
Conroy and Gillard are corroding the trust of the public on government policy and politics.
They, instead, should pay the due and reasonable respect to the nation and the public by upholding the proper standard of governance at the national level.
2010-11-20
NBN will bury Labor at the next election - sooner or later
Comments on Paul Kelly “NBN heat is on and it'll keep rising”, 20/11/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nbn-heat-is-on-and-itll-keep-rising/story-e6frg6zo-1225956812030
The NBN is likely to sink Labor at the next election, no matter when it will be, early or late.
The opposition underestimated Labor's ability to use the NBN to its advantage in the last election and was ill prepared to attack it most effectively both during the election and post election negotiations with the independents.
That was the best Labor could get and from now on the flaws of the NBN will be increasingly exposed. On the other hand, the coalition has probably learned the lesson and will be much more focused on and sharpen its attacks on the NBN.
There may also be the likelihood of legal challenges to the forced decommission of copper network and forced closure of choices to consumers in the future. If that occurs, the government is likely to lose the legal case.
In all likelihood, the NBN will be stopped by a change of government in Canberra.
It will be a half completed project, unfortunately for Labor or fortunately for taxpayers to get the best among the worst from Labor.
The NBN is likely to sink Labor at the next election, no matter when it will be, early or late.
The opposition underestimated Labor's ability to use the NBN to its advantage in the last election and was ill prepared to attack it most effectively both during the election and post election negotiations with the independents.
That was the best Labor could get and from now on the flaws of the NBN will be increasingly exposed. On the other hand, the coalition has probably learned the lesson and will be much more focused on and sharpen its attacks on the NBN.
There may also be the likelihood of legal challenges to the forced decommission of copper network and forced closure of choices to consumers in the future. If that occurs, the government is likely to lose the legal case.
In all likelihood, the NBN will be stopped by a change of government in Canberra.
It will be a half completed project, unfortunately for Labor or fortunately for taxpayers to get the best among the worst from Labor.
2010-10-13
Government and taxpayers need vigilance against special interest companies/groups
Comments on James Massola “NBN is financially viable, says Optus”, 13/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/nbn-is-financially-viable-says-optus/story-e6frg9hx-1225938048763
This is a ridiculous and shamelessly naked act of self interest from a special interest company!
How can Optus know the financial viability of the NBN?
Companies sometimes even don't know their own financial viability, let along others'!
Optus obliviously will benefit from government spending on NBN, even though it is taxpayers who will pay for it.
This is a ridiculous and shamelessly naked act of self interest from a special interest company!
How can Optus know the financial viability of the NBN?
Companies sometimes even don't know their own financial viability, let along others'!
Optus obliviously will benefit from government spending on NBN, even though it is taxpayers who will pay for it.
2010-09-15
Turnbull should be flexible and tactful
Comments on Alan Kohler “The NBN may crush Turnbull”, 15/09/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-NBN-may-crush-Turnbull-pd20100915-9ASWA?OpenDocument&src=sph
The business plan by Quigley's team can be double edged sword for Quigley and the government.
If its estimate is lower, then its lower figures will be used to judge the progress of the NBN project and delay or over-run are more likely to occur.
If its estimate is as $43 billion, then that figure will continue to be used as a negative.
Further, the change in priority of the NBN roll out to regions first will increase the costs of the NBN.
What Turnbull needs to do is to use the big stick of the big headline figure, push for publishing of detailed project progress costs, find and use any costs blow out as more concrete ammunition.
A public project like this under so delicate political situation will be very difficult and virtually impossible to manage and build according to detailed budget.
The taking up by consumers will be another area of differences between budget and reality.
So, attacking failures of the project and holding the government to account are two targets that Turnbull can work on to achieve.
Turnbull can play dual roles flexibly – destructive and constructive as the occasion fits.
Further, he can use any new progress in this technology area, like wireless, to his advantages.
The business plan by Quigley's team can be double edged sword for Quigley and the government.
If its estimate is lower, then its lower figures will be used to judge the progress of the NBN project and delay or over-run are more likely to occur.
If its estimate is as $43 billion, then that figure will continue to be used as a negative.
Further, the change in priority of the NBN roll out to regions first will increase the costs of the NBN.
What Turnbull needs to do is to use the big stick of the big headline figure, push for publishing of detailed project progress costs, find and use any costs blow out as more concrete ammunition.
A public project like this under so delicate political situation will be very difficult and virtually impossible to manage and build according to detailed budget.
The taking up by consumers will be another area of differences between budget and reality.
So, attacking failures of the project and holding the government to account are two targets that Turnbull can work on to achieve.
Turnbull can play dual roles flexibly – destructive and constructive as the occasion fits.
Further, he can use any new progress in this technology area, like wireless, to his advantages.
2010-09-01
The longer as time passes by, the stupid the NBN policy!
Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “Industry's better broadband plan”, 1/09/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/nbn-telstra-optus-alliance-of-affordable-broadband-pd20100901-8V3Y2?OpenDocument&src=sph
It appears increasingly that the NBN has failed business test and become a stupid idea.
The government should simply create an environment for the private sector to build what they think the best is, using targeted incentives to deal with any market failures.
But the government has chosen the $43 billion NBN instead.
PS: extracts from the article:
There is an underlying commonsense to the themes of the Alliance for Affordable Broadband’s arguments for version three of the national broadband network.
The Alliance, a group of senior telco executives that includes AAPT CEO Paul Broad and Pipe Networks’ founder Bevan Slattery, issued an open letter this week arguing the case for a largely wireless-based NBN with high-speed fibre deployed to deliver speeds of up to 1G to schools, hospitals and businesses.
The alliance advocates a mix of broadband technologies and public and private funding rather than the government mandated and taxpayer-funded $43 billion monopoly wholesale network envisaged by the federal government.
In that sense it is closer to the Coalition’s NBN policy than Labor’s, although it revolves around a next-generation 4G national wireless wholesale network that it says could deliver speeds of up to 100 Mbps to 98 per cent of Australians. It says the network could be built for around $3 billion.
It appears increasingly that the NBN has failed business test and become a stupid idea.
The government should simply create an environment for the private sector to build what they think the best is, using targeted incentives to deal with any market failures.
But the government has chosen the $43 billion NBN instead.
PS: extracts from the article:
There is an underlying commonsense to the themes of the Alliance for Affordable Broadband’s arguments for version three of the national broadband network.
The Alliance, a group of senior telco executives that includes AAPT CEO Paul Broad and Pipe Networks’ founder Bevan Slattery, issued an open letter this week arguing the case for a largely wireless-based NBN with high-speed fibre deployed to deliver speeds of up to 1G to schools, hospitals and businesses.
The alliance advocates a mix of broadband technologies and public and private funding rather than the government mandated and taxpayer-funded $43 billion monopoly wholesale network envisaged by the federal government.
In that sense it is closer to the Coalition’s NBN policy than Labor’s, although it revolves around a next-generation 4G national wireless wholesale network that it says could deliver speeds of up to 100 Mbps to 98 per cent of Australians. It says the network could be built for around $3 billion.
2010-08-23
Don't abuse the word reforms
Comments on Jessica Irvine “Big-picture reforms now most at risk”, 23/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/bigpicture-reforms-now-most-at-risk-20100822-13aze.html?posted=sucessful
Let's forget the notion of big reforms for a moment and think about real issues that are important to the nation.
The biggest issue is to reduce government spending and wastes. On this account, the current government is not scoring well - the NBN is a white elephant, the CPRS takes households money to pay for big polluters and the mining tax would enable it to spend and waste more.
So don’t just label those as reforms, consider whether they are good or not!
The most sensible policies in those three areas should be:
1. A carbon tax with proceeds returned to households and distributed on an equal per capita basis.
2. No mining tax, because mining profit is taxed through company income tax.
3. Adopt the coalition’s broadband policy approach with minimum modifications.
As to the Henry review, the problems with its RSPT should be a summary of the quality and judgement of that review. It is not and should not be a blueprint for the future.
Let's forget the notion of big reforms for a moment and think about real issues that are important to the nation.
The biggest issue is to reduce government spending and wastes. On this account, the current government is not scoring well - the NBN is a white elephant, the CPRS takes households money to pay for big polluters and the mining tax would enable it to spend and waste more.
So don’t just label those as reforms, consider whether they are good or not!
The most sensible policies in those three areas should be:
1. A carbon tax with proceeds returned to households and distributed on an equal per capita basis.
2. No mining tax, because mining profit is taxed through company income tax.
3. Adopt the coalition’s broadband policy approach with minimum modifications.
As to the Henry review, the problems with its RSPT should be a summary of the quality and judgement of that review. It is not and should not be a blueprint for the future.
2010-08-13
NBN welfare
Comments on Grahame Lynch “NBN is welfare for tech-heads”, 13/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nbn-is-welfare-for-tech-heads/story-e6frg6zo-1225904633837
This is a rare and excellent piece.
Most of opinions voiced are from special interest groups which pursue their own interests and profits but ignore the costs to taxpayers.
This one points that out.
It shows the hypercritical nature of those communication businesses.
Further, it also states the fact that most users of super speed can be accommodated under the coalition’s model.
I applaud the author for his valuable contribution.
This is a rare and excellent piece.
Most of opinions voiced are from special interest groups which pursue their own interests and profits but ignore the costs to taxpayers.
This one points that out.
It shows the hypercritical nature of those communication businesses.
Further, it also states the fact that most users of super speed can be accommodated under the coalition’s model.
I applaud the author for his valuable contribution.
2010-08-12
ALP 10 fold stunt on NBN speed
It is reported that government communication minister Stephen Conroy (and prime minister Gillard) announced that the government's NBN can deliver gigabit internet speed this morning, 10 times of what they have been saying of the NBN speed of 100 megabit up till today. See: ABC online report “Big gig: NBN to be 10 times faster”, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/12/2980752.htm?section=justin
One has to wonder how could this happen? Suddenly in an election campaign, it has become 10 times faster? How could all experts who had been involved in assessments or evaluations have got it that wrong technically?
It is a well known and mature techonology. It is too good to be true! It begs belief! It defies logic and common sense!
To me, it is unconvincing and unbelievable.
It is highly likely to be a mistake or a hyper spin. If it turns out to be a spin, then a big scandal if not a criminal offence, has been committed.
One has to wonder how could this happen? Suddenly in an election campaign, it has become 10 times faster? How could all experts who had been involved in assessments or evaluations have got it that wrong technically?
It is a well known and mature techonology. It is too good to be true! It begs belief! It defies logic and common sense!
To me, it is unconvincing and unbelievable.
It is highly likely to be a mistake or a hyper spin. If it turns out to be a spin, then a big scandal if not a criminal offence, has been committed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
