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!
Showing posts with label telecommunication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label telecommunication. Show all posts
2011-04-01
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.
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.
2010-08-13
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.
Telstra's appalling performance
Comments on John Durie “Telstra chief executive David Thodey lowers benchmarks after profit fall”, 13/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/telstra-chief-executive-david-thodey-lowers-benchmarks-after-profit-fall/story-e6frg9if-1225904631795
Telstra must change its business culture and management.
It must compete in the market as a small to media communications firms do in terms of pricing and services.
Its current pricing of services is not competitive enough to keep its market share, let alone to increase its share.
Its attitude has been "don't care" to customers must stop immediately.
After all its management structure has to change and be accountable for underlying business performance and profit.
If anyone cannot achieve good results, they should be sacked.
The CEO should specify his/her performance indicators with the total profit and key market shares as the core to be assessed and evaluated.
The company’s performance has been appalling. Even with its monopoly advantage, it could not compete with others which don’t have that and generate at least the same profits as them.
They have lost share holders’ value for too long and that has to stop.
Telstra must change its business culture and management.
It must compete in the market as a small to media communications firms do in terms of pricing and services.
Its current pricing of services is not competitive enough to keep its market share, let alone to increase its share.
Its attitude has been "don't care" to customers must stop immediately.
After all its management structure has to change and be accountable for underlying business performance and profit.
If anyone cannot achieve good results, they should be sacked.
The CEO should specify his/her performance indicators with the total profit and key market shares as the core to be assessed and evaluated.
The company’s performance has been appalling. Even with its monopoly advantage, it could not compete with others which don’t have that and generate at least the same profits as them.
They have lost share holders’ value for too long and that has to stop.
2009-12-08
Incredible incompetency by government and bureaucrats
Comments on Alan Kohler “The NBN solution was there all along”, 8/12/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/telstra-nbn-structural-separation-conroy-pd20091208-YHRMC?OpenDocument&src=sph
Look at what the minister and his advisors including the bureaucrats have done!
Were they competent enough to run regulate the industry? One would have to doubt it, wouldn't it?
Why should they be paid for such poor work?! It is unbelievable!
Look at what the minister and his advisors including the bureaucrats have done!
Were they competent enough to run regulate the industry? One would have to doubt it, wouldn't it?
Why should they be paid for such poor work?! It is unbelievable!
2009-09-19
Conroy needs to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly
Comments on Michael Stutchbury "Telstra break-up may stifle innovation", 19/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26093486-5017771,00.html
Michael Stutchbury's article touches the problems with Rudd/Conroy's poor approach to NBN and Telstra.
Australia is too small to break up a telco monopoly in some field of the industry. It is not just the competition but also the costs and innovation, investment etc that a government has to consider.
It is all too easy to break a natural monopoly. But that is not necessarily the best public and economic policy.
Government has to learn to balance competition and other economics. It has to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly such as Telstra.
What Conroy announced continues the Rudd government's economic incompetency.
That is unfortunate for Australia and Australians. It will not only disguise the poor economics of the government's proposed $43 billion NBN, but also make the telco industry in Australia less competitive and more costly to consumers.
Michael Stutchbury's article touches the problems with Rudd/Conroy's poor approach to NBN and Telstra.
Australia is too small to break up a telco monopoly in some field of the industry. It is not just the competition but also the costs and innovation, investment etc that a government has to consider.
It is all too easy to break a natural monopoly. But that is not necessarily the best public and economic policy.
Government has to learn to balance competition and other economics. It has to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly such as Telstra.
What Conroy announced continues the Rudd government's economic incompetency.
That is unfortunate for Australia and Australians. It will not only disguise the poor economics of the government's proposed $43 billion NBN, but also make the telco industry in Australia less competitive and more costly to consumers.
2009-09-16
Rudd government damages Telstra shareholders
Comments on Peter Swan “Rudd playing Ned Kelly with Telstra”, 16/09/2009, http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26078850-7583,00.html
I have branded Conroy as an economic terrorist. His action is no different from terrorists' destroying the World Trade Centre twin towers, given its damages to Telstra and so many of its shareholders.
There is no justification for any government or politicians to cause material damages to a company or shareholders.
Telstra and its shareholders are justifiably entitled for appropriate compensation and should nail the government in court.
Telstra also needs to bring the ACCC for its adversary effect on Telstra's profits over the past many years by excessively depressing its prices
I have branded Conroy as an economic terrorist. His action is no different from terrorists' destroying the World Trade Centre twin towers, given its damages to Telstra and so many of its shareholders.
There is no justification for any government or politicians to cause material damages to a company or shareholders.
Telstra and its shareholders are justifiably entitled for appropriate compensation and should nail the government in court.
Telstra also needs to bring the ACCC for its adversary effect on Telstra's profits over the past many years by excessively depressing its prices
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
