NBN Rollout Scrapped

[drsmith]

The first head rolls,

Service Stream executive general manager Stephen Ellich is believed to have parted company with the Telstra subcontractor after homes in Sydney's west were exposed to asbestos.

Telstra last night confirmed its contract with Service Stream had been suspended, saying: "Leaving any asbestos at a site is completely unacceptable and that is why, when we were alerted to the situation in Penrith, we immediately shut down all works in the area, suspended the contractor and safely secured the sites.

"The safe and proper handling and disposal of asbestos is an absolute and not-negotiable priority."

http://www.google.com.au/#q=Service...14,d.aGc&fp=33bf1b954cd2da95&biw=1334&bih=907

This is the same outfit that lost a construction contract for the NBN itself.

But that fall represented only a fraction of the damage wrought on Service Stream since Syntheo, its 50:50 joint venture with Lend Lease, lost a lucrative contract to build Labor's $37.4 billion NBN in the Northern Territory.

In March Syntheo was forced to hand back the design and construction responsibilities for building the NBN in the Northern Territory, a four-year contract that in conjunction with connecting buildings in South Australia was worth up to $341m.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-service-stream/story-e6frgaif-1226649531855

I can see this whole mess becoming a lawyers picnic.

TELSTRA has admitted its comprehensive training program for employees dealing with asbestos does not extend to subcontractors, raising serious questions about its ability to ensure the National Broadband Network roll out is conducted safely.

Telstra spokesman Scott Whiffin said the telco took full responsibility for this segment of the project.

"Telstra has the ultimate accountability and places the highest priority on the safety of its workers and the public," he said.

Mr Whiffin provided copies of Telstra's extensive and detailed policy and operations manuals dealing with asbestos, and said "all of Telstra's contractors are required to comply with them as a minimum".

"The asbestos removal process for pits remediated under the NBN rollout are the same as Telstra's internal guidelines," he said. "We work with our prime contractors -- and these are major companies -- to ensure they comply with our policies and processes. These companies then develop their own processes and training materials and we review their documentation to ensure that they meet our stringent requirements."

But beyond this policy and an unspecified number of site inspectors, Telstra would appear to have no direct control to ensure prime contractors pass on the policy, procedures and training to sub and sub-sub contractors

The Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union's national NBN construction and project officer, David Mier, said that like the federal government's failed pink batts insulation scheme, many of the people working on Telstra sites in preparation for the rollout of the NBN have "just been sublet and sublet". "It's pyramid subcontracting," Mr Mier said. "It's the biggest subcontracting scam you've ever seen and it can never work."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...other-batts-scam/story-e6frgaif-1226653332346

 

[drsmith]

I can confirm from personal observation that work practices are not up to scratch with asbestos. I can also confirm that the cable being installed has been subject to damage in some cases. I can also confirm that third party infrastructure, for example water pipes and conduits carrying other cables, have been damaged and that this has been simply covered up (fill the hole in and ignore the damage). I have noted all of this through personal observation simply walking past work sites - no doubt there's far more problems than those I've spotted.

It's observation such as this that makes one wonder how deeply beyond the specific issue of asbestos the NBN rollout problems run.

As for Telstra, they would do better if their senior management met in rooms that had windows out to what was happening under their watch.

 

[NBNMyths]

I've seen on this thread many times stated that wireless will never match Labors NBN.
What about Samsung's announcement (downloading a movie in a second) download speeds several hundred times faster than 4g ...
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/samsung-announces-5g-data-breakthrough-20130514-2jizs.html

The is little doubt that by the time the NBN is finally rolled out it will be redundant.:bad:

There's nothing there that will make fixed broadband redundant. Even Calliope's hero party aren't stupid enough to think that.

All they have done is experimented with a different part of the spectrum, a part which is extremely susceptible to interference from moisture (humidity, fog, rain) and has extremely poor transmission through solid objects (walls, foliage, earth, metal).

On top of that, it does nothing to address contention, so users are still sharing bandwidth that's a tiny fraction of that available over copper, let alone fibre.

 

[NBNMyths]

A company like NBN Co which has no experience with cable roll-out, should never have been let loose on Telstra's FAC pits and pipes.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...to-asbestos-risk/story-e6frgaif-1226652607700

Seems that in your haste to blame the current Govt and NBN Co for everything from a change in the orbit of the earth through to a school of fish dying of the Antarctic coast, you have attacked your keyboard before you knew the facts. What a surprise.

The contractors were working for Telstra, not NBN Co. Telstra contracted them to clean out the ducts ready for the NBN. Seems that having a company with "cable rollout experience", cleaning out their own duct network, is no guarantee of success. The only guarantee is that you can blame the federal govt for it, no matter how far removed.

Telstra spokesman Scott Whiffin said the telco took full responsibility for this segment of the project.

"Telstra has the ultimate accountability and places the highest priority on the safety of its workers and the public," he said.

 

[Calliope]

Instead of looking up old threads Myths, you might address your spin to current NBN problems, or will you just follow the Conroy line and say it is all Telstra's fault.

EDITORIAL
Unforeseen asbestos risk a sign of undue NBN haste
From: The Australian May 30, 2013 12:00AM

IT seems incomprehensible that the Gillard government could have done it again. But the latest worrying revelations about deadly asbestos fibres being disturbed by subcontractors preparing Telstra ducts for the National Broadband Network have an air of deja vu about them.

Once again a massive federal initiative that was conceived in haste, without proper processes, is running into unnecessary and potentially dangerous and costly problems during the delivery phase. We saw a similar scenario unfold with tragic consequences though the home-insulation scheme; and the Building the Education Revolution's school halls program generated enormous waste and duplication. The NBN, as we know, was implemented without a prudent cost-benefit analysis and already has been hit by delays and frustrations as it has failed to meet its own rollout targets. Now the unforeseen difficulties with asbestos seem certain to add to those woes, and the most pertinent question is why this issue was not, in fact, foreseen.

Suburban families, understandably, are now worried about their health because even minute quantities of asbestos fibre can trigger life-threatening disease. Some people have been relocated to hotels while problems are resolved. There are also concerns about workers who almost certainly have encountered asbestos without appropriate protective equipment. In a planned, government-funded infrastructure project, none of this should have occurred. The asbestos, in existing Telstra ducts, should have been readily identified at specific sites before work began. Given the commercial relationship between NBN Co and Telstra, all relevant information should have been systematically shared, including with subcontractors. To think that workers and families could have been exposed needlessly to risk because of lax procedures is an indictment on NBN planning and oversight.

Procedures and training should have been in place to ensure no workers or residents were exposed to risk, yet we learn lengthy NBN implementation studies didn't cover asbestos. Clearly the current controversy will ensure such measures are devised now, but retrofitting processes never should have been necessary. Again, we have seen a large-scale federal government program rolled out on a national scale, demonstrating a lack of political and bureaucratic expertise at this kind of practical service delivery. This is precisely the scenario that led to difficulties and cost blowouts in the earlier school hall and insulation stimulus programs; so given the personal, budgetary and political pain they caused, we might have expected the Gillard government would have learned a lesson. For Communications Minister Stephen Conroy it is just another embarrassment. After a long line of ministerial accidents, he seems to be immune from any internal consequences.

But for voters it could be a final blow, turning the once electorally popular NBN into another example of wasteful and inefficient overreach by a federal government that wants a direct hand in almost every area of national service delivery - from schools and hospitals to broadband and digital set-top boxes. As Labor spruiks its fibre-to-the-home model, the last thing it wants families thinking of is this asbestos shambles.
(my bolds}

 

[NBNMyths]

Instead of looking up old threads Myths, you might address your spin to current NBN problems, or will you just follow the Conroy line and say it is all Telstra's fault.

So ducts owned by Telstra, operated by Telstra, being worked on by Telstra contractors is the Federal Govt's responsibility? Even when Telstra accept the blame?

Hmmm. Does this extension apply to all work carried out >2 degrees of separation from the federal Govt, or only when that Govt is Labor?

For example, would you say that Howard Govt incompetence was responsible for the faulty work on fuel lines carried out by Enzed (working as a subcontractor to ADI, a subcontractor to the Navy) in 1998 on the HMAS Westralia, which lead to the death of 4 sailors in the subsequent fire? Or does your wide scope of blame only apply when Labor is in power?

 

[Calliope]

So ducts owned by Telstra, operated by Telstra, being worked on by Telstra contractors is the Federal Govt's responsibility? Even when Telstra accept the blame?

Hmmm. Does this extension apply to all work carried out >2 degrees of separation from the federal Govt, or only when that Govt is Labor?

For example, would you say that Howard Govt incompetence was responsible for the faulty work on fuel lines carried out by Enzed (working as a subcontractor to ADI, a subcontractor to the Navy) in 1998 on the HMAS Westralia, which lead to the death of 4 sailors in the subsequent fire? Or does your wide scope of blame only apply when Labor is in power?

More red herrings. I thought you would follow the Conroy line, and even you know that he is a grub

I repeat;

To think that workers and families could have been exposed needlessly to risk because of lax procedures is an indictment on NBN planning and oversight.

 

[boofhead]

Calliope: You're using an editorial/opinion piece as fact in where the blame is. The same issue would happen if Telstra needed to do work themselves without any NBN rollout. You're letting your politics get in the way of things.

 

[Calliope]

Calliope: You're using an editorial/opinion piece as fact in where the blame is. The same issue would happen if Telstra needed to do work themselves without any NBN rollout. You're letting your politics get in the way of things.

Sorry Boof, I know you would never let political bias affect your judgment. But I am glad you qualify it with an "if". Actually they are carrying out the work getting the pits and pipes ready for the NBN fibre roll-out in suburban streets. The asbestos issue is now an NBN problem and responsibility.

 

[NBNMyths]

More red herrings. I thought you would follow the Conroy line, and even you know that he is a grub

I repeat;

I didn't think you'd be able to find a way to answer that one while simultaneously maintaining your position and your inability to criticise a Coalition Govt.


Last time I looked, an editorial from The Australian (Pinnacle of objectivity that it is), does not count as a factual argument.

Again, given that this is Telstra infrastructure, being worked on by Telstra contractors, and with Telstra having admitted all liability, could you please explain how the Govt are at any fault? And while you're pondering that, suggest what more they have done to eliminate the problem, given that there are already procedures and laws in place to cover handling of asbestos, but that those laws were allegedly broken.

And, if I may have a crack one more time, explain the difference between this and the Westralia incident. Why is the Govt at fault this time, but not last time. I would truly love a rationalisation.

EDIT: Oh, look what Google just found:
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/Tesltra-asbestos-box-unrangan-driveway/786217/

Is this one the Fed Govt's fault too, or just Telstra since it was just a replacement they were doing off their own bat?

EDIT2:
Telstra have once again confirmed that it's entirely their responsibility. You better re-write that editorial...

Telstra operations boss Brendan Riley later announced the company had launched “strong actions” to give priority to the safety of workers, contractors and the community.

“This is our responsibility so we will take direct control of all asbestos-related activity performed by our contractors,” Mr Riley said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ncy-investigates/story-e6frgaif-1226653569762

 

[Calliope]

I didn't think you'd be able to find a way to answer that one while simultaneously maintaining your position and your inability to criticise a Coalition Govt.

Last time I looked, an editorial from The Australian (Pinnacle of objectivity that it is), does not count as a factual argument.

Again, given that this is Telstra infrastructure, being worked on by Telstra contractors, and with Telstra having admitted all liability, could you please explain how the Govt are at any fault? And while you're pondering that, suggest what more they have done to eliminate the problem, given that there are already procedures and laws in place to cover handling of asbestos, but that those laws were allegedly broken.

And, if I may have a crack one more time, explain the difference between this and the Westralia incident. Why is the Govt at fault this time, but not last time.

You'll just have to get over it Myths. I can't help you any more. You are too one-eyed. It will all get sorted come September.

Incidentally, your hero and mentor Quigley mightn't last that long:

Quigley faces internal NBN revolt
Fresh leadership doubts at NBN Co have resurfaced amid reports that the firm's chairman Siobhan McKenna surveyed fellow board directors and senior staff to test support for chief executive Mike Quigley, according to The Australian Financial Review.

Ms McKenna has been on NBN Co's board for more than three years, but only became chair in March and began asking about support for Mr Quigley within weeks of becoming chair.

Her actions may be seen as in line with her pledge to take a more activist approach to running NBN Co.

The move to test support for Mr Quigley was done because Ms McKenna has considered ousting Mr Quigley to allow her to run the company as executive chairman until the federal election in September, according to the AFR.

The NBN Co's constitution would require the federal government to be consulted about any board-approved moves to oust the chief executive.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has been a strong supporter of Mr Quigley and would likely oppose any moves to unseat him.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/5/30/technology/quigley-faces-internal-nbn-revolt

 

[bellenuit]

Again, given that this is Telstra infrastructure, being worked on by Telstra contractors, and with Telstra having admitted all liability, could you please explain how the Govt are at any fault?

Just as it's Telstra's responsibility to monitor the performance of its sub-contractors, so it is also the Government's responsibility to monitor the performance of its subcontractors, Telstar being one.

Speaking about the NBN several months ago, I remember Turnbull explaining that running fibre to the home was a completely different ball game to running fibre to the node, for the very reasons we are seeing now. I think he was specifically referring to the roll out rate NBNCo were assuming and he was suggesting it was unrealistic.

If at the end of the day, it turns out that Telstra having to properly train its subbies in the proper handling of asbestos and perhaps issues of a similar nature add months if not years to the roll out schedule, then ultimately the delay is the responsibility of the Government for choosing a deployment method that had this additional complexity. When they decided on what type of NBN to provide, it was up to the Government to determine the resources needed to deploy it and the timeline it could be delivered in based on the availability of those resources. If they underestimated the resources needed or overestimated the capabilities of the resources available, that is bad planning for which they must take the blame. Individual subcontractors are responsible for completing the tasks assigned to them, but those who assigned the tasks to the subcontractors are too responsible for making the assignment decision in the first place. When the CEO of a public company doesn't deliver, they take the blame. It is no use blaming people lower down in the organisation or outside the organisation for the problem.

 

[drsmith]

The problems may not be limited to Telstra,

NBN Co has confirmed VisionStream, the company contracted for the NBN roll out in Tasmania, has been given two improvement notices.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/17386831/nbn-site-asbestos-shutdown-a-wake-up-call/

 

[Smurf1976]

The inherent nature of underground pit & conduit work is that it is "out of sight and out of mind" so far as the owners are concerned. It's not sexy, it just needs to be there, and very often companies consider it an easy task.

A complication is that very rarely is it practical to build something "as drawn" so simply issuing specifications isn't a lot of use really. There's always some problem in an urban area, usually because another service (or another previously unrecorded asset of the same service) already has a cable or pipe where you want to put the new conduit or pit. That's just how it is, meaning that a very high degree of improvisation is required by those doing the work.

Now throw asbestos into the mix, plus the need to properly compact and reinstate road surfaces (which I very much doubt is being done properly meaning that the trenches will sink and reduce pavement life - you end up paying via rates and taxes). Now add in other services and the risk of damage to their assets. Then there's the public to consider as pedestrians, and of course businesses as well.

Now suppose that you engage a contractor and let them loose on this. You have effectively just written a blank cheque, since there is no means by which you could have fully specified the work and there is no practical means by which you can inspect it once its' complete. And you quite likely won't find that the conduits weren't glued properly until 20 years later when you end up digging things up as a result.

Does anyone honestly think that simply engaging a contractor, even a big one, and just letting them go for it is really going to work? A scope of works subject to constant variation which the contractor itself will determine whilst they also supervise their own work. That's about as close as you'll get to an actual license to print money and it's not a rational way to deliver major infrastructure.

If it were me, I'd have an in-house workforce diluted by staff from major contractors so as to retain control of the works internally. That way you don't have all these problems.

 

[Calliope]

Does anyone honestly think that simply engaging a contractor, even a big one, and just letting them go for it is really going to work? A scope of works subject to constant variation which the contractor itself will determine whilst they also supervise their own work. That's about as close as you'll get to an actual license to print money and it's not a rational way to deliver major infrastructure.

You are right. I can only repeat what The Australian editorial said today, because it is true:

To think that workers and families could have been exposed needlessly to risk because of lax procedures is an indictment on NBN planning and oversight.

 

[NBNMyths]

Just as it's Telstra's responsibility to monitor the performance of its sub-contractors, so it is also the Government's responsibility to monitor the performance of its subcontractors, Telstar being one.

Does anyone honestly think that simply engaging a contractor, even a big one, and just letting them go for it is really going to work? A scope of works subject to constant variation which the contractor itself will determine whilst they also supervise their own work. That's about as close as you'll get to an actual license to print money and it's not a rational way to deliver major infrastructure.

If it were me, I'd have an in-house workforce diluted by staff from major contractors so as to retain control of the works internally. That way you don't have all these problems.

You are right. I can only repeat what The Australian editorial said today, because it is true:

Except Telstra are not a subcontractor to the Government for this task. Neither Govt nor NBN Co have contracted (or are paying) Telstra to undertake any work on their infrastructure.

NBN Co are a customer of Telstra. They will pay to lease access to Telstra's suitable pit&pipe infrastructure. Nothing more.

Whatever work Telstra deems is required to make their pit&pipe network ready for use by NBN Co, Telstra will undertake, at Telstra's cost. Once Telstra have made it ready, then NBN Co will begin leasing it.

 

[NBNMyths]

You'll just have to get over it Myths. I can't help you any more. You are too one-eyed.

 

[sptrawler]

Except Telstra are not a subcontractor to the Government for this task. Neither Govt nor NBN Co have contracted (or are paying) Telstra to undertake any work on their infrastructure.

NBN Co are a customer of Telstra. They will pay to lease access to Telstra's suitable pit&pipe infrastructure. Nothing more.

Whatever work Telstra deems is required to make their pit&pipe network ready for use by NBN Co, Telstra will undertake, at Telstra's cost. Once Telstra have made it ready, then NBN Co will begin leasing it.

From memory, I thought that was the deal, Telstra were responsible for ensuring the pits and ducts were serviceable.

 

[bellenuit]

Except Telstra are not a subcontractor to the Government for this task. Neither Govt nor NBN Co have contracted (or are paying) Telstra to undertake any work on their infrastructure.

OK, they are buying a product from Telstra, so it is still their responsibility to ensure that the product meets their needs and is available when needed. If Telstra can't deliver then they should have contingencies in place to deal with the situation. The Government has made certain delivery commitments to the Australian people and if they fall behind for whatever reason, then it is their fault. If there are so many unknowns that they cannot predict with any precision, then let them say that and give a best and worst case scenario. But when people outline potential negatives or delivery pitfalls to the FTTP approach, they are rejected and sneered at. This has been the case with everything this Government does. A budget surplus being a good example. Anyone who accurately described the storm clouds on the horizon, were accused of talking down the economy.

 

[Calliope]

The Government has made certain delivery commitments to the Australian people and if they fall behind for whatever reason, then it is their fault. If there are so many unknowns that they cannot predict with any precision, then let them say that and give a best and worst case scenario. But when people outline potential negatives or delivery pitfalls to the FTTP approach, they are rejected and sneered at.

You are right. Any posts on mine on this thread have been targeted by self appointed expert, NBNMyths, and sneered at, because I have the temerity to suggest that anything that goes wrong with this NBN roll-out is the ultimate responsibility of the Labor government, Senator Conroy and NBN Co.

To try and put the blame on Telstra is just a cop out.

AS Myths admits;

Whatever work Telstra deems is required to make their pit&pipe network ready for use by NBN Co, Telstra will undertake, at Telstra's cost. Once Telstra have made it ready, then NBN Co will begin leasing it.

Telstra sub-contractors are digging up fibro-asbestos-cement pits and pipes infrastructure to make it ready for NBN Co. Under the Turnbull model it they would be left mainly undisturbed in suburban streets.