- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
You need to remember Syd that on matters transparency, Stephen Conroy's own words spoke for themselves.
I don't think it's unreasonable to question that the current nbn management would be doing their bst to show FTTP as being as expensive as they can
If you wish to make comparisons between the relative performances of the two communication ministers, I refer you not only to Stephen Conroy's infamous red underpants comment but also (and again) to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago and in particular, his comments as to the state the rollout under Labor and what led it to that state.MT said he would be accountable and transparent. He's done neither while communications minister. The level of redacted information in the SRs is proof of this. Holding on to information for months before release in a glossy picture book that contains a less than ideal level of information.
It's rank hypocrisy to complain of a lack of transparency when in opposition, and then to provide even less transparency when in office.
When did you ever accept as an argument from your kids that they did it so it's OK for me to do it?
The faster more affordable network. That's going in the pool room, just to remind him he's dreaming.
In some of the broader infrastructure construction market, costs have come down significantly. The particular example I'm thinking of is road construction in the now post mining boom construction environment.1. NBN manages the project.
2. Contractor A takes on a big section of work.
3. Contractor A outsources that work to contractor B.
4. Contractor B engages sub-contractors C, D, E, F and G to do the actual work as such. Contractor B being just a project manager (as is NBN and contractor A).
5. Contractors C, D, E, F and G then sub-contract a lot more small contractors to actually build things. So contractors C, D, E, F and G are really just another layer of project managers.
6. That last lot of contractors then engages workers, some direct and others via labour hire, to actually build the NBN.
There's a lot of steps there and each is taking their 15% or so cut. Not much of the money ends up in the pockets of those actually delivering the project, indeed I'm reliably informed that many have ended up losing money, since there's not enough left to actually do the work, and walked away.
So the cost is that of actually building it + multiple layers of project managers + the overheads of each of those layers + profit for each of those layers. It's hard to imagine a more expensive way of doing it really.
If it were back in ye olde days then we'd just have NBN employing workers and building the NBN, cutting out the multiple layers of middle men. That's not the current ideology but it gets things done a lot more cheaply even if a few of those directly employed workers do end up leaning on those proverbial shovels.
You need to remember Syd that on matters transparency, Stephen Conroy's own words spoke for themselves.
View attachment 64096
If you wish to make comparisons between the relative performances of the two communication ministers, I refer you not only to Stephen Conroy's infamous red underpants comment but also (and again) to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago and in particular, his comments as to the state the rollout under Labor and what led it to that state.
http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/
Close to 2 years and not a single paid for service on the MTM. I think that sums up where we're at.
But at least be consistent in criticising the current Govt for doing things you criticised labor for doing.
So in your view exactly how is the current Govt managing the nbn rollout better than Labor? FTTN is slower than even the revised lower targets from a not long ago. HFC rollout way slower and a lot more expensive than we were told. Cost blow outs at every level of the mixed part of the network. Satellite and wireless are progressing broadly in line with the costs labor forecast.
Send a bit unfair when the FTTN COP had this caveat
(e) The CPP excludes the impact of initial trial arrangements, where costs are not in line with long term expectations (due to low volume, and bespoke commercial and delivery arrangements), and excludes contingency.
There's no transparency into how those CPP figures were calculated.
Their draft national policy platform from May this year is at best a crab walk. From page 46,If Labor get back in, it will be interesting to see if they go back to their original plan.
Labor understands that fibre is optimal. A National Broadband Network for the 21st century will be rolled out across Australia, but because of the Coalition’s limited vision, it will now need to be built in two stages rather than one.
Syd,
Regardless of how you wish to construct argument around the cost of FTTN and HFC, a large difference in cost per premise remains between the cost of those and FTTP. Screaming conspiracy over the cost of FTTP doesn't change that.
I also refer to the following which you've recently posted,
You might want to go back to the table to which that comment refers and check as to the technologies to which that statement applies.
My bolds.
And to what technologies does that caveat from that table apply ?I have read it.
And to what technologies does that caveat from that table apply ?
Is it FTTN specifically as you claim or more broadly ?
Thank you Syd.FTTP / FTTN / HFC
What is done in specific instances where remediation costs are prohibitive is described in the document.I'd be interest to know for FTTP / FTTN / HFC what the lowest median highest CPP figures. At least that would give us some idea on how much remediation they're planning for the mixed part of the network. How do you forecast remediation costs when have no network quality stats to make an informed estimate?
What would an increase of 5% to the number of premises requiring remediation do to the figures?
Thank you Syd.
The statement as read is non technology specific but I'll take the above as acknowledgement of error in your original statement on this specific point.
What is done in specific instances where remediation costs are prohibitive is described in the document.
Write them a letter Syd asking about things you want to know but don't write it as if you've got an axe to grind.
Also, don't in it suggest that Labor's costing's and timeframe were in any way honest.
$90bn was the worst case scenario and a figure in the 70's isn't too far off of that and that's bearing in mind that the FTTP component of the rollout is proceeding somewhat more smoothly than it was under Labor.Well, according to the liberals Labors costs have come down from $90B to something in the 70s, while MTM has continued the march from $29B up to $56B but without knowing the single biggest cost variable they have ie the state of the copper and HFC networks and how much remediation costs they will bare.
As for writing for further information, I've been fobbed off by MT a number of times. Now I focus my efforts on Labor and the Greens to ask some cut through questions during the senates estimate hearings as that is maybe the only way we'll get some answers. That's if the NBN board members can be bothered to attend.
To make sure the network could support future upgrades like DOCSIS 3.1, the Department of Communications also decided HFC networks would need thicker overhead cables, and that's what the electricity networks don't like.
The Department put forward changes to the definition of “low impact” telecommunications facilities so that nbnTM would be able to install cables for the fibre part of the HFC network that are 48 mm instead of what's allowed at the moment – 30 mm.
The 60 per cent increase has electricity networks up in arms for several reasons, among them various safety issues, and the number of poles they'd have to replace if the new cables are too heavy.
As Endeavour Energy notes in its submission to the Department, the heavier HFC cable has a much higher breaking strain (risking a pole breaking if the cable is snagged by a truck), and the extra thickness also increases the wind load on the poles.
The likelihood that poles will have to be replaced to cope is noted by West Australia's Office of Energy Safety: “We understand the cost of a like-for-like pole replacement is in the order of $10,000 per pole, depending upon pole size, location and conductor/equipment configurations.”
And that excludes considerations like engineering design, disruption to service and the like.
Queensland's Ergon Energy notes that the charges it levied on Telstra and Optus were based on the 30 mm cables, and reckons its fees would have to rise for the thicker cables.
Another concern is that at 48 mm, the cables can be mistaken for electrical conductors, with Endeavour Energy attributing a fatality in 2013.
As for writing for further information, I've been fobbed off by MT a number of times. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?