Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

A subforum for discussing the NBN: what it was, the tragedy of the NBN and how the original vision can be brought to life if different in detail.
Forum rules
Please keep discussion civil and focussed on the NBN.

Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 13 Dec 2013, 12:20

Back to square one. Fucking useless FTTN which won’t do a tenth and cost ten times more than what Turncoat is suggesting! ... 000024217/

Have a read of the numbers, then read the comments. Not only was the whole review a farce and a political exercise, the choice of year, 2021 was chosen to put the best gloss on the Save Murdoch NBN and the worst gloss on the real NBN.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 15 Dec 2013, 15:30

Delimiter ( rips Simon Hackett a new one for defending the HFC idiocy that is part of the Liberal Shemozzle Network, deservedly so! I truly hope Hackett sees sense and quits the gang of thieves and Turncoat cronies that is the NBN board nowadays.

Hoping for some more hardhitting articles from Renai now.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 16 Dec 2013, 15:04

Essentially this review is an exercise in fraud. Yes, I’m not going to tone down this claim, because that’s what it is. If you attempted to pass this document off in the business world you would be fired at the very least. With knowledge that most of the executive team are ex-Telstra, that Turnbull has strong personal connections with many of these people (he co-owns a boat with Rousselot, as a tweeter said “partners in brine”), and there is a serious amount of money for Telstra to make from this deal. We’re talking in the 10′s of billions of dollars. This is verging on the level of insider trading and securities fraud, yet somehow we are supposed to believe this.

It’s like asking a murderer or rapist to sentence themselves.

This is all moot anyway, with Henry Ergas being appointed to head up the Cost/Benefit Analysis. Why? This is the same Henry Ergas who claimed we’d all have to pay $215 a month to get returns that NBN Co predicted and that any costs over $17b was unacceptable for the NBN.

Essentially this review was the precursor to the shut down of the NBN completely. In some ways that would be the best thing to do at this stage, as spending $41b to take us back a decade is far from acceptable. ... nd-review/

Yeah—the Political Review said “what do we want the outcome to be, lets fiddle the numbers to get that outcome!

Notice the penultimate sentence (and the appointment of Ergas) they may indeed want to stop the NBN rollout. I just think they will not be able to do that due to 4K TVs becoming popular and needing massive bandwidth (too much to be broadcast over the air) so I think Malcolm will be between a rock and a hard place beginning say late next year. Will enjoy his squirming and backflipping very much! :purple :yellow :bgrin :yellow :purple
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 17 Dec 2013, 14:55

User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 18 Dec 2013, 15:59

“4K needs anything from 30Mbps to 60Mbps” writes Sortius, adding

4kTVNot only is 30Mbps ridiculously low for 4K TV (My GoPro Hero 3 does 4k @ 15fps, the highly compressed video’s bit rate is around 45Mbps), being about 1/2 the required rate to stream 4K under current standards. While HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) does seem like it will bring 4K speeds down to 25Mbps, this is only for 30fps 4K TV, half the frame rate that is being pushed by modern directors (4K @ 60fps).

Even the video bandwidth question alone is left wanting when the review claims that 4K TV will require 12Mbps in 2023. With lines like “Industry feedback to the Strategic Review was sceptical of widespread mass adoption of 4K TV in Australia”, one can see that they are clearly making this up.


Ahahahahaha I SAID 4K TV is the achilles heel of #fraudband! What a bunch of losers this shambles of a government is!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 18 Dec 2013, 19:46

Good lord! Oh sweet suffering Jesus! Oh my goodness—far fucking out!

Last week the government and NBN Co representatives at the Senate Estimates Committee admitted that neither had spoken to Telstra about the state of the copper network. [My emphasis.] This was an amazing admission at a time when NBN Co was about to release a review report recommending FTTN and other technologies be adopted.

This week's proceedings at the Committee have further galvanised the enormity of NBN Co's copper gamble. As Telstra's government affairs director James Shaw said on Tuesday, Telstra does not know the full state of the copper and is unlikely to conduct an audit before FTTN deployment.[My emphasis.]

The NBN review report was apparently based on data about copper networks other than Australia’s copper network.[My emphasis] The risk associated with the decision to utilise foreign copper network data is considerable and should give rise to concern because Australia’s copper network is unlike the international copper networks that have apparently been the source of data used in the NBN review report.

The copper network was at the heart of the decision to implement FTTP. In 2008, the Labor constituted review panel identified the risks associated with the copper network were unacceptably high, knowing that any inclusion of the copper network in the future NBN would mean Telstra remains central to the NBN. ... ouse-cards

Just to put these statements together:
1. government and NBN Co representatives at the Senate Estimates Committee admitted that neither had spoken to Telstra about the state of the copper network.

2. Telstra does not know the full state of the copper and is unlikely to conduct an audit before FTTN deployment.

3. The NBN review report was apparently based on data about copper networks other than Australia’s copper network.

Haven’t spoken, Don’t know, Other networks. You can easily DOUBLE the cost of FTTN!

Children are running the government, that or bozos.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 20 Dec 2013, 14:24

The shambles can’t help lying, nor can they keep their stories straight: ... 000024539/

The $73Bn peak funding and 2024 finish date have never been justified—figures pulled out the collective arse of the NBN Co board—Turncoat cronies one and all (bar Simon Hacket who will wake up real soon, I hope!)

Best we can hope for—the shambles doesn’t actually roll out anything and the new Labor govt in 2016 can resume the rollout on a more business–like basis! There is a good chance of that happening—take fucking ages and billions of dollars to even work out how bad the Telstra copper is! $41Bn for the shambles’ FTTN + HFC mishmash? Double if not triple that! Remediation? Take fucking years—and won’t start until 2020 when finally Telstra gets paid $30Bn for its crap copper, plus whatever Telstra and Optus get paid for access to their HFC cables.

It is a fever dream, a bad LSD trip, a bummer! And it won’t actually happen!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 21 Dec 2013, 12:12

Estimates committee interviewing NBN Co execs:

CHAIR: We will go into some more detail later with the other witnesses, but could I confirm that the independent assessment found that there were no material issues within the accounts.
Mr Rousselot: The KordaMentha findings were that there were no wrongdoings in the accounts. We asked
them to do—

CHAIR: In the report it says 'no material issues'.

Mr Rousselot: Yes, no material issues. ... 1c/0000%22

Bottom of page 4

No problem with accounts—makes that $73Bn figure for peak funding just something made up. Same for the length of time the roll out would finish—straightline estimates not allowing for the ramp up, now stopped and a slow rollout of 4000 premises passed per week.

Bit more from the Estimates Committee:

CHAIR: Can I also confirm that the independent assessment found that the corporate plan is based on detailed and quantative analyses?
Mr Rousselot: Yes.
CHAIR: The revised outlook offered in the strategic review is clearly another view. We have already
established that the review has not been subject to independent analysis, as per the legal statement. From the evidence available to me it seems that every worse-case scenario has been used to create the revised outlook, the data is inconsistent and you are low-balling targets. We will get to debate that at length, I am sure, over the next few hours.

Ibid, p5

Again, the writers of the Political Review just decided what they wanted the PR to show and worked backwards from there. Guess they had been told to price any type of NBN as too expensive so the shambles could cancel the rollout. But that $73Bn is way too high and not justified.

And the lack of any meaningful or real guarantee of speeds on Fraudband:

CHAIR: I want to confirm the speeds the optimised multi-technology mix will deliver. On page 18 of the strategic review it states:

The Optimised Multi-Technology Mix scenario results in the following outcomes:
 40-45 percent of the fixed line footprint will have at least 25Mbps in CY16—
 calendar year 2016—
 provided by
 NBN Co;
 90 percent of the fixed line footprint will have at least 50Mbps in CY19;
 98-100 percent will have at least 25Mbps by end of CY20 …

Will these be guaranteed minimum speeds? Page 6 Senate Tuesday, 17 December 2013

Mr Rousselot: They are different speeds that you can guarantee or offer, depending on the technology that you are on. Those speeds are the speeds that we will be offering. It some cases it may well be that for a short period of time you will have a slightly lower performance than you otherwise would—but that is the case for any network; ultimately, every technology has some level of sharing up in the backbone.

CHAIR: But Minister Turnbull, and now Prime Minister Abbott, guaranteed minimum speeds, not best
available efforts on whatever technology is recommended. I just want to know: are you going to meet Prime Minister Abbott's and Mr Turnbull's promise to guarantee a minimum speed to Australians. The trick here is that Australians are people. Your wholesale offering to your retail customers, the RSPs, are not capable. Mr Abbott's promise and Mr Turnbull's promise was to Australians, not to RSPs. So are you guaranteeing that minimum speeds will be delivered to Australians to meet the promise made by Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Turnbull?

Mr Rousselot: What this network will do is it will make available to retailers a network capable of delivering on that promise.

CHAIR: Capable of delivering. That is not a guarantee that people will receive the guaranteed minimum
speed that the Prime Minister of Australia and the Minister for Communications, Mr Turnbull, promised the Australian people before the last election.

Mr Rousselot: Ultimately, as you say, the retail service provider are in that chain. You have made that point yourself.

CHAIR: So it is their fault if the promise is broken.

Mr Rousselot: I am not saying that. I am saying that it is a value chain that has many links and what we will make sure of is that the NBN network as part of its links is capable of delivering that.

CHAIR: So you will not guarantee that Australians will receive a guaranteed minimum 25 meg as promised by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Minister for Communications, Mr Turnbull? You are not prepared to back that up. Please feel free: you do not need to feel shy, Dr Switkowski—jump right in. This is the promise made before the last election to the Australian public. I just want to know whether you are going to be keeping it.

Ibid pp5-6

CHAIR: These are build instructions that have been issued already and are averaging seven months on your own figures and the company's own figures. This slide demonstrates the premises passed count of what we have just discussed. The line is the cumulative premises count and the columns are the historic weekly rollout and the average to get to 512,000. That is what that graft(sic) represents.

Slide 2 is coming up next. It was noted by Josh Taylor in ZDNet on 8 November that 'Turnbull's office
clarified that the NBN will have passed 450,000 brownfields premises by the end of June.' This slide shows that trajectory.
The next slide demonstrates where you will be in June 2014 if the rollout plateaus. That slide shows where you will be if you do nothing more than continue to build at the average you have built for the last six weeks of 5,000—so nothing more than keeping on doing the amount you are doing at the moment. The final slide demonstrates where you will be according to your new target in the strategic review, which you published last week, of 357,000. Just a few weeks ago, Mr Turnbull said it would be 450,000. You acknowledged earlier, I think, that there was a target, which I described as being from version 13, of 600,000. What that seems to show is that you actually have to tank the rollout to meet your own target.

Dr Switkowski: This to me illustrates one of the big problems around the commentary with respect to NBN. You, from the outside, have taken a bunch of numbers and challenged our ability to make forecasts when we have all of the data and we understand what is happening out in the field. How does that work? For example, you cannot take 5,000 homes passed per month [he meant week, Ed] and not allow for the fact that from the middle of December to the middle of January the industry shuts down. There is 20,000 off your number to start off with. You have got to get down to that level of analysis to form a forward view. What we will not do is come up with numbers that are excessively optimistic, which I assert has characterised previous forecasts. To have people from outside the organisation attempt to reinterpret our forecasts is ludicrous.

CHAIR: That is good of you to say. Mr Turnbull spent three years interpreting the forecasts. I will pass on to him that you think his efforts were ludicrous.

Senator SESELJA: It turned out to be correct.

CHAIR: As you can see from this video, you actually have to slow the rollout down from where you are at right now just to meet your revised down numbers from not even six weeks ago—November 8, I think it was—which Mr Turnbull announced as his target. So you are actually slowing the weekly build down.

Dr Switkowski: Senator Conroy, could I encourage you or your staff to go out into the field and talk to our distribution partners, our construction partners, and have them confirm to you that we are doing everything possible to stabilise the rollout and to increase it. It is in our interests, as it is in yours, to do better, to pass more homes, to provide connectivity to high speed broadband to more and more Australians. That is what we are trying to do. The numbers are what the numbers are at this stage.

CHAIR: They started at 600,000 in August. According to Mr Turnbull just four weeks, they were 450,000 and last Thursday they became 357,000.

Ibid p9

We can see wholesale fudging of figures.

I enjoyed Ziggy’s attempted patronising of Conroy (aka CHAIR) who would know more about the NBN than Ziggy will ever know!

Figures we are being fed have*no*grounding*in*reality! This includes so–called minimum speeds over Fraudband. The electorate have been lied to wholesale, taken for mugs!

Back to the Estimates Committee pp10-11—the Hansard makes fascinating reading, BTW:

CHAIR: As I said, I wanted to talk about how a slower deployment affects revenues and peak funding. Mr Rousselot, Mr Turnbull very eloquently announced to the parliament last week or the week before that you have qualifications from a university founded by, I think I overheard in saying in parliament, Louis XIV. What is your background? I did not catch all of Mr Turnbull's eloquent defence [you].

Mr Rousselot: I did graduate from the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees, which is a civil engineering school in France. I also have an MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—MIT. I have since then worked in a number of fields, and for the last 15 years I have worked mostly in the media and communications field.
. . . .
CHAIR: You said you have a civil engineering degree. Have you ever used it?

Mr Rousselot: Yes, I have. I worked with Baulderstone Hornibrook for two years, between 1994 and 1996.

CHAIR: So you have been in the workforce 30 years, and you have used your civil engineering degree for two years. I am not being critical; I am just seeking to establish the fact.

Mr Rousselot: Yes.

CHAIR: A decision to extend the rollout—or, as I would characterise it, to tank the rollout—results in $11.6 billion less in revenues, according to page 58 of the review. That is a mathematical formula; if you slow the rollout down, revenues—

Dr Switkowski: No, that is incorrect.

CHAIR: Page 58—

Dr Switkowski: The revision to the revenue forecasts—

CHAIR: The biggest hit on revenues is from the delayed deployment; it actually halves the revenue.

Dr Switkowski: The revenue reduction—

CHAIR: It is a fact, on page 58.

Dr Switkowski: is largely on the back of the changed assumptions around the average revenue per user and also the slower development of the footprint.

CHAIR: Yes, the slower deployment.

Dr Switkowski: That is part of the answer.

CHAIR: Perhaps you jumped too early before I finished the question, because I will get to the other components. They are all listed on page 58, Dr Switkowski. But the biggest single hit on the revenue is from the delayed deployment profile. It actually halves the revenue. There are other components, which I will happily talk about with you, but the single biggest hit on revenue is due to a decision, an assumption, by Mr Rousselot, an assessment by Mr Rousselot, that you will slow down the rollout by three years. That is the single biggest impact on it. Mr Rousselot, you might be able to help Dr Switkowski. That is just a fact, isn't it?

Mr Rousselot: The slower rollout is indeed driving the bulk of the reduction in revenue for the period FY
2011 to FY 2021, which is the number you are referring to. The slower rollout, however, is not based on my assumptions; it is based on the actual track record that we have and the review that has been done since then by KordaMentha, supported by the newly appointed operations team of NBN Co.

CHAIR: Who are the newly appointed operations team, just out of interest?

Mr Rousselot: Greg Adcock has been recently appointed chief operating officer.

CHAIR: Mr Adcock. Okay. But this is an assessment that has been done, based on assumptions about a whole range of things—and we are going to get to them. I just want to make it so we are all going to be talking about the same thing. You say 'the vast bulk', I say that it is more than $11.6 billion, but $11.6 billion is the figure characterised by you, or by the strategic review, as the hit on the revenue base of NBN Co. by the decision—the assumption, the forecast—that you will extend by three years. That is just a fact.

Mr Rousselot: If I may, because we look back to FY 2012 plan, there are in fact actuals that cover the period between FY 2012 and now. So this is not an assumption; it is a fact. Yes, there are assumptions being made in terms of from now onwards. So it is a mix of the fact and the track record that we have achieved between when the plan was published and today, and then a forecast made for the period going forward.

CHAIR: I note that the strategic review assumes that government equity does not change in the revised outlook. Is that correct?

Mr Rousselot: Yes, that is the assumption we have worked under.

CHAIR: So, under your decision to incorporate all of these in the review, this decision to delay the completion date by three years halves the revenues to 2021, and what that means is that NBN Co. has to get more money from private debt markets. Is that right?

Mr Rousselot: Again, you have mentioned 'my decisions'. It is not my decision. It is a forecast that we have made based on the actuals and assumptions that have been made going forward. And, yes, you are correct; this is the impact on the revenue.

CHAIR: Thank you. And more money is needed from the private debt markets because of this assumption that you have made.;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/f27fdc68-c7e5-4056-b1bb-f2fbc5b9881c/0000%22

“a decision . . . . that you will slow down the rollout by three years.” They DECIDED to slow the rollout! Makes the NBN look bad, HALVES the revenue NBN Co would receive, so borrowings needed blow out! NBN Co DECIDED this! The figure of peak borrowings has been concocted!

Don’t buy the Lib bullshit!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 13:56

[quote author=GeorgeH link=1379382456/403#403 date=1387629599]Article by Informa senior analyst Tony Brown

… the Strategic Review concludes that NBN Co could actually build the all-FTTP NBN by mid-2024 – just three years behind its original schedule and only four years after the completion of Turnbull’s hybrid model … From a political perspective it now gives his opponents the chance to ask, ‘Why are you delivering a second-class network when we could have a world-class FTTP network with just a couple more years’ work?’

And we know that Turncoat’s cronies deliberately decided to slow the rollout down, rather than let the rollout ramp up. Some of these cronies, as Telstra execs, also deliberately slowed down the asbestos removal from the pits, delaying the rollout of the NBN by five months.

Yeah, roach, the audit is in, FTTP is the most sensible option and eminently doable.

The audit is missing estimates of how much it will cost to buy and remediate the crap, too–thin Telstra copper, likewise it does not include the cost of buying or leasing Telstra and Optus’ HFC network and building that out—again, FTTH presents a much better and cheaper alternative, what they are planning is going to mean an absolute forest of thick cables down every street, to every house in the HFC areas.[/quote]
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 13:58

Want to see some wishful thinking?

The Estimates Committee Hansard, p20 right at top of page, Ziggy is talking absolutely bullshit:

“so–called 4K TV” “just becoming available” “unclear if it will become a mass market product” “you may need 20mbits per second.”

4K or 4 x 1080 TV will need rather more than 20mbps not even counting the internet overheads. As to 4K TV not becoming a mass market product, bwhahaha. I suppose Ziggy thinks only half a dozen people have a plasma TV? A smartphone? If you have enough money you can go and buy a 4K TV right now! Dick Smith, JB HiFi etc have them in stock right now!

Ziggy is forgetting that the NBN is future proofing, not a present day solution. What he said about 4K TV could be slightly more appropriately, temporarily, said of 8K TV. He also forgot about the new gaming consoles, the ever increasing size of games and how they are increasingly being distributed via the internet. He mentions YouTube—does he know that is 1080 resolution now? The march of technology rolls on.

And Ziggy is Chairman of the board of NBN Co now? Yee gods and little fishes!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:01

[quote author=GeorgeH link=1379382456/418#418 date=1387709063]
Senator LUDLAM: Could you point me to the part of the document—maybe this is where we would have taken you in camera if the minister had permitted us to discuss the document in its entirety—where you provide us with an estimate of the cost of accessing Telstra's copper network and Telstra'sand Optus's HFC networks?

Dr Switkowski: Again, they are quite sensitive bits of information. I cannot recall which part of the document crosses that particular terrain but obviously they would be either statements or numbers that we would have redacted.

Senator LUDLAM: I thought you were going to say that, because I could not find them apart from all the black rectangles.

Dr Switkowski: It is not an unreasonable position we are taking.

Senator LUDLAM: But we are being asked to accept the entire basis for this project being financially and
commercially viable on the basis of a couple of blacked-out rectangles.

Dr Switkowski: Might I say that this is a step ahead of anything else you might have been asked to comment upon.

Senator LUDLAM: No, it is not. I have been working on these committees for five years now and we have been provided with full financials to the company, apart from one period where the background material for the expert panel was not provided to anybody, including the Senate, in 2009.

Dr Switkowski: I stand corrected.

Senator LUDLAM: Apart from that, I have never seen so many blacked-out rectangles on an NBN
committee. It is almost as though the whole operational security mantra has been imported into
telecommunications policy. I know I am being a bit tongue in cheek here, but it is a linchpin of your entire project, those numbers: the remediation costs and any operational expenses for keeping it maintained while it falls apart around you.

Dr Switkowski: I agree that those numbers matter. I can only give you an assurance that they have been determined to the best of our ability with considerable debate as to what the range of numbers should be to characterise those costs. They have been incorporated in our models.

Senator LUDLAM: So you cannot tell us what they are, but can you tell us how you arrived at them? We can ask this of Telstra in 20 minutes and they will tell us that those numbers are commercially sensitive as well, but you must have landed on a particular number or a range of numbers. How have you done that? Have you concluded negotiations with the companies concerned?

Dr Switkowski: Clearly we have not. We have barely started discussions.

Senator LUDLAM: So how do you arrive at any number at all?

Dr Switkowski: Is the question around maintenance costs of the network or the integrity of the network? Those things we have made judgements around and we have been informed by people who are experienced in copper networks. Which other numbers would be of interest?

Senator LUDLAM: A few different things. The cost of remediation so that the network is fit for purpose
would be one very interesting number. Then there is the ongoing operational expenses of maintaining a 60- or 70-year-old copper network. And I would be interested to know whether you sought independent valuation. You are relying on what exactly?

Dr Switkowski: Firstly, I acknowledge the importance of those numbers. You are quite right. We have
accepted that. We have spent considerable time trying to convince ourselves that we had a reasonable estimate for those numbers. We have not yet completed—and even that overstates it; we have barely started—the discussions with Telstra, but we do have access to global data benchmarks, and we have used them and the experiences of people who have had careers in working in Telstra networks in the past to form a view that we think is reasonable. [My emphasis]

Ibid p23

As I stated earlier—figures from overseas, definitely not applicable to Telstra copper! The $41Bn figure for Fraudband does not include acquiring or remediating the copper or the two HFC networks.

Let us do some estimates of our own

1. Run out Fraudband—$41Bn tho we don’t know what it involves

2. Buy Telstra copper—$30Bn

3. Buy Optus & Telstra HFC networks, about $8Bn each—$16 Bn

4. Audit state of Telstra copper and the wires database—about $10Bn each—a LOT of copper to check. Going to take considerable time too!

5. Remediation of Telstra copper? A bloody LOT!

6. Rough total excluding remediation of copper 41 + 30 + 16 + 20 = $107Bn.

FTTH $41Bn.

Not sooner, not cheaper, a lot slower, a lot less reliable—what idiot is wasting hard–earned tax payers dollars on this shite?

User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:02

Some juicy stuff re buying the crap copper:

Senator LUDLAM: I acknowledge the interjection. I get why these numbers are sensitive. I do not understand that you have any negotiating leverage whatsoever. I was around when the original agreement was negotiated. We were not allowed to call it a gun to the head—that would have been extremely impolite—but Telstra faced quite severe consequences if they were not willing to undergo that structural separation and farm the hardware into NBN. What does the Australian government have on the table to back its negotiating position in this instance? Do you have anything at all?

Dr Switkowski: I think we do, and that will play out in the weeks and months ahead. Let me again acknowledge the legitimacy of your position—

Senator LUDLAM: But I am not getting much back. It is nice to be legitimised, but I am not getting any

Dr Switkowski: Senator Ludlam, these are sensitive commercial matters, and you are talking about the character of an upcoming negotiation which will involve very, very big issues. We have estimated to the best of our ability what those issues will be and how we might manage them. We also have a government and a minister who have made it clear that the agreement that is currently in place is of a character which can be varied somewhat without there being any significant value transfer.

Senator LUDLAM: As a taxpayer myself, I want you to be in the strongest negotiating position so that we are not ripped off collectively, so do not misunderstand my intentions here. My question is: what do you actually have to put to them? For example, is Telstra aware of the numbers that are under the black rectangles? Will they have a rough idea of how you built your model? You have some final numbers; we are not able to see disaggregated figures—

Dr Switkowski: Telstra has seen this redacted report.

Senator LUDLAM: They have seen the redacted report?

Dr Switkowski: That is right.

Senator LUDLAM: They are going to be in a better position than us, I guess, to reverse engineer your figures and work out how you are valuing them. That is going to be the single biggest cost of putting this network together, is it not—acquisition of those assets?

Ibid p24

With the idiot Switkowski agreeing Telstra copper (against all common knowledge) is fine fine fine they have no lever in the negotiations with Telstra. Telstra CEO also said copper is fine fine fine. $30Bn could be too low an estimate!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:07

p27, in response to a question about plastic bags being used to try and protect joints from moisture:

Mr Shaw: We do not agree that the incidence of plastic bags in the network is as prevalent as was put to the committee. They do not form part of our standard work practices in maintaining the network, but we are aware that, as an interim measure, from time to time they might be used to protect a joint while work is being done within the network, while other investigations might be taking place. If those plastic bags have been left in situ for a long period, then that is an oversight and it should not occur. If we had the specifics around where those incidences occurred, then we will get those investigated and we will get them fixed.

Sure you will, buddy. In your dreams they will!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:09

Bottom p27 and some top of page 28:

Senator LUDLAM: I have not heard and I was not citing '100 per cent'. It was 70 per cent. It was not that 70 per cent had plastic bags. We can go back to the record and check it. It was that 70 per cent of those joints were in substandard condition: some were duct-taped, some were bagged, some were drowned and under water, some had this gel that had been applied until that was stopped over a period of years. Telstra's work practices are up to it, except that this is now an asset that, under government policy, the taxpayer is apparently about to acquire. So you can see why we would be interested in its condition. Is there such a thing as an audit that you could provide for us that would give us an accurate idea of the condition of the network, particularly that kind of last mile, where it attaches to the cabinets?

Mr Shaw: An audit? I do not believe so, no.

Senator LUDLAM: Would that be done before that asset would be handed off to the taxpayer at an undetermined cost?

Mr Shaw: You are now starting to take us into the realm of what might constitute elements of a negotiation.

Senator LUDLAM: No, I do not think I am doing that. Will the taxpayer have a reasonable idea of the quality and condition of the network before we buy it off you?

Mr Shaw: They are matters that would be discussed in the context of the negotiation.

Senator LUDLAM: That is interesting. I am not asking you to table any such audit if you do undertake it, but you are not committing to undertaking such a thing. How would we know? How would Dr Switkowski know exactly what the quality of the network is? Because you might offer it to the taxpayer for free. We have all been [the] Age 28 Senate Tuesday, 17 December 2013 assuming that it is going to be a very high cost. You might be quite happy to get rid of it at very low cost and leave the cost of maintenance to the taxpayer.

Mr Shaw: That is all speculation, Senator. I cannot really comment

So, no audit is done, Telstra has no detailed idea of the state of the copper! $10Bn will not be too much to expect such an estimate to cost! The figures for faults are meaningless—apply to voice only (near bottom p28.)
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:11

p33 Conroy tears apart the cost per FTTH installation given in the Political Review.

P34—more on the board of Turnbull buddies just making up figures to make FTTH look bad:

CHAIR: Mr Quigley confirmed this in his speech of 2 December when he said: 'And I not talking about speculative cost reductions; I am talking about things that have already been identified, like smaller-diameter cables that are already being designed by cable companies; reduced and more efficient testing; smaller-footprint multi-ports that are already being designed; reductions in fibre counts and corrections in planning tools that allowed smaller mandrels and greater fill ratios for ducts—we call these changes our 2.X architecture. At the end of September NBN Co. was on track to implement these cost reductions, as any sensible company would.'

In the revised outlook it seems to address these on page 63, where it states:
Some potential savings have been identified in network design and architecture, primarily in reduced equipment costs, however a business case needs to be prepared. Business cases for ~$1 billion of potential savings have been completed and implementation of some of these improvements is underway. These could be achieved over time, but allowing for the time to introduce these concepts and other risks, it is prudent to adjust the amount by 50 percent.

So you just decide to halve $1 billion worth of savings to $500 million in your new base case.

Mr Rousselot: The details of all of the cost savings you mention were provided to KordaMentha. They made their judgment in terms of which ones they thought were appropriate to include in the Go Forward assumptions.

CHAIR: I think I know the news about this. I am asking the man who was announced publicly, endorsed by Dr Switkowski, for your views on this—not KordaMentha's. It is your report, it has your name on it and you are responsible for it. So you just throw away, because you claim it is 'prudent', $500 million of savings.

Mr Rousselot: I agreed with the recommendation of KordaMentha.

CHAIR: And you don't factor into your revised forecast that $4.5 billion. Admittedly, you had some
discussion last week, I think, and there were genuine issues around some of them—I accept that—but the basic reducing-the-fibre count is not a debating issue; it is a case of either you do or you don't. That is $3.3 billion worth of savings. But there is not business case, according to you.

Mr Rousselot: Exactly. Had a business case been put forward that would have convinced us that it was
prudent to include that number in the go-forward assumptions, we would have.

CHAIR: What is prudent about a saving based on a change in architecture? There had been changes in
architecture a number of times already and this one was sitting there being recommended to the board previously. It just seems that again you are dumping savings purely to inflate an outcome [My emphasis]
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:14

P34—shows how the cost per premises was artificially set, assumed no efficiency gains from experience in the roll out. That figure of $73Bn for the FTTH rollout can be pretty much disregarded, I think whereas there are huge questions to do with copper:

CHAIR: I think you will find that you can't not disclose it, but you have taken it on notice. So to reiterate again, the strategic review ignored over $4 billion worth of savings because there was no business case presented notwithstanding the board previously had actually had a submission put up by the company to them and an assumption has been made—which you are not able to assist us with other than saying, 'I agree with it,'—that $500 million of the savings should be dumped—just dumped because it is prudent.

Mr Rousselot: As I said, the analysis that we did of the potential savings was one that looked at it, and talked with people within the company, either in operations or in design, to understand the status of the savings that had been identified.

CHAIR: But as for the billion dollars, business cases had been provided for the billion dollars.

Mr Rousselot: I do acknowledge that that is the case, yes.

CHAIR: And you just halved it?

Mr Rousselot: We took a consideration of risk that was still attached to implementing those savings.

CHAIR: Mr Quigley, in his speech, seemed to predict this would happen. He said he found it incomprehensible to hear the suggestion that the increases in LNDN rates should be built into the forward projections and that cost reductions that have been already identified should not be 'unless, of course, your objective is to try and confirm a preconceived position'. It is getting pretty hard to disagree with Mr Quigley, Mr Rousselot, if you are ignoring savings deliberately and you are not applying any productivity learnings and savings across the entire project except for two years in four years time. It isgetting pretty hard to disagree with Mr Quigley.

Mr Rousselot: The level of prudence that we have applied to this particular scenario we have applied to the other scenarios.
CHAIR: So it's a special test you have been applying, Mr Rousselot—the yachting test we call it, thecouta test.

Senator SESELJA: Is there any relevance to that questioning, Senator Conroy? I am not sure of it.

Senator THORP: It's more of a comment.

CHAIR: I will take that as a comment. I note the cost of premise connected, in the revised outlook, has been assumed to increase from $1,398 to $2,100, on page 94. So we are happy enough to assume costs go up but we do not want to take any savings. Does the revised outlook assume that the $2,100 figure is reflected all the way up to the end of the delayed rollout completion in 2024? It is the same issue basically. You factored that in across the whole forwards.
Mr Rousselot: I do believe that, but I will need to check it—

CHAIR: That you have, but I am glad you can confirm that. If it is incorrect someone will let you know.

Mr Rousselot: that a similar productivity saving is assumed towards the outer years.

CHAIR: Any efficiency allowance here at all?

Mr Rousselot: I believe that there is in the outer years, but I need to confirm that.

CHAIR: For the?

Mr Rousselot: For the connections. But again that is probably one that is better directed to Mark Korda.

CHAIR: No, you are in charge of pulling this together.

Mr Rousselot: I have been in charge of managing the process. I do not know every detailed answer to all of the questions.

Dr Switkowski: Chair, we do have the answers. They are sitting right behind us and will answer that.

CHAIR: I am just asking if Mr Rousselot knows it. Anytime you would like to add to the knowledge of the
committee with answering the same question that would be of assistance to the committee . . . .

Cost per FTTH connection fudged, set higher than it really is. These charlatans can’t even put together a convincing case. The roll out period, fudged, artificially reduced numbers rolled out per week, all to try and make FTTH look bad when I am sure all these Turnbull cronies, and Telstra, know the real problem is with the Telstra copper.

Lib fanbois, starting to feel angry yet? At the lies you have been told and tried to support, at the attempted robbery of the country’s future prosperity? These, these. . .games, played with millions of dollars of tax payers money, isn’t that completely against the conservative philosophy, the (supposed) Liberal way of doing things? To keep these games, this outright fraud going other people, those with not much money, will be squeezed so the charade can continue.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:16

Another fraudulent, predetermined figure in the Political Review:

Mr McLaren: I will provide the committee with that explanation. A build drop is a connection that we do from the street to the outside of the premises at the stage of construction. As we are building the local network and distribution network we have our workforce in the field. A build drop will also use that opportunity to complete the lead-in work, which is the fibre, either through a Telstra conduit or an aerial drop wire, into the home. The difference with a bulk drop is that that is what we are doing after we have passed a suburb. It is basically a hangover from our old previous regime of not doing those build drops. So we have an inventory of homes that we have passed where we have not built those drops, so the bulk drop is effectively a program to go back into those areas with a mobilised workforce and do that work. It is similar work, similar segment of the network, but we are doing it afterwards.

CHAIR: So it is essentially the same work, you are just doing it in different time frames.

Mr McLaren: It is essentially the same work but clearly there are different mobilisation factors and everything else.
CHAIR: The mobilisation factor logically suggests that it is going to be fractionally cheaper—I will say fractionally not because I am trying to be provocative—to do it all at once than to have two truck rolls, so to speak.

Mr McLaren: Yes, obviously significantly cheaper than the demand drop, as you can see from the numbers there, I think.

CHAIR: The forecast is barely cheaper than the demand drop, which is factored into the future, but I am coming to that with Mr Rousselot. Just to draw on the point that has been made, bulk drops are substantially cheaper than build drops live to date, 763 to 314. We might move back to Mr Rousselot.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:20

Top of p 38:

CHAIR: I meant cheaper than demand drops. Thank you. I want to confirm the findings of the strategic review. It states: 'These potential efficiencies have not been reflected in the revised outlook.' Why on earth are demonstrable savings, already happening, not factored into the revised figures?

Good question!

Bit further down p38:

CHAIR: I am also familiar with the evidence from that as well. To suddenly more than double the bulk-build drop forecast is not consistent with the evidence you have before you, it is not consistent with the evidence on the ground of people not being home; it is not that high a percentage as you are trying to somehow suggest. The evidence will not back you up on that. But, again, what you are seeing here is a doubling of the cost forecast out into the 10 years. So savings that can be made are not factored in and costs that can be pumped up to assist your reprofiling exercise are included. That is what this table shows. . . .

CHAIR: Mr Turnbull, Dr Switkowski, I think, and others have made the point that this is your report and you have to own it; you have to act on it. We have already heard Dr Switkowski this morning talk about how he is going to make savings. . . .

Dr Switkowski: I wonder, Chair, whether you might agree about the transparency that this report reflects. We have disclosed all of our assumptions, we have disclosed all of our judgements and we have made clear the consequences.

CHAIR: To be fair, I would agree that you have disclosed some, assumptions, particularly the bad assumptions that drive the costs up. But I certainly do not accept you have provided transparency on your estimates for the scenario that you are advancing. I do not agree with that at all. I think you have already had a discussion with Senator Ludlam about that. I think it is almost impossible to judge from this report, with the redacted material, the estimates that you have made. You have totals at the end. You have made assumptions. But there are no numbers there that allow you to unpick whether you have made wild assumptions or conservative assumptions. So I would disagree with you reasonably, I think, on some of that.

Fudged figures! As I keep saying, this so–called Strategic Review was much more like a Political Review, not surprising when it was conducted by people with no experience of doing a rollout who are all cronies of Turncoat! Disgusting waste of taxpayers dollars, $8m not counting the inflated salaries the cronies are pulling down.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:24

In response to some fanbois:

Here is a journo basically reporting what I have said—same analysis: ... ain-wreck/

and ... still-vi...

Maybe Paul Budde is a source you can believe? Here he is denigrating HFC network as part of the NBN (the cronies announced a rework of this network—no cost for the purchase of the two HFC networks given, of course:)

In response to the issue, Budde published a lengthy blog post this week entitled “the end of HFC and FTTN networks is approaching”.

“While the DOCSIS 3.0-upgraded HFC networks theoretically can deliver 100Mb/s, the reality is that most are delivering speeds of between 20Mb/s and 50Mb/s,” wrote Budde. “The shared nature of these networks and the extra cost involved in providing consistent services at higher speeds to mass markets makes HFC increasingly less competitive with FttH networks.”

“This is not to say that the existing HFC and FttN networks will immediately die out,” the analyst added. “Diesel trains started to replace the steam train in the 1930s – this happened at the height of steam train technology (reaching 220km per hour) – but it was not until 1960 (30 years later) that the last steam trains disappeared in the USA and Europe. Good quality HFC and VDSL2+ networks could possibly survive for 10 to 20 years. The problem is that there are only a limited number of areas where this is technically possible or economically viable.” ... ays-budde/

Pretty much bears me out, doesn’t it?
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:33

Bottom of p38

CHAIR: Thank you. Does the cost per premise, that is passed plus the customer connect, figure in the revised outlook include cost claims that have come in from contractors since September?

Mr Rousselot: I believe since September the interviews and the review that was done by Korda would have been during the period of October to November, so they would have had potential visibility of those.

p39—note all the prevaricating by Turncoat’s cronies:

CHAIR: I sat there at a hearing and I was told, 'They're going up as we speak.' I was just wondering when 'as we spoke' was. Have these claims been treated in the same way they have been treated by the company to date? To give you an example, Mr Brown has previously talked about claims of 20 per cent that have been reduced to two per cent following ambit claims. We all understand that, whether it is a trade union negotiation or a corporate stoush, the first claim is not normally where you end up at. Mr Brown was able to demonstrate that he had achieved a reduction from 20 per cent to two per cent just by contesting vigorously. Are you treating these claims with the same rigour that Mr Brown previously treated some claims?

Mr Rousselot: The way those claims were looked at were by having people that were highly experienced in these types of construction projects and in dealing with claims from contractors. On the basis of the claims that they saw, the conversations that they had with people within the company and with some of those vendors, they made a judgement of what those claims were likely to be.

CHAIR: You may have to take this question on notice—I accept, if you do: what is the total of cost claims put in by contractors up to 30 September? I am not asking you to identify an individual one, I accept that that is something you would be loath to do.

Mr Rousselot: I would have to take that on notice.

CHAIR: What was the total of cost claims put in by contractors up to 31 October

Mr Rousselot: I will take that on notice.

CHAIR: And what is the total of cost claims put in by contractors to date? I would like to know when these new claims turned up. I am reasonably confident that I know what they were up until mid September. I am trying to understand Dr Switkowski's evidence previously that they are going up as we speak. It is quite an extraordinary statement, really.

Mr Rousselot: I think that the point that the chair was referring to is that what we refer to as our estimate at completion, which is a number where we try to estimate what the cost per premise will be, is going up.

CHAIR: I appreciate how you have done it—

Mr Rousselot: So as we get more actuals we have seen that cost go up.

CHAIR: 250,000 actuals is pretty good, but I think Dr Switkowski said that was not enough. How many is enough?

Mr Rousselot: I don't know when we will get—

Quarter of a million should be enough to work out an estimate of the cost. Obviously, the cronies are hiding that they just fudged the figure of cost/install. Political not Strategic Review!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:35

What a cosy, incestuous world the cronies live in. If they said it was sunny outside I would reach for my unbrella!


Mr Adcock: At this point in time I would be receiving claims.

CHAIR: Who below you?

Mr Adcock: It would be my head of construction or the head of business operations.

CHAIR: Who are they? What are their names? I might want to call them.

Mr Adcock: The head of business operations started a week ago. His name is Michael Doherty.

CHAIR: Where did he come from?

Mr Adcock: He was recently with Silcar.

CHAIR: Do you know him?

Mr Adcock: I do know Michael, yes. [I bet Turncoat knows him too! Ed]

CHAIR: How long have you known him?

Mr Adcock: I knew Michael when he was working at Telstra. [My emphasis] He left over three years ago, from memory. He is a very experienced commercial person.

CHAIR: I am sure he is. Apparently he has been putting in claims recently on behalf of Silcar. Was he in charge of putting in claims for Silcar?

Mr Adcock: No, I don't think so. I don't believe that to be the case.

CHAIR: So what was his job at Silcar?

Mr Adcock: His job there was in strategy and business development, from memory.

CHAIR: So you hired somebody from a company, which is putting in a claim to you, to handle that company's claim?

Shonky Review! Working backwards from the desired POLITICAL result!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:39

To Tasmania and fresh shonkyness!


CHAIR: I keep reading Mr Turnbull is telling them to get on with building and stop asking for more money—that is what he has been saying three or four times in the past week.

Mr Adcock: And in fairness we would love them to get on with building, and hopefully we have found a way through that.

CHAIR: And does that involve paying an increased rate?

Mr Adcock: We have come to an arrangement with Visionstream whereby we are getting on with work while we baseline what 'good' looks like, so we can have an informal discussion about the potential claim.

CHAIR: It is not the first claim out of Tasmania I think. I mention Mr Brown dealt with a claim where he reduced it from 20 per cent to two per cent previously.

Mr Adcock: Before my time, Senator.

CHAIR: The John Holland claim. The claims out of Tasmania are not new.

Mr Adcock: No. John Holland was some time ago. I was working at Telstra at the time [My emphasis] , so Mr Brown handled it. I take that as a fact.

CHAIR: So you have Visionstream, you said?

Mr Adcock: Visionstream have not formally put the claim in yet. They have just indicated that they might, and we have discouraged them from doing so while we work together to understand the baseline—actively discouraged.

CHAIR: Fair enough. Who else?

Mr Adcock: I believe, from the discussions I have had up to this point in time, that Silcar are looking to pull together a claim, but equally I am actively discouraging them while we work together—

CHAIR: Wasn't there a rate increase?

Mr Adcock: Sorry?

CHAIR: Didn't they just get a rate increase?

Mr Adcock: They did get a rate increase—

CHAIR: Sometime before the election is my recollection.

Mr Adcock: I understand that to be the case.

CHAIR: They got an increase. Do you know how much it was—anyone?

Mr Adcock: No.

CHAIR: Gee, a chief financial officer would be useful right now, wouldn't they? Or even a deputy chief financial officer. So Silcar got a rate increase, and now they are preparing a demand on top of the rate increase?

Mr Adcock: For work done prior to the rate increase I understand. Again, Senator, they have not formally lodged it; it is just trying to work with industry—

The CFO and DCFO had been summonsed to appear before the committee. I guess that would have been too dangerous for the cabal of cronies—might quote some real figures!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 14:42

P42—and, yes, truly unbelievable were it not a bunch of cronies working to a political end set by their chief crony Mr Turncoat! I have read Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass but this beats them hands down for weirdness and fantasy—but costing taxpayers real dollars!

CHAIR: On page 63 of the review, it is stated that it is considered likely that 'delivery partners will become more efficient'. It says 'It is anticipated that any efficiency gains will primarily benefit the delivery partners.' That is on page 63. Can you explain why NBN Co. would not get any of the efficiency benefits from things learnt in the rollout? That makes you sound like the most incompetent bunch of negotiators that I have met.

Mr Rousselot: It has been well documented that some of the delivery partners are experiencing significant issues in operating profitably under the terms that they have. A lot of them have had issues building appropriately the networks that they said they would at the rates they said they would.

CHAIR: Silcar went out of business, essentially, because they would not pay their subbies an appropriate rate based on the rate that they had received. They were paying up to 40 per cent less to their subbies than some of the east coast companies. That is historical fact. What I am trying to understand is why you are not planning on trying to achieve any savings from efficiency gains at all in negotiations with your delivery partners.

Mr Rousselot: What we assumed was that if there are efficiencies then those will go primarily to enable those contractors to operate profitably rather than being directly transferred to us, which would still leave them in an unbalanced position and that is not something that they could withstand in the long term.

CHAIR: So you are announcing to everybody that you have no intention of seeking to make any savings from any productivity improvements made by your contractors.

Mr Rousselot: That is what we have assumed in this scenario, yes.

CHAIR: Unbelievable. Are you sure that it is only $78 billion? It has to be more if they are not getting any savings at all.

Truly unbelievable—if you are naive enough to think the cronies are doing other than work to a political end. Or are a rightard will to swallow any amount of bullshit coming from Menzies House and Liberal Party Head Office!
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 15:04

CHAIR: On 29 November, Ms Jan Mason, the first assistant secretary or possibly deputy secretary of the Department of Finance, said, 'Despite weekly meetings with NBN Co., I am not aware of any particular cost blowouts.' Was someone hiding things from here? How could the Department of Finance, who were having weekly meetings with your finance area, have no idea about any of the increases that you are talking about? KordaMentha has said that there is nothing in the accounts, so your previous accountants did not have a clue. The Department of Finance did not have a clue. You are geniuses.

Mr Rousselot: If you look at the actuals to date, our expenses to date are lower than what was in the cost plan because our rollout has been significantly smaller than what was in the plan. If you look at the actuals, our revenues are lower than in the plan and our costs are lower in the plan so there is no cost blowout. If you correct those costs to reflect the of rollout that has taken place and consider that, then there are a number of costs that are significantly higher on a per unit basis than what we had anticipated in the plan. Somebody could look at those costs and say, 'There isn't a cost blowout,' because ultimately those costs to date are lower than what was in the corporate plan.

So a slightly reduced revenue because the numbers rolled each week have been deliberately, to achieve predetermined political ends, reduced. On schedule and on cost.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37

Re: Third rollout of NBN or Helping Murdoch

Postby HBS Guy » 26 Dec 2013, 15:08


CHAIR: Mr Brad Orgill wrote an op-ed piece. He has been unflattering to me, as he has to many other people. He said:

The government, I suspect, may seek to build and prosecute the case that NBN at the fibre-to the-premise program could not have been implemented to the cost estimated in the 2013-16 draft corporate plan

So he has seen version 12; possibly version 13. He goes on to say—

Selective data, conservative assumptions and extrapolations out to 2020-21 could be formulated to argue why the NBN might have comprehensively blown out its costs and not achieved its objectives. It would be a continuation of the coalition's attacks from opposition on NBN management and the board, including threatening a royal commission of inquiry.

It seems pretty prescient of Mr Orgill to have worked out exactly what the stitch-up was. [My emphasis]

Dr Switkowski: Why would we even comment on what Mr Orgill said?

CHAIR: I will pass that on to him. Actually, I do not know him that well; I am sure he will hear about it.

Senator SESELJA: He is a Green, isn't he? We should put that on the record—that he is a Green.

CHAIR: I am not in a position to comment.

Senator LUDLAM: And he was spot on in that instance; he was absolutely spot on.

CHAIR: I wanted to put to you that Mr Orgill's assessment seems pretty spot on. Every cost over-run is extrapolated out over 10 years. No efficiencies can be made which are calculated. You have rejected cost savings of $4.5 billion. You have not extrapolated any cost savings. You have halved other cost savings on purely arbitrary [Political!—Ed] grounds. You have foregone build efficiencies of billions of dollars by ceding all future benefits to the construction industry and reserving none for the taxpayer. You have just plain refused to include build efficiencies where it supports the investing business case, such as trying to pretend that bulk crops are as costly as build drops. You have been bullish about data demand in some areas to push up required cap-X while pessimistic about it in other areas to tank revenues. In some cases, costs have been pushed up because of the actions of the current government. I quote from page 62, and I think Senator Ludlam has already quoted it, 'Uncertainty about Volumes Going Forward,' and, of course, this gem on page 74, 'Organisational Disruption During Strategic Review and Subsequent Transitory Period': The status of the project and the recent change in government policy coupled with the strategic review undertaken has increased the strategic and operational uncertainty of NBN Co. This has been exacerbated by changes to the senior management team and has resulted in the organisation reconsidering a range of tactical and strategic issues. Given the long lead times associated— . . . . associated with various internal processes as well as with supply chain and construction deployment partners, it is important that NBN Co. continues to progress its current FTTP rollout.

Pretty clear, isn’t it. The $8m of taxpayer’s money spent on the allegedly “Strategic” Review has been wasted. A political exercise that could not even deny FTTH is entirely feasible and doable and economic.

I did a quick Google on “economic benefits of FTTH.” My there were a lot of hits!

One truly strategic study in Sweden mentioned “improved well-being and increased incomes for citizens along with many benefits for network operators themselves.”

I will get back to this but will keep going with Alice in, errr the “Strategic” Review.
User avatar
Tractors to Australia
Posts: 53725
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 14:37


Return to Friends of the NBN

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest