[LINK] New opposition spokesperson for broadband

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Glen Turner wrote:
> Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> 
>> The UK research, that it could cost as much as 40 billion *pounds* to
>> FTTH Britain, was sobering: the UK is smaller and denser, and that's
>> supposed to be good for fibre economics ... so is the research
>> off-the-wall, or is fibre far more expensive than we expect?
> 
> The economics are really unclear. Verizon is charging an installation
> of US$70 with a minimum rental of US$40 per month.  That's US$550
> for the one-year contract.  That implies a FTTH network for Australia
> of about $5B.  That's obviously not right -- as i said, the costs
> are unclear to anyone other than those who have spent the money to
> scope such a network, which isn't something I've done.
> 
> NEC probably have the best informal notion, if you wanted to
> ask them.
> 
> What I object to is:
>   1. This notion that we want the most network we can get for
>      $4.7B. Rather than asking what we need and what is reasonable
>      for the future and working out how much that would cost.
>   2. The lack of scoping studies of alternatives.  Especially as
>      that would allow total cost of ownership to enter the picture
>      and give a long-run investment plan.
>   3. The use of tenders as an alternative to the government building
>      its own scoping study and expertise.
>   4. The rush.
> 

There isn't much point in identifying what we "need" if you can't afford it.

The problem, with tendering, is that unless it is a mature function/service, 
then it is difficult to write a tender that will result in a competitive process.

The government has to have some kind of scoping how else can they know what's 
available or what is needed.

...and ofcourse what is viable in New York, LA, London, may be viable in Sydney 
perhaps in Melbourne and less likely elsewhere.

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: (+61)0414 869202