Sunday, 31 March 2013

NBN: Cost of FTTN node-to-premise fibre upgrade

One of the planks of the Coalition NBN plan Cost-Effective technology choices, not ideological. They've criticised Labor's process at arriving GPON Full-fibre network to be deployed by a Government Business Enterprise.

The Coalition assertion is that no "Cost Benefit Analysis" was done, whilst discounting the Expert Panel assessment and report as irrelevant. That's a valid political argument and one that Labor has to address sufficiently for the electorate, it's not a technical, economic or National Benefit argument.

The Coalition has to defend its own NBN proposals according to the benchmarks/requirements it places on Labor.
One question that follows is:
Is it Cost-Effective to upgrade an FTTN network to node-to-premise fibre? Where's the Cost Benefit Analysis?

Previously, I've costed the NBN Co GPON FTTP as:

  • $2 Billion in common infrastructure (Transit networks, PoI's, facilities), or $16.5M per multiple Fibre Serving Areas connected to Point of Interconnect (PoI).
  • $1,340 average per-premise connection cost, plus $845 (est) copper deconnection fee to Telstra.
My guesstimate of the connection cost is:
  • $300 upstream costs to FSA.
  • $300 Fibre Distribution Area loop. (12.1m per premise, $100 fibre, $200 labour+materials)
  • $300 Connection-to-Premise: drop-cable, pit/splitter, lead-in, external wall mount
  • $400 electronics: Internal (powered)  Optical Network Termination + head-end GPON electronics. Guess $250 CPE and $150 head-end.
A full-coverage FTTN is likely to cost $1,700 per premise passed, not connected, according to Telstra estimates. If implemented by Telstra, the common-infrastructure, $2 billion, would already be in place. 

The node install costs would cover upstream costs as well.
The 2005 minimum-cost estimate, $4 billion services for $4-5 billion, sets $1,000-$1,250/premise passed, not connected. Subscribers are responsible for their own Customer Premises Equipment, CPE.
This was for 6-12Mbps, ADSL2 160-lines/node @ 1500m, at the "pillar" or distribution area level.

From a statement by Prof. Reg Coutts, that over half the cost of an FTTN is in the node electronics, because as Mr Quigley of the NBN describes, "it needs as much processing as mobile phones", then we can estimate $600/line or $100,000/node.

If Multi-Service Nodes have been installed and the uplink and upstream network are properly dimensioned for upgrade, then only two costs will be different:
  • the upstream to FSA is zero-cost, modulo sufficient uplink speed and capacity.
  • the electronics. The CPE will be the same cost, but the node line-card may be more expensive (different technology, more hostile environment, smaller cards, low-volume production), say $250.
  • Summary: save $300, add $100 per premise
    • $1,340 - $300 + $100 = $1,140 full connection.
    • = $600 premise passed
    • for 12M premises, min-cost $7.25 billion.
    • + $540/premise connected
    • for 8M services, $4.25 billion connection
    • $12 billion total project.
There is more...

NBN: Cost per premise of FTTN

Sol Truijillo suggested in 2008 that full (98%) FTTN coverage (to an assumed 8.6M service addresses) would cost over $15 billion: $1,750/premise to the incumbent
vs $1,340 for NBN Co's current FTTP.



Presumably this was for 6-12Mbps: 1500m ADSL2 or VDSL2 quoted in 2005/6, 160 lines/node.
[Telstra swaps between 6Mbps and 12Mbps in their briefings, with multiple projects outlined.]
12-25Mbps, 800m VDSL2 as deployed in the UK would be much more as many more smaller nodes (40 lines/node).

Telstra have been coy about their FTTN design and costs, but in 2007, in a response to the G9/Terria proposal, claimed they could achieve 25Mbps with VDSL2 ISAM's from Alactel over 1500m. They also claimed a 40% reduction on nodes by re-architecting the copper network versus the G9/Terria "leave the copper as it was for phones" approach of G9/Terria.

Whilst Telstra did include VoIP cutover [tls385 doc], nothing in their briefing papers suggests they costed more than passing premises, as opposed to connecting and activating premises.

Telstra is charging NBN Co around $845/line disconnected, plus considerable rental charges for facilities access and pits-pipes-conduits (a 25% higher post-tax NPV ($5B vs $4B) over 30 years, vs 10 years, both with a 10% discount/interest rate).

Telstra never exactly describes the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). The closest is "home gateway" mentioned by Jamie Chard on pg 16 of the TLS-389 briefing transcript. Mr Chard explicitly mentions "remote management" and "plug and play", in the context of customers purchasing "units" and self-installing.

From this absence of detail, I can only conclude that the Telstra FTTN, unlike NBN Co's FTTP, pushed the cost of the CPE/NTU (Network Termination Unit) onto the customer. This is a $150-$350 additional cost, further tipping the balance away from FTTN.

We know from the TransACT experiment in 2002, that the cheapest deployment of an FTTN will be $800/premise (55,000 premises, $40M): aerial with fibre transit and new copper cables, with overlaid PSTN and VDSL networks. VDSL nodes did not provide any telephony (VoIP) services.

Presumably, this was only for passing, not connecting premises. Also, in private correspondence, I've been told the nodes were not "fully populated". Although nodes could serve 32 connections, only a few VDSL line cards were initially installed, reducing deployment costs.

The TransACT PSTN network was separate with "super-nodes" of around 500 connections.
The Motorola VDSL premises devices were expensive and later replaced with low-power, smaller units. From (a single) personal experience, connection was a half-day by a team of three.

Looking at the Telstra & Terria/G9 docs, I can't find definitions of what they're counting in the install.

  • is it 'services passed' (and cutover to PSTN-via-the-Node)?
  • or 'services connected'?
My guess, it'd cost $250-$500 to install a Network Termination Unit in a premises. $150-$200 for the boxes and $100+ for the install.
It's easy to fudge FTTN costs by shifting the NTU cost to the subscriber, whereas NBN Co supplies the external fibre connection point and the NTU boxes, but does charge a separate fee for them.

There are 3 things that have been bothering me about the FTTN that on the public record but not mentioned by anyone:
  •  The cost of electronics was estimated at over 50% of the node costs in 2009 [Reg Coutts of the Expert Committee Report]. The 2005 TLS technology briefing docs cite a 20-year life. These are not just 'sunk' costs, but upgrades cost either for new line-cards, or removal of the Nodes and running GPON anyway.
  • Mr Quigley on Inside Business described FTTN as like Mobile Telephony, needs lots of electronics.
http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3722502.htmso it's more akin to a kind of a mobile network in terms of the amount of processing that you have to do to get the highest speeds.
  • Sol Truijillo was reported in 2008 that a full (98%) FTTN-NBN would cost $15+Billion.

Per-premises Fibre costs:
http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/nbn-cost-per-premises-of-fibre.html


Telstra 2005/6 FTTN Links:

http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls339_briefingpaper.pdf
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls385-technologybriefing.pdf
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls389-transcripttechbriefing.pdf

TLS385 Technology Briefing: Jim Moore, p8
All PSTN services in the footprint area will be migrated to a Multi-Service Access Network with an IP core.

Prof Reg Coutts, NBN Expert Review Committee:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/346022/nbn_about_ubiquity_just_uptake_speeds/
“Essentially to go down the FTTN road would mean something in the order of, greater than 50 per cent of the capital being put into digital cabinets in the suburbs," he said. "They then become an obstacle to the final solution… fibre-to-the-premise. Fibre-to-the-node was not a stepping stone to fibre-to-the-premise. In fact, if anything it would put it backwards. The second reason, of course, is in no other market have people proceeded with fibre-to-the-node other than an incumbent. It is a solution that is the right solution for an incumbent that has a copper infrastructure.”
“Telstra have made the point themselves; they cannot build a business case to reach 100 per cent of Australians [with a fibre-to-the-home network]," Conroy said. “The best they have said they will be able to do is to reach 60 per cent of Australians. That is five capital cities and a little bit up and down, north and south of Sydney.”

NBN: Cost per Premises of Fibre

What is the cost to NBN Co of building the PoI's and Transit Network (by 2014): A: ~$1950M
What is the average cost to NBN Co of deploying Fibre to a premise? A: ~$2,185
What does Telstra get for each disconnected copper line? A: ~$845

Average per-Premise Install cost: $1340 [$2185 - $845]



Per-Premise Install cost will include at least:
  • Planning, supervision
  • Transit, backhaul, shared hierarchy facilities/infrastructure and PoI's.
  • pits, pipes, ducts: new and existing.
    • Including new pipes under-street and between pits to accommodate the new network topology as well as remediating unusable pits, pipes and conduits.
  • lead-in pipe, existing or replacement + drop-cable
  • Fibre-loops in Fibre Distribution Area (200-300 premises).
  • On-street fibre-pit, shared between adjacent premises.
  • Premise External Fibre Connection point/box (termination of lead-in)
  • In-premises cabling, conduits, fibre termination point and powered ONT (Optical Network Termination)
From the 206,000km total Fibre distance, there is one premise per 17m of cable.
From the road distance, 12.1m between premises.
The average inter-property distance will be nearly twice this as "roads have two sides".

The difference, 58,000km, could be the length of Transit network, an average of 480km per PoI.
This would equate to 24 cables of 20km each in Fibre Distribution Areas. The Pirelli/Prysmian 6-core underground cables contain 864 fibres (144 per tube, as 12*12-fibre ribbons) and are built for this trunking.

I have no estimate for the length or cost of "drop" or "lead-in" cables, for which Corning has the contract. They also supply a 4-tube non-filled cable.

75% of Premises will be underground (and use full length of Telstra ducts & pits), for which a higher rental (OpEx) will be charged and will cost more to install (CapEx).

There will be some remedial work, in replacing full or unusable ducts. This could cost $55/m for trenching, add conduit, labour, hardware and planning/supervision.

Around 2002, TransACT passed 55,000 premises for $40M in the A.C.T. This was all aerial deployment (Electricity poles), with 32-port VDSL nodes @ 300m, or roughly $800/premise (passed).
This compromised both a fibre backhaul network and new "category 5" cable for the last 300m.

The topology allowed radial coverage vs the "along a single cable" of the PSTN/Copper C.A.N., considerably increasing the number of premises served per node.
The Telstra 2005/6 FTTN documents cite 160 premises/node for 1500m which scales to 40 premises/node per 800m and, at best, 20 premises/node @ 400m.


This provides a ballpark confirmation of the estimate:
  • $1500/premise underground
  • $900/premise aerial.

In 2002, there were ~72,000 "Distribution Areas" in the Telstra Copper C.A.N.
In 2005 FTTN docs, Telstra cites 8.6M "service addresses", suggesting DA's average 120 "service addresses", potentially 160 services (10M PSTN services have been cited).
I have no information on

Sources:
NBN Co Corporate Plan, 6-Aug-2012. p37, 75
Telstra 2011 Definitive Agreement, p2
(2002) Connecting Regional Australia, data on DA's and Fault Rates.
The 2012-15 Corporate Plan projects that the FTTP network will be constructed by passing more than 206,000 kms of physical network distance (based on network configuration and covered road distances of 148,000 kms). 25% of the premises are expected to be passed aerially in the Local network, representing 35,000 kms of aerial deployment. [from p75 of NBN Co Corporate Plan]
The "Discounted Premises per Year" below is the Premises-per-Year divided by (1 + 0.10)where 0.10 is the 10% Discount Rate, and t is the year number.
This is summed into "Cumulative Discounted Premises per Year", right-most column.

This Discounted figure allows the known notional dollar cost to be converted to a fixed per-premise fee from the post-tax NPV figure provided by Telstra.

NBN Co Fibre Deployment Only
Year$-Fibre/Yr$M-Cum-FibreCum-Prem-passed$Avg-Cost/premPrem/YrDiscounted-Prem/YrCum-Disc-P/Yr
2011101101185.55556181818
20124285293913.56412119.090937.0909
2013165921883416.41642302249.587286.678

20142614480213073.67406966725.771012.45
20153571837329122.8753416051096.242108.68
201638111218446252.6343817131063.643172.32

201735931577762792.512661654933.644105.96
201834461922378382.452541559800.0144905.98
201931762239992832.412911445674.1035580.08

2020315625555107832.369931500636.1466216.23
2021292328478122022.333881419547.0866763.31

2014$1961.76MCommon Cost (raw)
...2021$2,173Inc cost/premise (raw)

2014$1950MCommon Cost (rounded)
...2021$2,185Inc cost/premise (rounded)

Telstra Discount rate = 10%,
Post-tax NPV of disconnection over 10 years = $4B
$4,000,000 / 6763.31 = $591.426/line Post-tax
$591.426 / 0.7 = $845 Pre-Tax [Tax Rate is 30%, from Reuters Financials via Google Finance.]

Telstra 2005/6 FTTN Links:


http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls339_briefingpaper.pdf
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls385-technologybriefing.pdf
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls389-transcripttechbriefing.pdf



Optical Fibre Links:

Media Release on Fibre Contracts, 17-Jan-2011.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/media-releases/2011/passive-equipment-supplier-contracts-17-jan-11.pdf

10 August 2012, "How Fibre Optic Cable is made"
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/how-fibre-optic-cable-is-made.html

 26 February 2013, Progress on the Pirelli/Prysmian contract.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/one-millionth-kilometre-of-optical-fibre-supplied-to-nbn.html


Thursday, 28 March 2013

NBN: A last chance for sense

After the Rudd-Crean-Gillard "WTF circus" last week, the Liberals don't just look like winning in September, but possibly getting enough lower house seats to rule without a Coalition.

But we know that the Australian Electorate is a) very 'twitchy' and b) has a long memory (ask the Democrats about Meg Lees + GST).



If Abbot exhibits just one moment like the Mark Latham "handshake" with Howard, then they've lost and the electorate won't willing reinstall Gillard-Labor, but support everyone else. A Senate with Katter 's Australia Party getting 12% of the vote and a legitimate balance of power: does that strike hope or fear into the hearts of Voters and Politicians?

I've seen a poll quoted (sorry, unsure source) that said two-thirds (or 75%) of Australians/Voters (can't recall) wanted the NBN.

If someone cares to do that survey for Rural, Regional and Remote voters ("country") and ask specifically about "Fibre to the Home", I'd expect around 90%, but that's a guess.

As a country, we have just one chance to get built a sensible 21st Century Telco infrastructure: ubiquitous fibre to premises. Otherwise we'll be locked into whatever is delivered in the next five years by the economics of "The Wide Brown Land", our single dominant Telco and the "Traditional Telco Pricing" model favoured by all seemingly all Telco that can build infrastructure.

Just look at the railways and Sydney roads to know what our future will hold if we don't get ubiquitous Fibre to Premises now: you cannot design a more expensive & inefficient system for either. There is always money for "necessary" upgrades and small "improvements", but never enough to wipe the slate clean and do what was obvious, easy and cheap 50-60 years ago.

Just how 'dead' does Gillard-Labor need for Abbot to keep up the relentless rhetoric?
The Liberals can afford to lose a few of their votes to embrace some sensible economic reforms started by Rudd, Gillard and Swan in the interests of future economic productivity and competitiveness: with an FTTP NBN as the first.

Turnbull-Fletcher in my opinion, need to convince their Party, especially their leadership team that continuing the FTTP NBN won't be a cowardly backdown (75% of voters now want it continued), but can be spun as a very positive and far-sighted policy move.

The one Really Big Thing that the Liberals can now do with the NBN is debate the roll-out and financing and stop the niggardly, "mean and slippery" sniping about it:

  • Can we find better ways to finance the $1500/premise for the Fibre component?
  • Can a reasonable Public-Private Partnership be established which doesn't see Telstra continue to gouge the community for substandard services?

If the private sector is allowed to lock areas into Fibre to the Node, then for the foreseeable future, 50 years, those areas will never be able to "economically" justify Fibre to the Premises...

Gillard-Labor can't win this next election and the electorate really don't want to return them, but this one issue, especially in Country areas, can prevent Abbot gaining power. This is something Abbot didn't grasp last time around: taking down your opponent does NOT make you a winner.

For the sake of their Party and the future of this nation, I hope that Turnbull-Fletcher can sway Abbot and friends to understand, unlike 2010, that there are two sides to winning:

  • stopping the other side from getting in, and
  • ensuring you get in.

In my opinion, if the Liberals publicly commit to ubiquitous Fibre to the Premises, starting with Country regions and figuring out a sane, economic and efficient roll-out strategy that isn't solely driven by some long-lost ideological reason, then they'll go a long way to fulfilling both sides of the electoral equation.

Otherwise, we'll be seeing a lot of Bob Katter on our TV's.

Monday, 18 March 2013

NBN: What do we agree on? Disagree on?


I'm wondering if it's possible to document where Grahame Lynch and I agree and disagree.

There will be areas that we'll never agree and won't change the others opinion.
One area I think we are in furious agreement:
The basics {technologies, timeframes, guaranteed rates/latency, priority areas} have never been debated. This has to include a reasonable stab at a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
We probably disagree on needing a much larger view of CBA than solely the accounts of NBN Co and using a non-commercial Internal Rate of Return.


This was new to me and I thank Mr Lynch for it. I think the idea of modelling a reduced coverage of premises is good, as rollout can be delayed until the project is cash-flow positive. I have yet to understand the impact on the rollout of leaving slabs of brownfields copper around.

But unfortunately Jenkin also falls into the trap of assuming I am advocating a complete FTTN network and argues from that viewpoint. I don’t. His entire opus suffers from this misapprehension and assumes I am defending FTTN. 
I am very happy for there to be as much FTTH as is cost-effective. Greenfields, definitely. Places where the copper cannot be upgraded, certainly. Fibre to the kerb or basement and then VDSL2 to many of the 30-35% of Australians in multi dwelling units with existing Cat 5 or other internal cabling. I’m happy with that given the difficulties in getting fibre to their premises, a policy that was the orginal intention of NBN Co itself. 
Ditto, the prioritising of network remediation and investment in the places which cannot get +8Mbps ADSL now, which means that premises getting high speed Docsis 3.1 and other platforms are placed at the back of the queue. Suddenly we have a scenario where by reducing the extent of FTTH from 93% of premises to maybe just half overall, we still end up with most people getting 50Mbps to 100Mbps and everyone getting 25Mbps minimum.

Here's The List from Mr Lynch's article. (I've never met Grahame and don't presume to false closeness, hence the formalism that he has reciprocated with.)

1) Jenkin claims it is “a nonsense” to claim that an FTTN network replaces some of the copper with fibre
2) Jenkin claims that elderly people and the remote get ten times bandwidth increase guaranteed – thus meaning they can all access telehealth services over the nbn.
3) Jenkin claims that my point that we don’t need FTTH to see global TV channels is “bogus”
4) Ross claims the NBN will end phone call charges. Jenkin claims he doesn’t understand my objections to this.
5) Jenkin implies that only “an elite” can currently telecommute & the NBN’s universality changes this
6) Jenkin says that just because medicare won’t fund telehealth in metro/fibre areas doesn’t mean it won’t happen or cannot be counted as a potential nbn benefit
7) Jenkin argues that the failure of ftth networks in flooded areas was a backhaul problem common to all network access media & that FTTN is no better
8) Jenkin suggests that it is “nonsensical” to acknowledge the power usage impacts of customer devices on a FTTH network
10) Ross claims that the NBN's FTTH topology will be cheaper to maintain, ignoring that the most expensive part of the copper network – in the bush – is retained. Jenkin claims this is deeply wrong.
11) Jenkin agrees with Ross that the cost of the NBN is a net zero
16) Jenkin says “since 2005, telstra has steadfastedly demanded sole access to an FTTN it builds”.
18) Jenkin dismisses NBN Co’s obvious plan to increase arpus through speed tier and contention charging imposts as “confused”
19) Jenkin claims that the NBN is a response to the 15 year failure of the “free market”
20) Jenkin defends Ross’ claim that the coalition policy will lead to local monopolies and inflated prices


This is an important point. Telstra cannot remove the copper, or turn-off copper services, until a Fibre Service Area (?) is "declared".
It will not – they will coexist in those allegedly narrow ducts for 18 months and NBN Co bears the cost of any damage done to the copper by the installation of the fibre. The copper will not be decommissioned until 18 months after the fibre is laid. Any issues with ducts will be pronounced in an FTTH rollout that is forced to remediate the existing copper.

  • How does the NBN Fibre fit in those ducts alongside copper?
  • How does Telstra remove the copper without disturbing Fibre services?
I need someone who works in this field to tell me how that can be done. I know active LAN/server-room cabling well enough and these changes are tricky...

I won't be sold on the replacement of large cable bundles with Fibre (to Nodes) as significantly affecting performance/errors. Whilst the majority of ADSL faults occur in these bundles, it's not due to cable defects but interference and reflection issues. Yes, some small fraction of the Local Loop Copper is small cables that will be reused from Nodes. Telstra in 2005 (ADSL2, 12Mbps) cited remediation and replacement of these would be a major cost.

I still hold the Technology Optimist view on the potential impact of Telehealth on our 9+% of GDP spent on Healthcare. As Dr Eric Topol of Scripps Institute observes, "Clinicians have no incentive to reduce Healthcare costs". If the gatekeepers aren't behind any change, let alone Major Reform, then it cannot happen.

Turning Telehealth potentials into actual reform and savings is a much bigger debate and a problem than larger than "build it and they will come". Mr Lynch is right, the NBN will produce diddly squat unless someone assumes responsibility for, and drives, the realisation of outcomes.

On 10Gbps SFP's. $94 is not what CISCO charge for them, neither will it be that little from whomever supplies the Nodes. The last time I went looking seriously for retail pricing on SFP's was a year ago. The 40Gbps and 100Gbps SFP's may have brought the pricing down on 10Gbps. Great news if so.

On simultaneous use of networks: I've worked on the coal-face of Telcomms service delivery long enough to know that dimensioning for peak-loads is the biggest economic challenge. Determining "just enough" is both a moving target and very subtle. Too much and you die under a mountain of debt, too little and customers revolt and leave because of inadequate levels of service: an optimisation tightrope.

If you don't dimension a phone network to handle Christmas Day, although it works the other 364 days, people will drop you in a trice if they have the chance. Similarly, if your Broadband network doesn't survive a Grand Final event, it's a bust.

This point I get and agree with, modulo the the ONT's will provide a Telephony (POTS) connection and that "Type 1" VLAN traffic with high QoS is directed as carrying voice, for a significant premium. How RSP will pass that on, I don't know:
 Phone rentals as we know them today will end but not associated call charges.
I've lost track of the argument over resilience in natural/man-made disasters and war, revolution etc not covered by my household insurance. Active devices in the field lose resilience because of local power issues. We saw that with TransAct nodes in the 2003 fires. Are we arguing the same case? I suspect so.
Ross claimed FTTH would be better in a flood or a fire, I would argue it is one of several bad options given its power vulnerabilities.
On the total power-bill and the incremental cost of FTTN over FTTH. Mr Lynch makes a good point that the power-draw by new devices might outweigh all other concerns. I'm not sold... Consumers are demanding more power-efficient devices: Plasma displays are being replaced with LED illuminated LCD's.
I can see arguments both ways. I think we agree that total electricity demand will rise with both FTTN and FTTH. We differ in how we want to account for the costs and who wears the charges.

This next point matters to those already with the worst phone services and no ADSL. If our clever researchers can figure out a way to run Fibre underground for twice the price of the hardware, that would change the economics. Otherwise these folk get Fixed Wireless and Satellite:
The copper network in the last 7% of the country will be retained and it accounts for more than a third of the cost of maintaining the network today.
The confusion of IRR and Gross Margin, EBITBA and Net Profit (before and after Tax) is immense.
Mr Lynch is right in pointing out the incorrect usages and wrong inferences drawn.

On the various Telstra FTTN proposals: When I read the documents available on-line and Paul Fletchers detailed history, I read that Telstra wasn't offering open access like the NBN.

 If correct, this is an important point. My limited reading/research hadn't turned this up and I've no reason to think it's been fudged:
All FTTN and FTTH proposals since 2008 from all parties have called for bitstream to replace ULL. This is uncontroversial and supported by all and it is quite frankly disappointing that Jenkin would perpetuate this meme.
I have an optimistic view on ARPU's, rising traffic volumes, and increasing profits caused by Demand Elasticity. This isn't blind faith, I saw this up close and personal in 7 years at O.T.C.: it made them one of the most profitable and cheapest International Telco globally.
It's a topic that needs fuller analysis: it could be the surprise that really makes this project.

I think we agree on some basics.
This is Mr Lynch's closing and for me it goes to the heart of the matter:

It lies in a proper cost benefit study that dispassionately examines all the technologies and their likely cost/performance paths, the one that should have been done in 2009 as a follow-up to the heavily redacted advice of the expert panel and the back-of-the-napkin plane trip. The study that the government itself demands of all other major infrastructure projects. That the Productivity Commission wants. That the Opposition wants. And that NBN Co itself has recently canvassed. 
That is what is really required. And the bloggers and NBN fanbois/naysayers who argue their case 24/7 could actually then become participants in the digital economy rather than combatants in it.

NBN: the start of a real discourse?


Grahame Lynch rebutted 20 of my responses to his 50-points on the NBN.
I appreciate the civility and thoroughness of his reply. If the momentum can be kept up, maybe an informed debate will be possible.

This was my reply to him in the comments. [Corrected spelling of his name]


Grahame,

Thanks very much for real comments and real debate, not name-calling and the 'ignore inconvenient questions' both Conroy & Turnbull practice. What has been completely missing, IMO, since 2009 is an informed debate, which you've graciously entered into with me here.

I thought Quigley made an honest attempt at putting this on the Agenda recently and that fell spectacularly flat, very sad.
I seem to recall the Chair of NBN Co made a not dissimilar comment in the last 6 months as well.

We, the Australian people as Electors and Telecomms subs, are going to live with, and pay for, the results of the NBN policy for a *very* long time. Is it the biggest Infrastructure Investment this (21st) Century? Not nearly if you count Mining, not nearly the biggest Fed Govt expenditure if you count Defence expenditure.

But the most important Civil Works project, either as an enabling Technology/Productivity Multiplier OR as Massive OverExpenditure and waste/inefficiency we can't afford...

Thanks for not just trotting out Political Lines and seriously debating issues. That's a breathe of fresh air.

You've informed me of things I wasn't aware of and that will make me reconsider things - that's the essence of good public discourse.

I think FTTP everywhere was a Big, Hairy Audacious Goal, worthy of the likes of Apple and Google. Was it the only option possible? Not by a long shot. Was a Big Bang Implementation the only way to go? Maybe... The central question was: "How do we get Sol and Telstra to work with us, not against us"... Steam-rolling and side-lining them was ONE answer, but was it the best??? David Thodey seems like someone that will listen and talk, though he'll robustly represent the Telstra commercial position.

In the context of third-wave GFC stimulus package, the NBN was great economic support to the Nation and Aspirational like the Carbon Trading Scheme we never got.

Labor under Rudd and Gillard have, all too often, failed  to Execute well and even properly.
They've thrown away so many great opportunities and Snatched Defeat from the Jaws of Victory so frequently its unbearable. There should not have been a Hung Parliament if the polls at the start of 2010 could've been kept.
As a Hung Parliament, Gillard & Co have enacted a bunch of good legislation, shepherding it through a difficult group.

But as Political operatives, a complete Bust... [Whatever you think of the Howard Govt, he was a tactical Politician without peer. The contrast to Rudd then Gillard is stark.]

I'd like there to be an NBN debate, not mere political posturing.
As a country, we need to improve out Economic Competitiveness (Gina Rinehart may be extreme, but isn't all wrong) and address the falling Economic Productivity of the last decade [driven in part by lag-time investment-to-production in major mining projects].

Thanks for taking this seriously and kicking it off. Much appreciated.

regards
steve jenkin.

Sunday, 17 March 2013

NBN: ReInventing Government Service Delivery in The Age of the Internet.

What impact might Universal fast broadband have on Government Service Delivery Costs?

Exactly none if there is no fast, ubiquitous network or if Government Agencies don't rethink their Service and Delivery models.

I suspect that Centrelink and FAHCSIA may become one of the largest RSP's in Oz, offering 'free'/cheap Internet access for job-searchers (web searches, video interviews and VoIP) and discounted Internet for pensioners to access banking, Government services, maybe more.


Moving to tele-access from physical offices would be a major cost saver for Government:
  • people can work from home [savings on accom & o'heads']
  • people can be contracted from country areas: cheaper hourly rates and with higher unemployment rates, a much more committed workforce.
  • on-demand in-bound call centre capacity. Possible to pay $20/day on-call, with 30min work segments.
  • but most of all, very detailed records of "work performed". Can have call centre staff work very 'efficiently'.
I think Centrelink & Fahcsia could shave 25-33%, even 50%, off their service delivery costs whilst improving their compliance monitoring and fraud detection. Random video calls and automatic face detection to find cheats and multiple-claimers.

If they have robust methods of quickly detecting fraud, the service culture might swing around from "guilty until proved innocent" to actually helpful, as they are with people moving into retirement, and because of simple, fast access, might remove or reduce assessment delays.

For anyone who's had to struggle through their process, this would be a real boon.

But is that possible? Would it work given our resistance to the Australia Card.

They might even be able to fly-in to disaster zones and setup temporary mobile networks (based on WiFi mesh and a Satellite or Fixed Wireless uplink), supply merchants with 3G/4G EFTPOS devices, handout cheap smartphones (they get pictures of the people and GPS co-ords for tracking them), and provide charging stations which can also include a guarded ATM.

Centrelink can transfer money into accounts, but if people can't access the Net to do their banking, or convert bits into cash or use EFTPOS, then it's useless. How you solve the "I don't know my bank account number" problem. Maybe "on-line secure vaults" are needed. Good freebie/cheapie for AusPost or Centrelink to get into. I like the idea of not just using passwords and questions, but a live video call to a real person to confirm ID against a stored photo or ten.

It's not unreasonable for people to register a picture with Centrelink & Fahcsia when they claim benefits.
When it's only a 2 minute task to update the picture (direct from a video-call at home) in a regularly scheduled contact (that'd be nice: "how are things going? What can we do for you? Are you working again?"), then people should be happy to comply.

As most people get into the system, if they turn up to an Aid Station without ID, wallet and phone [the majority case in a disaster], then they can get positive ID and be issued with a smartphone containing a certified ID + signature.
If you aren't already registered, then you only have to find 1 or 2 people in the system who can vouch for you, and afterwards you need to validate yourself properly.

NBN: The Rivers of Gold scenario.


In commenting on the CommsDay puff piece meant to rebut The ABC's Nick Ross "All Known Issues" [Part 2], I couldn't remember anyone floating an analysis of
What if NBN Co does really well?
All we've seen are the doom/gloom scenarios and assertions of "Many Projects Fail, the Govt/taxpayer will lose their shirts", but what if NBN does really well would that be interesting?

If NBN Co succeeds beyond their wildest dreams, like Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook... or the railroads of 1890's, what will it look like.



First, the numbers.

NBN's 2012 forecasts for sales in 2021 are ~$6B on 8.5M premises passed. The 2010 sales forecast was $5.6B in 2021 and $7.1B in 2025. In 2025 they expect 10.5M premises, from memory.

ARPU/mth forecast for 2025 is $70+/mth ($900/yr?)
Cash Flow Positive projected for 2021, project Break-even date 2033 and IIR 7.1%.
2021 Gross Margin is around 75%.

Telstra has a Price-Earnings (P/E) ratio of 15.9 on Net Income of $3.5B, Sales of $25.5B, better than the industry average P/E of 12.5.

Telstra achieves: 75% Gross Margin, 40% EBITD Margin, 18-19% Operating Margin, 12.75% Net
profit margin, but is held back massively by under 1% growth on Sales. They can't grow their market, while NBN Co will experience nothing but high-rates of growth for the next 20+ years.

NBN sales of $7.5B  in 2025 with same Net margin as Telstra is $1B Net profit with a Market Capitalisation (Mkt Cap) of $12.5B-$16B, using the same P/E of 16 as Telstra. For a $30B investment, that's not a good valuation.

But within 5 years that Net income will double as both ARPU and take-up increase:
a $25-$32B Mkt Cap, starting to look OK as a valuation.
The market does value growth and market dominance (~100% of fixed-line Customer Access Network or CAN) highly.

It would make sense to value NBN Co on its future earnings potential as a high-growth stock, not as a 'mature' business with steady cash flows & margins. P/E's of 20-30 are more realistic:
Putting the 2025 valuation at a respectable $30B, rising to $60-$100B within 5-10 years. More if revenue has taken off.
I think there's a real possibility of both ARPU and take-up rates moving well ahead of projections and hence profitability to be much higher as Gross Margin will skyrocket because most of their Expenses are Interest and Fixed Costs while the marginal costs of increased bandwidth is very close to zero (they charge the RSP's, but might upgrade transit networks). The marginal (additional) revenue over 90% profit, increasing the Gross Margin well above 75% projected.

Because of their cost structure (mostly sunk fixed costs, low fixed operating costs, modest variable costs), NBN Co can stimulate demand by lowering line rental costs, especially for higher speeds and increase profits.

This is  driven by Demand Elasticity... Lower the price 10%, increase sales a lot more, say 20-30%, with a big boost to the bottom line, because costs increase maybe 1% and revenues 10+%.
If your variable costs are 2-5% of total costs, then you increase profits by a large fraction (>50%) of the demand increase. I suspect that the Elasticity is much more, but don't know where that is documented or if it has been researched.

This commercial understanding underpinned OTC's explosion in Sales and Profit in the new ear of Voice (cables & Satellites, then fibre) starting around 1975.
They understood "People love to talk" and even though they were a monopoly and could like Telstra, "doing nothing and charge whatever the market will bear", they actively encouraged new technologies and exploited them, driving profits with Demand Elasticity when possible.

There were 20+ years of steadily decreasing Overseas phone charges ending at the 'Telstra merger' with a cheap service from a US phone company that connected Sydney and Perth more cheaply than Telstra STD via two international calls. How could that be economical or efficient? It highlighted the difference in commercial approach between Telstra, the classic Telco model, and OTC, more insightful marketing-driven approach not unlike the current Internet Revolution.

In 1984 when Group 3 Facsimile (Fax) broke through on ordinary phone services, OTC created the "0015" access number to both address Circuit Multiplication Equipment (CME) problems and with dedicated links to Overseas partners, provide 10-12 fax calls on a single 64kbps digital circuit. Customers got a better, faster service with no errors, and OTC, for a very modest investment, decreased costs by 10-fold.
In 1986 brought their national e-mail service, Dialcom, on-shore. Telstra started an offering some time later. The two services were combined in the merger.

The other wild-card is:
The Internet, its content, uses and access devices is still rapidly evolving. You aint' seen nothing yet.
What could these surprise uses be? We just don't know, like Facebook, Twitter, the smartphone and Tablets, new services take off quickly but always come as a surprise. That's the nature of disruptive innovtaion: most people don't see it coming until its unstoppable, like a freight train. To argue "the Internet Revolution is Over", or, "unless you can show me accurate predictions, you're talking baloney" is to argue against the biggest, most productive Innovation Engine the world has ever seen: Silicon Valley. Hewlett-Packard started the revolution in the 1960's and it shows NO signs of letting up.

The only questions about The Next Big Thing are, not "if it will happen", but:

  • When?
  • Just how Big?

Something as simple as "Free WiFi in all shops & Malls" diverts traffic from mobile networks onto Fixed line networks, enabling tablets & "Augmented Reality" devices  like Google Glasses, to do their thing at multi-megabit rates and provide that effortless experience. On WiFi, 802.11n is 300Mbps, isn't
the next round up around 1Gbps? That will have to make a difference in what devices can do.

If there's free high-speed WiFi generally available, 3G/4G networks get freed up in Metro CBD's, Mobile Service Providers can deploy very cheap "pico-cells" to maintain high-margins, while the majority use of 3G/4G will become "access whilst mobile":
 Voice and Video calling, Content Access, Locality-aware Apps (Augmented Reality etc).
There will be three effects coming out of the high Demand Elasticity:

  • higher ARPU/customer
  • more customers
  • increasing Gross Profit Margins


Lead to exploding Sales Volumes, at more than mere 'exponential' rates.

That's a Gold Mine:

  • The break-even year will be well before 2033
  • the 2025-2030 Mkt Cap will be over $100B, maybe as high as $200B.
  • investors, large and small, will be scrambling for a piece of *That* pie!
  • the real question then comes, "When will it end?"


I'd like your feedback on this scenario possible? Is it probable? Can and will the NBN become future Governments' Rivers of Gold, the envy of the rest of the world?

We've already seen a sleepy, little, almost irrelevant Telco, OTC, that specialised in old technologies: Telegrams, Short-Wave long-distance voice and a little Telex, transform itself and continue a world-class evolution of service, profitability and affordability for 25 years.

The model is there and Australia has shown it is happy to fly in the face of conventional wisdom and back its homegrown innovation to great effect.

NBN: decoding Turnbull. [15-Mar-2013] Fairfax article.

I've stated my opinion on Turnbull plays "Barrister" when talking about the NBN and he disguises the lack of a Coalition Policy.

To this end, I thought publicly decoding his statements and interviews might illustrate my opinion, even help the debate.

Tim Lester in Fairfax media, wrote an article based on a video interview [09:54] ("Breaking Politics") on 15-March-2013. The NBN questions start around 5 minutes.

Summary: Turnbull made a single commitment, so unusual an act it caused specific comment. The rest is noise, FUD and hyperbole.



From the article:

Malcolm Turnbull has promised to release the Coalition's plans for a national broadband network ''months'' before the September 14 election to allow for scrutiny of the policy and its costings.
Turnbull has made a commitment to release something by July-14th. Unusually, a real statement.
Even Lister is moved to comment this is the first time Turnbull hasn't just used the weasel words: "in good time''.

''You can never criticise me for not providing a lot of detail,'' Mr Turnbull said ...
Wrong, that is all he's ever done. This is deliberately misleading and disingenuous at best.

''Australians will have more than adequate time to consider our policy and debate it.''
Noise... This sounds like a statement but contains NO information or commitment.

What's missing is the five fundamentals necessary in this debate:

  • The precise Demand Growth model used.
  • The precise Supply Side Growth model informing the limits of each technology, with the guaranteed service parameters, vs 'headline' or aspirational: entry-level sustained peak-hour bandwidth, maximum access rate and sustained throughput, minimum latency and commercial access arrangements and charges.
  • A geographic demand, need and roll-out model, including the percentage of premises each technology will cover. (vs NBN Co's 93% FTTP with max 25% aerial).
  • Firm costings, if not detailed, then with Expert opinions on the Risks, Relevance, Accuracy and Upgrades possible.
  • The user "affordability" and plan-pricing model.
Lister inserts this phrase in support of the Coalition position and devaluing the Government's commentary:
Minister Stephen Conroy has previously accused Mr Turnbull of having ''half-baked broadband thought bubbles'' rather than a plan.
I think it rather exactly, if colourfully, describes Mr Turnbull's statements and approach.

Lister continues by letting Turnbull reiterate the Coalition Playbook (unsubstantiated Speaking Points):
''The cost of this NBN, in reality, will shock people. If this NBN were to proceed with its construction on the basis of the government's plan, it would be likely in my view, and it's not an uninformed view, to take over 20 years to complete, and a hundred billion dollars,'' Mr Turnbull said. 
''This is the most reckless exercise in commonwealth investment . . . in our history.  To embark on a project like this with no budget, no cost benefit analysis. They have never said there is a limit to what you can spend.''
There is NO evidence or any plausible analysis outside the Coalition Playbook that supports any of these assertions, let alone demonstrates how the cautious NBN Co business plan might become an uncontrolled Defence Project. The Coalition has run a whole slew of irrelevant claims like these before.
This is a massive overstatement and only hyperbole: it's sole purpose is to engender doubt where NONE should exist. This is classic FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) contributing nothing to the discourse.

Turnbull and Abbot should just claim: "The NBN will cost you a Trillion Billion Dollars and make your Grandchildren's Grandchildren live in poverty trying to pay it back." 
Mr Turnbull also said he doubted anything in the Coalition plan would surprise people.
''We will speed up the roll out. We will deliver the completion of the NBN sooner and at less cost to the Commonwealth and therefore of course, it will be more affordable to users,'' he said.
Empty claims, endlessly repeated. In the style, "We will pull a rabbit out of a hat and via magic and mystery prove We are Right and They are Wrong!".

How are Turnbull-Fletcher going to be quicker, cheaper and more affordable? Through Private Enterprise Magic, eliminating Waste, Inefficiency and 'extraordinarily' expensive technologies.

There are two things wrong with this Pulling a Rabbit Out of a Hat claim:
  •  NBN Co is employing the Private Sector to do the rollout. There are only a very small number of companies in Australia that do this work, and a limited pool of sub-contractors to use.
    • Are Turnbull-Fletcher thinking they'll import 100-200,000 workers on 457 Visas "to get it done, quickly, cheaply and efficiently"? That'd see an electoral backlash like none before!
    • The roll-out delays were due in the main with Regulatory and Third-party/contract issues and roll-out problems have been due to the private contractors not fulfilling contracts.
  • What happens when the Rudd-Conroy Expert Panel assessment of 2009 is proven correct?
This Overselling FUD approach might work in a courtroom with tight deadlines and a single event, but does NOT stand any analysis, critical or sympathetic when this is a lot of time for commentator to examine and break-down the "claims".


Friday, 15 March 2013

NBN: Turnbull's Barrister Tactics


Mediawatch recently got stuck into the ABC's own Nick Ross, including for an outburst recorded at 'Kickstart' conference. Turnbull had trotted out some B/S and Ross laid down a detailed and passionate rebuttal.

It (finally!) struck me that all along Turnbull has been playing Barrister: he doesn't answer questions or even acknowledge inconvenient facts. He's an expert at this game, and at Kickstart broke Nick Ross: he'd riled him for two years, long enough that he lost his cool and said something "stupid" in the heat of the moment. Which meant Turnbull "won".

As well, Turnbull & the the Coalition have released NO details of their policy: this is the root of most of the current noise & fury in the discourse, it's all speculation.



Turnbull has only made generic/motherhood statements about his NBN policy:

  • We will deliver "Cheaper to the taxpayer", "more quickly", and "more affordably to the customer". For a while I seem to recall claims of faster, too.
  • "we will prioritise those in most need"
  • "we will do it more efficiently"
  • "we will use existing technologies where available"
Barristers stock-in-trade is speaking without saying anything, but making the listener think they have.
This supports what they do: Make a convincing case for whomever hires them.

I wondered at the time, when Abbott tasked Turnbull with "kill the NBN", how he would cope with that, railing against Technology and Services he'd supported. It's just a job, it doesn't matter - this is the psychological adjustment that all Barristers have to make to cope with the cognitive dissonance of forcefully putting a position in which they might just not believe, but is antithetical to their personal views.

Barristers will take any side and strongly argue that case: it's what they do...
We don't actually know what Turnbull thinks, just what he says/writes, which I'm starting to give very little heed to.

Turnbull uses many tricks to not answer and sound like he's said something [and more, this is not my field of expertise]:
  • deflection, 
  • misdirection, 
  • conflating & confusing issues,
  • irrelevance, 
  • misleading, 
  • misquoting (half-truths, inapplicable models) and 
  • attack or "blame the questioner or victim".

Turnbull has succeeded brilliantly by having Nick Ross accused of poor journalism, when what's happened is:
a) there is NO policy detail and
 b) when questioned, he skilfully attacks the questioner and turns things against them. Just as he "took apart" witnesses in the courtroom.

So what we saw on Monday night was the result of 2 years of persistent stonewalling and unwarranted attacks taking its toll on an honest journalist. Nick Ross is not accused of asking the right questions and not giving up when he didn't get answers,  but when he was overcome with frustration, overstepping his employers guidelines.

Turnbull could have started his campaign by being truthful: "I will answer that when we release our detailed policy just before the next election. In the meantime, I can say ..."

The $37 Billion Question is: will Turnbull being "slippery and tricky" rebound on him and the Coalition? In a perfect world,, it might. But Politics is far from Perfect or Just.