Archives For Web 2.0

I wrote earlier in the week about how the numbers don’t stack up for the NBN when you consider the need to repay the cost of the rollout. The key presumption in that post was that the NBN had to be offered at a competitive rate to encourage uptake, but that competitive rate would never cover costs.

But what if it simply can’t be offered at a competitive rate to cover costs?

$200/ month is the figure from AAPT: News.com.au

Paul Broad, chief executive of Australia’s third largest telco, AAPT, is convinced broadband bills will rocket to at least $200 a month under the Government’s plan and says consumers simply won’t pay.

The Opposition put the figure at $150 earlier in the week, and noted rightly that the profit would have to be bigger than Telstra’s to cover costs (news again)

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull questioned the commercial viability of the project suggesting it would need an annual return of $6 billion, The Advertiser reports.

“Now that is substantially more than Telstra’s entire profit,” he said.

“If as the industry analysts say, if this would require households who are currently paying say between $40 and $50 a month for broadband, to pay $150 a month for broadband, where is the evidence households will do that?” he asked.

I’ve got no problems with the maths in either, but I have serious doubts on the marketing logic: there’s no way in the world the NBN is going to ask $200 a month for access.

Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Take the economics out and it’s a pure political decision. Conroy and Rudd might be dumb, but they’re not dumb.

But here’s the other consideration: the NBN is a WHOLESALE network. We’re talking access to retail costs really, not wholesale costs. Image $200/ mth wholesale access + the retail margin on top.

Not happening.

Which leaves us with a black hole, because it has to bring in this sort of money to recoup its costs, let alone make a profit.

However.

There is one scenario that might make it work. Not at $200. Maybe not at $150. But it could work at $100-$150.

Bundling.

Triple play phone, data and tv.

Gizmodo Australia found only 20% of people would pay over $100 for NBN access…but for internet access.

If say Optus or iiNet offered unlimited calls, cable TV and high speed internet for say $150/ month, people might pay.

But that consideration is made on today’s competitive environment.

2018 on the other hand??

Steve Murphy in the Business Spectator:

The 21st Century infrastructure equivalent of the Snowy Hydro is what K-Rudd says of his new Broadband plan, but will we end up flushing as much money down the fibre optic drain as we do water down the Hydro.

The problem is we don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know and the Government can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t tell us with any degree of precision because it is yet to conduct a feasibility study. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s right, K-Rudd and the team don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know if what they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve announced is feasible.

I did some digging, the Government doesn’t use the words feasibility study…but it’s an accurate description. Point one of the NBN rollout (source)

Commence an implementation study to determine the operating arrangements, detailed network design, ways to attract private sector investment

but wait, there’s more:

The preliminary estimate is that the enhanced NBN network will cost up to $43 billion…

The Government’s objective is to achieve 90 per cent coverage of the FTTP network, and remaining coverage to be delivered through wireless and satellite technologies, within this funding envelope. Initial advice to the Government is that this objective is achievable, but this estimate will be subject to an implementation study.

Two questions

1. Does the $43billion include the cost of repayment of debt, or is it simply the cost of the actual rollout?

Whether the Government directly borrows, or offers infrastructure bonds, both come with interest that needs to be repaid. The official release says “will invest” which could suggest that the $43 billion figure is to be spent on the rollout, not the repayments. If this is the case, the $43 billion could actually be something like $45 billion.

2: Why doesn’t the NBN include planning for increased international access?

The NBN includes

implement measures to address backhaul ‘black spots’ through the timely rollout of fibre optic transmission links connecting cities, major regional centres and rural towns – delivering improvements to telecommunication services in the short term

But no mention of international pipes. We already have the problem where say a 20mbps ADSL connection here is the equivalent of maybe a 2mbps connection in San Francisco because of the distance and congestion in the connections that pull the data across the Pacific.

100mbps internal connections mean little if there isn’t increased capacity on the international backbones. Yes, you’ll be able to access sites hosted in Australia quickly, but sites outside Australia are another matter.

Cost per household of NBN (at 100% rollout): $5,063 per house.

We don’t know if this includes the cost of connecting each home. The policy says “connect each home” etc, but given this is a wholesale network, there may feasibly be an actual physical connection cost (+ equipment, unless the Government is handing out free modems/ network devices) for the average punter.

But that aside, when will it cover its costs?

At $50/ month with 100% takeup rate: 101.26 months. Nearly 8 1/2 years.

At $100/ month at 100% takeup rate, divide by two: 50.63 months. 4.2 years.

But then we have the problem that this is a wholesale network, not retail. Those reselling the network will want a margin, and it will need to be competitive with alternatives, some already being rolled out today.

At $25/ month wholesale with 100% takeup: 202.52 months, or just shy of 17 years.

At $50/ month with 100% takeup rate: 101.26 months. Nearly 8 1/2 years.

But then we need to consider that the network will most definitely not have 100% take up. In fact, 100% is an impossible figure. Knowing the rate of take up though in 2018, given we don’t know what the competitive landscape will be, is at best a guess. There are two considerations: competition and overall demand. We know the NBN will have competition from at least Telstra, possibly other companies by 2018 (and well before then.) Second, we know that not everyone takes up new technology (there are still people using Dial-Up today!). The demand builds over time, so you never get say 75% of the market demanding the option immediately; a quick look at broadband stats for Australia shows that demand for a new tech builds over time, often driven by increased competition and downward pricing.

Here’s some calculations based on wholesale rates

$25/ month at 25% takeup: 810.08 months, or 67.5 years
$50/ month at 25% takeup: 405.04 months or 33.75 years

$25/ month at 50% takeup: 405.04 months or 33.75 years
$50/ month at 50% takeup: 202.52 months, or just shy of 17 years.

Now we’ve made some presumptions on wholesale pricing vs retail. The wholesale price could be higher but the higher that price, the less appealing the network becomes, so you decrease demand. You’d also have to consider that Telstra with its competing network isn’t going to sit back and let the NBN undercut it by a huge margin either.

Conclusion

What the figures show is that the NBN may never cover its costs. The counter argument is that this is a nation building exercise and a huge investment by the Government, but that has a rather important flaw: the Government is building the network through a separate company they’ll majority own until sometime between 2020-2030. That company will have private investment as well, so it will have a duty to cover its costs somewhere along the line. Note also that the Government is talking about issuing infrastructure bonds; those bonds will offer repayment with interest. The money to repay these has to come from somewhere.

The problem is that the earliest the NBN might recover its costs, even under the most generous model, is 8-10 years. Realistically we’d be looking at 15 to 30 years, possibly longer. People may argue that the NBN will still be of great service in 2018, but does anyone really believe that this will still be state of the art tech in 2038 or beyond, and that nothing else will have come along that does it bigger, better and cheaper?

The numbers just don’t add up.

Update: should have added, these calculations also presume that the project will come in at cost. Government projects rarely do, so the starting cost of the network could be higher again, making it even harder to repay.

NBN by the numbers

April 7, 2009 — 11 Comments

$42 billion ($42,000,000,000).

Households in Australia: 7.4m (2001), projected at 10.2m in 2026. (ABS)

Est in 2009 (based on above figures) 8.296m

Cost per household of NBN (at 100% rollout): $5,063 per house.

Note that Fibre will only go to 90% of houses by 2018. Remaining 10% will be serviced by wireless or satellite. Whether this provision of the remaining 10% is dearer or cheaper I don’t know. I’d bet the 10% is cheaper, which makes the cost of the fibre higher again.

Comparative costs of “high speed” broadband in other countries:

Japan: to 160mbps $28 ($20 US) per household.
Note, that this rollout utilizes existing infrastructure as is an upgrade. Infrastracture that is already in place in most Australian capital cities (cable.)

United States: $1,141 (US$817. Conversions at 7/4)
This is the better comparison because Verizon is physically connecting homes to fibre as the NBN will do. The United States, like Australia has a large land mass, so doesn’t get the density advantage in play in Japan. Note Verizon currently offered at 50mbps, but the fibre network could sustain more; the suggestion being that the 50mpbs is more a market cap than technological constraint. Second: it’s the same sort of fibre.

Source on both figures: New York Times.

So it costs $3922 per house more to roll out “high-speed” broadband in Australia vs The United States, or a staggering $5,035 per house more vs Japan.

Doesn’t matter anyway: it will never be finished. Politicians and long plans: be seen to do something now, and do nothing later.

Update: should be noted vs US: Australians are less spread out. You’d actually cover less territory in Australia to get to 90% (for fibre) than the US. Interesting to consider: if Australian cities were in the US, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth would make the top ten. Even Adelaide has more people that San Antonio, currently 10th in the biggest cities in the US list (here)

Update2: pointed out by tahpot on Twitter: the US figure doesn’t count “US$716 for equipment and labor in each home that subscribes.” But does the NBN? Is Rudd proposing a subsidy at the end as well? because I thought this was a wholesale access rollout and the retailers would cop the end charge.

But lets play none the less, because the gap is still dramatic.

Verizon: $2140 AUD. Still cheaper by over half.

Message to Nick Hodge: Microsoft needs boofheads in its latest campaign.

A guy with a black t-shirt and mullet walks into a computer store, and talks about how the HP has a V8 engine and bigger exhausts, and unlike the pretty looking Apple machine, is a real mans computer that offers better value.

You could say the HP is a V8 Commodore vs say a VW Jetta or similar mid size model.

To be fair though, as much as I dislike the individual parts of the campaign, the overall strategy is borderline brilliant.

Pageviews: 2-2.1 million estimated

We had an issue with code we tried to place to track authors in Google Analytics. It worked for about the first hour (basically when I checked it) then we lost data for half a day, then two days in full following that (and possibly slightly into the next day). Google Analytics reports 1,899,286 for the month. We estimate conservatively at around 50-75,000 page views in total for each missing day. See the circled days in the chart. It may have been higher given the days either side were just over 100,000 each.

Dashboard - Google Analytics

Either way, this is down on last months high, but we tend to go in cycles with traffic: every high tends to be followed by a month which is less. Notably though this (presuming the 2-2.1m) is our second highest month on record.

Traffic profile: highest post did 6.99% vs 15.2% for last month. The smaller the figure, the more distributed our traffic is.

Finances: the worm may have turned.

For the first month since October 2008 we saw an increase in our advertising on a CPM basis (every other month has seen a decrease in net CPM, even when we’ve earned more in total due to increased traffic). This was primarily led by our front line provider who landed some decent campaigns this month. I’m not about to start sending out bottles of Moet & Chandon as bonuses to writers (it’s a lot more expensive in Australia than the US), but hopefully things are on the up. The test will be if the upturn continues into April: a couple of more months like this, combined with some solid traffic growth, and we’ll be able to expand some more in terms of fixed writers and what we’re offering. I simply don’t want to jinx myself by getting excited, but it’s a pleasant change.

Technorati Rank: 178
Our first solid time in the top 200 (we were there for one day previously, and I think it might have been a blip). We’ve been there for nearly two weeks. Technorati works on a 6 mth rotation, and that means October comes off the total this month, and October last year was our first real boom month. The key as always is to drive more incoming links now than the ones you’re losing from 6 months ago.

We’re looking for 2-3 bloggers. Details on Problogger Jobs here.

We put off a writer back in January, and it wasn’t something I wanted to do. Our traffic hasn’t suffered badly (it actually went up in Feb, but will be down from that high in March), but the volume of posts has dropped. Couple with the fact that the volume I was pumping out over Dec-Jan wasn’t sustainable and I’ve stopped blogging at night mostly. Volume isn’t the be all and end all, but having large slabs of the day without fresh content doesn’t help things.

Pay

The new positions are an experiment of sorts. After 4 months of declining ad revenues, we simply don’t have the margins to hire 2-3 writers on a set rate basis, at least at the same rate our current writers are on. Instead the positions are being offered at $1.50 per thousand page views.

Hybrid

We looked last year at doing some side content on a revenue share model, but rev share doesn’t work well on single blogs vs a blog network, particularly from an administrative viewpoint. We can’t track ad returns per page under rev share, and swapping out ads on a share basis would mean we’d be in breach of our ad supplier contract (not to mention it being messy).

I started looking for models a couple of weeks ago, and noticed sites using the CPM model. It’s sort of like rev share, but isn’t. Bloggers are guaranteed a set rate for their work, and administratively it’s reasonably easy to manage, well it is after I found a way to use Google Analytics to track posts by author.

The other hybrid aspect is the job specs. Many sites that pay like this have dozens of writers who often don’t earn much at all. They’re post volume plays vs quality. I don’t want to diminish the quality of the site with volume for the sake of volume, hence lower number of bloggers with min spec writing rates of 5-10 posts a week. The smaller number also means that each blogger can get individual attention and support, where as larger numbers make that difficult to impossible. Basically I can work with each blogger to get them pumping out great content so they get paid more, and we win with the extra page views.

High/ Low pay?

$1.50 CPM will seem low to some people, and I don’t think badly of anyone thinking that. I looked at a range of sites, from your info/ how-to sites (Hubpages for example), through to citizen journalists sites, a number of which compete on some fronts with The Inquisitr. I also looked higher up the chain at sites like the Huffington Post.

Here’s what I found roughly

  • Some sites pay nothing at all, instead promoting the benefits of exposure. It is staggering how many people will work for nothing, particularly if the idea is pitched right. It’s a nice game to get into, but it’s not one I’m comfortable in: I’d rather pay people something
  • Some sites pay, but only when the amount gets to something substantial (say $50-$100). These tend to be various rev share or CPM models. Many of these sites promote writers earning $200, or the occasional person hitting the $1000 mark. Most writers are lucky to earn $20 a month. Actually I’d love to get into this space, but not with The Inquisitr. Next project maybe 🙂 Again though: people will work for little, and in this market $50 or $100 a month is money people want
  • Some sites pay a set CPM monthly in the 50c-$1.50 CPM range. Hard to pin these rates down, because most don’t advertise the rates, but you can dig up the info on forums. I saw one site offering $1.50, and none higher, although this is not to say that some individual sites may pay more.
  • The remainng models are the givens: set rate per post, or monthly set rate with or without traffic bonus

Notably also is the $1.50 CPM in context with the ad market: that’s roughly 5-7x our current CPM with Adsense per unit. Thankfully Adsense is only 5-10% of our ads, otherwise we’d be cutting jobs at the moment; but I digress. While content on an individual site changes the CPM on ads, plenty of bloggers out there would be struggling to get $1 CPM all up with multiple ads on each page; $1.50 is actually a step up. The Inquisitr also gets a reasonable run on Google, Google News, and a range of other sites that many bloggers don’t get; the same post on The Inquisitr vs a smaller blog would have a stronger chance of getting page views, so the difference is potential traffic as well. Higher rates, higher volume.

I simply don’t know how much the new bloggers will be paid month to month in total, but at the lower end I’d be surprised if it was anything lower than say $200 a month; 200,000 page views with 40 posts a month (10 a week) shouldn’t be a huge challenge (and consider we have 3 writers and did 2.3m in Feb) and this improves over time as the CPM rate is paid on all posts by the blogger for the month, so will include posts from the previous month(s) that are still getting traffic.

Next

Applications close end of next week. We’ll see how we go to start with, and if it looks like its working, I may increase the number in the following months. Ultimately I’d like to see us get to 10-12 writers, a mixture under this model, and hopefully more set pay writers as well.

If it fails, so be it, you can only try.

I should have also added: I’d think writing for us vs an info site would be more fun as well. I know I’d rather be trolling for that next weird Japanese video than writing a page full of links explaining why the Palm Pre is better than Blackberry, or a long how to guide that takes hours to get right.

PS: why write this post and expose the pay rate at all, after all many sites never do? Because I’d rather be upfront and transparent then potentially mislead people and sell false hope, which some sites do. People who work with me know what they’re getting into before they start, good, bad or otherwise 🙂

10 million page views

March 24, 2009 — 7 Comments

Dashboard - Google Analytics
It must be milestone week. First, 5000 posts for The Inquisitr, now 10 million page views. We snuck past the 10m mark some time on March 23 US time, or morning March 24 AEDT.

The funny stat: if we take a line from Oct 5 (US time) our 5th month anniversary, we’ve done 9 million pages views since then. From Dec 5, we’ve done 7.4 million. Goes to prove the point: it takes 6-9 months for a blog to establish itself one way or another.

Hopefully for our first full year, May 5, we’ll come in at around 12.5 million page views.

I should add: ignore the drop at the end of the chart, for some reason the total view doesn’t offer a full count for the current day and it is suppose to go up, not down.

5000

March 23, 2009 — 4 Comments

5000

The comment count is a little strange. Disqus 17,300 odd, and I don’t think there was 7000 in the time before Disqus and after.

The 5000 came Friday US time (March 20). So 5,000 posts in 319 days at an average of 15.7 posts a day.