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.

Stilgherrian is perhaps one of Australia’s best tech writers, and I enjoy his Crikey columns, but we’ll disagree on a quote today:

Yes, $43 billion is expensive. As Duncan Riley calculated, that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s around $5000 per household. But we?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re creating brand new infrastructure to completely replace a copper network that was built across more than half a century. This is an investment on similar time scale.

The problem with that statement is two fold. One, we’re not replacing the copper network. Telstra owns the copper network, and I haven’t heard that they’re about to rip it out. It still does a fine job at delivering my ADSL 2+

Second, we’re not creating brand new infrastructure: in large parts of capital cities, we’re duplicating it, because Telstra and to a lesser extent Optus (and a couple of bit players around the place) already have fibre in the ground. The point may be one of semantics: the NBN cables will be “new,” but the context is one that suggests its new because it doesn’t currently exist.

The last point to me is a key one. Instead of forcing Telstra’s hand, or using legal means to use the infrastructure currently in place, the Government is spending $43 billion on a network that will duplicate some of what’s already there.

Lets presume you put Telstra’s network into the mix, but the Government still wants everyone else to get fibre. I can’t find a definite figure on Telstra’s current network, but the figure in Melbourne alone was “1 million customers.” One figure I saw suggested Telstra was aiming for 6m customers, but I don’t believe that figure. Lets say it’s 3 million Australia wide.

There are 8.296m households. Each one costs $5,063 to service. 3m = $15.2 billion in NBN costs.

Telstra has a market cap of $41.6b. How much would it cost to buy Telstra’s cable network, presuming you didn’t want to force Telstra’s hand by other measures? Even if it cost $10b to acquire, you get a network in the ground now that needs maybe $1 billion in upgrades (the Melb upgrade is priced at $300m) and you save $4.2billion. But here’s where it’s even better: because you’d also cut the rollout time from 8 years to maybe 5 by not having to roll out fibre to those places that already have it.

See what I mean now about duplication and waste?

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

admin —  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.

Microsoft needs boofheads

admin —  April 6, 2009 — 4 Comments

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.

Big banks reach agreement to prevent struggling families losing their homes: news.com.au

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd will today announce 12 months of mortgage relief for the unemployed….

In his speech, the Prime Minister says the stress of paying mortgage and car payments are “real bottom-line concerns around kitchen tables right across Australia”.

“The immediate problem facing many families whose breadwinners have lost their jobs is the anxiety and fear that arises from, ‘How do I pay my mortgage, how do I pay off my car?” Mr Rudd says.

“That’s why, some time ago, I asked the Treasurer to negotiate an agreement with Australia’s big-four banks on a comprehensive package of assistance to workers who lose their jobs.”

At least when Obama was talking about bailing out homeowners in the US there was two justifications: one, lax Government regulation which led to the mess, and two: they’d already bailed out big business anyway, so it was really a matter of sharing the money around to some extent.

Neither apply in Australia.

What angers me is that this rewards people who aren’t responsible enough to manage their finances. Yes, becoming unemployed is hard and it’s not always your fault, but consider that the job cuts coming in many industries now have been predictable (mining, car industry, export related jobs etc.) If you were working in a high risk industry, the sensible choice would be to reduce your exposure to debt for if and when the rainy day came.

Then consider that if you do have a mortgage you can take out income protection as well. So thanks to Mr Rudd, people who do THE RESPONSIBLE thing and insure against unemployment by paying more on their mortgage payments to cover the insurance miss out, while those who aren’t responsible get a 12 month free pass anyway.

Anyone who has income protection insurance is going to be scratching their heads today, and if free to do so, canceling their insurance Monday morning.

And then there’s mention of car payments from Rudd. So I’ve taken out a massive mortgage without insurance, but I’ve also gone and purchased a $45,000 V8 Commodore on credit as well. Oh, poor me, life is so fucking hard, the Government should help me with my debts if I lose my job.

So a person who lives in their means, spends conservatively on a car with no loan (be it a used car or cheap new one) misses out, but those who couldn’t help themselves by running up even more debt get a hand from the Government.

Fucking unbelievable. This REWARDS bad behaviour.

What message does this send out to kiddies: oh, if you completely fuck up your finances, Chairman Rudd will be there to help. If you’re competent and cover yourself, you miss out.

For the record we have no debt of any type (including no credit cards). No, I don’t own a house either, and our single car was purchased for $13,000 (after trade in) brand new in 2003. We’ve owned it ever since, and the small debt we had on the car (we’d saved for it) has long been paid off.

One final word: to be fair though, Howard wouldn’t have been much better, and I’m not convinced Turnbull would be either, it was after all Howard who mastered the art of middle class welfare. There’s got to be a better choice.

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.

Stephen Conroy on SBS’s Insight: video here.

Lots of waffling.

Takeaways

Conroy: If an Australian website has material that is deemed to be refused classification – a number of other classifications also – they’re issued with what’s called a take-down notice – for the overseas websites at the moment all ACMA can do if they’re identified is write to the overseas server and ask them to not do it – which means nothing, in effect.

Actually, the same program had a site owner who’s site had been added to the blacklist who didn’t know his site was added to the blacklist. If they’d received a takedown notice, they would have know.

MARK NEWTON: Or it can be X-18-plus, which is legal for adults to buy and view everywhere in Australia. Or it can be R-18-plus and not behind a restricted access system. R-18-plus material is legal to view in public cinemas – any adult can walk into a cinema and see R-18-plus movies but they are prohibited content on the internet in Australia and then the most outrageous one which is also the most recent addition which came into force in January this year ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú sorry – last year – prohibited content on the internet in Australia includes material which is MA-15-plus sold for profit and not behind restricted access systems. This is material which is legal to view on free-to-air television which is prohibited on the internet.

Conroy: This is one of the great furphies that people have wanted to engage in to try and create a scare campaign about what we’re actually proposal. I on have only ever identified refused classification in terms of child porn, bestiality, rape, incest sites – those sorts of things. For adults who want to be able to watch the other material we’re not proposing to do that – we’ve never proposed to do that.

Actually, prohibited content does include what Mark Newton details, even ACMA confirms it.

STEPHEN CONROY: Refused classification and there’s a legitimate debate – I think Mark wants to have a debate about what – there are different categories within refused classification. There are always marginal issues about some material, whether it falls in or falls out.

Actually, no there’s not. RC is still RC, even if there is different criteria in getting to the point, unless Conroy is proposing new RC sub-categories.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Conroy claims that the Blacklist won’t be used in the censorship regime

FIONA PATTEN: Currently, currently it says X-rated material, R-rated without age verification, anything that’s refused classification. So, I mean, I’m very pleased to hear that X-rated will no longer be on the black list. It’s currently on it. Certainly there are – I mean, I have members who have sites who are currently on the black list. Again, they didn’t know that they were on the black list until it was leaked. And it hasn’t ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú

STEPHEN CONROY: This is the – people, again, keep confusing between what we’re proposing and what is on the existing black list. These were categories created by the former government and they are the current law.

or maybe not?

FIONA PATTEN: We’ve actually never heard that existing black list prohibited content and was going to change, that you were actually going to relax that. This is the first I’ve heard that this list is going to – the proposal is going to be very different from the existing black list that we have of ISPs.

JENNY BROCKIE: And is that right? Can you clarify that ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú that your proposal would not be like that black list.

STEPHEN CONROY: Look, as I said, the existing black list was passed by the Parliament. Now the Senate has 39 votes. The Liberal Party introduced this and they’ve got 37 and Steve Fielding is elected Family First Senator and he’s got strong views in this area. That’s 38. You cannot repeal this. Even if the Labor Party decided it wanted to try and change this, it actually won’t pass the Senate.

So the blacklist, which is currently law, can’t be overturned. But wasn’t Conroy not using it???

Previously: “It is possible to support a blacklist and support free speech.”

Also the trail of filtering…uses the blacklist. See Optus here.

Deny deny deny

MARK NEWTON: We’re getting away just for a moment from the fact that you also voted in favour of those changes – it’s a bit rich to disclaim them now. The existing definition of refused classification doesn’t only contain all of this extreme pornography stuff that we have spent most of the night talking about so far – the existing ACMA list also includes – because it was refused classification and you know this because you testified in the Senate about it – it also includes an anti-abortion website and it also include the peaceful kill.

STEPHEN CONROY: That’s not correct, Mark.

But it did. We know it did. Conroy and ACMA have admitted that a page on the site was blocked.

Waffle waffle waffle

Courier Mail: Stephen Conroy’s internet filter ‘won’t stop child porn’

Question then, if it won’t stop child porn, why do it at all?

After all, it was Conroy who continually said that the filter was all about child porn.

“Black lists are needed to combat child pornography” Conroy (The West)

On the overall policy: “It also focuses on managing current threats through technical mechanisms such as ISP-level filtering of illegal material including child pornography.” Conroy (speech)

“Central to the Government?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of Internet Service Provider (ISP) level filtering of material such as child pornography.” Conroy (media release)

“Conroy told the media that it would censor online child pornography and other ?¢‚Ǩ?ìinappropriate material”” WSWS

“If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” Conroy (ABC)

“We are not building the Great Wall of China. We are going after the filth – like child pornography. Its been done around the world and it can be done here.” Conroy (IT News)

The last quote is important: Conroy now claims that the filter isn’t a silver bullet, but said that the filter was all about blocking child porn, which he now says it won’t stop.

So what is it then?

Time to go Senator Conroy, if you keep up these backflips you’ll end up with a broken back.

One last quote out of the UK, which I think fits here
BT admitted that the UK’s “Cleanfeed” scheme was “intended to prevent users inadvertently accessing illegal material, rather than to stop hardened paedophiles.” ZDNet

Sort of sums up Conroy’s policy doesn’t it.

On March 3, the Reserve Bank in Australia (RBA) abolished bank intercharge fees on ATM’s in favor of a pay to use system where consumers pay a rate determined by the owner of the ATM.

This was allegedly about reducing charges for consumers, and providing a more transparent charging regime.

SMH March 24

Reserve Bank assistant governor of financial system Philip Lowe says the reforms of ATM fees, which came into affect on March 3, have increased competition and benefited consumers.

Dr Lowe said that across the entire system most cardholders were paying no more for ATM transactions than previously and some “may have the opportunity to play less”.

What has happened since March 3 is that most foreign ATM’s (that is, ATM’s not owned by the bank you bank with) now impose a $2 withdrawal charge.

In theory, you can opt not to cop the fee by only using your own banks ATM. But what if your bank or bank like institution doesn’t have ATMs, or more particularly an accessible supply of ATM’s.

My credit union doesn’t.

Until March 3 I could use any ATM and not cop a charge. As of April 1 (the Credit Union is rebating the fees this month) I’ll have to pay money to withdraw money from an ATM.

Oh, but you can use EFTPOS or the PostOffice. Great. The reason I switched to my current Credit Union is because my last Credit Union ran the same line and I never had free use of ATMs. The current credit union has teamed up with some other credit unions for the “Redi” ATM network, but the nearest one is 10 kms away and no where near anywhere I regularly go.

So the RBA says that I should be saving money, but now I’ll be paying fees where I never have before, and there’s really no 24/7 alternative.

Thing is, there are still a fair few small credit unions around with a similar setup, particularly employee related Unions.

In effect, the RBA has actually done more in entrenching the big four and reducing competition than it ever has before. Little credit unions can’t compete on ATM’s, and customers want access to fee free ATM’s. The big four with their army of ATM’s win out.

An epic failure in public policy.