Re: NBN
Rod Speed
> Horry <horace...@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Segall wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200907/s2615533.htm
>>> I was about to criticise you for enticing me to watch this discussion
>>> which was full of the "bleeding obvious" but near the end was the
>>> information that everyone in this group has been looking for.
>>> and if you can actually make sure that at least 60 per cent of Australia's
>>> broadband traffic goes across that network, you do have a commercially
>>> viable investment network and you will get a commercial return on that network.
>> And also explains why the network can't be commercially viable.
> I think "requires some vending in of assets by some of the players" is much more significant.
Nope, the problem is the 60% which aint gunna happen unless they
charge the same as broadband currently charges, and if they do that,
that cant possibly produce anything like a commercial return on $43B.
> If Telstra sells their copper network to NBNCo
The copper network is completely irrelevant to the NBN, it REPLACES that.
> then well over 60% is assured.
It STILL wont produce a commercial return on $43B
> If Telstra does not sell their copper network to NBNCo
No NBN has the slightest interest in the copper network.
> they risk ending up with a useless asset
Not while ever they can charge much less than half for a broadband service.
> and/or being split into retail and network companies. The latter
> would result in losing their 3G network as the major marketing
> advantage for their retail mobile phone business.
No one is even proposing anything like that.
> I assume the "vending in of assets" would also include Telstra's current fibre network
> which, I believe, already carries most broadband communication for part of its journey.
That most claim is just plain wrong. Much of it moves on Optus fibre.