So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,474
- Reactions
- 1,485
Paul Kerin is Professorial Fellow, Melbourne Business School
Yep ... real political hack job that one ??!?!??!?!??!?
Even allowing for your maniacal determination to defend all things Labor, this has to be one of the silliest things you've ever said. Robots a professor? Give me a break!!You guys are getting more desperate as the days roll byso he's a professor, robots is a professor do we take him seriously? do we think professors don't have political opinions or agendas?
Well, if you'd taken a little more time you might have found one of several references to this person. Here is just one and it's hardly the profile of a hack.I actually took the time to google the professor and found one link calling him a Labor voterthe guy fancy's himself as a jouro / business commentator...prob has he's eyes on a TV gig sometime in the future.
Faculty staff profile
Paul Kerin
PhD, AM (Harvard) MEc, BEc (Hons) (Adelaide)
Professorial Fellow - Strategy
Paul Kerin's experiences and interests span the gamut of academia, business, media and public policy.
At MBS, Paul specialises in business strategy, corporate strategy and M&A. A Fulbright Scholar, Paul earned his PhD in Business Economics at Harvard University, where he served as the George Dively Research Fellow in the Centre for Business & Government.
Prior to joining MBS, Paul was Managing Director of AT Kearney (Australia and New Zealand). His long consulting career has ranged across strategy development and implementation, M&A, corporate finance, corporate governance and microeconomics. He has consulted in many industries (including private equity, retailing, consumer goods and telecommunications) and nations.
Paul has performed many roles in the business world, including: non-executive chairman, non-executive director, executive chairman, managing director and executive director. He is currently a director of Wheat Exports Australia and a member of funds manager JF Capital Partners' Investment Process and Trinity Best Practice Committees.
He also writes a regular column with The Australian, focusing on the curly issues that key decision-makers - directors, CEOs and politicians - face and is frequently sought for comment by other leading business publications and electronic media.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-grilled-on-tassie-nbn-uptake-339306323.htm
Govt grilled on Tassie NBN uptake
...Albanese later confirmed earlier reports that uptake of the NBN in Tasmania was around 50 per cent.
Addressing calls for a cost-benefit analysis on the $43 billion project, Gillard said significant study of the benefits of the NBN was already part of the 500-page McKinsey implementation study.
You guys are getting more desperate as the days roll byso he's a professor, robots is a professor do we take him seriously? do we think professors don't have political opinions or agendas?
I actually took the time to google the professor and found one link calling him a Labor voterthe guy fancy's himself as a jouro / business commentator...prob has he's eyes on a TV gig sometime in the future.
Myth No 1: ‘The Snowy Hydro Scheme and/or Sydney Opera House were not subjected to cost-benefit analyses, so neither should the NBN be’ etc.
Myth No 2 (a corollary to No 1): ‘The NBN is necessary simply because it is a nation-building venture, regardless of the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis’. etc
Myth No 3: ‘I live in a remote regional community and I have no/very slow internet, therefore the NBN is necessary’. etc
Myth No 4: ‘Our regional neighbours in Asia are modernising, and if we do not keep up then we will become a backwater’.
....do you see a fibre optic cable stretching into the home of every Chinese peasant?
In conclusion, it is important to realise that the debunking of these myths is not in itself an invalidation of the whole NBN project..... By removing the myth of NBN as an absolute necessity, a more effective solution to Australian telecommunications needs is likely to result.
hmmmm - will be interesting how NBNmyths will explain this one...
Without spin, pleeeeese...
I really regret having started this thread.
The NBN will be scrapped.
It has been decided by fat old men and baron (sic) women in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, who control the ALP's destiny.
Once ole Kennealy takes it on board it will be gospel. Jeez, she needs all the traction she can get, not to have the ole Greens outvote the ALP in NSW.
I digress.
The NBN is dead.
Its method of internment is all I was suggesting we discuss.
gg
And IT/Telco experts opposing the NBN are few and far between.
Just as accountants wanting to simplify the tax system are few and far between. Ditto farmers wanting import restrictions relaxed, CEOs wanting remuneration votes by shareholders to be made binding and religious institutions wanted their tax free status removed.
Lucky you. You appear to be part of the <1% of Australians who live in a new fibre-served estate. Now if only the rest of us could get what you have. Hmmm. Here's an idea, why don't we do that...
No.
Lower North Shore (Sydney) in a 40+ year old house. Internode ISP, l think that Internode use Optus lines or something. Try making a phone call and you can hear cracking in the background.
As l also proved in another thread, when l was in Perth, l also had the same speed.
To get the speed your test shows, you must either be on fibre or HFC. It's possible internode have an agreement with Optus to access their infrastructure. You can't get that speed over ADSL no matter where you are.
http://michaelwyres.com/2011/02/nbn-interesting-tidbits-from-quigley/
NBN: Interesting Tidbits from Quigley
Following up on my previous post in regards to the shape of end-user NBN services, I thought I would discuss a few interesting comments made by NBN Co CEO Mike Quigley at the morning Q&A session at the NBN Customer Collaboration Forum last week in Melbourne.
While I will be presenting his comments as “quotes” – they are not exact word-for-word quotes, only regurgitated from my notes and I’m not the best shorthand note taker in the world! The content is however 100% accurate. Comment number one was about volume pricing, in which he stated:
“No single service provider will receive any wholesale volume pricing from NBN Co.”
This is a very important result for the industry. In simple terms, on a connection by connection basis, the wholesale price of NBN services to Retail Service Providers (RSPs) will be the same across the board. An RSP with 1,000 customers requesting an end-user service of a particular dimension from NBN Co, will be charged the exact same price for that service as an RSP with 1,000,000 customers requesting a service of the exact same dimension.
Size of the RSP will not be a factor.
What this does for the industry is allow every RSP to compete on equal wholesale customer access terms with every other RSP.
The big players will no longer be able to squeeze the smaller players on wholesale price – a practice currently common in the industry. Telstra – (as the incumbent dominant wholesale provider) – has a record of ACCC intervention when presenting retail pricing to Bigpond customers that is LOWER than their wholesale pricing to other ISPs. Most recently, Internode has had a very public spat with Telstra over wholesale pricing.
The structural separation of Telstra, and the common wholesale pricing structure under the NBN should eliminate these unfair practices forever.
Next up was a statement in response to a question from the floor about extending the reach of the fibre footprint beyond the 93% coverage in the current plans. Quigley confirmed:
“We are open to extending fibre beyond 93% coverage to interested groups willing to share the cost.”
The specific example he gave in responding to the question was that, for example, a group of farmers along a road who might be in the 94th percentile of the total NBN footprint, might be able to get together and provide the gap funding.
That is, NBN Co would look at funding the build for their situation as if they were part of the 93rd percentile, and as a group the farmers would need to fund the gap to get the build completed. This will interest a lot of communities just outside of the 93% fibre footprint who would otherwise receive wireless or satellite service from NBN Co.
Finally, one for the financial boffins, and what would be done with any “profits” generated by NBN Co:
“Any ‘profit’ above the expected IRR of 7% will be used to push wholesale pricing down, and not used as ‘profit’ as such.”
Quigley was quite strong on this point, reiterating that NBN Co are not interested in profits per-se – their primary goal is to deliver the IRR of 7% to the government to repay the debt funding used for the NBN build, as described in their corporate business plan, released late last year.
As long as the 7% IRR is reached to repay the debt, the “profits” over and above the 7% will “fund” lower wholesale pricing to the RSPs – in real world terms, this means as more and more usage develops on the network, the wholesale pricing will be able to be reduced.
With an announcement today that Telstra and NBN Co have agreed to commercial terms for the decommissioning of the Telstra copper network and the migration of existing Telstra customers on to the NBN, the question of just where NBN uptake will come from has been largely answered.
Prepare for the future.
I'm on the ADSL+2 Easy Broadband Classic option (I don't know if they offer that plan anymore?) with Internode. More here...
$49.95 per month, 50gb download. Super Fast for my needs.
Happy with Internode on ALL FRONTS.
Anyways, there is a huge discussion on the NBN over at Whirpool with some 300+ replies, broken up into 3 parts.
Not sure what to make of this ??
From Post #60 by NBNMyths - I am all for the NBN spending being scrutinised to ensure value for money.
From Post # 105 by NBNMyths - But I do agree that a CBA of the NBN would be a waste of time for different reasons.
Why is it the NBN Senate Committee reccomended a CBA but the Government has refused?
And all this from the Governments own Senate Committee ??? GOSH !!!!
Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I wrote.
By "value for money" I mean that, within the objectives of the project (rolling out a FTTP network to 93%, Wireless to 4% and Sat to 3%), that spending of NBN Co should be fully accountable for the decisions they make in regards to equipment selection, tendering, process etc etc.
This has nothing to do with a CBA.
The Government's Senate committee
Considering the membership, should the result really come as any surprise?
Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald, Chair, Liberal, QLD
Senator Fiona Nash, Deputy Chair, National, NSW
Senator Simon Birmingham, Liberal, SA
Senator Mary Jo Fisher, Liberal, SA
Senator Scott Ludlam, Green, WA
Senator Kate Lundy, ALP, ACT
Senator Glenn Sterle, ALP, WA
You really think a committee dominated by the parties that have pledged to demolish the NBN would produce a finding that recommended it go ahead?
Perhaps the funniest recommendation was the final one, where they state that the Govt should accept the "generous offer" of Henry Ergas (Who is employed by the Liberal Party through the Menzies institute) to do a CBA "free of charge". I wonder what the outcome of that would be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?