NBN Co fires starting gun for network vendors

By Brett Winterford on Dec 7, 2009 6:37 AM
Filed under Networking

Seeks 'capability statement' from GPON suppliers.

Federal Government-funded National Broadband Network company (NBN Co) has requested networking equipment vendors provide it a statement of their capabilities in preparation for the build out of a $43 billion fibre-to-the-home (FttH) national network.

The company posted an advertisement in The Weekend Australian on Saturday December 5, to inform networking vendors that it would be releasing a Request for Capability Statement by 5pm Monday December 7.

Companies can register for interest here.

"We want to receive Capability Statements from experienced suppliers of Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) and related active equipment to support the deployment of a point-to-point and gigabit passive optical (GPON) network," the company's advert said.

NBN Co said the request from networking companies would be the first of several it will seek "so [it] can fairly select the right partners."

The company has also confirmed that a formal RFP (request for proposal) process would follow after the analysis of capability statements.

Interested parties are likely to include Swedish vendor Ericsson, Japanese manufacturer NEC and Chinese vendor Huawei.

Alcatel-Lucent will also have a good showing with NBN Co CEO Mike Quigley and CFO Jean-Pascal Beaufret both former executives from the company.

Networking vendors have only until 5pm on Monday December 21 to write and submit an electronic response to NBN Co's request.

NBN Co fires starting gun for network vendors

6 comments in this discussion

"@MerariSchroeder : I assume this is the same MerariSchroeder who has posted hundreds of comments on the related WP thread? Let's not go around in cirlces here MS as you appear to do on WP, OK? ..."

By Maxxi

Tags

nbn co, national brodband network, nbn, quigley, alcatel, request for capability, network, gpon, ftth, fttp

NBN Co orders long-term satellites

NBN Co braces for secrecy probe

Telcos urge revision to NBN regulation

Greenfields lobby group escalates NBN complaint

Breaking Stories

BigPond emails will be stored overseas

Google shapes as digital dividend dark horse

Oracle buys Taleo for $1.76 billion

Scientists tout super-fast hard drives

Alstom Transport eyes single project system

Comments: 6

sydneyla Dec 7, 2009 8:10 AM	When will the Australian people get some information in the form of a cost analysis and a return on investment of the proposed NBN????
Maxxi Dec 7, 2009 8:43 AM	@sydneyla: What costs and pricing data would you base the analysis on? It is usual for projects such as this to begin gathering this data in detail BEFORE working on the detailed analysis, and AFTER deciding to move forward with the project. To build a costs analysis, you need to know the costs, and as far as I can see, the NBNco has been gathering costs data for a while.. If you do not like the spped they are doing this, then get yourself into the NBNco and show how to do that faster...
mattybaus Dec 7, 2009 10:25 AM	mmmm have you seen the 2 ads for executives on seek?? they have a spelling error. good way to start nbnco
anonymous Dec 7, 2009 11:32 AM	@mattybaus - OMG, not a spelling error! Cancel the entire project immediately.
MerariSchroeder Dec 7, 2009 12:14 PM	@Maxxi: Yes, detailed information from the implementation study will help paint the economic picture for the NBN, but the Government already knows all they need to modal the economics. Surely within a couple of months of announcing the plan, they would have known if it was at least remotely feasible - ooops, no they didn't. They've provided no proof. The cost-benefit analysis compares to cost to the benefit. They surely know the cost. If they don't know the exact benefit, they should be indicating the benefit that is required (baseline) and telling the public where they is expected to come from. After all, they've said, as politicians, that it will work, that it will increase productivity. How can they say that without any formal analysis? This is why we want a cost benefit analysis. They claim the benefits will outweigh the cost, yet they're not prepared to show any paperwork - preliminary or otherwise - to prove it.
Maxxi Dec 7, 2009 2:12 PM	@MerariSchroeder : I assume this is the same MerariSchroeder who has posted hundreds of comments on the related WP thread? Let's not go around in cirlces here MS as you appear to do on WP, OK? You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the processes many very large organisations undertake when pursuing major national infrastructure projects. First and foremost they must ascertain whether the national infrastructure in question is required. No cost-benefits amalysis is required for this. They must also decide here to which degree the implementation of this infrastrucure is a compelling priority,and to which degree it impacts on competitive positioning. You must initially understand what it is that must be delivered for the nation, and whether it would be used. At the same time you will require an estimated maximum investment ceiling to be nominated and have financing committments or models in progress to accomodate this ceiling. Second they must then define the industrial/technology model required to deliver the products/services/infrastructure nationally. Test technical viability etc. No cost-benefits amalysis is required for this. Here they must understand whether it can be delivered at all and whether other entities have delivered on all or part of the planned infrastructure elsewhere. It is during this stage that you will be building the initial organisation and bring in suitable commercial and technical expertise. Third analysis stage is, once you have the above and not before, is to begin market testing for available and existing technologies, technologies in viable development, detailed results from existing and similar infrastructure implementations and their respective resource requirements, modular costs projections on the various aspects of the overall project, implementation resource requirements modeling on those modules, typical resource costs projections per unit and projected timeframes. This will then allow you to do some initial revenue projections and timelines. I am sure that you are across all these steps and realise that they all have relevance. You will also have to monitor market reactions and emerging competitive product developments based on your announcements, as ignorance about market dynamics, and I would not like to infer that you suffer from this, has been the primary failure of most unsuccessful commercial initiatives. Only through this will you be able to estimate your pricing model (not prices yet, that is too early) and pricing estimates with models mirroring your pricing movements against typically fluid market factors. (warning things do change in markets MS) Market testing on resources and technology costs are pretty dang important steps MS (which will include individual vendor engagements as well), as I am sure you have taken into account, otherwise the dangs costs component is so dang hard to dang define... At the same time decisions need to be made as to how the overall project is broken down in implementation and operational modules and divisions MS, and how this will translate into independent operations later. Then it is usual commercial practice to plan the implementation scenario dependent on the national requirements and priorities. At this stage you will be forming and finalizing a funding and cash-flow analysis, which it may amaze you is required in order to define the costs of funding. Now after all of that, lo and behold you are beginning to model your pricings, estimated costs and timeframes, estimated competitive landscape scenarios, implementation and spending agendas etc. Once you have all those factors ready and from credible sources (EG: not from some temporary economics analysts aligned with your political opponents lol), then you can begin with building a costs/benefits analysis MS, and not before. Interestingly enough, many companies and successful commercial operations had their first costs/benefits analysis written on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. Not by some political opponent, doubting economist, agenda driven competitor etc, but by those who started or initiated those entities. People have built economics models based on speculation and assumptions, that have proven that the pyramids could not have been financed, the Suez Canal was not viable and that Apple Computers should have been broke long ago. They convinced neither the pharoas, the Brits/Egyptians nor Steve Jobs...