NBN Plan: a business case for the cup half-full

 

Commentary: NBN plan stacks up on optimistic assumptions.

The release of the three-year NBN Co Corporate Plan paints a solid future for the Government-funded company charged with building Australia's future fibre network – assuming a great many things fall into place for CEO Mike Quigley.

Released on the same day as the ACCC's advice to the Government on NBN pricing (PDF) and the Federal Government's response to the $25 million NBN Implementation Study, the NBN's 'Corporate' plan (note the avoidance of the words 'business plan') weighed in at 160 pages - redacted from an original believed to be over 400 pages long.

The plan assumed that just over half a million Australians will be enjoying NBN-supplied services by June 2013, with the network passing around 1.7 million premises - a low take-up rate for the initial three years of the build.

NBN Co expected to spend $35.9 billion in capital expenditure by the time the network is built -- December 2020, if Telstra shareholders play ball -- plus $21.8 billion in operating expenditure, including $13.7 billion to lease assets from Telstra.

NBN Co would only recuperate $1 billion of that in revenues before it finishes rolling out the network.

Between now and 2021, the company expected to require $27.5 billion from the Australian taxpayer and a further $13.4 billion in debt funding – a total of $40.9 billion.

The document promised an internal rate of return of seven percent over thirty years

"These returns would not attract investors from the start but may be acceptable to the Government," the document said, noting that it exceed the return on Government bonds.

Big Assumptions

NBN Co CEO Mike Quigley told a briefing at Parliament House today that the plan "conservatively" assumed only 70 percent of Australians would utilise NBN-supplied services in the long-term.

Ian Birks, chief executive of the Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) said this was a good target.

"High participation rates must be the goal for Australia if we are to increase GDP on the back of this investment," he said. "The 70 percent take-up rate identified in this business plan is a good target."

But other assumptions within the Corporate Plan were far from conservative.

First, the numbers assume that the ALP Government will both remain in power and continue to drip-feed the $27.5 billion in funding required to build the network.

"Federal Government equity is assumed to be available to cover all funding requirements until NBN Co is able to raise debt in its own right," the plan stated.

The plan also assumes that NBN Co will be granted "powers and immunities" to allow it to deploy the network as it wishes – much of it via overhead cables, regardless of any opposition posed by State or Local Government authorities.

Such powers would "allow the Company to maximise aerial deployment coverage and minimise the roll-out timetable," the corporate plan said.

"Without such changes the Plan is impacted by the requirement to achieve development approvals from local authorities, negotiate access arrangements with utilities (particularly power utilities) and deal with all of the regulatory requirements around land access that may otherwise apply."

NBN Co said its numbers assumed it would use aerial cables for at least 25 percent of homes connected.

If it were only able to connect 10 percent of homes using overhead cables, the total project would cost a further $1.8 billion - $1.3 billion of which would be borne by the taxpayer.

Similarly, the Corporate Plan assumed that the Federal Government would pass "cherry picking" laws that prevented NBN Co's competitors from over-building networks in high density areas – a law which threatens the short-term prospects of some of the industry's biggest companies.

Without this law passed, NBN Co said its rate of return would fall from seven percent to below five percent – and cost the taxpayer between $1 billion and $2 billion extra.

The plan also made a number of other assumptions that were not costed.

It assumed that Telstra shareholders would pass the $13.7 billion agreement between NBN Co and Telstra for the lease of Telstra's fixed assets.

Whilst the Telstra split bill has passed Parliament, NBN Co offered no alternative cost or return figures in its Corporate Plan should Telstra shareholders reject the offer.

iTnews has sought a figure from NBN Co and Senator Conroy's office, both of whom were yet to respond.

Further, the Corporate Plan assumed that the Federal Government would allocate the 2.3 GHz spectrum exclusively to NBN Co for the provision of wireless services.

It also assumed that the wider telecommunications industry would comply with ACCC regulations around wholesale pricing.

The plan also assumes that no Australian businesses and no more than 13 percent of residential premises will be "wireless-only" – premises that won't see the need for NBN-supplied services.

It also assumes that NBN Co would have a role in connecting "non-premise" nodes such as Automatic Teller Machines and traffic lights on a commercial basis, and that it would be able to provide fibre to multi-dwelling units (apartment buildings).

AIIA's Birks urged Australians to look beyond the NBN Co's finance projections to realise the value of the network to the broader economy.

"This forecast does not take into account the broader productivity and social benefits of ubiquitous broadband," he said. "We need to be clear: economic growth is the rationale that supports building this network.

"It's about making more money for business. An effective digital economy in Australia will depend on our ability to innovate and create new opportunities through new business models, applications and technologies."

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


NBN Plan: a business case for the cup half-full
"Edited by ace: 22/12/2010 02:40:42 PM"
By Ace
 
 
 
Comments: 9
adavion
Dec 20, 2010 7:32 PM
The pricing schedule is rather interesting- Apparently it costs NBN Co $2.6bn or a 6.5% increase in cost to provide everyone with home run topology which will provide 1Gbs-1 CIR over the AVC / CAN. [This logically follows as everyone gets their own fibre] See NBN IS page 188.

The NBN business plan shows a basic fibre offer at $24 per month. Therefore if the $24 is a true reflection of cost and the NBN is being optimally implemented, 1Gbps CIR should cost $25.56 per month because with a home run topology everyone can do 1Gbps over the AVC or CAN segment of the network at a 6.5% cost increase. [Good luck with backhaul, but then that is priced separately]

Note that cost is the cost incurred by NBN Co in building the network whereas price is what NBN Co charges to access the network.

The fact that NBN Co's pricing schedule calls for a 625% increase in price compared to the NBN IS's anticipated 6.5% incremental cost shows that NBN Co is either ripping off power users through unjustifiably high pricing, being implemented in a substantially sub-optimal manner -(have a chat to the guys from Queensland about cheaper point to point fibre), McKinsey and KPMG got the NBN IS wrong, or the $24 per month does not reflect a fair market price in which case the Constitutional Lawyers may be able to take issue with any anti-cherry picking laws.

In any case it would appear NBN Co has breached the central tenet of regulated utility pricing that the price charged for a service must reflect the cost to provide the service.

The biggest problem with this pricing schedule is that NBN Co's business plan is based pushing people up the speed curve to extract higher ARPUs. This means over time everyone will likely feel the effect of paying over 1000% of the increased cost of service (625% price increase vs 6.5% cost increase). Notably NBN Co states it will reduce its nominal price for faster services but it does not provide any timeframe for doing so.

This means there is the strong liklihood that in order to keep up with international peers, NBN users will need to increase the amount of money they spend on internet access over time.
deonast
Dec 20, 2010 10:21 PM
I have serious problems with the overhead cabling approach. The NBN is eventually going to replace the old phone system you can't have it subject to the same issues as the power grid in some areas. Trees falling in high winds taking out phone and power, leading to higher maintenance costs over the long term. Bad enough as it is with all the tree hacking and slashing to keep they away from the power lines, I can imagine how ruthless tree loppers will be to keep the broadband network running.
deonast
Dec 20, 2010 10:23 PM
To Qualify I live in the Blue Mountains and they get quite brutal with tree cutting to keep them away from power lines overkill done quite often is the case around here and I suspect at much cost. Power is also subject to weather conditions and I'd hate my internet to go the same route.
Rossyduck
Dec 20, 2010 10:33 PM
Powerlines is an over optimistic assumption. Anyone in the game knows they are going to be replacing/ making good around 20% of the rotten or dodgy power poles. At $4000 per replacement .....
sydneyla
Dec 21, 2010 8:00 AM
Do it once, do it right, do it underground.
umbria
Dec 22, 2010 10:45 AM
Merry Christmas, Rossyduck and SydneyLA, it's been fun sparring with you through the year.

@adavion, I think Alan Kohler got it right in his piece yesterday on Business Spectator. The demand projections are very conservative indeed if you look at our history, and the profit corner will therefore be turned earlier than projected in the Business Plan.

The $24 wholesale price is probably just about break-even on my reading, which is all a social equity infrastructure project should be required to deliver. But it is also obvious that a very large number of households will quickly switch some of their monthly entertainment spend from cable/satellite TV to Foxtel Fibre or Video Ezy Live or whatever the marketing boys call their IPTV offerings. Many folks will sign on for 12/1 but then renew at 50/20 once they realise what is available and how much cheaper and more convenient it is. The whole principle is cross-subsidy to deliver ubiquitous and consistent service at the lowest possible total cost, and the pricing looks very justifiable. IPTV cannot justify the taxpayer building the NBN, but its take-up will produce revenue to NBNCo that may even reduce the amount of the construction cost that we need to contribute.
advocate
Dec 22, 2010 1:36 PM
umbria wrote:

The demand projections are very conservative indeed if you look at our history, and the profit corner will therefore be turned earlier than projected in the Business Plan.

What history? - oh you mean the overwhelming 'demand' for Optus and Telstra HFC which ran at a loss because of a distinct lack of demand, is that what you mean by the 'profit corner' turning earlier?

The $24 wholesale price is probably just about break-even on my reading, which is all a social equity infrastructure project should be required to deliver.

It's not the wholesale price the customer buys it at, if the NBN Co was a ISP retailer then yes you could say it is a social infrastructure project, but we are buying from ISP's at a retail markup, current predictions being it will about $20+ more a month than what we are paying now - that's 'social equity' is it umbria?

But it is also obvious that a very large number of households will quickly switch some of their monthly entertainment spend from cable/satellite TV to Foxtel Fibre or Video Ezy Live or whatever the marketing boys call their IPTV offerings.

Well err doh yeah! - if Telstra and Optus are paid billions by Conroy for their HFC customer base, they won't have a choice, but the NBN is not about choice.

Many folks will sign on for 12/1 but then renew at 50/20 once they realise what is available and how much cheaper and more convenient it is.

How much cheaper exactly is it going to be umbria?

The whole principle is cross-subsidy to deliver ubiquitous and consistent service at the lowest possible total cost, and the pricing looks very justifiable. IPTV cannot justify the taxpayer building the NBN, but its take-up will produce revenue to NBNCo that may even reduce the amount of the construction cost that we need to contribute.

Sorry I cannot think of a better response to all that no fact spin other than BS!

Ace
Dec 22, 2010 2:39 PM
Optus minimum broadband (120Gb/256Kbps) + phone is $79 per month. Today.

NBN Co are predicting a basic price for 12Mbps + phone at $53 to $58. In 2013 or sometime after.

So I can only assume your calculator is broken @advocate - or your got a + sign in the wrong place. ie: It's about $20 more expensive today for slower access (ie: 46 times slower) to the internet & phone than it will be under NBN. That's going off information offered by experts today. I confess I haven't factored in doomsayer hysteria price modeling. Not my area of expertise.
Ace
Dec 22, 2010 2:39 PM


Edited by ace: 22/12/2010 02:40:42 PM
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote