NBN Co tight-lipped over Flannigan departure

By John Hilvert on Apr 5, 2011 2:46 PM
Filed under Finance

Head of construction leaves.

NBN Co's head of construction Patrick Flannigan has resigned from the network builder just three days after it indefinitely suspended all construction contracts for second release sites.

Flannigan's departure was first reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

An NBN Co spokesman said Flannigan had resigned yesterday and that staff had been told today.

“NBN Co is disappointed that Mr Flannigan has decided to leave as he made a valuable contribution to the senior management team. We wish him all the best in the future,” she said.

The spokesman refused to confirm or deny whether Flannigan's departure was related to last Friday's surprise announcement where NBN Co blasted the construction sector for the prices it had attempted to charge for the NBN build.

"I have no further comments on that," the spokesman said.

NBN Co’s general manager of production design and planning Dan Flemming was appointed acting head of construction.

Flannigan’s abrupt resignation is expected to fuel further speculation of alternate arrangements NBN Co is said to be negotiating for the build.

NBN Co’s head of corporate services Kevin Brown said last week the company was confident it could secure better value for money by going a different route.

The departure was also expected to fuel industry speculation that the NBN project was becoming "toxic", as NextDC founder Bevan Slattery described it at a conference last week.

Slattery said the industry was "starting to turn against NBN Co".

NBN Co tight-lipped over Flannigan departure

10 comments in this discussion

"[Avid Gamer] On low amount of donations and petitions That number represents, 1. Those that found my website, 2. Those that bothered to look, 3. Those that read through and agreed, 4. Those that ..."

By MerariSchroeder

Tags

nbnco, cable rollout, tender, pressgallery

NBN Co wants block on Telstra disconnection processes

Retailers struggling with big data platforms

NBN Co approaches $900m in Telstra liabilities

Govt warns ACCC against NBN price tinkering

Breaking Stories

Mater CIO shows QLD Health 'how it's done'

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Melbourne firies use drone to check dangling truck

DNS DDoS attacks skyrocket

Photos: Toshiba's 2013 laptops

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 10

MerariSchroeder Apr 5, 2011 3:48 PM	An interesting development (and series of developments). It's so hard to know what it going on beneath the surface, but it does look bad for NBNCo and Conroy. I think the rest of the industry are now realising that Telstra is getting the best deal, and may end up in a stronger position than before - preferential treatment, volume discounts and a bulldozer worth of capital. It's not enough to have just the industry turn on NBNCo. For there to be constructive modification to the NBNCo plan, there needs to be public engagement, they need to know what is happening, and voice their opinion. Simply being told of a utopia of super-fast broadband isn't enough, the public needs to know the opportunity cost, and know the upgradeable alternatives. The whole point I set up NBNOptions.org, a campaign that doesn't just go gaga over faster internet, amplifying spin (as NBN support campaigns do). It warns visitors of the real risks, and the real options. It doesn't tell them what to pick.
Rossyduck Apr 5, 2011 4:00 PM	Poor bloke - stuck trying to meet ROI targets for what essentially should be a social program, with most of the impact on GDP as opposed to NBN Co bottom line. Making the best of a bad job, and assuming government is still just desperate to spend our Tax $$, maybe time to refocus NBN Co to those areas without broadband and no forseeable likely hood of broadband - that way it can at least be regarded as a partially useful project.
Mitch Apr 5, 2011 4:09 PM	The wheels are starting to wobble off the whole NBN project.
Avid Gamer Apr 5, 2011 4:23 PM	MerariSchroeder http://nbnoptions.org/ Please help us raise money to raise awareness, run web and radio commercials and improve administration. Target: $1,000 Raised: $365.00 ONLY $365.00, that is REALLY PATHETIC Please sign the petition to show your support. Lets send the Government a strong message! Target: 1,000 Signatures: 62 ONLY 62 NOW THAT IS REALLY, REALLY PATHETIC Only 62 people and a measly $365.00 for the whole of Australia, now that tells you something doesn't it? A hell of a lot more people are for the NBN then against the NBN And NO I didn't sign your stupid petition and NO I didn't donate to your stupid cause. BRING ON THE NBN
AustImages Apr 5, 2011 4:23 PM	@Merari: The problem with nbnoptions is that it quotes demonstrably false information. For example, you claim that the Coalition's alternative plan was "a focus on Fibre to the Node VDSL2+ for 98%". This is absolutely false. There is not a single dollar in the coalition plan to fund FTTN or VDSL. Their actual plan was a min. 12Mbps to 97%, using ADSL2 or fixed wireless where ADSL was impractical. The final 3% received no guaranteed speed whatsoever. If you want your site to be taken seriously as a list of "real options", then it might be best to stick to the reality of what is being proposed, instead of making up your own version.
AustImages Apr 5, 2011 4:31 PM	@Avid Gamer: You think it looks bad now!? Originally, the fundraising target was listed as $100,000. It's since been revised down to $1000. And the target for petition signatures was 1,000,000.
Mike_Sadler Apr 5, 2011 5:13 PM	Todd/Merari NBNOptions may have a loose collection of not-NBN ideas, but alternatives they are not. I still have had no answer to my genuine concerns for supposed alternatives, which nobody at your site has sought to clarify. This latest 'issue' (ah-duh if you're going to outsource the whole construct project to Leightons, Tranfield, Thiess or whoever, you kinda don't need a Construction Manager). There are more unknowns with the alternatives than the NBNCo plan. Not one response to my questions posted last year... I suspect because there are no answers or that the answers don't suit the (now) obvious agenda of the site: So, now i'm positive the alternatives are nothing of the sort. What's the bet there will still be no answers to my concerns about non-FTTP 'alternatives' tomorrow, next week or next year. We need to get on with it and THAT is what I see NBNCo doing. Just to refresh you on the questions I raised: --------------- snip --------------- Glad to see folks stepping up with some alternatives, rather than the "just kill it" stance. Much more constructive. I'm very technical and very business savvy; however, I cannot understand four main things about some of the options proposed, including those here. I want a 'cheaper' version, but am yet to see a compelling case. Why? Because there's some stuff that just doesn't quite sit right. Love some feedback on how the option(s) featured here can ally my fears. Not an exhaustive list, but the ones I just can't get comfortable with. Not even expecting a solution, today, but at the moment, no one will tell me there's at least some interest in addressing them, so I'm scared. So should you be. 1) Business plan/CBA: I've not seen one on ANY proposal (except NBNCo's quite 'fluid' one), especially the 'alternatives'. If its mandatory for NBNCo, why not everyone else? Especially (I know, not what you're after, but held up as an 'option') the Coalition's plan which contemplates GIVING away free money rather than borrowing it for a time. At least some real deliverables (again, not your plan, but we know the Lib's 12-100Mbps really means 'mostly 12, 100 if you're in a Telstra/Optus DOCSIS 3 area and can get it (ie few MDU's will). Given the options don't seem to contemplate a monopoly wholesale only L1/L2 owner of the Customer Access Network (CAN), all options should at least address (retail) price, performance and take-up. I already know those things for NBNCo, they're published, public and available. I especially need to have the 12Mbps/100Mbps split... don't care what the split is, but it shouldn't be a secret. Optimists will hope 100, pessimists will KNOW 12 and the the truth may be the opposite depending on their location. 2)FTTN: Let's face it, 'anything' not FTTP today is FTTN, be that node a cell tower, DSLAM, Ethernet switch in a MDU, whatever. My issue is, the FTTN proposed is xDSL based, leveraging the copper CAN, but with nodes (and their fibre) deep into the network. Unlike GPON, these nodes need power, so 'street cabinets' of some sort. Apart from amenity, etc, how do we ensure that every player who wants to serve users in an area can physically get rack space and power, FTTN backhaul, etc, etc, in these numerous (at least 16x current exchange locations?) places. Who would 'own' the cabinets and what would their SLA's be with other resellers? Would they be permitted to retail services off the same node? 3) I'd welcome a discussion on 'fast' wireless, but I just haven't seen the sorts of speed claimed on a multiuser network. I know I can walk over to my warehouse now and grab two 10Gbps switches and load them up and get 10GBps between them (actually 2 ports, so 20Gbps) and 1 Gbps on every port, or 10Gbps/24 if they are all simultanously downloading/uploading (its symmetrical) large and different files. Customers obviously do that too. NBNCo have tested (Alcatel's?) ONT's at 1 Gbps per user in the field. LTE isn't even at 10Mbps stage yet (live) and I've seen WiMax deadlines move more times than I care to remember. ITU and IEEE are working on 100Gbps and 40Gbps fibre (and 10GPON) simultanously right now, because they fear 40Gbps will be redundant by the time they're finished. With Fibre, all improvements in spectral efficiency can be duplicated per fibre (more than one per premises if required); with wireless the spectrum 'is what it is' and there is a finite amount of bandwidth which must be shared amongst those using the base station. 4) What is the (economical) life of the copper CAN, especially the subscriber loop? I don't care what the answer is as long as we all know. Then we can plan for its replacement, work out when it will need to start, etc. We can put off FTTP for 20 years if the copper lasts that long, but that's not what I 'think' (guess)... I think its >5, <10 years. Anyone claiming to know cites those figures or "longer than that"... how long? "Longer than that"... circular arguement. Somebody (here?) put a stake in the ground and tell us how long... no good doing VDSL if it takes 4 years to rollout, the ISP's want 5 years cost/profit recovery from there, but the CAN's only got 7 years left in it. I seriously do not know and that's a red flag for me. On that same note, who would run the CAN/nodes/etc... Telstra? Wouldn't that be a bit of market rigging if Telstra is forced to run a copper CAN for longer than they might wish? Wouldn't that give them the opportunity to build closed FTTP/(deeper) FTTN networks themselves? Might we all end up on not-FTTP (whatever type of FTTN it is) for longer than 'needed' by other measures, because the CAN owner or ISP reseller 'need' to revover that investment and then save for a (multiple vertically integrated ISP's?) future where the fundamantals of the business case (apart from technology component costs) have got worse, not better. This stuff keeps me awake at night... seriously. Please, put my mind at rest, somebody. Tell me why I needn't worry about such things, or at least they're being discussed/solved, because at the moment, just these four basic things have me worried about any 'options' to NBNCo's plan. Presently, the 'option' I would favour is doing nothing ('do no harm') for a 'while', but I don't even know (life of current copper CAN) what sort of 'while' we can tolerate. -------------- snip ------ Of course, we now know that NBN FTTP will support 1Gbps to the premise, right now and that DSL will never provide 12Mbps to anywhere near the majority of Australians... so - wireless instead? Huh. 12Mbps will only happen on Christmas day at lunchtime... Mery bloddy Christmas indeed.
HubertCumberdale Apr 5, 2011 5:44 PM	MerariSchroeder wrote: An interesting development (and series of developments). It's so hard to know what it going on beneath the surface, but it does look bad for NBNCo and Conroy. yeah wouldn't just be a simple case of someone quitting a job, in these situations it is important to assume the worst... I look forward to The Australians take on it, I am anticipating many lolz. MerariSchroeder wrote: The whole point I set up NBNOptions.org Really? and why did you set up Nonbn.org? Just curious.
Francis Apr 5, 2011 8:07 PM	It makes me very sad to say the least when politics and comment from people with no relevant management or industry experience begin to try and dictate policy on an issue as important as this. The NBN as I see it is more about the future than the current situation with respect to communications. It disturbs me even further when I read debate about a suite of technologies being a replacement for the NBN as it is currently envisaged. As an example Telstra currently has a suite of technologies spanning from Dial-up through HFC Cable and Wireless to service its customer base. Each of these technologies for the most part requires a different department and different team technicians to administer and run them. This is wasteful duplication which disappears when you have one technology such as FTTP. Its time surely that the NBN with its single FTTP technology is a superior solution and that having come this far to scrap it would be a waste of resources and a lost opportunity. Consequently I would like to a hear more enlightened debate centred on how the NBN is built and configured rather than simply tearing it down for some political or idealogical or egotistical reason. The time to change direction has come and gone but the time to hold Conroy and the Government accountable for an economical and reliable build of the network so that it functions in time of need has now begun. Lets ensure that the debate changes to suit the current prevailing circumstances lest we be left behind.
MerariSchroeder Apr 8, 2011 3:19 PM	[Avid Gamer] On low amount of donations and petitions That number represents, 1. Those that found my website, 2. Those that bothered to look, 3. Those that read through and agreed, 4. Those that could be bothered signing the petition or donating. It is by no means a research tool of opinion. [AustImages] "claim that the Coalition's alternative plan was "a focus on Fibre to the Node VDSL2+ for 98%". This is absolutely false." You're correct. A simple comment on the actual website would have been helpful, however I would guess that you're not trying to helpful. It was actually the "Alliance for Affordable Broadband" which suggested FTTN - my mistake. [Mike_Sadler] "Not one response to my questions posted last year", " I suspect because there are no answers or that the answers don't suit the (now) obvious agenda of the site" Hehe, nice conspiracy theory. No I just missed it. I'll post a reply shortly... [HumbertCumberdale] "The whole point I set up NBNOptions.org Really? and why did you set up Nonbn.org? Just curious" NoNBN.org was just a URL. I picked the URL and then realised it wasn't a good match for my campaign. Hence, the subsequent change of name.