Investment | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Penny wise and pound foolish

Saving money on technology is often a bad investment as the V8 Supercars found

“We were penny wise and pound foolish” says Peter Trimble, Finance and Systems director of the V8 Supercars, about the IT setup he found when he started with the motor sport organisation 18 months ago.

The V8 Supercars were like many businesses who had outgrown their basic IT setup and were struggling as a result.

A touring organisation – “a travelling circus” as described by CEO David Malone – with 15 races in Australia, New Zealand the US has some fairly unique challenges as contractors, teams and a dispersed workforce put demands on the businesses which a basic small business system struggles to cope with.

What Trimble found at the business were employees struggling with cheap internet connections and antiquated, inadequate servers.

Focusing on the pennies and missing the bigger picture is a common problem when managements skimp on technology which leaves their staff spending more time on IT problems than getting their jobs done.

Basically the $80 a month home internet connection doesn’t cut it when you have more than two or three workers and the server that worked fine when those people were in the same office becomes a security risk when a dozen a people are trying to login over the Internet.

It wasn’t surprising the V8 Supercars management decided to go with a cloud computing service – in this case Microsoft Office 365 – and invest in proper, reliable internet connections.

What the Supercars found that being penny proud and pound foolish with IT doesn’t work for a business, office tech is an essential investment.

Paul travelled to the V8 Supercars in Launceston courtesy of Microsoft Australia.

Corporate palaces and the new Ceasars

An opulent corporate headquarters is often the indicator that management’s mind is on things other than customer service or shareholder’s return.

One of the key traits of managerialism is executives spending vast quantities of shareholders’ money on opulent corporate headquarters, is Apple the latest company to succumb to this disease?

Building a new headquarters is fun for managers. One company I worked for in the early 1990s was debilitated for months as executives spent most of their time moving walls, rearranging desk positions and changing lift designs to reflect their status as grand visionaries.

For the company gripped with delusions of management grandeur a flashy head office is the must have accessory. It’s the corporate equivalent of the Skyscraper Index and is almost as good a predictor that a change in fortunes is imminent.

Apple’s new headquarters is nothing if not impressive. Bloomberg Newsweek reports the building which, at two thirds the size of the Pentagon, will house 12,000 employees is currently estimated at costing five billion dollars, sixty percent over the original budget.

The plans call for unprecedented 40-foot, floor-to-ceiling panes of concave glass from Germany. Before the Cupertino council, Jobs noted, “there isn’t a straight piece of glass on the whole building?…?and as you know if you build things, this isn’t the cheapest way to build them.”

With over a $120 billion in cash, Apple can certainly afford to spend five or ten billion on new digs despite the grumbling of shareholders who have had to settle for a stingy 2.4% dividend from their shares.

The big question though for Apple shareholders though is whether a project like this indicates a company that has peaked with management more intent on building monuments to itself or its genuinely visionary founder rather than deliver returns to owners or products to customers.

On the latter point, there’s no evidence of Apple losing their way with their products yet, but it’s something worth watching in case management becomes distracted with their building project.

For the company I worked for, the distracted managers all vanished one day when the main shareholder of the Thai-Singaporean joint venture discovered they’d been fiddling the books. They probably needed to pay for the office fit out.

Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

Does a culture of property speculation hinder new businesses and startups?

Last week I had coffee with Clive Mayhew who chairs the board of Sky Software, a Geelong based student management cloud service.

Clive covered a lot of interesting aspects about Sky’s business; including the opportunities for regional startups, government support and his experiences in Silicon Valley during the dot com boom. All of which I’ll write up in more detail soon.

One notable point Clive raised was how he struggles to get Australian staff to take equity in the business – people want cash, not shares.

The question Clive raises is why and that question is worth exploring in more depth.

My feeling is that it’s a cultural thing related to property – four generations of Australians have been bought up believing housing is the safest way and surest way to build wealth.

As a consequence young Australians are steered into getting a ‘safe’ job and plunging as much money into accumulating property equity as early as possible. Just as mum and granddad did.

Even those who don’t want to play the property game are affected as property speculation pushes up prices and rents; the landlord or bank won’t accept startup stock to pay the bills so employees need cold, hard cash to keep a roof over their heads.

The other angle is tax and social security policies, through the 1970s and 80s various business figures used share option schemes to minimise their taxes and successive Australian governments have passed laws making it harder for businesses to offer these incentives.

Interestingly this not only affects the Silicon Valley tech startup business model but also hurts the aspirations of Australia’s political classes to establish the country, or at least Sydney, as a global financial centre.

Putting aside the fantasies of Australia’s suburban apparatchiks – which if successful would see the country being more like Iceland or Cyprus than Wall Street or the City Of London – it’s clear that the existing government and community attitudes toward risk are reducing the diversity of the nation’s economy.

That the bulk of the nation’s mining and agricultural investment, let along startup funds, comes from offshore despite the trillion dollars in compulsory domestic superannuation savings is a stark example of risk aversion at all levels of Aussie society, government and business.

For those Australian entrepreneurs prepared to take risks, the risk adverse nature of most people becomes an opportunity as it means there’s local markets which aren’t being filled.

The problem for those local entrepreneurs is accessing capital and that remains the biggest barrier for all small Australian businesses.

How this works out in the next few decades will be interesting, it’s hard not to think though that Australians are going to have to be weaned off their property addiction – whether this takes a harsh recession, retired baby boomers selling down their holdings or government action remains to be seen.

In the meantime, don’t base your business plan on staff taking equity as part of their employment package.

Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

Oracle has an interesting management problem as revenues stagnate.

Last week Oracle, the world’s third largest software vendor, had an eight percent drop in its stock price after the company missed earning estimates.

Part of the research for are article I’m writing on the company involved digging into the organisational structure of the company and interestingly it has a pair of ‘co-presidents’ – Mark Hurd and Safra Katz.

Safra is the Chief Financial Officer who has a pretty powerful CV and seems well qualified for the job of controlling the finances of a $150 billion dollar company.

Mark on the other hand is my favourite IT executive, his tenure at HP is a case study in the entitlement culture of modern managerialism and no small reason for that company’s present day problems.

The analyst briefing (free subscription might be required) following Oracle’s disappointing reports betrays a little bit of tension between the two. First Safra;

We’re not at all pleased with our revenue growth this quarter. So it didn’t help that our quarter ended on the same day as the sequester deadline. What we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force as Q3 deals fall into Q4.

Since we’ve been adding literally thousands of new sales reps around the world, the problem was largely sales execution, especially with the new reps, as they ran out of runway in Q3.

It seems there’s a touch of ‘dog ate my homework’ in mentioning the US political sequester, but the message is clear – “what we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force.”

These are IT sales people we are talking about, ‘a lack of urgency’ is an insult to a group of people who have been known to work 120 hour weeks and sell their grandmothers if it means getting a fat commission.

Mark is in the poo. We quickly learn why when it’s his turn to speak,

We’ve added over 4,000 people to the Oracle sales force in the last 18 months. We’ve significantly expanded our customer coverage. We’ve seen material growth in our pipeline. But Q3 [conversion rates] were below what we expected, while our actual win rate went up.

An investor would hope there’s material growth in the sales pipeline when you’ve added 4,000 salespeople to your workforce.

In Oracle’s case though revenues have fallen .8% for the year and are only up 2% over the time Mark’s added all those go-getting Willy Lomans to the company’s payroll.

The interesting thing with Oracle’s figures is the company has spent nearly $400 million on restructuring costs over the last year, has hired over 4,000 new sales people and yet total operating costs, and margins, have barely moved in that time.

Which indicates somebody in Oracle is bearing the costs of Mark’s hiring spree.

During Hurd’s tenure at HP, he was notorious for penny pinching and cutting worker’s benefits. While staff were finding they were stuck in economy for international business meetings, Mark himself was staying at some of Europe’s best hotels and showing off his bank account to attractive employees.

Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself.

Probably the most perplexing thing with Oracle today are Mark’s and Safra’s roles of c0-Presidents. What on Earth are those roles?

Most telling with the co-Presidents is that they aren’t really in charge – if Larry Ellison, the CEO and founder, wakes up one morning and decides either Safra or Mark have to go then they’ll be out of the company well before lunchtime.

Along with carparking spots, inflated executive job titles are good indicator an organisation’s management is focusing on it’s perks, benefits and privileges rather than delivering for customers and shareholders.

Perhaps Oracle’s analysts and common stock holders should be focusing more on management’s behaviour more than the details of the company’s sales performance.

Social media’s irrational exuberance comes to an end

With the tech industry’s irrational exuberance ending, the focus is now on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Last week saw the annual Y Combinator demo day where the startups funded by the incubator get to strut their stuff and it appears the age of social media hype is over.

In the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog, Amir Efrati reports Social is Out, Revenue is In as the companies showed off their income streams rather than the number of users which has been the measure for free social media apps.

That social media is out shouldn’t be surprising as the services have been tracking a standard Gartner Hype Cycle with a boom in services, coverage and investments that’s now turning into the inevitable bust and a fall into the trough of disillusionment.

Coupled with that fall for social media services are the disappointing stockmarket floats of Facebook and Groupon which have cruelled the enthusiasm for investing in tech startups with lots of user but not much revenue.

Last week’s headlines featuring Yahoo!’s purchase of Summly for $30 million and Amazon’s acquisition of Goodreads for an estimated $150 million show how the days of greater fools writing billion dollar cheques is over as more sensible valuations take hold.

Amazon’s purchase of Goodreads is more interesting than Yahoo! buying a teenage wunderkind’s venture in that Amazon is cementing its position at the centre of the global book publishing industry.

Goodreads has been one of the quiet social media success of recent years having built its subscriber base to over 16 million members sharing book reviews and reading lists.

The book review site is a natural fit for Amazon although the head of the US Authors’ Guild rightly worries the company is becoming a monopoly.

Of course the obvious retort to this is that someone else could have bought the site and Forrester’s James McQuivey speculates on why an established publisher didn’t do so much earlier.

This year’s Y Combinator Demo Day and the acquisitions of Goodreads and Summly show the era of irrational tech exuberance is over.

For good businesses operators and investors this is not a bad thing as everyone can now focus on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Photo of Ashton Kutcher speaking at Y Combinator by Robert Scoble through Wikimedia commons

Taxing the internet

Cash strapped governments are trying to find new ways of raising revenue. Can they find sources online?

On Friday the US Senate passed a motion supporting the rights of states to collect sales taxes on internet sales.

While not a binding vote or a law, this is the latest blow in the fight to control, and tax, online commerce.

The stakes are high, companies like Amazon have built their business models on basing themselves in low tax jurisdictions while many bricks-and-mortar retailers have complained they are at a disadvantage compared to out-of-state or international suppliers.

For consumers a few dollars in avoided tax isn’t the main reason they shop online, most internet shoppers cite a better range, convenience and, in many cases, superior service as the reasons they buy over the web.

But it is clear the online retailers do get an advantage over local stores.

While provincial governments cite protecting employment in their regions as part of the motivation for trying to tax online sales, the bigger issue is the desperate search for sources of revenue to balance cash strapped state and local budgets.

Those budget requirements aren’t going to ease – the global economy is restructuring in a way that doesn’t favour 19th Century levies like sales tax or stamp duty, while aging populations and declining incomes are increasing demands on government services.

With governments caught in a pincer of rising costs and falling revenues, it’s not surprising they are trying to find ways to get more money.

It’s not clear though they’ll win this battle though, the Senate vote is a symbolic gesture and the difficulties of being able to tax all forms of internet commerce can’t be underestimated.

The struggle ahead for local governments also can’t be understated, the public demands more services while administrators have to deal with rising infrastructure costs and the pension liabilities of retired public servants, teachers, firefighters and police.

Even the bravest politician struggles to find the political capital needed to deal with that challenge.

How we tax the internet is going to be a task that will define our governments and society in the first half of this century. We’re going to have to think very carefully about the choices we have ahead.

Tax image courtesy of ctoocheck through sxc.hu

Does Google have corporate Attention Deficit Disorder?

Are Google paying the price of not paying attention to their core business?

The news that Google were releasing a service called Keep designed to store things you find on the web for future reference received a hostile response yesterday.

It seems the company’s dropping Google Reader into the deadpool proved the final straw for many of the tech early adopters who’d invested too much time building their feeds and other digital assets only to find services taken away from them.

This isn’t just Google Reader, various other services are suffering; Google Alerts has become functionally useless while the Frommers guide book franchise is slowly dying after the company bought it from John Wileys.

Corporate Attention Deficit Disorder

Google are suffering corporate Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) where management find a bright shiny thing, play with it for a while then get bored and wander off.

This is trait particularly common amongst cashed up tech companies. In the past Microsoft and Yahoo! were the best examples, but today Google is the clear leader in the Corporate ADD stakes.

Corporate ADD requires a number of factors – the main thing is a big cash flow to fund acquisitions.

In companies with this luxury, bored managers find themselves looking for things to do with all the money flowing through the door and when a hot new product or market sector appears those executives want to be part of it.

So a company gets acquired or a project is set up and the advocate drives it relentlessesly within the corporation, usually with lots of PR and write ups in the industry press.

Then something happens.

Usually the advocate – the manager or founder who drives the project – gets bored, promoted or sacked and the project loses its driving force within the organisation.

Without that driving force the service stagnates as we saw with Google Alerts or Reader and eventually company closes it down.

This has unfortunate effects on the marketplace, users invest a lot of time in the company’s service while innovators in the affected market struggle to get funding as the investors say “we can’t compete with Google’.

A changed perspective

What’s interesting now though is the sea-change in the attitude towards Google’s Keep announcement – rather than dozens of articles describing how competing services like Evernote are doomed in the face of the search engine giant entering their market, most are saying this validates the existing startups’ investment and vision.

More importantly, most commentators are saying they are going to stick with the services they already use because they no longer trust Google to maintain the product.

This is what happens when you lose the trust and confidence of the market place.

One of the mantras of the startup community is “focus” – focus on your product and the problem you want it to fix. That large businesses lack that focus shows how far from being a lean startup they have become.

Google’s real challenge is to regain that focus. Right now they have rivers of cash flowing through their doors but in an age of disruption, it may well be that they could dry up if no-one pays attention.

Ritalin image courtesy of Adam on Wiki Images

The high cost of new media experiments

The BBC’s expensive exit from their Lonely Planet investment shows the costs and risk for old media empires as online business models evolve.

The BBC yesterday sold Lonely Planet to US media company NC2 Media. Their £80 million loss on the venture puts them in good company as established media struggle to find new online channels and revenue streams.

While the losses aren’t trivial, they are not quite in the league of News Corporation $545 million loss on MySpace or Time Warner’s billion dollar adventure with AOL.

All three stories show how tough it is for ‘old media’ adapting to a new landscape.

The problem is there for ‘new media’ as well, most ventures struggle to make money and many of the success stories like Huffington Post rely on a combination of free content and a greater fool buying them.

No-one has really figured out what the new media revenue models are; not the established publishers or the online upstarts.

Lonely Planet’s online success was due to their forums which, like most web discussion boards, can feature discussions politely described as “robust”.

This was always going to a problem for the BBC’s public service management culture and it resulted in the shutdown of the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree forums over Christmas.

So it’s not surprising that the BBC has decided to end its experiment and now the corporation’s management is dealing with the criticism of those losses.

While it’s easy to criticise the BBC for the deal, at least the broadcaster was attempting something different online, doing nothing is probably a poorer strategy than buying MySpace or Lonely Planet.

Over time, we’re going to see a lot more experiments and many will be public embarrassments like those the BBC and News Corporation have suffered, but there will be successes.

Someone will crack the code and they will be the Randolph Hearsts of this century. It could one of the Murdoch heirs, it could be the owners of NC2 Media or it could be some young, hot shot developer working in a Rio favela or the slums of Kolkata.

But it will be someone.

It’s an exciting time to be in business.

You call that a graph?

A good chart can help tell a story, all too often though graphs are designed to mislead.

One way to illustrate a story is with charts. All too often though misleading graphs are used to make an incorrect point.

A Verge story on Groupon shows how to get graphs right – clear, simple and tells the story of how the group buying service’s valuation soared and then plunged while it has never really been profitable.

The vertical axis is the key to getting a graph right, cutting off most of the y-axis’ range is an easy way to mislead people with graphs. In this case you can see just the extent of Groupon’s valuation, profit and loss over the company’s short but troubled history.

Since its inception, The Verge has been showing other sites how to tell stories online, their Scamworld story exposing the world of affiliate internet marketing sets the bar.

Using graphs well is another area where The Verge is showing the rest of the media – including newspapers – how to do things well.

For Groupon, things don’t look so good. As The Verge story points out, the company’s income largely tracked its workforce which grew from 126 at the start of 2010 to over 5,000 by April of 2011. Which illustrates how the business was tied into sales teams generating turnover.

The spectacular growth of Groupon and other copycat businesses couldn’t last and hasn’t. The challenge for Groupon’s managers is to now build a sustainable business.

For investors, those graphs of Groupon’s growth were a compelling story. Which is another reason why we all need to take care with what we think the charts tell us.

Graph image courtesy of Striker_72 on SXC.HU

Risky business – is crowd funding too rich for investors and innovators

Do recent kickstarter failures show that crowd funding is too risky for most entrepreneurs and investors?

It’s sad when a Kickstarter project fails to meet its promises and the story of the Collusion Pen, a stylus designed for iPads, is a salutary lesson of how many people don’t understand when they buy into or set up a crowdfunding proposal.

The idea behind crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter is that artists, designers and inventors can publicise their projects, interested supporters can pledge funds in return for benefits like advanced previews, a signed book or an early version of version of the product.

For the Collusion pen, it’s the early version that’s upset supporters who’ve complained that the device is unusable in its current form.

Not getting the product when it was promised is standard for Kickstarter projects, late last year CNN Money reported how 84% of the site’s top listed ventures missed their target delivery dates.

The reason for Kickstarter’s apparent failures is that ideas are risky. Often, entrepreneurs and artists overestimate their skills and underestimate the scale of the task they’ve given themselves.

Added to this, Kickstarter is an expensive way to raise capital. When another Australian startup Moore’s Cloud went onto Kickstarter to fund their internet connected light, they found that to cover the $285,000 development costs they had to win pledges worth $700,000.

Moore’s Cloud missed their target and have gone on to raising money independently.

Apart from the those risks we set our expectations too high – we believe the first versions will be perfect out of the box and every idea will make the founder a billion.

In his article The Fake Church of Entrepreneurship, US business founder Francisco Dao discussed how much of the start up community is based up on religious beliefs about the sanctity of founders and that everyone can become rich by selling their idea to a greater fool.

The sad thing is that ideas are like armpits – most of us have a couple and almost all of them stink.

Not that people shouldn’t have a go; having a hare brained idea and making it a reality is the foundation of human progress. It’s just that most ideas don’t work out.

Making matters worse is our inability to evaluate risk; notable in the Sydney Morning Herald story are the consumer and investor protection angles.

If someone isn’t getting what they thought they had been promised, then “the government aught to do something.”

The biggest risk of all to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites is that governments will regulate them either as stores or as investments.

As investments crowdfunding projects will be hiring lawyers and bankers to draft densely worded product disclosure statements which will see ventures like Moore’s cloud having to raise a couple of million more to cover their legal costs.

Should crowdfunding be considered as a consumer issue, then projects will have be expected to deliver or face action from consumer protection agencies which would make most nonviable.

The stories of crowdfunding successes have to be considered in the same way as most artistic and entrepreneurial ventures; we hear about the winners, but we don’t hear so much about those who didn’t ‘succeed’.

While we – as consumers, investors and entrepreneurs – don’t think through those risks, we’ll be disappointed in tools like crowdsourcing which would be a shame as its a good way for some ideas to get a healthy start.

Failure image courtesy of cobrasoft on sxc.hu

Employment’s changing face

Is it management’s and white collar workers’ turn to deal with the change of contracting and business process outsourcing?

Last Thursday recruitment company Talent2 launched its 2013 Market Pulse Survey looking at the employment trends across the Asia Pacific.

According to the survey, things are looking good with 61% of businesses across the Asia Pacific forecasting growth and 45% expecting to hire more staff.

However there’s an interesting underlying theme to the good news, employment is changing in large organisations.

One of the give-aways is the fact that while nearly two-thirds of businesses expect to grow in 2013, less than half intend to increase staff. Businesses are doing more with less.

Part of this is because of increased automation. Despite the headlines, productivity is increasing in workplaces – particularly offices – as technology automates many business functions in fields like logistics and workforce management.

Another aspect driving the lack of employment is outsourcing, Talent2 say the proportion of Australians working as full time employees dipped below 75% in 2012 with a four percentage point drop over the year.

With more businesses contracting work out, one could expect the number of sole proprietors to be increasing. However this seems not to be the case.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of sole traders is barely moving – between 2006 and 2011 the number of “non-employing Australian businesses” only increased 5% while the population grew over 8%.

This implies the proportion of contractors in the workforce is actually shrinking.

Much of this is probably due to the work going offshore, particularly to Business Process Outsourcers (BPOs) in countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

Saturday’s Australian Financial Review looked at what the BPOs are doing in the Philippines and they aren’t carrying out the call centre and basic clerical work that’s made up most of the outsourcing over the last twenty years. Now it’s management roles that are going offshore.

The bigger issue confronting Australians, however, is not call centre workers being relocated to the Philippines. It’s low- to mid-level professional jobs, being moved out of companies, accounting firms and law offices.

Legal outsourcing has been growing for a decade as large law firms have moved many of their para-legal and routine tasks offshore to countries where legal graduates are plentiful but work at lower rates than their western colleagues.

An interesting aspect in legal offshoring is that much of the work that was done by young lawyers has now gone to overseas contractors, which probably means there’s going to be a shortage of experienced legal practioners in the medium term. This is going to have profound consequences for law firms and their partners.

It’s also going to mean law and associated degrees are going to be less popular with school leavers as career prospects dwindle.

The biggest impact though is for managers – we’ve grown used to the assumption that management jobs stay at head office while the lower level jobs go to the lowest cost provider.

Now is those lowest cost providers are offering good quality management staff along with support desk and call centre staff.

During the restructurings of the 1980s and 90s, it was blue collar workers who were the most affected by change. Now it’s the turn of the office workers and managers.

It will be interesting to see how many of the people who thought they were secure in their roles deal with the uncertainty they now have. For some it’s going to be a tough decade.

One street, five networks – the madness of rethinking the NBN

One suburban street shows the madness of changing the NBN fibre to the premises policy.

In Technology Spectator today I write about how Australia is risking repeating the mistakes the colonies made with railway gauges on much more grand scale with telecommunications technologies.

With talk of re scoping the National Broadband Network project, despite being four years into a ten year undertaking, it’s important to understand just how foolish this would be an what a mess it will create.

To illustrate this, I’ve gone for a walk along a Sydney street on the Lower North Shore. This suburb is less than 5km from the city’s central business district.

The pillar at the end of the street

At the end of this typical suburban street is a little gray, well guarded but battered pillar. This box is important as it contains the connections to the local telephone network and its replacement will house the distribution equipment for a fibre network regardless of what type is installed.

Interestingly, just the presence of the pillar and the associated manholes nearby indicates there is already fibre in the neighbourhood, one aspect in the NBN debate that’s overlooked is that optical fibre is standard for telco backhaul and distribution networks.

The only reason fibre hasn’t already been rolled out to homes and businesses is the sunk cost of the copper cables. When it’s necessary to replace an entire copper system as in New York after Hurricane Sandy or in South Brisbane after the local phone exchange was sold, then fibre is what telcos will install as its cheaper to maintain.

Plain old telephone lines

Walking down the street we find the first example are those who are going to be stuck with the old copper network under a fibre to the node solution.

What’s notable about that pole is its shocking state – in itself it illustrates just how Australia’s telecommunications networks have been allowed to run down with the underinvestment of the last twenty years.

There’s a very chance the householders connected to those phone lines won’t be able to sustain a reliable ADSL or FTTN connection because of the state of the wires.

Remember, this pole isn’t in some remote part of rural Australia, should you be brave enough to climb it you’d have a wonderful view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, North Sydney and the city. Its state illustrates that underinvestment is just as much a problem in the suburbs as it is in the bush.

Using the Pay-TV network

One the alternatives being touted is using the Pay TV network cables – know as Hybre Fiber Coaxial, or HFC – to carry the broadband signal.

Here’s an example of the Foxtel installations and the poor work quality stands out immediately. The connection on the left is notable for its rain catching properties which doesn’t bode well for what’s happening to the coax cables in the duct lurking beneath the footpath.

As an aside, the sort of poor quality workmanship found in the cable rollout is another risk to the NBN as it appears NBNCo is repeating Foxtel’s mistake of screwing the installation contractors into the ground on their rates. The result is really low quality work which won’t stand the test of time.

Making HFC even less useful is the fact that most Australian properties can’t connect to it.

In one of the best of examples of the drooling incompetence of Australia’s political ‘elite’, the 1990s Keating government managed to engineer a situation where the two cable companies rolled out their networks to the same places – 30% of the country got two networks while the rest received nothing.

The real problem though with the HFC network is that most Australians who can get it haven’t bothered – take up rates in the areas cable is available struggle to hit 50%. So an Abbot government would actually have to pay to connect households to a service they’ve never wanted.

Probably the cruellest part of all with the HFC proposal is the coax network itself is approaching the end of its life and most will be replaced with fibre within a decade. So we’re not saving a cent, just kicking costs down the road.

Apartment living

Even if you lived in that thirty percent of the country that did get pay-TV cable along their street, you were out of luck if you lived in an apartment or townhouse as few strata committees were interested in paying Foxtel install cables and Optus was never interested in MDUs – Multi Dwelling Units in telco-speak.

A little way down the street from the houses photographed above are a group of town houses. Under the current NBN plans, this complex will get fibre. Under the coalition’s it will be stuck with copper.

The worst case scenario is a “fibre to the basement” solution where the fibre is run into the building’s distribution frame and then it’s up to the owners to make the connection using the existing copper phone lines.

In many cases it will never happen as strata managers and committees would keep putting it off, or they’d choose the lowest cost option which would exacerbate the poor work of the overworked NBN contractors.

Tower living

Next door to those townhouses is an eight story apartment block. These people risk being the biggest losers in the new telco environment.

The problem for tower block dwellers is the low quality of the buildings and the lack of space for fibre telco risers. Under the fibre to the premises proposal some of these blocks are going to pose serious challenges to NBNCo.

Should the fibre to the basement proposal go ahead, many of the notoriously penny pinching owners corporations won’t complete the installation.

It’s highly likely that many Australian apartment dwellers are going to find themselves on wireless or LTE (mobile phone) connections for the foreseeable future as both the telco policies and poor building standards are going to deny them access to high speed fibre. This is going to have financial consequences for many landlords.

The risk for businesses

Most Australian businesses which occupy office buildings or industrial estates and they are going to be affected in the same way as apartment dwellers. The solution proposed by the coalition is that they should pay for their own fibre connections. Some will, many won’t and we’ll end up with another set of connections in our commercial districts.

One street, five networks

So just on one suburban street we could have people connecting through the old copper network, the HFC pay TV network, fibre to the basement, wireless and direct fibre for those who can afford it.

This is madness.

What’s even greater madness is that we’re four years into the National Broadband Network project and we’re talking about changing the scope for what’s been billed as one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Australian history.

Praying the luck continues

The Technology Spectator starts off with a comparison to the railway gauge madness of the 1850s. There’s an interesting parallel today.

Two weeks ago, the Australian Financial Review reported that millions had been spent on lawyers and consultant fees on Sydney’s North Western railway yet no work has been done.

On the same day, Business Insider published a story on the extensions to New York’s Long Island Railroad.

Around the world governments from New York to Nairobi are getting on with building infrastructure. In the meantime Australia struggles with building tram lines.

When we do decide to build a major project we get four years into it and decide to change our minds.

The nation dodged a bullet despite having made bad choices with roads and railways in the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries. Australia prospered despite those poor decisions.

If we can’t get telecommunications right then we better hope the luck continues through the 21st Century.