John Linton
I am getting the impression that either I have completely lost the plot in looking at the short, medium and long terms 'trends' in the Australian communications industry (or perhaps I never had any sort of 'grasp' of it in the first place) or an increasing number of other people have lost touch with reality. Why do I say this?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23247524-5014239,00.html
I know it's just another article based of a few whingers blown up by some 18 year old cub journalist but, even taking that view, the iiNet spokesperson has, apparently, made some amazingly strange statements the pick of which, to me, was:
We're breaking new ground here... It has been a fantastic learning process in terms of getting our processes right, and we refine them on a daily basis
...which seems to say "we didn't have a clue how to do this and aren't we wonderful because we keep having to fix our procedures/processes every day and still haven't got them right after 4 months".
Of course pick your own statements and your own view of what the article says about iiNet's abilities to manage a simple process that is about as difficult as crossing the road on a green light and, contrary to Mr White's claim, is NOT pioneering and is a common practice in the industry.
Exetel, as one example, has been delivering 'naked' ADSL2 since December 2007 and there is no way that a user can 'lose' their telephone and internet service in the process for more than a few hours, at worst, and more often never lose either service at all in the cut over process. Average time from order to activation is around 14 elapsed days (during which the customer's current telephone and internet services remain unaffected). The 14 days has been slightly lengthened over the past month in the more heavily rain affected areas but these are a minority and cause no loss of service or other inconvenience to the end user.
Then there was this:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23234050-24169,00.html
Now I may be wrong on many 'facts' relating to the Australian communications industry but I'm fairly certain that Internode is a part of the G9 consortium and therefore found this statement very hard to understand:
More than half of all internet users are content with 512Kbps internet service and unwilling to pay more than about $40 to $50 for internet access: less than both the G9 and Telstra are expected to charge under current FTTN proposals.
Does this mean that Simon Hackett is effectively saying "Internode is part of a bidding group trying to get hold of $A5+ billion of the federal government's money (plus then invest our own money) to build a network we know no-one wants and won't buy because it's too expensive". ??????
I could point out that this comment is almost commercially suicidal in being made at all but if taken with the other comments ascribed to him in this article seems to paint a picture of a bewildered person making a series of self contradictory statements in an attempt to "hope it all goes away soon" as we've painted ourselves into a corner due to our own/personal hubris.
Earlier yesterday I'd had a 'coffee meeting' with someone we have known for a while and have done business with over the past three years who has recently moved to a 'competitor'. He seemed to be adding to the noticeable trend of smaller Australian companies in communications investigating 'joint venture' opportunities and, who knows, there may actually be some real benefit in looking at how mutual assistance can produce equally beneficial gains to both parties: I'll be interested to see what he comes up with.
Later in the day I had lunch with my eldest daughter who has just left Telstra Country Wide after three traumatic and depressing years. Her views, anecdotes and assessments of the inside workings of Telstra during the TMT inter-regnum were evenly split between making me laugh followed by producing far more sombre thinking.
When I got back to reading my email later in the afternoon I found yet another "offer too good to refuse" from one of Exetel's more persistent suitors who had now "raised their offer by 50%" and changed the consideration to "cash on the barrel head". (I haven't heard/seen written that archaic phrase for a very long time and never in 'business' correspondence - perhaps they have more old fashioned English language teaching in 'Little Odessa'?). While I'm sure there is some rationale behind buying 'user bases' for more money than they will ever produce in profit, I've never been able to see one.
So in the span of less than one business day I was 'deluged' with a series of "straight from the horse's mouth' statements that as a totality expressed a tidal wave of conflicting/contradictory views of where various parts of the communications markets and technologies were going and why they were going there.
There is a lot to be said for simply putting your head down and doing what you believe is the best you can based on your own views of what that might be.