The sad demise of Australian car manufacturing

Australia is about to lose its car manufacturing - regardless of what side of the political spectrum you support this is a sad thing - but it simply was not standing on its own two feet and was over reliant on taxpayer support to survive.

While all that sad news was breaking I read a very interesting article which showed how Volkswagen make incredibly high margins from their prestige brands - for every Porsche they make around $23,000 profit (18%) with Bentley similar and Audi (including Lamborghini) about $5000 profit or an average of about 10% - compared with only $800 or 2.7% for their mainstream like Golfs and Passats

This made me wonder if Australian car plants might have stood a better chance of survival if they had lifted out of "mainstream vanilla" car production where, lets face it, the Australian domestic market is not big enough and production not large enough to really compete with the mega plants in Korea, Japan and Europe. 

There was a glimpse of what could be done when Holden designed and made the Monaro in Australia- (about 10 years ago I think) - a true muscle car but generated a lot of sales overseas - maybe if Holden had seen the niche they could have went on to be a specialist Aston Martin /Porsche/Ferrari/Lotus type manufacturer. Mass market car manufacturing was always doomed in Australia unless supported by government - but specialist, high specification, top range, low volume with very high margins vehicle manufacturing may very well have succeeded. Wouldn't it have been great to have an iconic world beating Australian car marque?

NOTE: The article was in Business Week and can be seen here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-13/volkswagen-pockets-23-000-when-you-buy-that-new-porsche

Possibly My Shortest Blog Ever.

Doing things on the cheap is NOT innovative thinking...

The Wireless and mobile site build industry and its race to the bottom....

I am saddened that, every day, people are dying in my industry - even sadder when the majority of these deaths could have been prevented.  This week three riggers lost their lives in the US in a preventable accident.

What we are seeing with financial and time pressures on jobs is a (now literally deadly) race to the bottom - cheapest equipment, cheapest labour rates, fastest schedule for roll-out (seldom achieved - right??).  And why is this?

I see several reasons but the main is a flow of price chains being driven downwards in a farcical arrangements where even major vendors are holding reverse auctions to get the cheapest prices for components (even for towers)  - and the same with labour rates with continual downward pressure.  THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO BUILD A QUALITY NETWORK - EVER!!!!!

(A balanced Time/Cost/Quality triangle)

What is wrong with this, as we are seeing now, is this race to the bottom has casualties - in a network terms its long term quality of service from build shortcuts, in human terms its peoples lives and safety - and the irony is the carriers/ operators are the ones who will suffer customer complaints and churn when their network quality problems come home to roost.  Worldwide there are countless examples of this. Their network coverage, data speeds and even deployment speeds and overall site costs would all be better with a change of approach.

The network operators (and their equipment vendors in turnkey roll-outs) need instead to change the focus from COST and onto that of VALUE - big difference -in fact its a huge difference but when innovation comes in, when contractors are making reasonable money and ways of delivering value are used then you see productivity going up, you see safety improving and also the quality of the network and hence its reliability statistics improve out of sight.  Operators need to look more closely at the value they are getting in network builds and upgrades - taking a whole of network life cost look not a "cheap and nasty " now look.

(When you cut costs and time - guess what goes out the window - network quality, build quality, including safety)

And when you run projects like that they are more cost effective than disasters where every cent is squeezed out of the supply chain.   This cost cutting and time focused approach means that there is a lot of dud project managers, dud logistics people and even duds in the guys at the industry front-line - but you pay peanuts you get monkeys - and other than throwing poo around (and isn't it usually their own...), monkeys have a limited use on a telco project!!!  In the end the quality of the delivered site or network will be compromised as short-cuts are taken and the cheap work fails.

When you look at sports teams you don't see many champion winning outfits that try and get the very cheapest of cheap players and then get them to work with the very cheapest equipment they can find for them.

I dont have the answers on how we need to implement this everywhere but it needs action pretty much worldwide to get out of the crazy ruts major projects always seem to go through.  I do see some glaring areas in Australia that could be improved straight away though.

As Benjamin Franklin famously stated:  “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten”

Apologies if this is a bit of a rant - but I am saddened than every week I seem to read of a climber somewhere in the world not going home to their family at night because of the above.

Is it just me or is this really obvious...

So - the Australian government didn't make quite as much as expected from the "digital dividend" - the spectrum auction that was to sell off the 700 MHz spectrum freed up by the analogue/ digital TV switch-over.  Not only that the spectrum authority ACMA has been left holding some sizeable chunks of spectrum that didn't sell - spectrum that is ideal for LTE .

Meanwhile the NBN roll out continues to hit problems - this time asbestos fibres in the pits - which regardless of if its Telstra or NBN Co who is ultimately responsible, the pits are being disturbed as a direct result of the NBN roll-out.  Combine that with recent announcements about delays to the network and the number of connections made and its not happy reading.

We also know that many areas are not going to get fibre rolled out for ten years or so.

So - here are some ideas:

1. The spectrum that was not sold could be allocated to NBN Co for the greater good of the Australian people.
2. A LTE wireless broadband network could then be rolled out very quickly - which would allow more people to connect and start generating income for NBN Co.
3. At the same time fibre deployment should continue but the wireless layer would give greater understanding of demand areas so greater efficiency in deployment could be made
4. After the fibre has been deployed in an area the wireless service would become a premium service with limited mobility - so that connectivity could be achieved in cafes, on the beach - anywhere really.

This approach would allow the deployment of a meaningful level of connection that would still be better than available in many areas (only 500m from my house people can not get ADSL and NBN is not forecast for 5+ years) and overall the high level of service that is fibre to the home would be delivered in a timely manner where the demand was.

Seems simple and I am sure there would be a myriad of issues to resolve - but it also might be better than the way its going today...

Today in History - (and how to motivate your team.)

In 1915 a clergyman from Tasmania the Rev Frank Bethune enlisted in the Army - he could have chosen the rank of major and become a Padre but instead chose to be a commissioned officer (2nd Lieutenant) in an infantry unit.  By March 1918 he was a Lieutenant with the 3rd Machine Gun Company and at that time the German army was using new tactics (including the use of "storm troopers") and had re-captured much ground.  Bethune's section was tasked with the defence of an area of the Ypres Salient known as Buff Bank - while his whole section volunteered he chose 6 men to defend the position alongside himself.  Meanwhile the nearby Australian and British troops were moved back to prepare for counter attacks leaving the 7 men dangerously exposed to attack.
On 13th March 1918 Bethune wrote his orders to his section as follows:

Special Orders to No 1 Section 13/3/18
(1) This position will be held, and the Section will remain here until relieved.
(2) The enemy cannot be allowed to interfere with this programme.
(3) If the Section cannot remain here alive, it will remain here dead, but in any
case it will remain here.
(4) Should any man through shell-shock or other cause attempt to
surrender, he will remain here dead.
(5) Should all guns be blown out, the Section will use Mills grenades and
other novelties.
(6) Finally, the position, as stated will be held.
F.P. Bethune Lt
O/c No 1 Section.3

Despite continuous artillery barrages of high explosive, shrapnel and gas
shells and attack after attack by German storm troopers they held the position for 18 days.  Bethune was awarded the Military Cross and his orders were circulated widely as ‘an admirable model of all
that a set of standing trench orders should be’

Many years later at the 1999 rugby world cup final, Millenium Stadium in Cardiff and the Wallabies are about to take to the field to play France - the coach, Rod MacQueen, gathers his team together - doesn't talk tactics but reminds them of a visit they had made to an Australian WW1 war grave cemetery in France and the row upon row of crosses for fallen Australian Diggers - and then he told them the above story - with the finishing note "And guys, they held that position"  As soon as he finished the team took to the pitch without another word being uttered.

How do you reckon they went?  Do you think the hairs stood up on the backs of their necks as they stood and sung "Australia Fair"?

The use of inspirational stories in team motivation is very, very powerful and should not be underestimated.

(BTW they won 35-12 against a strong French team that were favourites after beating the tournament favourites  the All Blacks in the semis)

Camouflaged Sites or Screening

As more new sites are built and existing sites upgraded there is a very noticeable trend emerging - sites themselves are becoming more visually intrusive and the public do not like it.  Analysis of the NBN Co Wireless roll-out reveals tower rejections at Scottsdale in Tasmania, Yandon in Moorabool, Victoria, Napoleons and a few others all primarily because of the aesthetics - councils were faced with members of public not liking the visual impact of the presented designs from NBN Co.  Now the NBN Co wireless roll-out is an interesting case because most of us that have worked in the Australian mobile industry for a few years have traditionally experienced regional communities working very positively towards provision of services in their areas - but now the visual impact of towers and not EME concerns are driving resistance.  In rural areas it is perhaps just that vertical infrastructure has reached saturation point with protests against wind farms and so on - but its clearly a trend that visual impact matters.
 
In urban areas and back to mobile networks this concern may be more pronounced - many rooftop sites are having more antennas and equipment like RRU's added so the visual "clutter" of sites is increased.  Larger antennas that allow infrastructure/ frequency sharing will add to the problem and while still "low impact" under the Telecommunications Act determination - they may not be seen as low impact visually by landlords or the surrounding public. Traditional means of "hiding" the antennas by setting them back from the roof edge will be obsolete due to the revisions to exclusion zones and access requirements for building maintenance workers - and the need to maximise RF coverage be being on the building edges.  All this of course is activity going on now - before networks integrate (or are created) for the 700 MHz spectrum.
 
Here is some suggested solutions: 

1. Photo Montages -Back in the early days photo montages were used for the purpose of showing landowners what the developed site would look like - but they were expensive to have done.  Now with digital cameras and Photoshop they are fast, easy and inexpensive.  Prepare them and use them - with landlords, with neighbours and with councils - pictures tell a better story than drawings and can show the expected view from any particular point.  (Tip - make sure you do them accurate and to scale - you will be caught out if you dont!!)

2. Can the site be rescoped? - Can smaller antennas be used?  can that redundant equipment be removed? Think how you would feel if you had to look at it every day.

3. Screening- Sailcloth works but it is a short term solution and if it rips in the wind you end up with a maintenance issue - needs replacing every 5 years to maintain effectiveness - (will that really happen?)

4. Camouflage Solutions The only real solution when required - replication of parapet lines, re covering of plant rooms with Rf transparent screening.  Stealth can be colour and texture matched to ant surface including old sandstone on listed historic buildings.  Make sure that your supplier can supply Rf tests that show the performance of the screen as some materials do create losses, particularly for microwaves.

5. Smart Site Design This is the easiest, most effective and completely underused solution.  Make sure that your site designers "get" the visual impact side of things and you will get good results that are not visually offensive.  Some big roll-outs end up with inexperienced people on the design side and it can cause problems,

Update on the rising cost of power...

I am interested to see that the rising cost of power has become a political issue here in Australia as the government desperately try and separate the rising prices of electricity that are due to the cost of "post and wire" renewals and that which the carbon tax is going to cause (actually the carbon tax impact is minimal just now but may rise in the future as subsidies fade out).  Interesting to see just how much power has gone up recently and I would really like you to look at your networks power bill now and compare it to what you were paying 5 years ago - with more pain yet to come

In one of my recent blogs I went over some of this: http://telcotom.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/rising-cost-of-power-one-of-subjects.html - while I would like to claim it was my blog that started all this political uproar I think thats over inflating my readership just a bit!!

What is clear though is that one thing this political bun fight will not do is turn back the tide of rising electricity costs - so wireless and mobile operators here are still faced with rising power costs at a time they are trying to reduce costs.   Thats why it makes even more sense to deploy energy saving technology right now - the longer you wait the more money is getting burnt.

Our business partners in this sector, Orun Energy have just posted some fantastic results from case studies - not results from a lab but real sites, single and multi operator sites and the power cost savings are impressive - see : http://orunenergy.com/case_studies.html .  Bear in mind for suitable customers we can retrofit your network at no CAPEX cost to you and it becomes compelling.

As I concluded my previous blog if there was a way of installing a network wide solution that not only made the sites more efficient but reduced their power consumption drastically (over 80% certified on diesel sites) and that solution came at no cost in capex - then wouldn't you as a wireless or mobile network operator want to deploy it?

In actual fact the question really is:  "faced with rising power costs can you really afford not to deploy it?"