close, but no cigar
“Australia's broadband is rubbish because we abandoned the fibre build”
->
“Australia's broadband is rubbish because we abandoned the all-fibre build”
Like the sun rising, the release of a new Akamai State of the Internet report inevitably leads to opinion columns bemoaning Australia's slide on global league tables for broadband speed, most attributing it to the much-hated “multi-technology model” NBN. We're going to swim against the tide and suggest otherwise: the problem …
Definitely hyperbole, but considering that NBNCo have offerred 1Gbps connections wholesale since Dec 2013 and not a single RSP is offering a plan faster than 100Mbps you would have to admit real money where my mouth is demand must be close to non-existant, especially when you realise the first company to offer faster plan will achieve significant advantage by attracting the early adopters.
Lol Mathew
"Definitely hyperbole, but considering that NBNCo have offerred 1Gbps connections wholesale since Dec 2013 and not a single RSP is offering a plan faster than 100Mbps you would have to admit real money where my mouth is demand must be close to non-existant, especially when you realise the first company to offer faster plan will achieve significant advantage by attracting the early adopters."
You complain believe about how wrong you 50% on 12Mbps. Because Telstra isn't selling 12Mbos lol. Then you have the hide of the 1% on 1Gbps when we use your own argument if no isp is selling it. Now can you give me a new excuse for the 50% on 12Mbps so I can use it on thv1% gir 1Gnpd please
> You complain believe about how wrong you 50% on 12Mbps. Because Telstra isn't selling 12Mbos lol.
WRONG. I provide some reasonable evidence based in facts why the % on 25Mbps is significantly higher than Labor predicted. I then point out that the 12 + 25Mbps is 83% which is significantly higher than Labor forecast.
Can you offer an opinion on:
1. I consider 83% on 25Mbps or slower a worse outcome than 50% on 12Mbps. Can you provide reasons as to why you think it is a better outcome?
2. Is 83% of connections at 25Mbps or slower a good outcome for a network capable of 1Gbps?
3. Are FTTN & HFC capable of delivering 25Mbps?
The 1% on 1Gbps is to point out that unless you consider yourself in the top 1% of Australians by income or can make a very good business case to your employer then under Labor's plan it is extremely unlikely that you would have received FTTP before 2030.
The point that NBNCo have offerred RSPs 1Gbps since December 2013, but do not offer plans faster than 100Mbps is to give you the opportunity to make some informed commentary as to why RSPs are not offering this speed.
Lol Mathew no you don't. Your excuse is Telstra is offering the device is the result of why 50% of user are not on 12/1. You then complain why we don't have 1% when we use your "reasonable evidence based in facts". Because no isp are current offer 1Gbps. So try again with your "facts"
1. More revenue. But apparently that is bad according to you.
2.64% on 25Mbps and higher is a go out come. Considering the country has been stuck on 4Mbps
3. How much is the cost of upgrading the hfc and fttn to deliver 1Gbps 10 years after it's required?
No you don't point out. Right there in the middle of you rant "facts" 2030 there is your fanboy stats right there lol.
Again there you go again here us you excuse right back out you no isp are offering 1Gbps. So where is you new excuse for the 6"60% onn12/1?
> 2.64% on 25Mbps and higher is a go out come. Considering the country has been stuck on 4Mbps
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm also not sure where the 4Mbps comes from. The average speed for ADSL2+ connections is 11.9Mbps according to data from Internode and iiNet published in Fibre to the Node: At what price?. For 80% of customers had access to 6Mbps or faster.
> How much is the cost of upgrading the hfc and fttn to deliver 1Gbps 10 years after it's required?
What you call fanboi stats are a simple progession of Labor's plan. You avoidance of the question is it good that "83% are on 25Mbps or slower" indcates to me that you are a selfish person who expects to be in the privileged 10% with speeds faster than this. Your absence of facts is Trump like.
Lol Mathew well consider more than 50% are choosing speeds faster that the max speeds of afsk2+ but unfortunately it doesn't fit your fanboy status so you ignore it lol.
4Mbps was our internet was our internet from Akamai before the nbn started. The 11Mbps you claim is for lab grade equations of the copper say you are this far away this is the speed you "should " be getting with out even testing the copper lol.
So you won't answer how much it is going to cost to upgrade the network. Now that trump like.
uh. the only reason I chose a slower speed "to the house" is because the CVC provisioning makes it useless to try for more.
in other words, why buy a ferari when the roads are 40km/h.
even though I want to "go faster", I cant.
i'd gladly pay for 1gbps if I knew I would actually get it. working from home would be awesome!
> the only reason I chose a slower speed "to the house" is because the CVC provisioning makes it useless to try for more.
The problem is not CVC provisioning. The problem is that RSPs are overselling the service. Find an RSP that doesn't offer unlimited and doesn't share with another RSP that does.
> even though I want to "go faster", I cant.
In the real world, people leave home earlier / later to avoid peak hour traffic. From all accounts the peak times on the NBN are between 6pm - midnight so working at home during the day should be fine.
> i'd gladly pay for 1gbps if I knew I would actually get it. working from home would be awesome!
Just how much of a premium would you pay? Consider that Labor who touted 1Gbps expected that less than 1% would have 1Gbps connections in 2026.
The alternative is that NBNCo could remove the speed tiers and everyone on FTTP has 1Gbps. Labor would be sensible to consider this as it would expose the technical limitations of FTTN.
Has it occurred to you Richard that maybe, just maybe, fttp is the only thing pushing up Australia's average speeds, because it's the only thing worth a crap compared to ADSL? And hence its kinda insane to be rolling out a patchwork of different technologies, which top out at 100mbit (at best) in real world conditions? (I'll believe it when I see it, hub architecture HFC and Vectoring VDSL Lab tests). People aren't interested in marginal upgrades that are already close to obsolete.
As for market structure, the biggest issue will always be that wholesale fixed line comms is a natural monopoly due to the market cost structure. It's especially relevant since our genius politicians continue to insist on selling off our wholesale FL Comms to private monopolists. This is official policy of both major parties regarding NBN btw. The other big factor driving RSP consolidation was the ACCC's boneheaded POI decision at the beginning of this whole fiasco. The only public figure who seemed to understand the implications at the time was Simon Hackett, as evidenced by him getting the f*** outta dodge soon after.
There. Some actual substantive issues to discuss. Although please do go on with this one-act psychodrama that brings us audience members along to experience the dizzying highs, and crushing lows, of Richard's buyer's-remorse fueled angst.
> just maybe, fttp is the only thing pushing up Australia's average speeds
83% of connections are 25Mbps or slower. This has only increased slightly with the addition of FTTN connections. The reality is that apart from a small minority (13%) most Australians don't care enough about faster connections to pay more.
More than 3 years after NBNCo made 1Gbps plans available ot retailers in December 2013, you cannot buy a plan faster than 100Mbps. Meanwhile Telstra are deploying 1Gbps mobile networks. I'm not suggesting mobile is the answer for reliable high quota plans, but at this point in time in the right conditions mobile data is significantly faster than fixed copper/fibre in Australia for retail customers.
Telstra deploying 1Gbps for boasting rights. Same reason that Labor promoted 1Gbps before the 2010 election in resposne to Google Fibre. Neither party expect many people to connect at those speeds and both parties include quotas to minimise the impact on the network. RSPs spoilt this by responding to customer demands for unlimited internet creating congestion. NBNCo are fighting back by discounting CVC based on the ratio of connections : CVC.
There are also some technical advantages of faster speeds, but only with quotas. Users finish their large downloads more quickly freeing up capacity for other users, rather than taking a longer time to download the content.
Optus have turned on their 1Gbps 4.5G network in Macquarie Park, Sydney. The alternative is that competition between Telstra, Optus & Vodafone is driving up performance and driving down prices, while Labor structuring NBNCo as monopoly has resulted in poor performance.
Pretty sad when FTTP connections are routinely slower than 4G.
Spot on. Moron decision on hybrid (tin can and string) technology and ideological commitment to private ownership of key infrastructure which means...monopoly (or if you're really lucky, oligopoly). You get the politicians (and networks) you deserve. There are worse and stupider things being done ("clean" coal for example) but this makes one despair for the future of the "lucky" country. Might be time to stop relying on luck eh?
> ideological commitment to private ownership of key infrastructure
You are aware that Labor planned to privatise NBNCo as soon as it became profitable?
> You get the politicians (and networks) you deserve.
Cannot agree more. The fibre fanbois ignored criticisms of Labor's NBN plans and instead became Conroy's cheersquad, because they were blinded by the shiny fibre light. The result is a FTTP network with speed tiers where 83% are connected at speeds easily supported by FTTN & HFC.
If Labor had eliminated speed tiers then with 100% on 1Gbps, FTTN would have been near on impossible to justify and HFC challenging. The Liberals are now in the position to instruct NBNCo to remove the speed tiers on FTTN as the variable performance is unacceptable and simply mandate a minimum speed of 25Mbps. Labor's amazing talent in constructing a FTTP network which is slower for 83% than the Liberal FTTN network will be on display.
> Might be time to stop relying on luck eh?
Might be time to stop relying on government hand-outs. After supporting Labor in placing the NBNCo being on budget and deliver a 7% return on investment, the telecommunications industry is now requesting that the value of NBNCo write down the investment by $20 billion. Labor's original budget was < $30 billion.
Might also be time to consider what digital equality means in the country.
- Is 13% on 100Mbps and falling acceptable or indictive of a digital divide?
- Is Labor's plan for less than 1% on 1Gbps in 2026 acceptable or a plan for a digital divide.
>Then politics got involved.<
The NBN was announced/proposed by Kim Beazley as labor leader. It was a central plank in his "infrastructure" policy, which was the center piece of his election campaign.
>Australia's NBN was going to be a sleek looking mouse.<
It was, from the first press release, specifically exempted from the economic examination promised for the rest of the "infrastructure" election campaign platform.
So (1) the idea that /then/ politics got involved is historically false, and (2) the idea that it was a sleek looking mouse is historically false.
This quote from Senator Coonan: Beazley's a telco "bandit" implies at 6Mbps it would have been FTTN.
Beazley's proposed network - which would bring broadband of up to six megabits per second - failed Shadow Spokesperson for Communications, Senator Stephen Conroy's own test for ‘true' broadband (at least 10 megabits per second), Coonan said.
Rudd having deposed Beazley took FTTN to the 2007 election and only switched to FTTP when Telstra blocked FTTN by not responding to the request to build the network.
On average a customer may still only use 5% of the bandwidth they are paying for, but with the rise of Netflix nearly all of them are using it at the same time. I have a blindingly fast connection in the middle of the night and during the day until about 6pm. Then it drops to a mere trickle until almost midnight. ISPs need to realise that the old days of intermittent use for general web browsing and other applications that aren't too bandwidth-intensive are over, and they need to provision better for peak times with much higher and wider peaks than they ever were in the past.
Water, electricity and gas services are metered yet people expect unmetered internet.
RSPs need to ditch unlimited plans / streaming excluded plans, so that people don't leave netflix running as background noise. For example, my kids were watching youtube videos simply to listen to music. Actually spent some money on a streaming service and consumption has dropped :-).
NBNCo could encourage this by basing CVC discounts on combination of quota per user and CVC per user.
People expect unmetered internet because that is the way it is for the rest of the world. People expect Gigabit because the rest of the world is expecting it by 2020. Small countries and large countries, rich countries and poor countries, they will all surpass us in the next 3 years...
> People expect unmetered internet because that is the way it is for the rest of the world.
RSPs in most countries are trying to move away from unlimited plans because a small percentage of users download most of the data causing all the performance issues on the network. Do you have unlimited electricity or water? No because people would waste electricity and water if they didn't need to pay for it. In many places water wasn't metered in Australia, but that has changed. On unlimited plans, people will leave Stan on streaming as backround noise. With quotas people will learn to switch off Stan when not in use.
However, I do agree that customer demand is for unlimited plans and the limited market choice in Australia (essentially TPG, Optus & Telstra) make it difficult for people to pay a premium for performance, because once a company offers unlimited plans on NBN performance drops sharply.
> People expect Gigabit because the rest of the world is expecting it by 2020.
I suggest the reality is that only a few countries are expecting 1Gbps networks across metropolitan areas (cities > 10,000) by 2020. USA, Canada & UK can definitely be excluded from the list.
> They will all surpass us in the next 3 years.
Not unexpected. If you read the NBNCo Corporate Plans released by Labor you can find Labor's expectation for average speed in Australia and the exponentially widenning gap between Australia and the rest of the world. (Exhibit 9.23: Average Speed if you want to check).
You should have read Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plan in 2010 and it would have been blindingly obvious the gap betwen Labor spin (1Gbps FTTP for all) and the fine print (<1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026).
"RSPs in most countries are trying to move away from unlimited plans "
Please list those "RSPs" as I have not seen them...is this something you thought you read somewhere?
"I suggest the reality is that only a few countries are expecting 1Gbps networks across metropolitan areas"
And you would be wrong...
https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/tmt-pred16-telecomm-dawn-of-the-gigabit-internet-age.html#full-report
According to Deloitte (and most other research firms now...)
"we forecast about 600 million subscribers may be on networks that offer a Gigabit tariff as of 2020, representing the majority of connected homes in the world"
New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, China, India, (just to name a few in this region), and most all countries will have a Gigabit offering to their entire populace by 2020. All of them are unlimited as well...
Sorry to burst your cool hypothesis, but it just doesn't hold up to the facts.
> Please list those "RSPs" as I have not seen them...is this something you thought you read somewhere?
Try google. Just like wasteful people would leave a tap running if water wasn't metered, wasteful people will leave a video stream running when they are not watching it.
> "we forecast about 600 million subscribers may be on networks that offer a Gigabit tariff as of 2020, representing the majority of connected homes in the world"
Lets unpack that statement based on the the report:
- In 2016, only 10 million on 1Gbps out of 250 million connections capable of 1Gbps.
- In 2020, between 50-100 million out of 600 million (5-10% of all broadband connections)
By comparision Labor planned for <1% of NBN connections to be 1Gbps in 2026. At least they were honest about their plan leading to an increasing gap between Australia and other nations.
> most all countries will have a Gigabit offering to their entire populace by 2020
Unless it is a mobile or satellite data service I seriously doubt this for countries like USA, Indonesia, Thailand and most other third-world countries. In the rich suburbs of major cities on Java I can see that happening but beyond Java most islands rely on satellite.
Even Labor's plan was to cover only 90% of Australia with FTTP.
Did you miss the bit in the article from which I quote:
"The other fiber technology, known as Fiber to the Cabinet (FTTC) is unlikely to deliver Gbit/s speeds in 2016, but an evolution of the technology known as G.FAST (also known as Fiber to the Street, or FTTS), in trial phase in 2016, should offer speeds in the hundreds of megabits per second (Mbit/s), and Gbit/s (with the headline speed an aggregate of uplink and downlink speeds) by 2019, if not earlier. For carriers with copper-based networks, FTTS could offer much higher speeds over existing copper connections running into homes, significantly reducing the upgrade costs."
With Telstra rolling out 1Gbps mobile this year. This will be fastest retail plan in Australia by an order of magnitude.
It appears you don't even read what you post...the article from 2008 that had some wild speculation about Comcast adding limits is more proof that they do NOT want to do it, for if they did don't you think that in 9 years they might have done something?
You also didn't read any of the articles that you or I posted and appear to be doing nothing but trolling...
Even if only 5 to 10% take up the connection, it says that 600 Million (the VAST majority of homes) will have a connection that is usable at 1 Gbps. So your "feeling" is obviously grossly inaccurate as apparently most of your "points" appear to be.
Just because not everyone owns a car is no reason to not build highways...
You apparently have no idea what G.Fast is...and it is not being developed here at all or anywhere for 2020 deployment. The TRIAL will hit Gbps in 2019, not a deployment.
You continue to Trumpify these very old articles and claim that together they have some bizarre meaning, much to the degradation of your reputation...
> It appears you don't even read what you post...the article from 2008 that had some wild speculation about Comcast adding limits is more proof that they do NOT want to do it, for if they did don't you think that in 9 years they might have done something?
Did you check for a more recent article? I suggest searching to learn that Comcast did implement quotas and last year boosted them from 300GB to 1TB. I included an old article show it wasn't a new idea.
> 600 Million (the VAST majority of homes)
World population is currently 7.5 billion. Approximately 2.5 people live in each house in West and China. If you look at poor contries the number is higher, but falls steeply as wealth increases. Lets assume 4 people per house, that would be 1.875 billion households. Most people would struggle to call 1/3 the vast majority of homes.
> Just because not everyone owns a car is no reason to not build highways.
Poor analogy. Building an NB with speed tiers is the equivalent of building multi-lane highways where the slow lane is capped at walking pace while the fast lane doesn't have a speed limit. Labor predicted NBN demand to be such that in 2026 less the 2026 less than 1% would travel in the fast lane.
Toll roads also typically don't charge an access fee. They simply charge a usage fee.
> You apparently have no idea what G.Fast is
All I did was cut-n-past a quote from an article you referenced to provoke a reaction. I made zero comment as to the validty of Deloitte's statement.
> You continue to Trumpify these very old articles and claim that together they have some bizarre meaning, much to the degradation of your reputation.
Who is making baseless statements that have been shown to be wrong?
A better example of holding a position which denies the evidence would be fibre fanbois who refuse to acknowledge that for 83% of Australians who have chosen 25Mbps speeds on the NBN there is no perceptible difference between FTTP, FTTN & HFC.
My guess is you are in the 13% (and shrinking) who want the government to subsidise their internet connection. If you were in the 1% who Labor predicted would connect to 1Gbps in 2026 then I doubt you would care because $20,000 for FoD would be pocket change.
Um, sure they are but they sure as hell don't make you pay for the number of litres of water you use as well as the water pressure that is supplied. or the number of kW/Hrs of electricity but limit the number of watts you can draw. So why do we pay for Megabits and the number of megabits per second?
water, electricity and gas consume a resource directly.
'using' an internet connection does not - use as many packets of data as you like. no animals will be harmed in the process.
yes, there are infrastructure costs, but these are already factored in.
the cvc is the issue, its an artificial + heavy impost with no real basis in how the service is actually provisioned.
there is literally no difference in cost to providing the 25mbps or 100mbps service. its literally 'clamped down' artifically.
yes, it costs more to deliever a 1000mbps service, but thats ok too - just charge the actual cost of providing the service.
unfortunately, we just chose a bad model for recovering costs.
> 'using' an internet connection does not - use as many packets of data as you like. no animals will be harmed in the process.
WRONG! Those packets require require electricity to move. Last time I checked climate change was harming animals.
> yes, there are infrastructure costs, but these are already factored in.
WRONG! NBNCo GPON architecure is 2.5Gbps more data flowing across the network will require upgrading GPON and internal routers.
> yes, it costs more to deliever a 1000mbps service, but thats ok too - just charge the actual cost of providing the service.
WRONG! Every single FTTP connection is capable of delivering 1Gbps with no physical change. The cost of the hardware remains the same if it is turned on or not and irrespective of the speed. It is only when multiple customers start to transfer data concurrently in sufficient quantities that the limits in GPON and routers are reached, meaning that NBNCo need to upgrade hardware.
> unfortunately, we just chose a bad model for recovering costs.
Something we agree on. Labor chose a dogs breakfast for cost recovery: An artificial model containing high access charges and high data charges. The Liberals are tweaking the model slightly by reducing CVC costs to reduce the portion of revenue from CVC so that AVC prices cannot be reduced as quickly (if at all) ensuring that demand for higher speeds is muted.
Labor wrote in the NBNCo Corporate Plan:
"Despite the movement of residential consumers up the speed curve shown in Exhibit 9.12, the growth in AVC (PIR) ARPU is relatively modest. This reflects the small price differential between AVC tiers, and the decline in prices for the higher tiers. However, the consequence of more End-Users moving to higher speed tiers is reflected in the significant rise in the contribution of the CVC to overall ARPU, as increased speed drives increased usage."
AVC should have been set at <$10 wholesale to encourage everyone to connect. As services using more data grow, people will naturally increase their usage (e.g. Stan streams become high quality 4HD streams, instead of highly compressed SD with out the user touching anything). Every so often high end customers reach their quota and upgrade plans, enabling RSPs to purchase more CVC.
CVC revenue increases as quotas increase providing NBNCo with the revenue to upgrade hardware and reduce the CVC pricing. Reduced CVC pricing enables RSPs to increase the quota on plans as we've seen with ADSL.
A higher proportion of revenue from CVC incentivises NBNCo to offer faster speeds and maintain a congestion free network. For example upgrading from GPON2.5 to GPON10 has the potential to increase CVC revenue 4 fold delivering a rapid return on investment. The alternative is a high connection fee (AVC) meaning that NBNCo have less incentive to reinvest in the network because very few will upgrade. Evidence for this is the 13% and falling on 100Mbps and the inability of RSPs to develop a viable business case for faster NBN connections.
Lol Mathew.
At least you have changed your furphy of fttn being faster than fttp lol. Even when. It's only a little.
If you remived speeds on both fttn and ftp which would be faster?
Now instead of trying to show a false statement to suit your claim and compare apples with apples lol but you won't do that proves you wrong everytime.
Btw how's the 50% going to be on 12Mbps for labor plan. Please use speed take up figures from nbn co media release when answering. You used go on about that one until it was shown to you it's a LOT less than they planed for.
> If you remived speeds on both fttn and ftp which would be faster?
The point of asking the question is to make people realise how you can build a good technical solution and then have Labor politicians completely ruin the capability with an artificial pricing model that includes speed tiers.
In the retail market today, the internet connections with the fastest peak speeds are 4G. Crazy world isn't it?
> Btw how's the 50% going to be on 12Mbps for labor plan. Please use speed take up figures from nbn co media release when answering. You used go on about that one until it was shown to you it's a LOT less than they planed for.
What Labor didn't include in their forecast was that Telstra wouldn't offer 12Mbps plans which has distorted the take-up figures. The total of 12Mbps + 25Mbps is ~20% higher than Labor forecast.
Labor predicted that by now 250Mbps plans would be close to 10% Instead we find 0% on 250Mbps and 13% and shrinking on 100Mbps.
I'd hardly call that a success for high speed NBN. Do you?
"the internet connections with the fastest peak speeds are 4G"
Due to the actions or inactions that the Coalition are performing which have totally decimated the NBN, that is probably true...though many on FTTP are faster, the 4G connections are more ubiquitous. One could say that this was a plan created by the NBN Co Directors (most of whom are Telstra shareholders) to bolster their own earnings...
"Labor predicted..."
No, they never did...creating a business plan is not a "prediction". But considering that they had control for only a year of commercial rollout, it is hard to fault anything they did as most of it has been done by others...
> Due to the actions or inactions that the Coalition are performing which have totally decimated the NBN, that is probably true.
For 83% of Australians connected at 25Mbps there isn't a perceptible difference between FTTN, HFC or FTTP. More accurately you might say for 13% and shrinking who are willing to pay for 100Mbps connections switching to FTTN has reduced their options. Now this is only 13% within the FTTN footprint and these people have the option of moving to a FTTP area. Further it has to be acknowledged that the demand for 100Mbps service is more likely to come from younger people within society who are more likely to live in apartments, many of which are serviced by FTTB.
> though many on FTTP are faster, the 4G connections are more ubiquitous
The evidence shows that 4G average speeds are already faster than 31% of NBN 12Mbps connections and trending towards being faster than 83% of NBN connections.
> No, they never did...creating a business plan is not a "prediction".
Business plans typically set out what you hope to achieve. Typically they include a comparison with competitors. Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plan clearly documented how speed tiers would result in a low take-up of fast plans leading to Australia falling behind.
> But considering that they had control for only a year of commercial rollout, it is hard to fault anything they did as most of it has been done by others.
Labor's pricing structure for the NBN and an instance that it make a return on investment have shapped the NBN more than any other change. If Labor were still in power then all the evidence suggests that 83% would still be connecting at 25Mbps or slower as this figure has barely changed with the addition of FTTN to the network. The only change made by the Liberals to the financial mdoel was to reduce the price of CVC faster than Labor planned.
Labor's NBN plan was only ever going to deliver the promised benefits to a minority of the population (currently 13% and shrinking). On a social equaity basis this would be sufficient justification for cancelling the project as a policy which is not delivering.
> Mathew you know it's 14% on fttp currently paying for 100Mbps while it was only 7% on fttn paying for 100Mbps.
Actually I don't. The 13% on 100Mbps comes from nbn 2017 half year results and in particular slide 10 of the attached presentation which only presents a breakdown for fixed line. Can you supply a source for your numbers?
> IF fttn is so good as you claim we should be expecting the same %
My point is not that FTTP is theoretically faster than FTTN, but that for 83% of Australians choosing 25Mbps or slower FTTN, HFC & FTTP deliver essentially the same experience. This is the practical outcome of Labor's decision to build the NBN network with speed tiers, as distinct from their spin about building a 1Gbps FTTP network and failing to highlight their expectation that <1% would connect at those speeds in 2026.
If you believe in a FTTP only network then what is your justification for 83% of Australians (and growing) only having speeds limited to those available on HFC & FTTN.
Is it equitable that Labor predicted in 2026 less than 1% will have a 1Gbps connection?
Are we maximising the innovation potential of the nation with speed tiers limiting 83% to 25Mbps or slower?
Mathew I have told you before we're those figures are but you just fail at asking them again. But they are for the accc report it's easy just google it. It also shows that that the Cvc between all isp is just 1Mbps
No you point is you use oranges to apples it's a failed argue you keep on stating. Is the cost and time frame to upgrade again for fttn and hfc worth it. As building for speeds now and not in for when it's complete is a joke.
And again the 1Gbps lol here is your excuse again no isp is selling 1Gnps what's your next excuse?
If you believe in only 25Mbps when other countries has already delivered 1Gbps and soon to be 40Gnps connection. Your then happy for us to teside in the backwater of the Fifita economy.
Are we maximising the innovation potential of the nation by delivering tech other countries have done up to a decade ago and are already looking at upgrading there networks again? You you got want you want we will be devaded behind the rest of the world.
> And again the 1Gbps lol here is your excuse again no isp is selling 1Gnps what's your next excuse?
Why call facts an excuse? NBNCo have made 1Gbps plans available to RSPs since December 2013. There must be a reason RSPs are not selling these plans, especially when you consider the first to do so would capture the early adopters.
> If you believe in only 25Mbps when other countries has already delivered 1Gbps and soon to be 40Gnps connection.
Are you happy with the outcome of Labor's plan being 83% on 25Mbps or slower connections?
> You you got want you want we will be devaded behind the rest of the world.
Clearly you are so distracted by my explanations of the reality of Labor's plans (<1% on 1Gbps in 2026) versus the spin (1Gbps FTTP for all) that you've misunderstood my argument. Removing speed tiers from a 1Gbps network would deliver the innovation you desire and also make HFC & FTTN performance look second rate. Sadly the reality is that Labor designed a network where only a very privileged few will ever see the speeds and associated benefits available elsewhere.
Before you can fix a problem you need to determine what the problem is. It has been very clear since 2010 that speed tiers on the NBN would create a digital divide in Australia between rich & poor.
What facts here is your excuse as to why 50% are not on 12/1. There must be some reason Telstra not offering 12/1 it's been abiable since the start of the nbn.
Wrong labor plan was to have 50% on 12/1 but there are more people on higher plans would you say that's a Success.
Lol Mathew speed tries creating a digital device that's a classic. But your model is the poor subsided the riches connection. Instead of the ones paying for the faster connection sudsising the slower connection. Labor didn't design a network for the privileged few. The coalition your Fabius have plus as creating a digialtal decide. There is an aritcle on aren't if a customer on fttn 1km from the node he would have pay for a faster service if he could get it but can't. Now YOU expect him to pay up to 100K for FOD when it would have costed nbn a fraction of that and would have made it back from the customer on the faster service. That's what you failed to understand stand.
Or how about the current take up.
With fttp it cost the same to nbn doesn't matter what speed the customer has. Now if nbn doesn't make a profit on the 12:1 cost of $24. But makes a $3 profit on the 25Mbps that's a $2.4 profit. But the ones on 100Mbps currently $14 profits. With current users that's a $2.8m profit. Do the 100Mbps is makeing nbn more money than the 83% you keep complaining about.
That was labor model. The ones that wanted TO PAY for faster speeds paid for the rest. Not with your fanboy MGM service they miss out on unable to deliver faster speeds to the ones the WANT TO PAY for it.
Yes but your are only looking through fanboy eyes and think that is where the problem is lol. So trump like.
So you claim of a good technical solution is to build a network that delivers snywhere from 5Mbps to 100Mbps where everyone pays the same price.
Lol Mathew you know Telstra 1Gbps claim is for 1 user on 1 tower. At 10 user it's 100Mbps each.add 40 users it's 25Mbps funny that's.
But Mathew you kee harping on about 83% on 25Mbps or less which is still more than what labor was aiming for isn't it. So really the take up figures are better than what labor predicted. But are now worst than what coalition has predicted
> So you claim of a good technical solution is to build a network that delivers snywhere from 5Mbps to 100Mbps where everyone pays the same price.
WRONG. I have never claimed that FTTN or HFC or 4G is good technical solution.
What I have stated is that for 83% of Australians if you remove the speed tiers from FTTN, that their connections will be faster than FTTP with speed tiers. The point of this is to show how bad policy can ruin a better techical solution.
> But Mathew you kee harping on about 83% on 25Mbps or less which is still more than what labor was aiming for isn't it.
SORRY but very WRONG! Labor predicted in the NBNCo Corporate Plan that 25Mbps and slower connections would be under 60% by now and approaching 10% of connections would be 250Mbps.
> So really the take up figures are better than what labor predicted.
Instead we find 0% on 250Mbps and 13% and shrinking on 100Mbps. I'd hardly call this a better than Labor's predicted outcome. I'm curious as to how you can see this as better.
I really suggest you read the NBNCo Corporate Plans to understand that for a document that was promoted as 'conservative' has been shown to be extremely optimistic. It is worth looking at Labor's updated NBNCo Corporate Plans where they increase the percentaage on higher speed plan based on early connection data which was heavily biased towards early adopters.
By discounting CVC, the LIberals are very effectively forcing NBNCo to source more revenue from AVC reducing the demand for higher speeds. Clever policy which has support of the fibre fanbois, but will result in more people choosing cheaper slower plans.
Lol
Mathew claim fttn is faster than fttp and no data to match it up. So trump
Like lol.
Considering fttn has 62% on 25Mbps and only 9% on 100Mps you really think it's faster. Consider the speed claim Use fttb which is completely different to fttn lol.
Lol Mathew what about your Fanboy Mtm corporate plan of wanting 30% on 100Mbps by 2020 when labor plan was only 20%? That's very conservative isn't it. The fact is you fanboy model can't even deliver that's connection.
So let's help you if you have 1 apple selling for a dollar and only sell one. But the next day you from the price to 50c and sell 2. You are generating the same revenue are you not. The Cvc price was always going to come down as demand went up. Thus making the same revenue or more revenue. Now unfortunately the nbn isn't dropping it fast enough as the Cvc is only 1Mbps between all isp. Because if they did you want show how slow you fanboy copper really is
In past years it appeared that Aus might be slipping down the tables because the increased uptake of smart phones increased the number of devices connected at the low end of the "high-speed internet" scale. We never got a definitive answer, and this year I can't even view the white paper without registering, which I can't be stuffed doing.
There are two reasons ISP's cannot afford to provision enough bandwidth to suit higher bandwidth plans. There's the CVC charge in and of itself, and also the stupid decision of the ACCC to increase the POI model from 14 to 121 points of interconnect. The additional cost burden of this model effectively killed competition in Australia's broadband market, and increased by an order of magnitude an ISP's connection costs.
Ironically this change was forced by the "Competition Authority" which appears to have destroyed our broadband market in order to protect the back-haul fibre assets of the big 4 who.. funnily enough several years later, now own the market.
Sadly the fibre fanbois supported Conroy in claiming the 121 PoI decision was not an issue even when Simon Hackett wrote NBN Points of Interconnect and the future of competition way back in December 2010.
How many people have less than 1 megabit. That is the number that counts.
1 meg is enough to watch Netflix. And also use all web apps.
But less than that and you have no internet at all.
It is the minimum that counts. NOT the average.
Very few people have any need for more that 12.5 megabits. If 12.5 megabits was significantly cheaper than 25 megabits, very few would take up the latter option.