nbn says Telstra's copper in better shape than expected nbn, the organisation building Australia's National Broadband Network, says the copper network it acquired from Telstra requires less remediation than it budgeted for. At a press briefing today the nbn CEO Bill Morrow said he ordered a review of the state of the copper network. “I had a team do a survey of pits out there,” he …
> Morrow's recent consultations with other telcos around the world suggest there is no market in which demand for gigabit-per-second services is foreseeable.
Hardly surprising news. Labor predicted that in 2026 less than 1% on FTTP would be connected at 1Gbps. NBNCo have offered 1Gbps FTTP wholesale since December 2013 with zero RSPs providing a plan.
I think there is a market in Australia for 1Gbps services, but only if speed tiers are removed and users are educated that at least initially 1Gbps will be rarely be reached. Of course with 1TB/month plans, downloading at full speed would last you just over two hours. Over time more data centres and servers would be upgraded to server content to multiple clients at 1Gbps and all sorts of novel solutions will be developed.
However currently with 79% on fibre connected at 25Mbps or slower, that sort of innovation doesn't seem possible in Australia. I'm flabbergasted that Labor built a 1Gbps FTTP network with an average speed of 34Mbps which is slower than MTM FTTN (83Mbps). It takes a special kind of talent to achieve that.
Mathew can't you cut the BS
FTTP current average is 100Mbps or even 1Gbps if they wish to upgrade the ends points.
FTTN current has the same average speed teirs average is only 34Mbps. Which average top peak speeds on FTTN is 83Mbps. 20% less than FTTP but costing the same price.
But has a hard limit of about 10Mbps once the mode is full.
The fact that is there are 65% picking 25mbps or higher which is 20% more than what they are expecting
And there you go about speed teirs again. So if we remove speed teirs off FTTN. And used you electrical analogy from delimiter. You want people that only get 2 lights builds and a microwave of power to pay the same price as people who get to run every thing in there house.
Only fibre can do no speed teirs as it gives the same service like the current electrical grid does.
> FTTP current average is 100Mbps or even 1Gbps if they wish to upgrade the ends points.
I think you are confusing average speed on the network today and the theoretical limits. The FTTP average speed is currently 34Mbps, whereas on FTTN it is 83Mbps. Why is FTTN faster? Easy because only the early adopters have connected so far and predominately chosen 100Mbps plans. What are the implications of this? If NBNCo chose to remove the speed tiers on FTTN because of variability in line speed. The 79% on 25Mbps or slower would see their speeds increase by 3-7 fold.
> But has a hard limit of about 10Mbps once the mode is full.
Do you have a reference for this figure?
> The fact that is there are 65% picking 25mbps or higher which is 20% more than what they are expecting
Only 25Mbps plan selection is higher than expected, and this is explained by Telstra not offering 12Mbps. Every other speed tier is lower than expected. 100Mbps services are down 3% in 12 months. Overall demand for speed is less than what Labor predicted.
> You want people that only get 2 lights builds and a microwave of power to pay the same price as people who get to run everything in there house.
If you choose to run every appliance in the house 24/7, then you expect to pay a significantly higher electricity bill. Keeping the supply charge low and adjusting the usage charge up to generate the same ARPU means that people have the ability to increase their usage if the situation demands it.
My proposal is that people are charged for the data they consume rather than only an elite group of rich people receive the benefits of FTTP.
Lol Mathew
It's not peak average it's the average that FTTP can achieve. So if we remove speed teirs everyone would currently get 100Mbps not the 34Mbps you are trying to claim against a none teir FTTN.
If the removed speed teirs from fun not all customer speeds would in crease. NBN is only required to deliver an Iup to 25Mbps connection for 1 sec a day even if your paying for 100Mbps. Here is a change Turnbull claimed we would have a min 25Mbps not upto can you just give one company in the would that gives a min25Mbps.accessories
Current people on FTTN are getting hitting peak time congestion for most isp not providing enough cv cvc and are getting as low as 2Mbps. The hard limit so far is the node has 2Gbps back haul and with an average of 192 ushered none gives an average peak time of just 10Mbps.
Lol you totally missed the point about your electricity analogy. If the electric company follows the same setup as FTTN. You would have some customers ONLY be receiving a 2 light bulb and microwave with of power ONLY. If they require extra power to run a TV they have to pay the FOD of $10k plus while others don't have to pay any extra. So the only way to increase there usage is to pay extra to upgrade there connection. What your claiming about removing speed teirs only would work for FTTP because like the electrical power grid everyone receiving the same connection.
But then what is the point of building a $56B network which is only require to deliver an up to 25Mbps. When for $8B more you could have a network which has the potential to deliver 1Gbps. Far enough people a chiding lower speeds now. But when that demand increases which according speed requirements double every 2 years people will be requiring around 50-100Mbps by 2020. And the current network can't even deliver that to everyone. With out paying a lot more than the $8B it would have been to do it the first time.
> When for $8B more you could have a network which has the potential to deliver 1Gbps.
There is a big difference between potential and actual. If Labor's FTTP was delivering it's potential overseas companies would be looking at piloting technology projects in Australia, but that simply isn't happening. Meanwhile elsewhere in the world, networks are being built where 1Gbps is the only speed available.
> What your claiming about removing speed teirs only would work for FTTP because like the electrical power grid everyone receiving the same connection.
Removing speed tiers worked perfectly well for Internode in the ADSL -> ADSL2+ upgrade, so it will be fine with FTTN, HFC, etc. Speed tiers are also not found on 4G. You are correct that removing speed tiers does justify building FTTP. With Labor's speed tier model, FTTN is perfectly justifiable because it meets the requirements of at least the 79% choosing 25Mbps or slower and more.
> But when that demand increases which according speed requirements double every 2 years people will be requiring around 50-100Mbps by 2020.
You might like to believe that is the case, but the trend on connections at 100Mbps is downwards (3% drop in last 12 months). If you look at Labor's predictions a small elite will connect at the fast speeds available on fibre while the rest connect at slower speeds that could be provided on copper.
> And the current network can't even deliver that to everyone.
Curiously the average speed on FTTN is 83Mbps, whereas on FTTP it is 34Mbps. This might give you a clue as to why Labor's policy beyond the 'Let's build FTTP because Telstra wouldn't submit a bid to build FTTN" has been a complete disaster for the country.
Fanbois of FTTP who wanted their fast connections, failed to realise that most people (>79%) aren't prepared to pay for a fast connection, therefore it is perfectly reasonable that they expect you to pay for the build of fibre to your house if you want a 1Gbps connection.
"When for $8B more you could have a network which has the potential to deliver 1Gbps."
Again you kissed the point but happy to speed $8B less on the second rate option.
"potential overseas companies would be looking at piloting technology"
With out national average of just 6Mbps up from 4Mbps before the NBN started why would any come here. Only Netflix turned up recently because our upto 24Mbps which according to your logic is fine as it is. Is so bad then didn't want to come.
"Removing speed tiers worked perfectly well for Internode in the ADSL -> ADSL2+"
So again your fine paying for 1Mbps on an upto 24Mbps which from your statement becuase 79% is chiseling those speeds is perfectly fine and no need to upgrade.
"Speed tiers are also not found on 4G."
As from you statement you don't know how it works so no point explaining it to you.
"FTTN is perfectly justifiable because it meets the requirements of at least the 79% choosing 25Mbps or slower and more."
But our current ADSL delivering up to 24Mbps meets that requirement so why spend $56B for a 1Mbps increase.
"You might like to believe that is the case, but the trend on connections at 100Mbps is downwards"
Didn't know it was 2020. But then the current MTM are expecting similar figures as well.
"Curiously the average speed on FTTN is 83Mbps,"
You know that 83Mbps includes FTTB as of a leak docu they only had 30K connect on FTTN since mid February. Then also contradicts you 79% claim only want 25Mbps or less.
"a complete disaster for the country"
No what was the privatisation of Telstra was as a document from 1992 had a plan for Australia to get FTTP by 2010. Telstra failed tender shown it willingness to hold Australia back. As well going from a $44B FTTP build being complete by 2021 to now a MTM $56B build complete by 2020.
"Fanbois of FTTP who wanted their fast connections, failed to realise that most people (>79%) aren't prepared to pay for a fast connection, therefore it is perfectly reasonable that they expect you to pay for the build of fibre to your house if you want a 1Gbps connection."
Again failed statement as the one paying for the faster connections are paying more then the 79% that don't.
But you no teir claim does exaltly that what you claim.
> So again your fine paying for 1Mbps on an upto 24Mbps which from your statement becuase 79% is chiseling those speeds is perfectly fine and no need to upgrade.
What I'm suggesting is that if you personally require a service which is at significantly higher standard than the rest of the community, then you should expect to pay for that privilege. That might mean either moving to a FTTP area, moving close to a node or paying for fibre on demand. House prices vary considerably based on the location which is influenced by schools, public transport, closeness to the CBD, etc. Internet access is just one of those variables and a fibre on demand connection is likely to be less than the cost of a kitchen renovation.
> But our current ADSL delivering up to 24Mbps meets that requirement so why spend $56B for a 1Mbps increase.
25Mbps is the minimum speed for FTTN and some premises are being connected with FTTP even now because of the distances involved. Your statement sounds like a fibre zealot who cannot look independently at what the technology offers.
> You know that 83Mbps includes FTTB as of a leak docu they only had 30K connect on FTTN since mid February. Then also contradicts you 79% claim only want 25Mbps or less.
WRONG! What we see with the FTTN connections is that the early adopters are connecting first and choosing the faster speeds as more people connect on the cheaper, slower plans the average will trend downwards, to the point where in 12-18 months time I would expect it will match the 34Mbps on FTTP.
> Again failed statement as the one paying for the faster connections are paying more then the 79% that don't.
The ARPU on the NBN is 30% of what is required to balance the books. The growth in revenue is expected to come through people downloading more, not purchasing faster speeds. If you remove the speed tiers then people will download more simply because it is possible, which will bring the $/Mbps CVC pricing down more quickly.
Currently the prices on the NBN are discounted compared to the true cost and if people don't start downloading more data then prices may need to rise. 79% on 25Mbps or slower is a concern that this might occur.
If you were willing to pay the true cost of a fibre connection to your house and could afford 1Gbps speeds under Labor then the cost of fibre on demand wouldn't be a concern.
> As well going from a $44B FTTP build being complete by 2021 to now a MTM $56B build complete by 2020.
I don't really trust either of those figures, as government projects rarely come in on budget. Labor's history of the cost overruns and delays on FTTP provide ample evidence to expect that costs would continue to rise.
> But you no tier claim does exactly that what you claim.
WRONG! What causes performance problems during peak time? 5 100Mbps users on a 100GB quota or 100 12Mbps users on unlimited? Yep, the 12Mbps users flooding the network, because the 100Mbps users are limited by there quota.
Removing speed tiers gives everyone equality of access, makes FTTP justifiable and provides a key incentive to NBNCo to continuously upgrade the network to remove internal congestion because internal congestion will limit revenue growth.
No what you are saying is people who get a poor Quilty broadband should pay for a better service while paying for those that already do. So people should pay $10k plus for the same connection others get for free.
First you claim FTTN is at average which is wrong. We don't know what average FTTN does as NBN won't release it seperate to FTTB. Then are you expecting FTTN speed to drop due to. Speeds it's unable to deliver or take up choice.
"25Mbps is the minimum speed for FTTN"
Lol 25Mbps is not the min, it's the min up to speed. NBN is only required to supply a 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day doesn't matter if your paying for 25Mbps or 100Mbps as long as you can get that 25Mbps for 1 sec your connection is fine. Or better can you give me one place any where in the world that offers a min connection speed than isn't FTTP. Your statement shows you have know idea about the techno holy you are talking about.
"expected to come through people downloading more, not purchasing faster speeds. "
So there is no reason for speeds at all 56K is enough by your standards or even our current up to 24Mbps ADSL fits that.
"I don't really trust either of those figures, as government projects rarely come in on budget. Labor's history of the cost overruns and delays on FTTP provide ample evidence to expect that costs would continue to rise."
That may be so but a $4B increase for FTTP with a target for 2021 in 3 years vs a $27B increase and target increase from 2016 to 2020 in just 2 years which is the better option.
"WRONG! What causes performance problems during peak time? 5 100Mbps users on a 100GB quota or 100 12Mbps users on unlimited? Yep, the 12Mbps users flooding the network, because the 100Mbps users are limited by there quota."
Lol first you don't know if they will change there habits on a 12Mbps unlimited plan. But the biggest laugh is claiming 100Gb for the 100Mbps that the biggest joke ever. Let's flip it becuase we know people who pay for 100Mbps are planing to use it would be looking at the biggest cap they can fine.
What would happen to your model then lol.
> First you claim FTTN is at average which is wrong. We don't know what average FTTN does as NBN won't release it seperate to FTTB
Find the article on the Register this month where I quoted Morrow in the Senate Estimates committee.
> Lol 25Mbps is not the min, it's the min up to speed. NBN is only required to supply a 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day
Yet another FTTP fanboi myth. You do realise that Labor's FTTP was also peak information rate (PIR)? If you study the AVC rates there is a 5/5Mbps committed CIR AVC plan for $300/month on top of your standard AVC plan.
> Let's flip it becuase we know people who pay for 100Mbps are planing to use it would be looking at the biggest cap they can fine.
WRONG! In your very biased world towards heavy downloading that would be the case, but for the average person 100Gbps is perfectly adequate and for Grandma more than adequate. Your inability to understand that there are usage patterns outside your own is the perfect example why FTTN is being built. If you want a national FTTP network then you have to provide a reason that the 79% on 25Mbps or slower understand.
"Find the article on the Register this month where I quoted Morrow in the Senate Estimates committee."
Morrow touted that the average speed on FttN connections sits at 83Mbps down and 36Mbps up. However, in the morning, NBN said that those numbers also included fibre-to-the-basement (FttB) users. Sorry Mathew you fail try again.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/fttdp-becoming-better-option-than-fttn-but-premature-for-entire-nbn-morrow/
"Yet another FTTP fanboi myth"
Is that the best you can come up with when its in NBN documents. What's even better is if you get 5 dropout a day your connection is fine too lol.
But let's look at the docu
FTTN 100Mbps pir of 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day
FTTP 100mbps pir of 100Mbpd for 1 sec in a fay
But here is a challenge for if its a fanboy myth give just one isp that gives a min 25Mbps or just to make it easier for you a min 12Mbps. Must not be that hard if it's a fan boy myth.
And yet you have still fail to explain why HFC getting a free upgrade to 3.1. You claim they should be paying for it but how come they are not.
Lol you assume people buying 100Mbps is going to use 100gb when there are currently ADSL plans higher than that. Yes a grandma on 12Mbps and 100gb is perfectly fine but you expect someone of100Mbps to purchase the same quota is quite amusing and complete bizarre just to try and prove your point.
> Lol you assume people buying 100Mbps is going to use 100gb when there are currently ADSL plans higher than that.
If a person's requirement is for occasional high speed connection, they they may not require a quota higher than 100GB
> Yes a grandma on 12Mbps and 100gb is perfectly fine
Have you understood nothing. Grandma is not fine because she lacks access the eHealth services that the NBN was supposed to bring.
> but you expect someone of 100Mbps to purchase the same quota is quite amusing and complete bizarre just to try and prove your point.
What I find completely bizarre is your assumption that everybody matches your usage profile and the expectation that Labor's failed plan can be fixed simply by reverting to FTTP.
If a person's requirement is for occasional high speed connection, they they may not require a quota higher than 100GB.
That might be so but to use it as your point is laughable.
Have you understood nothing. Grandma is not fine because she lacks access the eHealth services that the NBN was supposed to bring.
Wrong again FTTP can have up to 4 connection the health dept may make another connection for that purpose.
What I find buzzard are that trying to prove a point first you claim people are picking speed teirs now and then claiming what expected take up figures in 10 years time to try and prove your point. Then claiming people on 12/1 will be using more data than 100Mbps. Yes you will get some exception to the rule but it not every case like you want to claim.
How that failed FTTN claim of 83Mbps btw have you found an Isp the delivers a min 25Mbps yet.
I think Matthew's electrical analogy is correct. Everyone gets (effectively) unrestricted potential (burst) usage but you pay for volume (data) consumption. When data limits exist, speed tiers only makes sense if you have variable terminating equipment costs, there's no benefit to turning down fiber speeds except for market/market segmentation.
As for 100 mbit services trending down, this is a major infrastructure project. You don't hobble it based on one year's data. We know speed and capacity requirements rise and we're planning for well in advance of current requirements. That's why it should be done as a government project and not a Telstra one.
> As for 100 mbit services trending down, this is a major infrastructure project. You don't hobble it based on one year's data.
Except it isn't one year of data. It is a consistent trend from the first year of connections. This is to be expected as the late adopters connect to the network and select cheaper / slower plans.
P.lee
Does Mathews example works for FTTN where you max speed depends on distance and quality of your copper where you may only able to getting less that 25Mbps vs someone else in the street getting as Mathew likesto claim 83Mbps. He then expects the people getting less than 25Mbps to help pay for the connection of the ones getting 83Mbps. As he like to state above they may only use 100Gb while getting less the 25Mbps are using more. But on top of that they want faster speeds have to pay even more again than done that gets that service for free.
This discussion about copper or fibre for the household connection is so much of bullshit I cannot stand that. Other countries had the same discussion decades ago - and this discussion lasted a minute with the result that copper to the endpoint is just fine for many decades to come. It is a simple calculation to sum up a number of >gbit copper connections and "how many Tbit to the exchange?" for each distribution hub on the streets? Now you do the numbers and get the point.
> Other countries had the same discussion decades ago
Other countries are also installing FTTP without speed tiers. The only reason 1Gbps is available as a speed tier is that Google Fibre was announced prior to the 2010 election and Labor felt they had to respond.
> Now you do the numbers and get the point.
The numbers clearly show that Labor didn't expect people to connect at 1Gbps (<1% in 2026) and the fact that zero 1Gbps plans are available from RSPs today demonstrates that with the current financial model established by Labor these plans are simply not viable.
I suggest checking out real estate advertisements and check how many mention FTTP being available. So far I haven't seen a single one and agents will normally include anything that might be a positive selling point.
How much of it and how much will it cost me per month? If there is a technical fault will they be able to blame the electricity supply and force me to involve yet another party, the electric company, in isolating and rectifying the fault? Who pays for that (as if I didn't know)? Mr Morrow's 'NBN' is a dog's breakfast and I'd rather not be forced to eat it thanks.
"I don't really trust either of those figures, as government projects rarely come in on budget. Labor's history of the cost overruns and delays on FTTP provide ample evidence to expect that costs would continue to rise."
Is that why the LNP took SIX reviews before it found one that agreed with its' murder of FTTP and why their cost has doubled while delivering a network that the ex-head of British Telecom has said, FTTN was the worst decision that we (they) made.
.....but for the average person 100Gbps is perfectly adequate and for Grandma more than adequate.
Matthew, have you actually asked any Grandmas if that is "more than adequate". Mmm, thought not. High def video calls to family can eat through your monthly allowance. (Though I am pleased to see you have decided to provide a massive increase in bandwidth. Perhaps this was in one of your mystical articles you suggest we all try and find)
FTTP was destroyed only because it was a Labor idea. No consideration was given to the long term merits of the project just that it was a Labor project and had to be ripped apart. It was a political decision and not one based on any other considerations.
Perhaps Turnbull should be saying, "There has never been a more exciting time for politicians to screw over the Australian taxpayer."
Why the big lie, they want to get past the idea that the Australia government spent billions of tax payer dollars on a network that was going to be scrapped at a loss and that the owners had received money for that loss.
So 10% purchase commission in tax havens for that buy. Watch the lies fall apart, the copper network is crap and is getting worst.
So bullshit PR tests and site with newish copper just a decade or so old rather than a bunch of decades. The NBN was just turned into a major rort by the LNP, not just buying up a network that was to be scrapped at a loss (that tax payer dollars had funded) but on the purposeful delaying of the NBN each year of delay means more profits for the existing players telecoms and media empires.
Blatant public corruption.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
