Slow nbn being overtaken
I know Labor tried to build a FTTP network but I'm still not sure why when they planned to have less than 1% connected in 2026.
417 posts • joined 29 Sep 2011
I know Labor tried to build a FTTP network but I'm still not sure why when they planned to have less than 1% connected in 2026.
> Whatever speed you want to run at, fibre is going to do it
Unless you put speed tiers on the fibre resulting in 79% connecting at 25Mbps or slower
> you will have to roll it out at some point anyway
For the less than 1% that Labor predict will connect at 1Gbps in 2026?
There are many good reasons for FTTP, but 5G isn't one of them.
For your statement to be true it requires that a 5G base station is installed in a very high percentage of premises. It is more likely that nodes (e.g. FTTN) will provide about the right level of distribution for 5G.
The biggest improvement in internet speeds rural speeds since 2007 has come not from the NBN, but from the backhaul links that were installed across the country making it viable for ISPs to install their own DSLAMs in smaller townships.
> not long afterwards we'll know if the ALP's efforts resonated with voters
The reality is that 79% of voters who have connected to FTTP have chosen to connect at 25Mbps or slower. These speeds are easily obtainable on FTTN, FTTB & HFC which suggests the average voter is simply unlikely to care.
Anybody remember the 2013 NBNCo Corporate Plan that Labor refused to release prior to the 2013 election?
Anybody remember how hard it was to find connection figures for the NBN when Labor was in power?
I'd suggest Labor also has history about keeping NBN information secret.
Let's be honest here most of the Labor bashing comes from fanbois who think their 1Gbps connections are being taken away. Labor's plan was that in 2026 less than 1% of connections would be 1Gbps. The reality is that on Fibre only 16% and falling are connecting at 100Mbps, while zero people have connected at faster speeds.
One of my favourite products for teaching kids programming is Kano, but visit the website http://kano.me/ and see if you can quickly work out which apps the distribution provides to teach programming.
Useless website for forwarding to a teacher give them a quick overview of how they could use it in the classroom.
> So the article is wrong, unless people are stupid enough to agree to install random certs into their browser (game over anyway).
Or installs some malware into the machine, or has to install a certificate to connect to a VPN, or ...
> I have a device in school that intercepts all SSL, decrypts, analyses for keywords, and then SSL's it again to send upstream to website. But you can't do that without a lot of client interaction and basically control of the client machines.
So do most corporate networks and almost all corporate PCs are connected to a domain which gives that level of control. In summary if your computer belongs to a domain you can assume that the corporate firewall is decrypting your traffic.
The FTTP dream was killed by Labor's financial model which included speed tiers. The reality is that 79% on fibre have connected at 25Mbps or slower. For these people FTTN, HFC, wireless & FTTP don't make a noticeable difference.
Labor had the opportunity back in 2008 to structurally separate Telstra and build a world class 1Gbps network. Labor should reviewed their policy after Telstra refused to work with them on their original FTTN plan. Labor talked about the opportunities that 1Gbps would provide (eHealth, eLearning, etc.) but planned to have less than 1% connecting at 1Gbps in 2026!
> There is also the fact that key projects such as historic telephony and current NBN rollout have the potential to affect the wider economy, so just measuring the ROI of the project itself (eg Will NBN make a profit) becomes almost meaningless. The overall gains are much larger than can be measured by NBN profitability.
Except that isn't how it was sold by Labor.
If your 'national good' stance is correct and I would not disagree then either 79% on fibre connecting at 25Mbps or slower indicates that 25Mbps is adequate, especially when you consider Labor's prediction that very few on these speeds would migrate to higher speeds.
> These are the types of projects where governments and tax dollars should be involved.
Except that governments seem particularly bad at managing projects like this. Possibly paying Google $20 billion would have been good use of money.
> if Australia had gone full FTTP perhaps things would be different.
Sadly that is not the case. Labor's choice to introduce speed tiers mean that on fibre 79% of connections are 25Mbps or slower.
> We might not know for another 10+ years.
In 2026 Labor's plan was for less than 1% to be connected at 1Gbps and close to 50% connected at 12Mbps. Hardly visionary.
> This is about more than personal choice and someone being happy with the minimum amount of something that they need to be happy.
The challenge is that currently 79% connected to NBN Fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower. That means more than 80% of the electorate simply don't care about the difference between FTTN, HFC or FTTP.
> Australian Technologists, in the past took pride in being a technology leaders, hard to continue doing that when we have fallen well behind with one of our core technology infrastructure components - communications.
We were behind in the rollout of ADSL, HFC and every technology since then with the exception possibly of mobile.
> Do you know what your suburb's rollout schedule was prior to the 2013 election?
Fanciful? My suburb was on the stage 2 maps published by Labor prior to the 2010 election. We might be on a rollout for 2017. Prior to the 2013 election we weren't on the rollout schedule.
> I didn't know 250/100 was 1Gbps speeds lol.
But it is faster than the 100Mbps which is the limit on the page you linked to.
Quoting from "Home > Sell nbn™ services > Products, services and pricing"
We have created a single product construct across the fibre, fixed wireless and satellite technologies called the nbn™ Ethernet Bitstream Service (nbn™ Ethernet). This provides peak wholesale downstream speeds ranging from 12 Mbps up to 1 Gbps and upload speeds ranging from 1 Mbps to 400 Mbps, depending on the delivery technology utilised*.
For actual pricing: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-price-list_20150201.pdf
> Yet the figure you keep quoting the current MTM have even worst figures but you are fine with it.
I never said I'm fine with it. I said that for 79% connected at 25Mbps it won't make a noticeable difference. Since yourself and many others who I'm assuming expect to be in the top 5% and willing to pay $200+/month for internet don't have an issue with 79% on 25Mbps I'm content to pay for FoD and write it off on tax.
> The fact you want to keep low incomes on sub standard service.
Speed tiers is what is keeping the 79% on a sub standard FTTP service. Changing to FTTN or HFC hasn't changed that. Changing back to FTTP won't change that.
> Lol no speed teirs on FTTP and it would be at least 10 times faster than what FTTN could ever get to. Or are you trying to claim copper is faster than fibre.
I'm not claiming that copper is faster than fibre, except when you have a Labor government in power.
> NBN is not selling 1Gbps anymore.
What evidence do you have for that 1Gbps is not available? Skywest are purchasing 250/100Mbps and throttling it to 100/100Mbps.
> Lol then why are you not quoting the current spin with the MTM
Plenty of others are spending time on that. My concern is with the seemingly rational people who are easily distracted by bright shiney fibre in the same way that 2 year olds are distracted by a lollipop.
6 years ago, I pointed out that for many rural townships where FTTP was deemed uneconomical by Labor that FTTN would deliver better results. The main part of many rural townships is commonly within 1-2km of the exchange so FTTN will deliver better performance than wireless.
Of course this ignores the bigger issue that inadequate and/or expensive backhaul is the limiting factor for internet in many rural townships. Solve that and I expect the locals would quickly solve the problem of fibre to the community centres and main streets.
It is people like this that are the reason I quote 79%, not myself. When NBNCo come rolling down the street it is likely the neighbours will have already joined together for a FoD upgrade and that almost all of us will write it off on tax.
> FFS Mathew42 how about you take your 79% broken record figure and go play it somewhere else.
Because this is the reality of just how badly Labor screwed up the NBN.
I find it almost ludicrous that if speed tiers were removed on FTTN, that a minimum of 79% of customers would see a speed increase over FTTP and for some that would be as large as 7 times faster.
> Of one of the business sector that I have tech experience with, if 10Gbps was available then 99% would sign up immediately.
At what price? If price wasn't an object then these businesses would have either:
1. Moved to a business park / CBD with 10Gbps fibre
2. Arranged for installation of fibre.
In the real world since 1Gbps plans were first offered by NBNCo in December 2013, not a single RSP has offered a speed faster than 100Mbps for sale. Considering that there is a massive advantage for the first person to offer 1Gbps plans.
This suggests to me that the acceptable price point in the business sector you mention is well under $1000/month.
> Why is your head buried so far up your arse that you can't see the benefit of FTTP for the whole of Australia?
The only people who will truly benefit from 1Gbps FTTP are the top 1% who can afford to pay significant monthly access fees for 1Gbps services. Labor's plan required that ARPU rise from the initial $32/month to well north of $100/month. These people don't care about the cost of FTTP versus FoD because it is a fraction of their monthly income, significantly less than 1% of the value of their house and either paid for by the company or at worst a tax deduction.
When you provide evidence that the NBN will provide the truly fast >100Mbps services that enable effective video conferencing and other services to people who are mobility challenged and financially challenged then I'll stop quoting 79% at 25Mbps. In the meantime I'll quote Quigley to explain the difference between spin and reality:
"With the quality of high definition that you've got, being able to come across this sort of a network, you could easily have a quick hook-up and actually work out, 'OK, do I need to take him to hospital, or could we keep him at home?'," Mr Smith said.
But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN's most basic package.
"You certainly can't do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream -- it's impossible," Mr Quigley said.
> Why would anyone want to hide the availability/takeup of higher speed connections on the NBN?
The NBN numbers are available on the NBN website in the Media Centre under "Speeches & Certifications".
Slide 9 has the speed tier mix.
- 79% on fibre connected at 25Mbps or slower
- 16% on fibre connected at 100Mbps (down 3% in past 12 months)
Basically Labor were overly optimistic on the number of 100Mbps connections and under estimated the proportion of 25Mbps connections.
The point you are missing is that rather than the upgrade from FTTN to FTTP being a cost to NBNCo, it will be a cost borne by those wanting an increase in speed. An expense to NBNCo becomes a profit centre.
The NBN was doomed from the beginning by an incompetent Labor government. Labor went to the 2007 election with the plan to build FTTN but post election, Telstra were uncooperative, which resulted in a series of face saving decisions from Labor.
1. Changed to FTTP overbuilding HFC and ignoring FTTN as an option in rural towns
2. Set an expectation that NBN would be profitable and plans would start at the same price as ADSL
3. Introduced speed tiers to enable a cheaper starting price
4. Steeply discounted initial ARPU which need to rise from $32 to over $100 quickly to meet ROI
5. Spin about eLearning & eHealth when Labor's own Corporate Plan says requires a minimum of 100Mbps.
6. In response to Google Fibre, announcing 1Gbps just prior to the 2010 election and omitting to mention Labor's expectation that in 2026 <1% would be connected at 1Gbps.
7. Expensive decision such as
Labor had several better options:
1. Forcing Telstra to structurally separate, using mobile spectrum as the carrot
2. Forgoing early profits to deliver uncapped speeds
3. Inviting Google to build NBN (1/1Gbps) with financial incentives ($20 billion would have been a bargain)
4. Selling a concession to operate and build each PoI based an analysis of areas of greatest need
Of these the worst mistake was introducing speed tiers. This stupid decision meant that suddenly FTTN, HFC and even 4G were competitive on a speed basis for the 79% opting for 25Mbps or slower.
Mark wrote "Nearly all the broadband available to consumers in their homes - where they might watch a nice 4K episode of House of Cards via Netflix - can’t support a 4K stream." which he should have finished with including FTTP where currently 79% of customers have chosen 25Mbps or slower and 16% (down 3% in last twelve months) are prepared to pay for 100Mbps. Currently it is not possible to buy a connection faster that 100Mbps, despite the fact that NBNCo made these speeds available to RSPs in December 2013.
Labor crippled the NBN with speed tiers to the point that if speed tiers were removed from FTTN it would be 2-7 times faster that FTTP for more than 80% of customers. It is not unreasonable to expect that the 16% (and falling) who want faster speeds than average should expect to pay for the privilege.
Labor predicted that close to 50% would connect at 12Mbps on fibre. Telstra have decided to only offer 25Mbps & faster speeds, so many of Telstra's customers that might have chosen 12Mbps have chosen 25Mbps.
Latest figures from NBNCo are 79% on 25Mbps or slower and not a single RSP is offering speeds faster than 100Mbps. NBNCo released speeds up to 1Gbps in December 2013.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Only works if you are supplying the same level of service to everyone.
Guess what water pressure varies also. If you are close to a distribution point, then it is likely that 2-3 people can shower at the same time. If you are further away then only one person can shower and running the washing machine won't work.
> Hang on 78% using 25Mbps or less. So what you are claiming is we should go back to 56k
Firstly it is 79% choosing 25Mbps or slower.
Did you miss the example I gave of the elderly being able to stay in their homes longer with HD video conferencing? My point is we should set a minimum standard, and anything beyond that standard should be priced accordingly. 79% selecting 25Mbps or slower suggests that this is a reasonable standard, that the general public agree with.
Your argument is "I want 1Gbps internet, so we should build a FTTP network. The fact that 79% are connecting at the unacceptably slow 25Mbps speed is irrelevant." This argument has been rejected by the Australian public. If your argument had been "The minimum speeds required to achieve these benefits (e.g. eHealth, eLearning, etc.) is 100Mbps but 1Gbps is preferable" then FTTP would be the only option.
> $56B for an upto 25Mbps (1Mbps faster than ADSL2) when only $8B more for a 100Mbps service.
First it is a minimum of 25Mbps on FTTN and for most connections significantly faster. Your need to retreat to 56Kbps arguments shows up that we do need a minimum standard for speed. The question is should it be 25Mbps or a faster speed?
Second the $8B is tax payer funds, whereas fibre on demand is your own hard cash. Compare this with the health system where the public hospitals set a minimum standard and people can opt for private health care which offers more comfort and better service.
> Doesn't matter that it might take them a week which could be done in a couple of minutes.
Actually it does matter because just about all the benefits touted by Labor as reasons for building the NBN were real-time, not volume of data downloaded. Video conferencing is a prime example of this.
In the article "Adelaide as a smart city" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/adelaide-smart-city-privacy-concern/7259596), from which I quote:
> He said one area where integrated technology might improves lives was for an ageing population where people wanted to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.
> "Elderly people would be able to interact not only with the outside world with minimum support and supervision," he said of sensors and other technology that could be deployed.
For the interaction to work you need 100Mbps plus, but an elderly person on the pension is unlikely to have chosen a 100Mbps connection because of the extra cost. The impact of this is that they see the options demoed in house the video call quality is poor and so they don't use the system. If they had 100Mbps then they can self limit their video calls in the same way they self limit their electricity usage.
> if people require to drive at that speed no need to pay for costly upgrades as everyone has a choice if they want to drive at that speed or not.
Currently a small number 16% and falling are demanding a government service but don't care if others can afford that same service. My position is the fast speeds should be available to everyone and if not then people should be expected to pay for their fast internet. The cost of internet services (like other utilities) should be primarily based on usage, not connection fees.
> Skymesh is offering a 100/100 on FTTP which is really a 250/100 connection. Can HFC or FTTN do 25/25.
Except it isn't being sold as faster than 100Mbps.
> So what you say s to adopt the current ADSL priceing where people getting 1Mbps paying the same as people getting 15Mbps.
Your focus is on speed, whereas it should be on data. Both people are paying to access the same amount of data.
> lets assume that the price of CVC wouldn't change in a single tier mode and to offer a gigabit connection the AVC was at the 100mbit price if not more, and it'd be the only AVC available.
NBNCo require a fixed sum of money to build the network and maintain it. NBNCo delivering a return on investment is heavily dependant on ARPU rising to over $100/month, and the growth strategy is total CVC revenue increasing. If you read the NBNCo Corporate Plan, CVC pricing started $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and over time will fall to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month. This means that while the price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.
Currently AVC is sufficiently high that for low demand customers with a mobile it doesn't make financial sense. If AVC was reduced to a flat rate ($20/month) and data charges were increased (or even just left at the current pricing) then demand for connections would jump and people would download more simply because the faster speeds mean people download richer media. NBNCo might take a hit in the initial years, but the growth in data consumption would rapidly see this eclipsed.
> The early adopters are already on 100/40 and it isn't like that group are a single digit percentage.
At the current drop in 100Mbps users (down 3% in 12 months) the percentage may well fall below single digits based on the current trend. The source for the information is easy to find in the media release section of the NBNCo website in the "nbn Half Year Financial Results Presentation 2016" presentation.
> Letting ISP's have a full speed AVC and them manage like you propose hasn't worked well for ADSL
It has worked brilliantly compared with Telstra's model of charging for speed tiers and also having quotas. As with everything you do need to pay a little more for quality.
> Especially as the current FTTP GPON won't do a full 32 active 100 mbit connections without contention at the delivery level. (but hey at least it can be upgraded...)
GPON2.5 will support ~78Mbps with 32 users. If so much data was being downloaded, then NBNCo would be rolling in cash and the upgrade to GPON10 would be trivial to justify to the bean counters.
> Maybe if if instead of saying massive percentage of FTTP customers are connecting at slow speed x, we say all FTTP customers are gigabit capable. Does that whet your thirst for speeds?
I can tell you my car is capable of 350km/hr, but that is meaningless if the speed limit is 25km/hr. Continuing the car analogy, Labor's financial model is to build a freeway with toll charges based on the speed limit on the lane you select. The price for the 100x faster lane is only 4x the price but only a handful of drivers can justify the prices.
Labor's prediction is that in 2026 1% of customers will be connected at 1Gbps. Currently I'm not aware of RSPs offering a plan faster than 100Mbps, because it simply isn't financially viable.
> If you're saying it should be single speed for uniform pricing you're really saying the price should go up for those who don't need the same speeds, or do I misunderstand your thoughts on removing tiering?
I'm suggesting that AVC prices should be cut to a single speed tier and CVC prices should fall slightly slower than predicted in the NBNCo Corporate Plan.
If 79% of customers are connecting at 25Mbps or slower then the choice of technology doesn't make a perceptible difference. The small minority who want fast speeds have the option of moving to a FTTP area or fibre on demand.
> But it [NBNCo] doesn't feel that FTTP is the way to meet that future demand. Indeed it doesn't believe there's a time at which gigabit-per-second home services will be necessary, but does believe that once such demands emerge they can be served with heirs to G.fast over copper.
Labor had two choices when establishing NBNCo:
- Expensive connection charges (AVC) for speed tiers and cheap data (CVC)
- Cheap connection charges (AVC) and expensive data (CVC)
Instead they chose the middle ground of speed tiers (AVC) and close to expensive data (CVC).
Labor predicted the result of this decision would be 50% connecting at 12Mbps on fibre. Currently 33% are connected at 12Mbps and 46% at 25Mbps. The 46% on 25Mbps is more than double Labor's prediction and this is most likely due to Telstra not offering a 12Mbps plan.
The result of this is that innovation has stalled because 79% are choosing the slow plans that don't offer access to the 100Mbps required for the new applications promoted by Labor in the NBNCo Corporate Plans. 1Gbps plans are available from NBNCo but RSPs are not selling them because a viable price point is simply not possible. Worse still congestion exists at the interconnect between NBNCo & RSP networks because of the high CVC prices. Labor succeeded in building a 1Gbps network on which nobody can connect at that speed because it is too expensive and a network that has extensive congestion issues because of high CVC prices.
If Labor had chosen cheap connection charges and no speed tiers, then connection speeds would be less predictable because of congestion issues especially during peak time but burst speeds could reach 1Gbps. RSPs could have innovated by offering higher quality services (e.g. plans that prioritised packets) or traffic shaping based on usage (e.g. old Internode FlatRate plan). End-users would have the option of either shaping their behaviour by using the internet in off-peak times or paying extra for higher priority.
I'll be interested to hear Labor's answer to this question: "How could you build a 1Gbps network where only an elite tiny fraction (less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026) experience the benefit and the vast majority connect at 25Mbps or slower? When you looked at the estimates of take up, did not you not get some inkling that the plan would create not a digital divide, but a grand canyon of digital inequality for the socio-economically disadvantaged?"
NBNCo started offering 1Gbps speeds to RSPs in December 2013, but currently zero RSPs offer a 1Gbps plan. 100Mbps is the fastest that I'm aware of. Hardly surprising when Labor predicted that in 2026 less than 1% of fibre connections would be 1Gbps.
.The reality is that 79% on fibre have chosen to connect at 25Mbps or slower. Compare that with Google Fibre which is 1Gbps symmetric.
This is the difference between a good idea, FTTP, and implementation botched so inconceivably badly that currently the average speed on FTTN is more than twice as fast.
> Morrow told the committee the company's data suggests fibre-to-the-node customers are getting 83 Mbps average download speeds, and that any shortfall is more likely to be because retailers aren't buying sufficient connectivity virtual circuit capacity (CVC is the shared backhaul capacity that connects customers to retailers' infrastructure).
The average on FTTP is 34Mbps after speed tiers are applied. It is possible that FTTN connections are only from early adopters and so the majority are choosing 100Mbps plans. However this does prove that if NBNCo chose to remove speed tiers on FTTN for the majority of Australians (79% choosing 25Mbps or slower on Fibre) that their connection would be 3-7 times faster!!!
> The only meaningful difference between government and opposition at the moment is in their NBN policy, and that doesn't matter. Labor's Jason Clare can say as he pleases, he can't reverse the current government's purchase of the hybrid fibre coax networks, or the copper telephony network, or the deployment of fibre-to-the-node nodes.
The reason it doesn't matter is because of Labor's decision to build a fibre network with speed tiers starting at 12Mbps currently 79% of people on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower. The ironic part of this is that if you removed speed tiers from FTTN & HFC these networks would be faster for the overwhelming majority of Australians than Labor's FTTP with speed tiers.
Labor could have locked the country into a FTTP path but instead muffed everything beyond the 'good idea' phase.
> Whether or not real estate agents are advertising fibre to the home connections now is no indicator they won't be in five, let alone ten year's time.
Fair point, but we need to keep in mind that currently 79% of customers on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower. Secondly we need to consider that Labor's research as documented in the NBNCo Corporate Plan predicted that in 2026 more than 40% would still be on 12Mbps and less than 1% on 1Gbps.
It is hardly surprising that an organisation predominantly employing technical people is leaking negative reports. It would be reasonable to expect that the majority of the technical people would be part of the shrinking 16% (down 3% in 12 months) on fibre who choosing to connect at 100Mbps.
Unfortunately, these same people didn't comment when it became clear that Labor's NBN plan would:
- only benefit an elite few (1% on 1Gbps in 2026)
- result in most people paying significantly more (wholesale ARPU to rise to $100/month)
- not focus on areas of need first
If they had cast a critical eye across Labor's planning then possibly we would be looking at a different scenario today.
The problem was created by Labor's contradictory headlines of '1Gbps; same price as ADSL; new opportunities; etc. which omitted the reality of planning that less than 1% would be connected at 1Gbps in 2026; steep increase in ARPU to over $100; and 79% on fibre currently connected at 25Mbps or slower which means all of the promoted services (eHealth, eLearning, etc.) which specify a minimum speed of 100Mbps don't work.
MTM is simply a rational response to delivering the same level of service to the overwhelming majority of Australians. If Labor had actually established NBNCo to deliver on the headlines, then FTTN as an option would have been history, because there is a vast gap between 25Mbps and 1Gbps.
Labor had an opportunity to use the NBN to structurally separate Telstra, but instead gave Telstra billions to lease conduit, $800 per customer transferred to the NBN and as exchanges are made redundant will enable Telstra to sell surplus land worth many millions.
> If the leaks continue and cost overruns are confirmed, perhaps the NBN might even become an election issue, although education, healthcare, housing costs and the state of Australia's budget will likely grab more headlines.
The reality with 79% opting for 25Mbps or slower on fibre, most people simply don't care.
The fact that FTTP is not mentioned in real estate advertising is another good indicator that it won't be an election issue.
I've wondered this about cars with keyless ignitions. Would it be possible to leave your jacket next to the car and drive off? What happens then?
I think you've been kind.
If you are outsourcing to CapGemini, not working and over budget is more certain than taxes especially for global companies. Delivered 10 years late might be considered a win.
I company I have a close relationship with had CapGemini roll out a change in anti-virus software to their global SOE. When machines weren't booting after the roll out, they were informed that the change request didn't include 'must work afterwards'.
> How does the built-network ever get upgraded? It can only be overbuilt, not reused.
Labor Spin: 1Gbps FTTP network
Labor Prediction: In 2026 1% of FTTP connections would be 1Gbps, while 50% connect at 12Mbps
Today: 1Gbps has been available wholesale since Dec 2014, but not one RSP will offer it as a retail plan. 79% on fibre connected at 25Mbp or slower and 16% connected at 100Mbps (down 3% in 12 months)
I don't see why privatisation should be a surprise to anyone. It was part of Labor's NBN plan from day dot.
Instead of building a national network, the government should have requested bids to build and maintain each of the PoIs and provide wholesale access. In some areas bidders would have paid for the concession while in other areas bidders would have requested a subsidy. Appropriate KPIs would provide incentives to innovate (e.g. Google Loon and similar ideas rather than satellite). This is how a number of other government services are contracted out, while maintaining control.
What we have now is a mess. On fibre network capable of 1Gbps, 79% are connected at 25Mbps or slower 16% on 100Mbps (down 3% in the last 12 months) and 0 at 1Gbps. These numbers are slow now and Labor's plan didn't see much improvement except for the elite with cash to burn.
digiKam is more aimed at people editing photos, but also have cataloguing features. It is possibly one of the few desktop applications that can be used by multiple computers although not perfectly.
I'm still looking for a photo management tool that supports multiple users so that people can share photos of events (birthday party, school excursion, etc.) securely. Most parents want to see photos of their child on the excursion, not just the 'best' curated photos from the day. Preferably the tool would include a desktop application and an interactive web gallery.
> So the key statistic, never quoted, is how many people that do not have internet have got it recently. And that mainly means fixed wireless.
I agree, but Labor cancelled OPEL which would have delivered very much the same results as NBN fixed wireless only 6-8 years earlier. We know this because Internode were using the same technology on York Peninsula and Murraylands in South Australia.
It is also well known that suburbs established after 1970s are where Telstra installed RIMs rather than building new exchanges. Labor should have focused on these suburbs first to deliver the quickest return.
> Of course everyone is happy, they suddenly have way faster internet.
Except that very few (16% and falling have access to way faster internet. Those people with faster than average ADSL2+ (11Mbps or higher) may find that if the choose the lower speed tier that their speed falls.
The ironic part is that if NBNCo abandoned speed tiers on FTTP average speeds in Australia would jump substantially.
Page 9 of the half year results presentation vindicates the Liberal decision to not roll-out FTTP based on Labor's financial model and predictions. 79% connected at 25Mbps or slower. Not much point in building out FTTP when only 16% and falling (19% in 2014) are connecting at 100Mbps. No sign of RSPs offering 1Gbps plans that have been available from NBNCo since December 2013 because Labor's artificial financial model makes it impossible for RSPs to offer them at a viable price.
Compare that with Google Fibre where 1Gbps is free in public housing! Labor could have constructed a financial model without speed tiers and Australia could have been world leaders. Instead 79% on fibre are connecting at 25Mbps or slower and FTTN is being installed. Sadly this makes it perfectly reasonable that the 16% (and falling) who want 100Mbps should either move or pay for fibre on demand.