back to article Retailers would love an NBN backhaul tariff restructure

When nbn™', the entity building and operating Australia's national broadband network, decided to revise its backhaul price book back in June and the the move was rightly welcomed. But the topic remains so controversial CEO Bill Morrow has flagged further possible changes. Morrow dropped the hint in an interview given to the …

Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

That's a relatively easy issue to fix. Have a fixed price CVC based on an contention ratio per ISP instead of a per mbs per user charge. For example:

Cont./CVC/ACCC required description for marketing

100:1/$15/Unusable performance at peak times

50:1/$20/Really slow performance at peak times

20:1/$25/Slow performance at peak times

10:1/$30/Adequate performance at peak times

5:1/$35/Reasonable performance at peak times

2:1/$40/Fast broadband at any time

1:1/$45/Superfast Broadband all the time

The trick being get the ACCC to force the ISPs to use those descriptions as a headline description for the quality of the service. I can't see anyone providing other than Adequate or better if they are required to describe the service with a defined term as a headline description of the quality in their marketing materials.

1
0

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

100:1/$15/Unusable performance at peak times: SkyMesh

50:1/$20/Really slow performance at peak times: Internode

2:1/$40/Fast broadband at any time: Aussie Broadband

0
0
FAIL

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

The post assumes that plans should include unlimited data. Since very shortly after ADSL was introduced to Australia plans have had quotas. This has been very effective in ensuring reasonable network performance.

The same mistake of ignoring quotas is made in the article. For reference, NBNCo documentation makes it clear that from day 1 NBNCo expected budget RSPs to run with contention ratio of 1:100.

> We don't know what provisioning rules are common among NBN retailers, but if a user paying for a 100 Mbps download plan is routinely choked to 20 Mbps because of CVC contention, a 5:1 ratio (that is, the RSP buys 100 Mbps worth of capacity for every five 100 Mbps customers) looks reasonable.

0
2
Happy

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

> 2:1/$40/Fast broadband at any time: Aussie Broadband

$40/month is less than 3Mbps of CVC. Aussie Broadband offer 100Mbps / 1GB quota for $100/month so even if we included only NBNCo wholesale costs more than 4Mbps per user would result in Aussie Broadband loosing money!

What distinguishes Aussie Broadband is quotas which they senssibly use to maintain network performance.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

Either that's incredibly, staggeringly bad value, or you either left out 3 zero's or the GB should be TB.

1
0

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

Oops ... GB should be TB.

0
2

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

| The post assumes that plans should include unlimited data.

No, that's your assumption.

What I am trying to get across is that the formula used by the NBN is overly simplistic and doesn't deliver any reasonable outcome for anyone other than the NBN. CVC pricing could be based on a tier system such that providing less than 5Mb/s per user was penalised for example (warning made up figures change them to suit what you want):

1-4 Mb/s 15.75 per Mb/s

5-9 Mb/s 25.00 + 5.00 per Mb/s above 5

10-14 Mb/s 30.00 + 2.00 per Mb/s above 10

15-19 Mb/s 35.00 + 1.50 per Mb/s above 15

20-29 Mb/s 40.00 + 1.00 per Mb/s above 20

30-50 Mb/s 45.00 + 0.75 per Mb/s above 30

50-100 Mb/s 50.00 + 0.50 per Mb/s above 50

100+ 70.00 + 0.20 per Mb/s above 100

If as an RSP it was cheaper to provide 5Mb/s per user for CVC than 2Mb/s and perception of your service was significantly better why wouldn't you (assuming you had the backhaul from the POI)? You could also announce that the 1-5 tier would no longer be available for purchase from Jan 1st 2020 and as time moves on you drop off the lower tiers and lower the prices if the ARPU got past certain benchmarks.

For at least some ISPs that would probably provide a higher ARPU for the NBN and penalise someone who wanted to provide on 1Mb/s per user. If your AVC charge was $20 you'd get at least 35.75 per user at 1Mb/s per user and more than likely it would be 45 or 50 based upon someone choosing to provide 5Mb/s per user or 10Mb/s per user (which is better than it is currently - the ARPU that is).

If they come with NBN mandated quality of service descriptions (something other than the meaningless speed tier) you'd know what the provided CVC was for an ISP which would allow you to choose one that provided the CVC bandwidth you were willing to pay for. You can play with the values to provide different price signals that guided ISPs into providing something other really poor outcomes.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

Down voted for incorrect use of loosing/losing.

1
0
FAIL

Re: Move to charges based on contention instead of mb/s

Firstly, pricing sends a signal to everyone.

* Low AVC prices encourage more customers to connect

* High CVC prices incentivise NBNCo to run a congestion free internal network so that RSPs receive full value for their CVC purchases.

>If they come with NBN mandated quality of service descriptions (something other than the meaningless speed tier) you'd know what the provided CVC was for an ISP which would allow you to choose one that provided the CVC bandwidth you were willing to pay for.

Quality of service is based on many more variables than just the contention ratio system. The most influential piece of data is tha amount of traffic. Assuming the same contention ratio, the potential for congestion for an RSP with quotas versus an RSP with unlimited plans.

Your plan prices for CVC significantly below the current pricing which means that AVC pricing will need to rise to compensate.

> For at least some ISPs that would probably provide a higher ARPU for the NBN and penalise someone who wanted to provide on 1Mb/s per user.

1Mbps can deliver reasonable performance if you have low quotas and significantly large diverse customer base.

> You can play with the values to provide different price signals that guided ISPs into providing something other really poor outcomes.

The reality is that the majority of Australians prefer to have slow speeds and unlimited quota. Unlimited plans and the associated poor performance have been around since well before the NBN.

0
2
FAIL

Unlimited quota plans are the issue

A 1Gbps connection can consume 324TB of data. Very few people have the need to consume this amount of data, however there are many reasonable examples of ordinary people consuming close to this these speeds (especially above 40Mbps upload) for real-time services (e.g. video conferencing).

If people do not need to pay for something then in general they care less about it. For example how many people would turn off the aircon when leaving for work if electricity wasn't metered?

NBNCo costs are relatively fixed. Revenue is AVC + CVC. If you decrease CVC revenue which NBN has intended from day zero to be the primary source of growth, then AVC has to rise to compensate. If the campaign to lower CVC prices is successful then FTTN is further justified because very few will be able afford truly fast connections.

The simple fact is that CVC pricing effectively causes those people who are placing the most load on the network to pay.

0
2

Re: Unlimited quota plans are the issue

> people who are placing the most load on the network to pay

Once they have beggared their neighbour.

0
1
FAIL

Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Contention ratios are a very poor guide to congestion. It is possible to have a 1000:1 contention ratio and for there to be no congestion, equally it is possible to have a 2:1 contention ratio and for congestion to occur. It all depends on what data is being sent on the network.

The speed tiers on the NBN actually contribute to congestion because the artificial caps on speed mean that large downloads (e.g. video streams / software updates) are queued rather than being downloaded as quickly as possible. To understand this, consider two RSP both with 100Mbps of CVC and 100 customers. The first has all on 12Mbps plans. The second has all on 1Gbps plans. The contention ratio is much worse for RSP 2. Consider the scenario where at 1 second intervals a new custom starts downloading a 50Mbp file (e.g. 100 seconds in, customer 100 starts downloading the file). Which RSP will have the higher congestion?

The simplest way to reduce congestion is to cap the speed or reduce the priority of packets for users downloading a high volume of data.

The quickest way to improve the global standing of Australia in internet rankings is to remove speed tiers on the NBN and have ACCC crack down on RSPs offering unlimited quotas. If speed tiers had not existed then FTTN would not have been justifiable.

0
3

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Mathew what utter BS. But it's good to see your trying your same logic as claiming fttn is faster than fttp.

But if you claimed to be true why is NZ offering 100Mbps unlimited and delivering those speeds at peak time.

2
0
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> Mathew what utter BS. But it's good to see your trying your same logic as claiming fttn is faster than fttp.

If you disagree please provide some reasons as to why.

FTTN average speed faster than FTTP is simple maths. Currently > 80% of FTTP connections are 25Mbps or slower (~30% on 12Mbps). The minimum FTTN speed is 25Mbps most people's connections capable of significantly faster speeds. Therefore if you remove the speed tiers from FTTN, then ~30% on 12Mbps receive an instance speed boost to 25Mbps or faster.

NBNCo could easily justify this to remove the current issue RSPs have with some customers ordering plans that their lines are not capable of supporting.

> But if you claimed to be true why is NZ offering 100Mbps unlimited and delivering those speeds at peak time.

Good question which I haven't seen anyone provide an authoritive answer for. Can you identify what is different between the cost of building the network in Australia and New Zealand? Remember that the current wholesale charges are cheaper than Labor's plan. Once you done that then you are in a reasonable position to suggest how the NBNCo could be restructured.

Currently you appear to be a selfish person who wants to be one of the elite with a 100Mbps connection. I hope you were not decived by Labor into thinking that you would be part of the 1% that in 2026 Labor expected to have 1Gbps.

0
2

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Lol Mathew

"FTTN average speed faster than FTTP is simple maths. Currently > 80% of FTTP connections are 25Mbps or slower (~30% on 12Mbps). The minimum FTTN speed is 25Mbps most people's connections capable of significantly faster speeds. Therefore if you remove the speed tiers from FTTN, then ~30% on 12Mbps receive an instance speed boost to 25Mbps or faster."

So if we use your same example and turrn it around as the average for fttn speed is less than fttp. Remove tier from fttp and you could get up to 40Gbps which the new capability. On top of that fttn node Backshall is only 2Gbps so supports 5-10Mbps at peak times compared to 80Mbps with fttp.

So with using normal logic (comparing apples to apples not oranges lol) not your twisted logic fttn could never even come close to ftp.

Btw the minimum isn't 25Mbps it's 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day with 5 drop outs. So you can have 2Mbps for most of the day but at 3am your connection hits 25Mbps so you connection is fine.

So let's use your twisted logic on your own example. If the first isp is only paying for 1Mbps per customer vs the 2 isp paying 500Mbps per customer with the CVC the first isp would have more congestion than the second one would it.

"NBNCo could easily justify this to remove the current issue RSPs have with some customers ordering plans that their lines are not capable of supporting.". Ahh so it's the RSP fault for a customer wanting to pay for a faster connection that nbn and you have stated it can deliver aka your fttn to fttp quote above lol but can't deliver. That as you have stated previously that you then expect said customer to either move house or pay 10K plus for a better connection.

So now after debunking you claimed that unlimited and speed tier is the fault of congestion your now asking me on advice lol.

2
1

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Mathew

"Currently you appear to be a selfish person who wants to be one of the elite with a 100Mbps connection. I hope you were not decived by Labor into thinking that you would be part of the 1% that in 2026 Labor expected to have 1Gbps."

Current it's you who appear to be selfish as you want to have a lottery of different speed across the country. Lol buy you where deceived by labor 50% on 12Mbps by 2026 how many on 12Mbps btw. But then coalition your fanboy model expects 1% on 1Gbps by 2020 yet half the network can't deliver a 10th of the speed.

2
1
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> Remove tier from fttp and you could get up to 40Gbps which the new capability.

This nicely demonstrates how your arguments are outside of the current reality. I show how a simple policy change could make FTTN faster thatn FTTP. You respond with an option which requires upgrading all GPONs in FTTP. The point of the FTTN / FTTP comparision is to show how the best technology can be hamstrung by poor policy choices.

> Btw the minimum isn't 25Mbps it's 25Mbps for 1 sec in a day with 5 drop outs.

Fibre fanboi FUD. If this was happening in the real world then you would see articles about it everywhere, instead we see that people are reporting speeds of 80Mbps and higher on FTTN. When > 80% are selecting speeds easily supported by FTTN you need to come up with an argument to convince the 80%.

You do realise that the FTTP speeds are peak information rate (PIR) and not guaranteed. 5/5Mbps of CIR costs $300/month in additional AVC charges. NBNCo must have had a reason to expect they could charge this.

> So now after debunking you claimed that unlimited and speed tier is the fault of congestion your now asking me on advice lol.

I'm asking you to stop behaving like a spoilt kid and think about how to fix the NBN. The books need to be balanced which means if CVC revenue is lowered then either cost savings need to be found or AVC revenue has to rise. You could argue that as a nation building project it should be subsidised by the government but when >80% would receive neglible benefit from the subsidy because their speed wouldn't increase then

If you had worked through the example I provided what you would have discovered is that for customers on 1Gbps speed tier would complete the download before the second customer starts, whereas when the 12Mbps speed limit is imposed, the 9th customer causes congestion because the first customer hasn't completed their download.

Unlimited quotes are the primary cause of congestion. Some people like to leave a TV on for background noise. Today that could mean a 4HD stream (~50Mbps). With current contention ratios it only requires a few customers doing this to cause congestion. Quotas on plans means that those people can choose to pay for a plan with sufficient quota or not use the streaming TV for background noise.

0
2
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> a lottery of different speed across the country

For 80% on 25Mbps or slower it isn't a lottery, as the difference in technology is barely perceptible.

> Lol buy you where deceived by labor 50% on 12Mbps by 2026 how many on 12Mbps btw.

Telstra not offering 12Mbps plans explains why only 32% are on 12Mbps plan. However instead of Labor's predictions that only a small percentage would be on 25 & 50Mbps plans and the 100Mbps plan would be above 30% with >5% on 250Mbps plans the reality we find ourselves in is that <14% (and falling) are on 100Mbps.

Consider a sales person jubilant that he has moved 18% of his customers from the tier 1 package (12Mbps) to the tier 2 package (25Mbps). Sounds great, until you realise that none of the customers on are on the top 3 tiers (> 100Mbps) and more thalf the tier 4 (100Mbps) customers have dropped to the tier 2 (25Mbps) package. I doubt the sales person will receive a bonus.

0
2

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

@mathew42: "Fibre fanboi FUD. If this was happening in the real world then you would see articles about it everywhere, instead we see that people are reporting speeds of 80Mbps and higher on FTTN."

You must be reading different newspapers, and watching different news and current affairs shows to me - we ARE seeing articles about the growing level of dissatisfaction with the under-performing NBN everywhere, and this is just the tip of the iceberg as the NBN deployment picks up speed.

Yes - SOME people on FTTN are seeing 80 Mbps (the lucky ones who won "Node Lotto"), but the vast majority are not. In fact, most people are signing up for 12 Mbps or 25 Mbps services, and the RSPs are down-grading them to those speeds, because the technology simply cant deliver 50 to 100 Mbps to many households.

Did you miss the fact that this week all the major RSPs have stopped advertising their services as "up to 25 Mbps", but are now referring to "between 5 and 12 Mbps", "between 5 and 25 Mbps", and "between 12 and 100 Mbps" services. Why do you think they would call it "between 12 and 100 Mbps" if it could reliably deliver 80 Mbps or higher?

0
0

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Lol Mathew

"This nicely demonstrates how your arguments are outside of the current reality. I show how a simple policy change could make FTTN faster thatn FTTP. You respond with an option which requires upgrading all GPONs in FTTP. The point of the FTTN / FTTP comparision is to show how the best technology can be hamstrung by poor policy choices."

Lol outside current reality like you trying to compare a no tier fttn vs a tier average fttp. Your average point is going off a combined fttb and fttn average. but then in reality not everyone will even be lucky to see half the speeds your claiming lol.

"Fibre fanboi FUD. If this was happening in the real world then you would see articles about it everywhere, instead we see that people are reporting speeds of 80Mbps and higher on FTTN. When > 80% are selecting speeds easily supported by FTTN you need to come up with an argument to convince the 80%."

Well if you care to look at nbn documents that what it states. As you so nicely put it. Fttn just need to hit PIR of 25Mbps for 1 second in a day. That include if your paying for 100Mbps vs fttp PIR 100Mbps for 1 second on 100Mbps. That's why you see for FTTP 100Mbps while for FTTN 25-100Mbps. But please try again copper fanboi.

Oh people are reporting 80Mbps. Yet Telstra had to more people down speed teirs because they counldnt get above 50Mbps let alone 80Mbps.

"I'm asking you to stop behaving like a spoilt kid and think about how to fix the NBN. The books need to be balanced which means if CVC revenue is lowered then either cost savings need to be found or AVC revenue has to rise. You could argue that as a nation building project it should be subsidised by the government but when >80% would receive neglible benefit from the subsidy because their speed wouldn't increase then"

Lol a spoiled kids. Really. All you do is bash labor fttp 1% on 1Gbps by 2026 crap lol. You don't even try to fix it.

"If you had worked through the example I provided what you would have discovered is that for customers on 1Gbps speed tier would complete the download before the second customer starts, whereas when the 12Mbps speed limit is imposed, the 9th customer causes congestion because the first customer hasn't completed their download."

Oh so now your example they take turns lol pitty that doesn't happen in reality lol. Try again but then that's your twisted logic at work again. Yet you have the hide to my comments are outside the current reality lol.

"Unlimited quotes are the primary cause of congestion. Some people like to leave a TV on for background noise. Today that could mean a 4HD stream (~50Mbps). With current contention ratios it only requires a few customers doing this to cause congestion. Quotas on plans means that those people can choose to pay for a plan with sufficient quota or not use the streaming TV for background noise."

Lol outside the current reality again. As every other network in the world would be experiencing the same problems and they have had unlimited quotas for over a decade now. But please try again lol.

1
1

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Mathew

"For 80% on 25Mbps or slower it isn't a lottery, as the difference in technology is barely perceptible."

Lol why pay for faster speed when it's only required to deliver up to 25Mbps.

"Telstra not offering 12Mbps plans explains why only 32% are on 12Mbps plan. However instead of Labor's predictions that only a small percentage would be on 25 & 50Mbps plans and the 100Mbps plan would be above 30% with >5% on 250Mbps plans the reality we find ourselves in is that <14% (and falling) are on 100Mbps."

Oh no not the Telstra not selling excuse. But Telstra not selling 250Mbps or 1Gbps plans either can I use your lame excuse too lol.

"Consider a sales person jubilant that he has moved 18% of his customers from the tier 1 package (12Mbps) to the tier 2 package (25Mbps). Sounds great, until you realise that none of the customers on are on the top 3 tiers (> 100Mbps) and more thalf the tier 4 (100Mbps) customers have dropped to the tier 2 (25Mbps) package. I doubt the sales person will receive a bonus."

Lol leta see your fanboi copper model wants 30% on 100Mbps by 2020 yet fttn finally hit double figures to hit 10% on 100Mbps while fttp has stayed around 14%. Btw labor was expecting 20% on 100Mbps not 30% lol

0
0
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> we ARE seeing articles about the growing level of dissatisfaction with the under-performing NBN everywhere

Agreed that we are seeing disatisfaction. The articles I've been reading all describe the issues as speed degrading in peak hour periods. This indicates a congestion issue caused by RSPs purchasing inadequate CVC for unlimited quota plans. RSPs like Aussie Broadband that don't offer unlimited plans are receiving rave reviews for performance.

> Yes - SOME people on FTTN are seeing 80 Mbps (the lucky ones who won "Node Lotto"), but the vast majority are not. In fact, most people are signing up for 12 Mbps or 25 Mbps services, and the RSPs are down-grading them to those speeds

First lets address the speed issue. In nbn™ Fibre to the Node explained (FTTN) states that "Not all speeds greater than nbn™ 25 are available at all premises." Therefore we can conclude that FTTN will adequately meet the needs of > 80% of Australians.

This is the minimum and What Fibre To The Node technology will deliver for Australia describes real world experience:

"Our recent FTTN trials up in Belmont, NSW saw end-users within 400 metres of the cabinet getting speeds of up to 100Mbps/40Mbps – even end-users located over 700 metres from the cabinet were still getting speeds of over 60Mbps/20Mbps."

In nbn™ technology 101: What is FTTN? states that "Roughly two-thirds of end users will be within 400 metres of the nearest FTTN cabinet."

I would prefer some independently verified data, but based on what is available, I consider if reasonable to state that if due to the variability in FTTN performance due to copper line length NBNCo removed the speed tiers that the average FTTN speed would be significantly higher than the average FTTP speed.

I'm confused as to why are RSPs downgrading customers when >80% are selecting 25Mbps or slower. A few customers may be downgraded from 100Mbps because they cannot reach the full speed, but that simply supports my argument that removing speed tiers would enable those customers to at least reach the potential of their connection. NBNCo's speed tiers remind me of when Telstra had a monopoly on ADSL and the fastest conneciton was 1.5Mbps even on lines capable of >20Mbps.

Of course I would fully understand customers downgrading to 25Mbps because unlimited plans and inadquate CVC purchases by RSPs has resulted in congestion at peak hour which makes paying for faster speeds of diminishing value.

> Did you miss the fact that this week all the major RSPs have stopped advertising their services as "up to 25 Mbps", but are now referring to "between 5 and 12 Mbps"

The wording change has been applied to all NBN plans regardless of technology. This is being pushed by ACCC speed investigations which I expect will show congestion exists.

0
2
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> Oh no not the Telstra not selling excuse. But Telstra not selling 250Mbps or 1Gbps plans either can I use your lame excuse too lol.

If Tesltra could sell 250Mbps or 1Gbps plans at a profit then they would. There will be significant first mover advantage for the first to offer 1Gbps retail plans.

> Lol leta see your fanboi copper model

I'm not a copper fanboi. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the policy settings for NBNCo are a bigger issue than than the technology choice. We can argue the specifics of facts but the reality is the average speeds on FTTP are far below what Labor predicted and switching back to FTTP will not change that.

0
2

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Mathew

"If Tesltra could sell 250Mbps or 1Gbps plans at a profit then they would. There will be significant first mover advantage for the first to offer 1Gbps retail plans."

So the next time you BS on 1% on Gbps I will use your lame excuse then.

"I'm not a copper fanboi. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the policy settings for NBNCo are a bigger issue than than the technology choice. We can argue the specifics of facts but the reality is the average speeds on FTTP are far below what Labor predicted and switching back to FTTP will not change that."

Yes you are. You use twisted logic against you and you don't like it. Btw you know fttn their average speed is below teirs average speed but no real surprises there. You do nothing but complain about labor targets which nbn hasn't been building for for 4 years. Coalition % targets are even higher and sooner 2020 but you do not even mention them.

0
0

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Lol Mathew

Wow so your a believe that unlimited is the fault of congestion as an rsp buys enough CVC to keeps it customer base happy lol.

"states that "Not all speeds greater than nbn™ 25 are available at all premises." Therefore we can conclude that FTTN will adequately meet the needs of > 80% of Australians."

That the speed people are choosing here now and the network still have 3+ years togo. Currently in NZ 80% are choosing 100Mbps today. But we should tell them they are wasting there money as you said 25Mbps is enough. But then why are we building the nbn when ADSL delivered up to 24Mbps.

"This is the minimum and What Fibre To The Node technology will deliver for Australia describes real world experience:"

Up to not min address it before even in the 18mth transition period nbn only required to deliver 12Mbps for 1 second in a day.

"In nbn™ technology 101: What is FTTN? states that "Roughly two-thirds of end users will be within 400 metres of the nearest FTTN cabinet". Nbn also stated that copper from pillar to the node average is 350M so somehow they have 2/3 of users in that last 50M or are they just claim walking distance and not copper distance lol.

"I'm confused as to why are RSPs downgrading customers when >80% are selecting 25Mbps or slower."

Because the ones that want to pay for faster speeds either can't get above 50Mbps or worst above 25Mbps. So really how are you confused.

"Of course I would fully understand customers downgrading to 25Mbps because unlimited plans and inadquate CVC purchases by RSPs has resulted in congestion at peak hour which makes paying for faster speeds of diminishing value.". Lol blaming umlimited plans again lol. Must be some kind of miracle in NZ with 100Mbps on unlimited plans.

"The wording change has been applied to all NBN plans regardless of technology. This is being pushed by ACCC speed investigations which I expect will show congestion exists."

So why accc does its report on nbn list

FTTP 12,25,50,100

But for

FTTN 12,25,25-50,25-100

0
0
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> Currently in NZ

As for the NZ example you still in years of asking have completely failed to explain what the difference is between the two countries.

> 80% are choosing 100Mbps today. But we should tell them they are wasting there money as you said 25Mbps is enough.

Why do you insist on misquoting me? What I have said is that the evidence clearly shows that >80% are choosing 25Mbps or slower which is well above Labor's forecasts. The percentage on 100Mbps has trended down sharply since the first FTTP connections and has only stabilised at 14% in the last 12 months. More than 80% of Austarlians are simply not prepared to pay for fast broadband. Labor wrote the NBNCo Corporate Plan with the full understanding that only a few would benefit from the truly fast speeds. Replacing all the FTTN with FTTP won't change this.

> But then why are we building the nbn when ADSL delivered up to 24Mbps.

The average for ADSL2+ is ~11Mbps based on evidence provided by Internode / iiNet in 2007 when they were campaining against Labor's FTTN plan. With FTTN there is a minimum speed of 25Mbps which is sufficient for 80% of Australians based on the take up of the NBN.

You keep claiming that FTTN performance is crap yet fail to provide any evidence. All the evidence points to poor performance caused by RSPs responding to market demands for unlimited data.

> Because the ones that want to pay for faster speeds either can't get above 50Mbps or worst above 25Mbps. So really how are you confused.

So that would be <14% then? That 14% would also most likely have a higher economic status because they can afford to spend more for faster internet. One could argue based on this that FTTP NBN sound like middleclass welfare.

0
2
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> So the next time you BS on 1% on Gbps I will use your lame excuse then.

Which statements exactly? What I've commented on 1Gbps is that very few in Australia can expect to see those speeds based on Labor's plans.

> Btw you know fttn their average speed is below teirs average speed but no real surprises there.

Please provide evidence of this. I will assume that you are technically literate enough to understand the impact of overheads on network throughput.

> You do nothing but complain about labor targets

In an attempt to show fibre fanbois that speed tiers are the biggest limiting factor on the NBN, I use Labor's targets to show that changing the technology won't have a big impact (except for the <14% on 100Mbps plans).

In 2009 if the fibre fanbois had come out against speed tiers and convinced Labor to change, then MTM would not have occurred, because it is easy to explain that 25Mbps is signficantly slower than 1Gbps. Innovation would also have jumped significantly because everyone would know that all fixed connections were capable of 1Gbps.

The reality is a fibre fanboi you have only yourself to blame for FTTN.

0
2

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Mathew

"As for the NZ example you still in years of asking have completely failed to explain what the difference is between the two countries."

They are rolling out fttp vs our MTM

"Labor wrote the NBNCo Corporate Plan with the full understanding that only a few would benefit from the truly fast speeds. Replacing all the FTTN with FTTP won't change this."

Lol so labor was only building a network that could only deliver 25Mbps ok

"The average for ADSL2+ is ~11Mbps based on evidence provided by Internode / iiNet in 2007 when they were campaining against Labor's FTTN plan. With FTTN there is a minimum speed of 25Mbps which is sufficient for 80% of Australians based on the take up of the NBN.

You keep claiming that FTTN performance is crap yet fail to provide any evidence. All the evidence points to poor performance caused by RSPs responding to market demands for unlimited data."

You know your talking about the same DSL family right. Yes 11Mbps was adsl average speed. But like I said it's up to speed is 100Mbps. And again fttn doesn't not deliver a min 25Mbps it's on upto. Like your claiming adsl mim speed is 4Mbps lol. BT mim service guarantee for fttn is 6Mbps a bout low for your claimed 25Mbps. But it's like saying fttp 25Mbps is a min when it's also an Up to. So your calling 5 drops outs a day and at least 25Mbps once a day great

"may reach a PIR within that range only once during a 24 hour period."

http://blog.jxeeno.com/wp-content/uploads/02.-FTTN-BRT-Special-Terms-WBA-2.2-Draft-NEBS-Product-Description.pdf

"So that would be <14% then? That 14% would also most likely have a higher economic status because they can afford to spend more for faster internet. One could argue based on this that FTTP NBN sound like middleclass welfare."

WTF are you talking. Telstra already had PAYING the could AFFORD but nbn fttn has been unable to supply the speed.

0
0

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

"Which statements exactly? What I've commented on 1Gbps is that very few in Australia can expect to see those speeds based on Labor's plans."

Didn't know fttp couldn't deliver 1Gbps wow

"Please provide evidence of this. I will assume that you are technically literate enough to understand the impact of overheads on network throughput."

https://www.accc.gov.au/regulated-infrastructure/communications/national-broadband-network-nbn/nbn-wholesale-market-indicators-report/reports

I will assume you will be literate enough to work the % on your own.

"In an attempt to show fibre fanbois that speed tiers are the biggest limiting factor on the NBN, I use Labor's targets to show that changing the technology won't have a big impact (except for the <14% on 100Mbps plans).". Lol right like you believe fttn delivers a min 25Mbps. Yeah you use to argue on the 50% on 12Mbps what happen there lol

0
0
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> I will assume you will be literate enough to work the % on your own.

Thanks for the data. It confirms that for 100Mbps speed tier that percentages are very similar with the exception of FTTN having significantly more on 25Mbps than 12Mbps compared to other fixed technologies. For FTTN, 100Mbps abvoe 10% is surprisingly high.

> Lol right like you believe fttn delivers a min 25Mbps.

Please provide evidence to the contrary. The complaints I've seen are about congestion caused insufficient CVC as the big issue.

> Yeah you use to argue on the 50% on 12Mbps what happen there lol

I find it amazing that you see 80% on 25Mbps or slower as a great result on a network that is capable of 1Gbps. Personally my reaction is tears. It is also sad to see the number of 1Gbps connections drop from 22 to 17.

0
2
FAIL

Re: NZ Model

> They are rolling out fttp vs our MTM

Changing technology won't magically cause 80% to connect at 100Mbps. I've clearly explained and the provided the numbers support the fact that slow speeds on the NBN are caused by people's unwillingness to pay for faster speeds. A change in policy is required.

What I've asked you to do is provide some thoughts on why the take up rates are so different between the two countries. If 80% of the country were connecting to FTTP at 100Mbps then this would be a clear justification for the NBN needing to support that as a minimum speed.

> Lol so labor was only building a network that could only deliver 25Mbps

For the >80% willingly choosing 25Mbps or slower effectively the answer is that yes, the financial model Labor put in place for the NBN has resulted in a network delivering 25Mbps or slower.

> And again fttn doesn't not deliver a min 25Mbps it's on upto.

The relvant quote from the document is "may reach a PIR within that range only once during a 24 hour period." My undestanding of DSL technology is that performance does not tend to vary wildly over a 24 hour period. Do you have evidence that of VDSL sync speeds showing wide variation over the course of a day? If not then what you are spreading is FUD.

The reality is that RSP congestion and customers choosing slow speeds is having a signficantly bigger impact on internet speed than MTM.

> Telstra already had PAYING the could AFFORD but nbn fttn has been unable to supply the speed.

It is not RSPs paying it is residential customers paying for access.

0
2

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

"Thanks for the data. It confirms that for 100Mbps speed tier that percentages are very similar with the exception of FTTN having significantly more on 25Mbps than 12Mbps compared to other fixed technologies. For FTTN, 100Mbps abvoe 10% is surprisingly high."

Yes Mathew why pay for faster speed on fttn when nbn only guarantees for 1 sec in a day 12Mbps during the 18mth transition and 25Mbps for 1 second in a day after that.

"Please provide evidence to the contrary. The complaints I've seen are about congestion caused insufficient CVC as the big issue.". Already provided that in a link previously but you must have just glossed over is as it doesn't suit your narrative as usual. But then the other evidence is Telstra moving people down teirs because fttn can't deliver the speeds people wanting to PAY for.

"I find it amazing that you see 80% on 25Mbps or slower as a great result on a network that is capable of 1Gbps. Personally my reaction is tears. It is also sad to see the number of 1Gbps connections drop from 22 to 17."

It's amazing that's you don't see 65% of people picking 25Mbps or above now will bring issue for a network only designed to deliver up to 25Mbps when it's still years away from being finished.

0
0
FAIL

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

> Yes Mathew why pay for faster speed on fttn when nbn only guarantees for 1 sec in a day 12Mbps during the 18mth transition and 25Mbps for 1 second in a day after that.

You keep claiming this yet if it was in way close to reality we would be seeing articles everywhere complaining how slow FTTN is. What we find instead is articles on congestion.

> It's amazing that's you don't see 65% of people picking 25Mbps or above now will bring issue for a network only designed to deliver up to 25Mbps when it's still years away from being finished.

You mean less than 14% being inadequately served by FTTN, which means more than 86% won't switch their vote based on the NBN.

0
2

Re: NZ Model

Lol Mathew

"Changing technology won't magically cause 80% to connect at 100Mbps. I've clearly explained and the provided the numbers support the fact that slow speeds on the NBN are caused by people's unwillingness to pay for faster speeds. A change in policy is required.". It does when fttn can't deliver those aka Telstra having to move people down teirs.

But then there cost for plans are a lot cheaper $60 wholesale for 1Gbps ( wow fttp can deliver 1Gbps even though you have claimed other wise). They also don't have a Cvc cost and have unlimited plans available with out the congestion. Wow again right must be magic pudding or something.

"What I've asked you to do is provide some thoughts on why the take up rates are so different between the two countries. If 80% of the country were connecting to FTTP at 100Mbps then this would be a clear justification for the NBN needing to support that as a minimum speed."

Lol considering reports that by 2020 1Gbps would be the norm around the world. But it's ok we only need 25Mbps.

"For the >80% willingly choosing 25Mbps or slower effectively the answer is that yes, the financial model Labor put in place for the NBN has resulted in a network delivering 25Mbps or slower."

Willing to chose is not a network being built with fttp a claim of it only doing 25Mbps. When you would have been able to move into any residential place a chose a speed that suits you. Now you fanboi model it the opposite it is only required to deliver an upto (lol not min lol) 25Mbps big difference isn't it.

"The relvant quote from the document is "may reach a PIR within that range only once during a 24 hour period." My undestanding of DSL technology is that performance does not tend to vary wildly over a 24 hour period. Do you have evidence that of VDSL sync speeds showing wide variation over the course of a day? If not then what you are spreading is FUD."

Lol again you have no idea what your talking about. Why does aDSL sync speeds to different place from less than 1Mbps to up to 24Mbps. vDSL has that exact same problem. Again hence why tetra had to move poeple down teir. Now I can understand why it confused you lol.

That document is from NBN it self it's PIR range for 100Mbps on fttn is 25-100Mbps but please try to understand. If what your claiming about the average speed of fttn where true the PIR range would be 80Mbps?

"The reality is that RSP congestion and customers choosing slow speeds is having a signficantly bigger impact on internet speed than MTM."

ATM RSP Cvc average is just 1Mbps there is your congestion ATM it's in that same accc report. But then HFC congestion starts at 1Mbps due to 600 plus on one cable. Fttn congestion starts at 5Mbps due to 2Gbps pipe and fttp congestion starts at 80Mbps for its 2.5Gbps pipe.

"It is not RSPs paying it is residential customers paying for access."

So a customer PAYing for 100Mbps and Telstra has to move them down to either 50Mbps or worst 25Mbps because the fttn can't deliver over 50Mbps or worst over 25Mbps. It's not Telstra fault for FTTN able to deliver. Telstra only at fault for not checking what that fttn could deliver for that customer.

0
0

Re: Contention ratios are poor guide to congestion

Lol Mathew

"> Yes Mathew why pay for faster speed on fttn when nbn only guarantees for 1 sec in a day 12Mbps during the 18mth transition and 25Mbps for 1 second in a day after that.

You keep claiming this yet if it was in way close to reality we would be seeing articles everywhere complaining how slow FTTN is. What we find instead is articles on congestion.

You keep claiming this yet if it was in way close to reality we would be seeing articles everywhere complaining how slow FTTN is.

What we find instead is articles on congestion."

Lol I am not saying NBN own documents say it. But again I see where your confused because the Cvc congestion is 1Mbps well below that threshold. But there have been article. As usually your blinked unreality claiming it to be reality copper Fanboi

"You mean less than 14% being inadequately served by FTTN, which means more than 86% won't switch their vote based on the NBN."

Lol considering the world internet avegae speed by 2020 will by 1Gbps yes plus everyone else on it too lol.

0
0
FAIL

Re: NZ Model

> But then there cost for plans are a lot cheaper $60 wholesale for 1Gbps ( wow fttp can deliver 1Gbps even though you have claimed other wise).

I have never claimed that FTTP won't support 1Gbps. What I have pointed out is that Labor planned for less than 1% to have 1Gbps in 2026!

> Lol considering reports that by 2020 1Gbps would be the norm around the world. But it's ok we only need 25Mbps.

Shame that Labor didn't read or understand the charts they included in their NBNCo Corporate Plan. We might have had a different outcome.

> Lol again you have no idea what your talking about. Why does aDSL sync speeds to different place from less than 1Mbps to up to 24Mbps.

Please learn to comprehend the statements you are quoting. I didn't ask for evidence that VDSL speeds vary over the distance of the connection. I asked for evidence that VDSL speeds for [on the same piece of copper] show a wide variation over the course of the day.

> ATM RSP Cvc average is just 1Mbps there is your congestion ATM it's in that same accc report.

Thank you for explaining exactly where the performance issue exists. Inadequate CVC purchase by RSPs to match the plans being sold.

> So a customer PAYing for 100Mbps and Telstra has to move them down to either 50Mbps or worst 25Mbps because the fttn can't deliver over 50Mbps or worst over 25Mbps.

So this would be one of the small shrinking 14% who are willing to pay for 100Mbps? They have the option of requesting a technology change from NBNCo.

0
2
FAIL

Re: NZ Model

> It does when fttn can't deliver those aka Telstra having to move people down teirs.

Please stop considering a very small minority (<14% willing to pay for 100Mbps, zero for 1Gbps) with the general community. Every house has good / bad points and people have made choices based on this for a millenium. The NBN is a national project, not middle class welfare.

> But then there cost for plans are a lot cheaper $60 wholesale for 1Gbps ( wow fttp can deliver 1Gbps even though you have claimed other wise). They also don't have a Cvc cost and have unlimited plans available with out the congestion. Wow again right must be magic pudding or something.

Clearly based on this the NBN woes are Labor's fault then because they put in place design and financial model for the NBN. Why did Labor set the wholesale 1Gbps price at more than double the NZ price? The Coalition have made CVC pricing significantly cheaper.

What you haven't provided is the ingredients for the magic pudding that enabled NZ to deliver the same service significantly cheaper. Could it be the $11 billion that Labor agreed to pay Telstra to move customerse off the copper network onto FTTP, whereas in NZ the incumbrant telco was structurally separated?

0
2

Re: NZ Model

I have never claimed that FTTP won't support 1Gbps. What I have pointed out is that Labor planned for less than 1% to have 1Gbps in 2026!

Lol they plan that for revenue. Much like they plan for 50% to be on 12Mbps to estimate on what revenue but you keep implying that they built it to only deliver 25Mbps lol

"Shame that Labor didn't read or understand the charts they included in their NBNCo Corporate Plan. We might have had a different outcome."

Again there you go claiming the fttp doesn't do 1Gbps again

"Please learn to comprehend the statements you are quoting. I didn't ask for evidence that VDSL speeds vary over the distance of the connection. I asked for evidence that VDSL speeds for [on the same piece of copper] show a wide variation over the course of the day."

They why you completely fail to comprehend the technology. Looks like you believe fttn deliver 80Mbps to everyone like to try to claim when you compare it to fttp lol. It's has a wide range of PIR because evey house has a different speed. Much like how your condfused to why Telstra had to move people down speed teir because fttn could not deliver the speed poeple where willing to pay for.

"Thank you for explaining exactly where the performance issue exists. Inadequate CVC purchase by RSPs to match the plans being sold"

Yes not unlimited plans you where trying to blame

"So this would be one of the small shrinking 14% who are willing to pay for 100Mbps? They have the option of requesting a technology change from NBNCo."

Lol why should they when under labor they would have been about to get the speed they where willing to pay for. Remeber you claim fttn can do 80Mbps should they should be moving them down

0
0

Re: NZ Model

Lol

"Please stop considering a very small minority (<14% willing to pay for 100Mbps, zero for 1Gbps) with the general community. Every house has good / bad points and people have made choices based on this for a millenium. The NBN is a national project, not middle class welfare."

So if that 14% would be make more money for nbn than the 80% you bitch on about. But you have turn it in to class ware far with you speed lotto fanboi support.

"Clearly based on this the NBN woes are Labor's fault then because they put in place design and financial model for the NBN. Why did Labor set the wholesale 1Gbps price at more than double the NZ price? The Coalition have made CVC pricing significantly cheaper."

Lol no they haven't. Plus the coalition said there fttn plan cost would be half the cost of fttp but it cost the same. You would think since it's claimed to be cheaper than fttp the whole sale cost would be cheaper too. But then with fttp it doesn't cost to increase the speed on its network compared to fttn requires a whole new rollout aka the FOD you expect people to pay for a network unable to deliver speed that would have been a viable under labor.

"What you haven't provided is the ingredients for the magic pudding that enabled NZ to deliver the same service significantly cheaper. Could it be the $11 billion that Labor agreed to pay Telstra to move customerse off the copper network onto FTTP, whereas in NZ the incumbrant telco was structurally separated?"

Lol

0
0
FAIL

Re: NZ Model

> Much like they plan for 50% to be on 12Mbps to estimate on what revenue but you keep implying that they built it to only deliver 25Mbps

Instead we have a signficantly worse result from an AVC revenue perspective where >80% are on 25Mbps or slower. The point about Labor planning for 50% to be on 12Mbps is that Labor planned that a decreasing number would have truly fast internet (>= 100Mbps) and that over time Australian internet rankings would fall. If you read the 2010 NBNCo Corporate Plan you will find a chart showing exaclty this.

> Looks like you believe fttn deliver 80Mbps to everyone

Please find a quote from me that supports that position.

> Much like how your condfused to why Telstra had to move people down speed teir because fttn could not deliver the speed poeple where willing to pay for.

I'm not confused about that. This number of people is <14%, which I'll discuss later.

> Yes not unlimited plans you where trying to blame

An RSP offerring unlimited plans has to purchase significantly higher CVC for the network to not have congestion. It is very clear that none of the RSPs offering unlimited plans are pricing them at a level to purchase sufficient CVC. Contrast this with Aussie Broadband who don't offer unlimited and by all reports have a congestion free network.

> Lol why should they when under labor they would have been about to get the speed they where willing to pay for.

My position is that this number of people is <14% which when >80% are on 25Mbps or slower means that this miniority is expecting a government service to provdie beyond what most people are receiving. This small minority who have the option of paying for a technology change or moving. Alternatively when Labor announced speed tiers they could have raised their concerns then that 25Mbps was too slow, but sometimes life teaches hard lessons to the selfish.

0
2
FAIL

Re: NZ Model

> So if that 14% would be make more money for nbn than the 80% you bitch on about. But you have turn it in to class ware far with you speed lotto fanboi support.

It is not class warfare. It is very clear that 100Mbps is recommended as the minimum internet speed. Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plan explained this. My focus on speed tiers is because the NBN benefits should be for all Australians not the elite 1% on 1Gbps under Labor's plan who could most likely afford to install direct fibre if they so desired. As an exercise take the benefits that Labor promoted for the NBN (e.g. eHealth, eLearning, remote working, etc.) use the recommended throughput from the 2010 Corporate Plan for these activities and determine how many are viable at 12Mbps, 25Mbps and 100Mbps.

As previously explained you might be in the <5% who are truely impacted by the FTTN decision, but being willing to pay for a 100Mbps service almost certainly means you are privileged group that should be able to stand independently and not require a government subsidy.

> Lol no they haven't. Plus the coalition said there fttn plan cost would be half the cost of fttp but it cost the same.

Please understand that the Coalition have not changed the wholesale prices charged by NBNCo, except to reduce CVC pricing faster than Labor planned. Significant changes to wholesale pricing require approval from ACCC, so it is a non-trivial exercise.

You haven't provided any evidence on how the Austrlian NBN model can be changed to match the 'success' of the NZ model. Instead all you offer is Lol. Please realise that a new argument is required to restore FTTP, especially now that Labor have realised that the NBN is no longer a significant vote changer.

> You would think since it's claimed to be cheaper than fttp the whole sale cost would be cheaper too.

The independent MPs required that NBN wholesale plan prices for the same speed tier would be the same across all service types. This is the opaque cross-subsidy model developed by Labor.

0
1

"restructured price book is therefore welcome to everyone in the industry – but it comes at great political risk to the government"

Doing nothing also comes at great political risk to the government. Council of Small Business Australia CEO, Peter Strong says "slow NBN speeds is as big an issue as energy".

2
0
Facepalm

What defines slow?

The standard hours of business are 8am-6pm which are outside the evening peak time where reports state CVC congestion is causing the biggest issues.

What speeds are small business customers connecting at? Are most connecting at 100Mbps or is the reality closer to the national profile of <14% at 100Mbps and >82% at 25Mbps or slower?

Are these small businesses choosing a top tier RSP with quotas or unlimited residential plans where congestion is to be expected?

0
2

Well we saw this coming years ago!

Look, technically speaking most of you are right. Network contention at the RSP level was always going to be the critical problem.

I've been saying since day one the entire thing is flawed because of the incredible capital cost of the rollout which made it impossible for everyone to make money, even at the currently ludicrously low bond rate plus a bit. Someone had to lose here, the taxpayer, nbnco, the retail ISPs, the customers or all of the above.

It only takes a calculator to work out many tens of billions, perhaps a hundred billion in infrastructure costs for 25M people was madness - especially when we'd already seen the idiotic duplication of the metro HFC networks from 1995 onward with $2B+ price tags, for almost exactly what the NBN was offering at startup.

But this situation isn't new. We were paying $5-$10 per hour in the early-mid 90s for a dialup account and could pretty much max out our modems at whatever speed they connected at. Then along came flat rate ISPs who realised they could oversell their 128kbps ISDN Microlink to the network - or a E1/Macrolink if you were really lucky - to hundreds or thousands of flat rate subscribers. Why? Because the cost of backhaul was incredibly expensive. Then people were pissed because in peak time anything outside the ISP's local network was unusable, if you could actually get through and grab a circuit in the model pool at all!

All the incessant hype, particularly aimed at the non-tech market, just pushed expectations of what the nbn could do for their lives into the stratosphere. For heavens sake, it's just an internet connection, and just like in the dialup days, people don't understand network contention or backhaul. Joe Average will always pay the least they can for a consumer product, because unlike we tech peeps, that's how they think of it. And with all that nonsense and PR ... of course they think 'it's the 'NBN' so as long as I've got it, it has to be incredible.'

Don't tell me if it were all fibre it would be different, it wouldn't - just even more expensive. This is the crux of the problem and no amount of fiddling with CVC numbers is going to make a hoot of difference. The biggest players will always be able to screw the little guys on volume, especially when there is next to zero differentiation in product. This is just basic economics; we've created a residential access monopoly so by default the biggest will win, who also just happen to have pervasive LTE-A and soon 5G networks at gigabit speeds. So now we're stuffed. The customer's confused - even many technical customers - so they start blaming anyone because they just don't understand the real issue.

It's very simple. Just-in-time always wins, while massive spend technology projects inevitably fail. Why? Because innovation moves faster than the rate at which you can physically implement it.

0
0

Base charge and over charge is far more sensible. The end user should never be penalised. Basically ISP pay for a base load at one rate and anything beyond that load is charged at a higher rate. The ISP can save money by pre booking more but the end user is not penalised for the ISP getting it wrong, it just means the ISP loses profit when it goes over.

How about when it is impossible for the NBN to supply what they are claiming to sell on their net work, when they over sell CVC beyond hardware capacity, the ISP pays, the customers pays even more and the NBN enjoys legalised fraud.

0
1
FAIL

> How about when it is impossible for the NBN to supply what they are claiming to sell on their net work, when they over sell CVC beyond hardware capacity

Can you provide evidence that NBNCo are not supplying what they claim? The fact that Labor designed the NBNCo financial model to derive a growing portion of their revenue from CVC provdies a great incentive for NBNCo to run a congestion free network so that RSPs see the benefits of purchasing additional CVC.

All of the commentary I've seen points to RSPs purchasing inadequate CVC from NBNCo to match the retail plans being sold.

0
2
Facepalm

FTTN average speed is 70/30Mbps / 76% don't care

A couple of quotes from NBNCo in Consumers expect too much from the internet, says ombudsman:

On Friday NBN Co blamed consumers, saying 76 per cent of Australians "don't know what internet speed they are receiving" and 35 per cent were unaware they have a choice of speed when switching to the NBN."

A spokeswoman confirmed the average speed on fibre-to-the-node lines is currently about 70 Mbps download and 30 Mbps upload. It estimates about 65 per cent of FTTN lines can get between 50 and 100 Mbps during the switch over phase, then increasing by 5 and 10 Mbps.

Remove speed tiers from NBN because of the variability in speeds and the average would be 70Mbps, not that many people would care :-).

0
2

Re: FTTN average speed is 70/30Mbps / 76% don't care

Lol Mathew there nbn don't add up lol

So the average is 70Mbps

When only 65% can't get about 50Mbps lol.

No wonder your concussed why Telstra had to move people to slow teirs lol

1
0
FAIL

Re: FTTN average speed is 70/30Mbps / 76% don't care

> So the average is 70Mbps When only 65% can't get about 50Mbps lol.

What is your evidence for this statement? The quote from Consumers expect too much from the internet, says ombudsman containing 65% is "It estimates about 65 per cent of FTTN lines can get between 50 and 100 Mbps".

Lets unpack that a little to help your comprehension:

1. Only 35% of FTTN cannot achieve 50Mbps, and that will decrease further when the transition is complete.

2. 65% of connections on FTTN are 50Mbps or faster.

3. Only 14% are ordering connections faster than 50Mbps

4. At most 5% are impacted by FTTN (35% slower than 50Mbps * 14% who would order faster speeds)

This number reduces further when you consider that Labor estimated that <70% would connect to the NBN because it was too expensive. Adding FTTC reduces the FTTN rollout.

When the percentage impacted is small and the overwhelming majority are from higher socioeconomic groups it is easy to see why internet speeds faster than 25Mbps could be considered middleclass welfare.

Of course if Labor hadn't designed the NBN with speed tiers, then my whole argument falls apart. However the fibre fanbois supproted speed tiers and now have to suffer the consequences of that selfishness.

0
2
Megaphone

Customers WILL pay for the speed/bandwidth.

@mathew42 So this would be one of the small shrinking 14% who are willing to pay for 100Mbps? They have the option of requesting a technology change from NBNCo.

The option for requesting a technology change and actually getting one is massive. I am 2,173 metres by copper wire from the phone exchange. I pay the non refundable application fee to nbn<sup?TM</sup> and they laugh all the way to the bank just like they have with most of these technology change requests. They would look at the distance and not even bother considering the request. Requests from businesses that had a 300 metre distance to run the fibre have been denied.

If you ever have a non biased thought about this, think about the number of businesses who would be really happy to have the option of getting 1gbps speed due to the size of the files that they send and receive. Businesses like graphic designers and printers yet you only spout that people would not be prepared to pay for those speeds. I know a printing business that paid Telstra $10,000 for a fairly short fibre run so they could get a 100/100 connection and have the privilege of parting with $1,200 PER MONTH. The local node connection would have provided one fifth of that but only in one direction. I know this business would be happy to pay for 2 x FTTP (failover reasons) at the going rate. Gigabit would be even better mainly because they would have the faster upload speed. Saying people/customers won't pay it is just plain rubbish.

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018