Posts by mathew42

Re: Feed the nbn my icon.

> Usual copper fan claim with no facts behind it

I could retort by responding usual fibre fanboi comment who still dreams of Labor's empty 1Gbps promise, however I'm not a copper fan. All I've ever done is point out that Labor's choice to implement speed tiers has meant that >80% will be adequately served by FTTN. If we want to change that situation then the first step is working out how to reduce that number, to a figure that justifies FTTP.

> The SR had it 6 months behind.

Which version of the SR? The NBNCo Corporate Plan (2010) on page 15 states the following figures for premises passed - 2011: 48,000, 2012: 259,000, 2013: 1, 2,69,000). The NBNCo Corporate Plan (2013) on page 105 states that in 2011 18,000 premises were passed and in 2013 predicted 205,000 passed, placing it 2 years behind plan.

In the 2013 NBNCo Corporate Plan there is this gem of a comment:

During FY2013 the average number of premises passed per day by the FTTP Access Network has increased quarter-by-quarter. However, the rate of increase has been slower than forecast in the 2012-15 Corporate Plan, resulting in a revised estimate of 155,000 to 175,000 Premises Passed by 30 June 2013, representing an expected shortfall of approximately 111,000 to 131,000 premises passed to 30 June 2013, which NBN Co expects to recover before FY2021.

> Usual copper fan tripe commented before on couldn't be bother tto do it again

Do you see how I've responded with facts from publications approved by Labor that can be easily verified versus your unverifiable opinions? Might be time to learn how to research and separate wishful thinking from reality.

Re: Feed the nbn my icon.

> Incompetent twats. Morrow should have his 457 visa cancelled and replaced with someone who is up to the task of rolling out the fibre.

Would you suggest Quigley who was years behind the original plan?

Did you happen to notice that NBN is ahead of targets set in earlier plans? Something never achieved by Quigley.

> Why is the FTTP connection $4,400 when NZ FTTP costs about that same as OZ FTTN? Is morrow even more incompetent than originally thought?

Possibly because of the way that Quigley under instruction for Labor planned the build?

> ... usual tripe

The fact that the percentage on 25Mbps or less is close to where it was before the first FTTN connection.

How about you offer some suggestions for the changes (beyond FTTP) which won't have any impact on >80% to resolve your concerns?

Re: Balancing community benefit with cost

> When every would have the option of those benefits not like the lotto we have now

In exactly the same way that everyone has the option of purchasing a Tesla S?

Hypothetically everyone within the FTTP rollout can connect at 1Gbps. The reality is that only 14% have decided that they can afford the cost of the 100Mbps NBN plans. The ACCC reports that on 31 March 2017 of the 1,080,761 connections only 77 where 250Mbps.

There is absolutely nothing in the data that indicates demand for 100Mbps and faster plans is likely to grow in the future. By waxing lyically about uber fast FTTP while ignoring this reality of speeds that people are selecting fibre fanbois are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the discussion.

Re: Oh FFS

> You won't get any argument from me on that one (although "mediocre" is probably overselling this polished turd) - but that is all the MTM is delivering for a lot of people.

FTTP also has >80% on 25Mbps slower. Does that mean it is also a polished turd?

> That is a joke, right?

No. I'm very serious.

> Are you seriously arguing that something in the order of $10,000 - $20,000 (or more) "is not significant" for a home owner who would like to upgrade to FTTP to get a decent internet connection?!

I'm not saying that is an insignificant sum of money, but that when included as part of the purchase of a house it is not that expensive. People move house for a number of reasons. For a small minority NBN speeds will figure in that decision. A house down the road sold recently. Prior to moving in the new owners have renovated extensively, replacing new carpet with wood, replaced all the applicances and more. Adding a technology change would be less than 10% of the cost of the revovations.

This might sound expensive to the average Australian, but remember Labor's plan was for <1% to have 1Gbps connections in 2026. For the top 1% in Australia, $10,000 is small change, especially when it is tax deductable.

> If they can change the technology, they can also change the funding model.

Fair call. My proposal is that speed tiers should be removed because this would highlight the differences between technologies. However the herd are campaigning for slashing the price of CVC gutting NBNCo's future revenue. Do you have a different position?

Re: Oh FFS

> To address your point regarding 80% subscribing at 25Mbps or less, I suspect that is because many of the customers on FTTN realise that they are still going to have trouble with the copper connection from their house to the node and that paying extra for the higher bandwidth is a waste of money.

How about instead of wild speculation you look at the data provided by ACCC in the NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report. It shows that speed tier take up is relatively similar across all forms of fixed connection. It is the ignorance of fibre fanbois that has lead to the current situation.

> They are bombarded with advertising saying that they need to be on the NBN and so take the cheapest plan that they can get.

So you are suggesting that most of the >80% on 25Mbps or faster don't care about their internet connection?

Re: There is no N in NBN

ACCC was acting in accordance with the legislation. At the time Conroy could have stepped in, but he refused to acknowledge that there was even a problem,even when the NBN Points of Interconnect and the future of competition blog post by Simon Hackett clearly identified the issue.

Fibre fanbois ignored the evidence and acted as cheer squad for Conroy.

> This will NOT be an NBN until traffic can get from Perth to Sydney without leaving the NBN network.

The NBN uses virtual circuits to deliver traffic from the end point direct to the RSP. If you are connecting to your neighbour's computer and you are on the same RSP, the packets will still travel to the RSP via the PoI and back again.

Re: CVC pricing is still insane

If you cut CVC revenue to 1%, the AVC revenue has to rise to compensate. Effectively this means that high speeds will become even more expensive and less obtainable.

The NBN financial model is based on a few princples as documented in the NBNCo Corporate Plan:

- AVC being low to encourage people to connect and CVC is higher to cover costs.

- Cross subsidisation between high density fixed, low density fixed, wireless and satellite services.

In NBN: Internet providers say controversial CVC charge for bandwidth is too expensive appears this statement:

Independent telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said politicians were going to have to admit they made a mistake, and write off half of the cost of the NBN.

The fibre fanbois are still claiming that Labor's plan was perfect, so I don't expect this to happen.

Effectively most RSPs are offering discounted unlimited plans with hgh congestion because this is what the marketplace demands. If RSPs implemented reasonable prices and quotas the congestion problem would disappear. Instead the RSPs are pressuring the Government into subsidise their operations. Telstra wholesale pricing for AGVC (similar to CVC) is $65/Mbps. At $14.40 NBNCo CVC is cheap. Government subsidies should be for people on low incomes not big business.

In the same article there is also the clueless customer blaming FTTN for slow speeds:

When she checked her speed at around 6pm on Monday night she was getting 16.4 megabits, but she said that was the fastest she had seen it in a while. Ms Wray said her average download speed was just 7 megabits, slower than when she was on ADSL.

If the problem was FTTN then speeds would be consistently slow. Speeds fluctuating indicates congestion. What is the bet she is on an unlimited plan.

Re: Oh FFS

> It was supposed to make Australia a WORLD LEADER with the best broadband network on this planet and propel this country and their people into the 22nd century and beyond.

This is what the Labor spin doctors wanted you to believe.

- 1Gbps has to be the minimum speed for a world leading. >80% on 25Mbps or slower should be considered mediocure.

- The best broadband networks are direct fibre not GPON.

Charts that Labor included in the NBNCo Corporate Plan (2010) showed that Australia would fall further behind on the curve.

> It’s NATIONAL infrastructure. It doesn’t need to produce a ROI.

Labor chose to make the NBN off budget and set a 7% ROI target. Labor could have easily cherry picked some think tank reports showing that for every 1Mbps increase in internet speed, GDP was boosted by X% to justify the NBN being on budget.

> This fantastic infrastructure project was fucked up not due to financial considerations but for political considerations. Political reasons were used to deny Australians prosperity and wealth.

Labor promised a string of community benefits (eHealth, eLearning, etc.) but then chose to setup a finanical model which denied those benefits to current >80% of the population. Realistically less than 5% have been impacted by MTM because FTTN is ~30% of rollout and only a shrinking 14% are choosing 100Mbps.

If you accept that a technology change is less than a kitchen renovation or moving house then it is not that significant for owners. Renters have the simpler option of moving to a location with FTTP / HFC.

> I am not annoyed that I am going to be stuck with this clusterfuck of a technological mish-mash and slow speeds.

By slow speeds you meant the <25Mbps speeds that >80% of Australians are ordering. This is entirely due to Labor's policy decisions not MTM.

> Actually surprised you haven't copy 'n pasted you usual 78% on the 12/1 plan bullshit.

By bullshit, do you mean the reality that >80% are odering 25Mbps or less and the percentage on 100Mbps is shrinking? If so it is time to face reality and suggest what policy changes need to be made to resolve the mess. Switching from FTTN to FTTP won't change the >80% on 25Mbps or slower.

Balancing community benefit with cost

Healthcare and roads are frequently evaluated based on financial models of questionable accuracy. A few examples:

- A preventative treatment (e.g. vaccine, diabetes monitoring) is evaluated based on cost versus the reduction in cost of future treatment

- Surgery for soft tissue injuries is evaluated on the cost of surgery now, versus potential that the body with help from physiotherapy will heal itself.

- Part of the decision set for road funding is economic contribution (e.g. If a new freeway saves a truck driver 10 minutes and the truck driver uses the road 6 times a day, then the improvement in productivity means one extra delivery a day)

- Roads can also be funded based on reducing the cost of accidents to communities (e.g. replacing level crossings for trains).

Labor chose to put the NBN off-budget, that it should deliver a 7% ROI and that once the risky build was complete that privatisation should occur. For the NBN to be subsidised by the government community benefit would need to be shown. Labor promoted the NBN as delivering community benefits in areas such as health and education.

The NBNCo Corporate Plan (2010) guidelines for required speeds for tele-medicine and remote education at 100Mbps and preferrably 1Gbps. In the same plan Labor estimated that today 30% would meet that criteria. The reality is 14% and falling. 70% takeup * 14% on 100Mbps = 10% who received the promised benefits.

Now when you consider that this 14% are on the most expensive plans, I consider it reasonable to label this as middle-class welfare and delivering little benefit to the disadvantaged. This means that the NBN should deliver a subsidy and the government should limit it's exposure to providing funding at a discount to the commercial rate. To change this, the NBN financial model requires restructuring to deliver community benefits to the disadvantaged.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.