opinion This week, Exetel chief executive John Linton made the audacious claim that all ISPs reselling National Broadband Network services would deliver the exact same performance to customers. However, I believe the claim to be broadly wrong – and in this article I’ll attempt to demonstrate why.
According to Linton, all ISPs using the NBN will perform the same because (I’m paraphrasing a little here) because everyone will be using several key elements of the NBN infrastructure. Specifically, he mentions the various links between a customer’s house (or business premise) and the hand-off point to an ISP’s own network (NBN Co’s much discussed Points of Interconnect).
The Exetel chief’s argument is that there is no way for an ISP to influence the performance of this highly important network segment, short of underprovisioning bandwidth to the Connectivity Virtual Circuit component which supplies bandwidth to each customers’ connection. He also appears to state that it might be possible to underprovision the entire bandwidth made available from an ISP’s network to that of the NBN, but writes that off as something “which only the truly paranoid would consider possible”.
Now to a certain extent, Linton’s right in his statements here. I would suggest that most ISPs, with their limited experience provisioning customers on the NBN so far, will attempt to deliver more than adequate CVC bandwidth to their customers, to ensure that the new NBN connections deliver on their promises. We know from Internode’s experiences in Tasmania that each CVC connection to an NBN Point of Interconnect should be at least 200Mbps to satisfy customer demand, and at least in the short to mid-term, we can expect other ISPs to follow that guideline.
However, I also believe that Linton is ignoring both principles of dynamic traffic management here with respect to that aspect of ISPs’ networks, and also other segments of their networks.
Internode chief Simon Hackett wrote recently that once deployed, 200Mbps of CVC connection could actually support “quite a lot of customers” in a Point of Interconnect geographical area (of which there will be 121 located around Australia). However, he also made clear that ISPs could choose different contention ratios, and would each have their own policy in terms of the desired ratio of customers to CVC megabits.
“Once deployed, 200 megabits on a CVC can actually support quite a lot of customers, based on whatever contention ratio an RSP chooses, until the RSP ultimately upgrades beyond 200 megabits in accordance with its individual policy in terms of customer POI access point contention ratio,” Hackett said.
What this implies is that – just as with the current ADSL2+ networks – ISPs will be able to dynamically monitor their broadband networks under the NBN and provision supporting bandwidth up and down for certain regions as they need it. Cut-rate ISPs will obviously want to get away with as poor contention rations as possible, while higher-priced ISPs will want to deliver a standard quality experience, so will set up their networks for better ratios.
Secondly, I think Linton has ignored the reality of how ISP networks work. Let’s take a look at this picture of an ISP’s internal network on the NBN, supplied by Internode networking engineer Mark Newton:
The picture starkly displays the fact that the NBN is what it is advertised to be – primarily an access network which connects the core networks of ISPs to customers’ premises. The ISPs then go through a complicated dance to connect their own networks to the broader Internet. In an NBN world, according to Newton’s diagram, customer traffic will flow from customers’ premises to a fibre access node, and then to one of the 121 Points of Interconnect. From there it will enter their ISP’s network through other fibre networks and the ISP’s back-haul switching setup.
I don’t understand all the details in as high a level as I would like (being a former systems administrator rather than a network administrator), but at that point it looks like the traffic goes through what is termed a broadband network gateway (BNG), a broadband remote access server (BRAS) and a L2TP network server (LNS) – with this being a point on the ISP’s network where traffic is aggregated and customer’s tunneled connections are terminated as the ISP makes ready to send traffic on to the broader Internet. Perhaps someone else can clarify in the comments what impact is seen here on network performance.
After that comes an ISP’s core network, and then its edge network bordering on the broader Internet, which is also where it may peer traffic with other ISPs, such as with PIPE Networks’ famous Internet Exchanges located around Australia.
So you can see, from the diagram above, there are many places where an ISP may skimp on the services it provides to customers. Even though using a wholesaler like the NBN takes a fair degree of control away from ISPs in some regions of the entire network they are using, they still have enough control to influence outcomes – and it feels to me as if they have more control in some senses – or at least the same — than they would have over a similar ADSL network.
And this isn’t even taking into account the connections which an ISP has to the rest of the world — it’s just their own internal network. I’m sure some Australian ISPs have many redundant links to other ISPs and internationally — while some get by with less, and focus on the cheaper options.
In addition, before people start jumping up and down about how all of this is different under the NBN, please check out the pictures Newton has also supplied about the network topography of an ISP using a wholesale ADSL network or its own ADSL network. You’ll notice that much of the diagram is exactly the same — for good reason. Again, the NBN is an ISP access network.
Another senior ISP industry representative we asked about the issue this week had this to say:
“The extent to which a given RSP adequately provisions the size of a CVC into the network in each service area of the NBN is only one of many constraints on performance for an ISP.
To frame that as the only, or even the most important, differentiator between providers is to completely ignore the other 99 percent of the data path between a customer and their chosen sources of Internet hosted information. The rest of the national and international data path in use, and the extent to which those are redundant, adequately provisioned in terms of capacity, and served by adequately high performance routing equipment are all at least as important.
The NBN is going to highlight the difference in quality between RSPs far more clearly than is possible with ADSL2+; We’ll see ‘unlimited’ (and/or very low cost/high quota) providers necessarily overselling their upstream Internet capacity in order to make ends meet. They do this today, but its mostly masked by the lower line speeds of ADSL2+ services. In the NBN realm, on 100 megabit services, there will be nowhere to hide for a cheap ISP during the busy hour.
Framing the NBN as something which magically makes the rest of all ISP networks exactly the same as each other is just nonsensical.”
We couldn’t agree more.
So what will this mean for end customers? A lot. In an NBN world, as we’re already seeing being played out through the release of early pricing plans, there will be a great deal of differentiation between ISPs when it comes to the quality of the service they are providing. Just as with ADSL, some providers will gain a reputation for strong and fast networks, while others in comparison will go the low-quality path and attract customers of a different kind.
No doubt business-focused NBN providers will also spring up and provide a whole host of more complicated and even higher quality services over the network. And of course value-add services such as content, ISP servers (for example, the gaming networks operated by BigPond, Internode and iiNet), bundles with mobile services and more will also provide reasons why you would choose one ISP over the other.
The breadth of that competition is still unclear; with debate still existing about the extent to which the NBN will support new national providers with its current pricing model; however, we can’t see any of the current half-dozen major players going out of business any time soon, and we’re sure there are quite a few others in the next tier down which will make a strong NBN play.
Overall, there is strong reason to believe ISPs’ networks will not all perform the same in an NBN world. ISP networking in 2011 is complex; and while we have no doubt not been able to truly do it justice in this brief examination (keep in mind that I’m a journalist and not a network admin), there is no doubt that the situation is a great deal more complex than Exetel chief John Linton’s comments would suggest.
Image credit: Mike Swope, royalty free, Mark Newton
but at that point it looks like the traffic goes through what is termed a broadband network gateway (BNG), a broadband remote access server (BRAS) and a L2TP network server (LNS)
That’s the bit where services drop off the VLAN connectivity from the NBN and back to L3 IP for authentication and billing (ie. tracking how much usage you go through) reasons.
Depending on where in the network it is at the point it would either jump directly onto an internet facing edge router or could go back into an MPLS network to (ie. the distribution core) to get to one.
Ah yeah — that was pretty much what I was thinking it was.
there is no doubt that the situation is a great deal more complex than Exetel chief John Linton’s comments would suggest.
I interpreted Linton’s comments as either being incredibly stupid and ignorant or as marketing related FUD.
I think it is no coincidence the comments came after Internode (who have been provisioning customers on the NBN) announced their plans and copped some heat over value.
Linton then announced “plans” that lack credibility given Exetel’s lack of involvement in the NBN currently and then tried to counter the CVC tax issue by claiming all ISPs will be equal.
The reality is some wil be more equal than others. :)
How does this fit with the ACCC’s proposal to ensure all ISPs deliver the advertised speeds at peak times? As far as I can tell Internode’s plans, which advertise the port speed, would not be allowed under that proposal. All ISPs would have to advertise the speed they can deliver at peak times rather than an “up to” port speed. If all ISPs have to deliver the advertised speeds at peak times, where is the opportunity for differentiation at the network level?
I’m not a techie so please keep the explanation as simple as possible.
In order to guarantee the port speed at all times you’d need to have a 1:1 contention ratio, that simply isn’t going to happen on residential grade services.
The only thing the ACCC could do is try to have ISPs advise of the highest contention ratio they put on their networks, but that information would be confidential within the companies and not something they would want to advise publicly.
Really the ACCC is having a lend of itself and it should end up like it today, if you’re not getting the speed you think you should get complain to the ISP, complain to the TIO, or simply change providers.
If the ACCC mandates they provide contention ratio information the fact ISPs don’t want to share that information is irrelevant.
I can’t imagine them sharing this information in good faith however.
I learned a long time ago to take any comments by John Linton with a few grains of salt. His comments about the equality of ISPs under the NBN are to be seen as no more than a grab for customers. “Listen lads, there’s no longer any reason to pay a premium to Internode and others as we are now as good as everyone else!”
“I don’t understand all the details in as high a level as I would like (being a former systems administrator rather than a network administrator),”
….and that should have cautioned you to stay away from commenting on things of which you have no knowledge.
1) The cvc at the POI is THE controlling back haul factor for now and for the next year or so – and that is certainly not going to under provisioned by NBNCo. If that is also correctly provisioned by the RSP then that is ‘problem solved’.
2) The bandwidth equipment and cross connects has never been a problem for any ISP above the quite small – it is only a paranoid who would suggest that can be contended. Or are you suggesting that one ISPs 10 gbps switches and routers are superior to another’s?
3) The only other ‘ISP generated constraint’ can be the IP that links the ISP to the internet. IP prices are now falling below $20.00 per mbps and will reach $10.00 per mbps before much of 2012 has passed. Again, only the paranoid would assume that any ISP would not be able to easily afford whatever amount is required.
There is not really anything at all that can effect the NBNCo fibre speeds that is under the control of any even vaguely competent ISP.
As for the view that the cvc cost is too high as being suggested by some idiots for their own, unknown, purposes…….it isn’t and the ‘real life’ pricing adjustmentsl will ensure that remains true.
However none of that matters at all – sometime in the future the end users will have made the decision on whether any RSP can positively affect their personal experiences.
I
ADSL tail circuits have acted as a choke point in current ISP networks, with a sufficiently provisioned CVC the reality is the ISP network will see greater traffic with the “protection” of the limited capacity tail circuits.
Even on the ISP/RSP network redundancy and protected capacity etc is an issue, two RSPs may appear equal during fair sailing but that could no longer hold true during failures.
Going by your numbers, the CVC cost is similar to IP prices. I won’t comment on how fair this price is at the moment, but if NBNCo fails to lower it at a sufficient rate, then CVC costs will become a significant constraint, and certain budget ISPs will be tempted to cut corners and manage bandwidth by de-prioritising traffic they don’t like.
how do you reconcile these two statements:
“As for the view that the cvc cost is too high as being suggested by some idiots for their own, unknown, purposes…….it isn’t and the ‘real life’ pricing adjustmentsl will ensure that remains true.”
“Because the monthly port cost of the lowest speed fibre service and the ‘backhaul/CVC’ cost is higher than even Telstra Wholesale charge for an ADSL2 service … and is almost double the cost of an Optus ADSL2 service”
If that is also correctly provisioned by the RSP then that is ‘problem solved’.
The first word in the above comment is the key word.
“….and that should have cautioned you to stay away from commenting on things of which you have no knowledge.”
Assuming this is the same J Linton, surely you are taking the piss. You made a very similar statement with your comments that are referenced in the article.
“My knowledge of network engineering is far from comprehensive but it doesn’t have to be to understand that NO ISP can influence, in any way at all, the ‘performance’ of an NBN Co service from the customer’s preference to the hand of point between the NBN Co network and the ISP network in, currenty, a capital city data centre”
“Again, only the paranoid would assume that any ISP would not be able to easily afford whatever amount is required.”
Its not a matter of ‘affording’, its a matter of what they actually are willing to pay.
Except for the fact that Linton is pretty much right but not for technical reasons, for commercial reasons.
Anyone actually involved with NBNCo, will know, that they have made noises that they will use ‘commercial terms’ to ensure that RSPs purchase what they deem to be ‘sufficient’ CVC capacity for the number of AVCs in each service area. Everyone is gagged by the NDA and won’t mention this.
NBNCo are paranoid that people will sell a heavily oversubscribed service and it make them look bad because, like the entire project itself, it is an exercise in political perception.
So guess who will be the winners in the NBN world? The ones with the lowest cost service. Roll on TPG and Exetel.
A lot of these people either ignore or don’t understand commercial realities ;)
Commercial realities?
so i gather there’s no love lost btw JL and SH.
heh I think it’s kinda like Gen Y vs Gen X or similar ;)
Nah, I think it’s more a matter of someone who helped build the Internet in Australia vs someone whose “knowledge of network engineering is far from comprehensive”, and of someone whose company has been going strong for 20 years vs someone who has been involved with many companies over that time…
“I don’t understand all the details in as high a level as I would like (being a former systems administrator rather than a network administrator),”
Didn’t need to read any more after that.
Given Exetel’s target market of cut price consumer internet, it makes complete sense for Linton to claim that his product is technically equivalent to that of more expensive offerings. This makes me skeptical.
It’s always amusing watching the great debate about which NBN ISP is better than another, the endless comparison of network diagrams and all the tech gee wizz acronyms that accompany such a discussion, when in reality what determines the NBN viability is only three main factors:
1. When BigPond sells it.
2. When Optus sells it.
3. When the BigPond and Optus customers are mass force migrated onto the NBN because the HFC and ADSL networks are shut down after their respective owners are given billions to do so.
It is that simple, the other factors pale into insignificance.
“because the HFC and ADSL networks are shut down”
Newsflash: The HFC and ADSL networks are not Heritage listed. Your emotional attachment to them is touching but misplaced.
What’s wrong with discussing which ISP has a better network? Of course it has nothing to do with whether the NBN itself is viable, but that’s not the only thing we want to discuss…
Besides, let’s face it, with all of the discussion that’s gone on so far about whether or not the NBN is actually viable, I’ve not seen a single person change their mind. I’ve never seen a single NBN proponent become convinced by the anti-NBN argument and likewise I’ve never seen a single NBN detractor become convinced by the pro-NBN argument. Personally, I’ve given up trying.
“I’ve never seen a single NBN detractor become convinced by the pro-NBN argument.”
Just for the record I was dead against the NBN too but when they changed it to something that would actually make a difference (FTTH) I was convinced :-)
the only people on this earth who consider Labor’s NBN as a “viable” project are:
1/ Mike Quigley (and fellow NBNco cronies)
2/ people who don’t have any meaningful experience or understanding of how businesses work in the “real world”.
(when the NBNco business plan was released, there was probably a momentary silence followed by collective laughter in the corporate boardrooms all across Australia.)
what silly, ignorant people on internet fora think has zero impact in the real world of policy-making.
(the biggest joke about the NBN debate is that all these permutatively-titled websites (e.g. nbnmyths.org, nbnexplained.org, etc) that purport to expose “NBN FUD” are actually the biggest peddlers of misinformation, lies and falsehoods i’ve ever encountered on a single “policy issue”.)
Case in point.
The NBN is a government infrastructure project, there’s not many infrastructure projects that are financially viable or are even intended to directly make money.
Any argument that says the NBN isn’t viable because of cost/return is missing the whole point of a government infrastructure project.
The NBN is about improving the last mile transmission networks in Australia and that will provide long term benefits, it is creating jobs (well honestly creating jobs is debatable right now, I’ve seen a lot of people leave my telco workplace to go there so it seems more like a job shift than an overall industry increase of jobs), but it also has the potential to create more jobs as the general public have greater access and ability to do work online.
The comparison of the NBN also seems to be with private companies, but the problem is private companies are there to make money, meanwhile government infrastructure projects are there to improve services or create new ones for the overall good of the country.
+1 Dean
+1+ Tezz
*The NBN is a government infrastructure project, there’s not many infrastructure projects that are financially viable or are even intended to directly make money.*
1/ NBNco is an infrastructure INVESTMENT company (that is destined for eventual PRIVATISATION).
2/ NBNco has to be financially viable for multi-billion dollar taxpayer cash infusion to be treated as an equity investment.
3/ NBN is “intended to directly make money” because it has to make a PROFIT or RETURN on the Fed Govt’s EQUITY stake (of supposedly 7%), as well as a market return on the DEBT component of its funding.
*Any argument that says the NBN isn’t viable because of cost/return is missing the whole point of a government infrastructure project.*
see above.
even the merits of “government infrastructure projects” have to be assessed on the fundamental basis of “cost/return”, otherwise you can “justify” ANYTHING.
*The NBN is about improving the last mile transmission networks in Australia and that will provide long term benefits…..*
if the NBN isn’t viable, it will “provide” long term NET LOSSES instead.
you can’t just focus on the “broadband jackpot” of gold coins being showered on select vested interests and ignore the massive drain on ordinary taxpayers.
*but it also has the potential to create more jobs as the general public have greater access and ability to do work online.*
what’s next? how about….
$50bln on the latest, state-of-the-art steel mills using the most cutting-edge technology (which the taxpayer should then write-off) so we can undercut and compete against the giant steel mills in China/Japan/South Korea? think of all the high-paying jobs it will create in the steel sector! we will be exporting premium steel products instead of bucketloads of iron ore! it will stimulate a whole raft of downstream industries associated with steel products.
$50bln on industry-leading, fully-automated car manufacturing plants (which the taxpayer should then write-off) so we can manufacture cars at the “lowest cost” in the world? just imagine, Mitsubishi, Toyota, GM, Fiat, etc would be tripping over themselves rushing to building “taxpayer-subsidised” car plants here. think of all the jobs that would create for automotive engineers, designers, components suppliers, etc.
etc, etc.
seriously, if we blew the money on steel mills, car plants or some other productive capacity, we’d actually be able to produce something we can sell to the rest of the world. laying fibre everywhere so fat, lazy couch potatoes can watch more FULL HD TV is just a ******* waste of money.
*The comparison of the NBN also seems to be with private companies, but the problem is private companies are there to make money, meanwhile government infrastructure projects are there to improve services or create new ones for the overall good of the country.*
1/ don’t confuse the “economic benefits of an investment” with “how those benefits are captured”, i.e. just because governments don’t charge for usage of “public roads” doesn’t mean that roads otherwise wouldn’t be built. (a lot of major highways in poor, developing countries are funded by vehicle tolls.)
2/ even as a “social project”, the NBN would be a MASSIVE FAIL because there are hundreds of infinitely-more worthy social projects that could be funded with $50bln. there’s more to “quality of life” than flogging shit on eBay.
@Tezz
“The NBN is a government infrastructure project, there’s not many infrastructure projects that are financially viable or are even intended to directly make money.”
There are not many Government infrastructure projects that are handed over to private companies even before it is completed to resell back to the tax slugged suckers that paid for it in the first place either.
“Any argument that says the NBN isn’t viable because of cost/return is missing the whole point of a government infrastructure project.”
The argument about cost/return is a key to the project, the NBN Business plan makes predictions about cost/returns, Conroy and Gillard bragged about a eventual 7% return, the NBN Co is intended to be privatised, it was passed by Parliament on the basis it will eventually be privatised, for it to be even remotely interesting to private investors to buy into it must run at a profit and have at least the above 7% return figure.
The longer it runs in ‘costs are greater than revenue mode’ the more the tax burden on generations of taxpayers and the harder it is to sell, and the more dubious that magic 7% looks.
” but it also has the potential to create more jobs as the general public have greater access and ability to do work online.”
Yes I love that word ‘potential’, HFC and ADSL also give you that ‘potential’, the traffic overheads required for the majority of jobs at home can be handled by the existing infrastructure, the move to working from home is more driven by social systems as in management letting you do it and having the internal security and remote access systems in place and you wanting to do it as well more than the type of BB infrastructure at the home, unless you can come up with some statistics either here or overseas that indicates FTTH drives the working from home growth.
Case in point is Greenfield estates in Australia that already have had FTTH for years and homes in Canberra on TransACT FTTH, surely they have the highest ratio of at home workers compared to other areas in Australia?
No?, perhaps they are still waiting on the magic ‘potential’ wand to be waved around, or no one has told them they can now work from home.
“The comparison of the NBN also seems to be with private companies, but the problem is private companies are there to make money,”
Including the private companies that are reselling NBN Plans, and the wholesale aggregators that are wholesaling NBN, everyone likes making a nice little earner out of the NBN, except the sucker taxpayer at the bottom layer bankrolling the monstrous CAPEX and the dubious ROI.
” meanwhile government infrastructure projects are there to improve services or create new ones for the overall good of the country.”
Yes and what relationship does that have with $43 billion worth of taxpayer funded FTTH rollout?
If Telstra had have rolled out FTTN, would their shareholders also have been sucker shareholders, as we are (according to you) sucker taxpayers?
Responding to both toshP300 and alain ..
Simple question, are you both proposing the NBN shouldn’t be built because it may not be financially viable (and by that I mean having greater costs than revenue) by the time the rollout is completed?
NBNco’s understating its expenses by capitalising costs that will never be recovered from backloaded revenue that will never materialise.
how’s that?
Absolute rubbish, imo!
You asked, so just sayin’!
Well the good news is it’s shorter than your previous post, the bad news is it was a yes/no question, so you didn’t actually answer it.
*are you both proposing the NBN shouldn’t be built*
NBN shouldn’t be built because universal fibre access is a RUBBISH IDEA and COMPLETE WASTE of money.
*because it may not be financially viable*
NBNco will never generate the revenues it needs to pay back equity and debt.
*(and by that I mean having greater costs than revenue) by the time the rollout is completed*
it’s possible to produce fictitious “accounting profits” by engaging in accounting fraud.
For one thing it’s not “universal” fibre access, but I’ll let that slip. The only thing I can see wrong with it is using a GPON system instead of direct fibres, but that’s really a cost thing to stop it really blowing out.
Out of interest have you ever protested or complained against any other expensive infrastructure projects, such as the $8.6B upgrades of the N1, or the $6.8B being spent to build/repair public housing? And if you haven’t, why not? Because I can’t see either of these two making any profits.
@Tezz
“Out of interest have you ever protested or complained against any other expensive infrastructure projects, such as the $8.6B upgrades of the N1, or the $6.8B being spent to build/repair public housing? And if you haven’t, why not? Because I can’t see either of these two making any profits.”
Is either of those two projects projected in its Business Plan approved by Parliament to give a return on investment of 7% and the ultimate intention of full privatisation?
Something along the lines of this Tezz:
http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/media-releases/2010/nbn-corporate-plan-press-release-final-20-dec-10.pdf
Ok, for starters that 7% is a forecast figure, it’s not set in stone. Also this 2 points directly below it are important too..
* NBN Co forecasts positive operational earnings from FY2018, and positive net income in FY2021
* Network construction to take nine-and-a-half years with rollout to reach peak of 5,900 premises a day during construction
The problem with your argument is that you are predicting how the NBN will be operating in 10 years time based on the few months it has been rolled out in select areas. I don’t think anyone can predict that with any degree of certainty.
@alain… all that does is makes all the crocodile tears about ROI all the more ridiculous, if you now wish to compare the NBN to infrastructure which doesn’t makes no ROI at all…
But at least you now admit there will be a NBN ROI which will overtime pay itself off and you admit that later the NBN can be sold and the ‘sucker taxpayers [sic], receive a hefty wad of bills for the sale of such an asset!
Good to see you are finally getting it ;-)
Excuse my inadvertent pigeon English above :-)
i can predict with 100% certainty that NBNco will go bankrupt if it rolls fibre out to Whoop Whoop.
Pretty well says it all…
Some from the far right right, are more concerned with what a corporate boardroom thinks, than caring about struggling Aussies who do not currently have, or who are unable to afford, comms!
@alian – what was the point of your post?
It wasn’t about being viable or not, but rather, as you pointed out first off, is who has bragging rights of being better or worse.
ISP’s buy out each other all the time, NBN is no different from buying another telco’s customers – keep that topic out of this article please.
It doesn’t matter who is bad or worse, Internode vs Exetel vs TPG vs Dodo vs blah blah blah – yawn.
The piffling amount of residences that have taken up a free connection and the even less amount that are actually USING it at this point of time of is irrelevant to any ISP comparison, and until BigPond and Optus get onboard and actually start selling it and the forced migrations from shutdown infrastructure happen you could run the present crop of NBN ACTIVE clients off a laptop, is the fibre actually been lit up yet, or is Conroy down in the ducts with a torch?
The actual test of ‘Why NBN ISPs won’t all perform the same’ won’t be of any significance until the end of 2012 and maybe even into 2013, and if the Coalition win in 2013 we may never see a proper comparison anyway.
Alain, Given your apparent disdain for the techie analysis, I dont understand why you dont see that the business motivations for the claims aren’t worthy of analysis as well? You need to see the context of the discussion..
I see the context of the discussion ok, but at least wait until more than a immeasurable percentage of a particular ISP’s client base are using the NBN so technical discussions about contention ratios etc actually have some meaning in reality.
A ISP might look at their existing customer base and make the bold prediction that 100% of them will stick with them when they transfer from ADSL/HFC to NBN FTTH, but it might not happen that way.
Wait for the BigPond and Optus advertising juggernaut when they actually start selling NBN plans, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
As for the business analysis the same follows, at the moment we are in the pilot phase in one of the longest pilot phases in history, we need to wait and see which ISP’s use which wholesale aggregators, and how the wholesale aggregators implement their networks for their ISP clients.
@ alain
Caught out again with more and more FUDging … if applying your thoughts about the NBN to the invention of the telephone by DR Bell, then only the small thin elite of society could have afforded to have a phone as that type of protectionist thinking would have stopped the scaling up of a great invention to serve global society.
Could you just hop down from the high and mighty posts for a minute and think what social dividend the NBN will deliver to this infrastructure starved country and particular regional and provincial centres. You only have to read the many and varied NBN success stories out there, how small businesses like photographers can with ease send data to clients without having to resort to the burning of discs and snail posting them. You would have many of us stuck on super slow ADSL for decades to come, no thanks.
And give many of the rest of us some technical credence PLEASE, umm, we know for a fact that you can not run the amount of services currently on the NBN from a laptop!! Have a close look at the photos of an NBN point of presence patch panels being installed, you know the big thick bendy red and blue thingies WELL THEY supply the power for the infrastructure.
And the bit about the Coalition in 2013, pollys are famous for flip flopping opinions (Mr Abbotts view on the medicare safety net just one classic example) it is all wasted effort talking about political might happens. As customers and interested industry watchers many of us like to compare retail providors, the broadband marketplace has matured, a one size fits all is never going to cut it anymore, people are often complex with the needs for a service depending on the composition of the household, etc
@Keith C
“Caught out again with more and more FUDging”
‘Caught out again’ LOL that’s your little joke is it?
“… if applying your thoughts about the NBN to the invention of the telephone by DR Bell,”
Yes it’s good that you mentioned that because you cannot get ‘Dr Bell voice’ on the NBN at the moment making your analogy a bit flawed to say the least, unfortunate choice.
“think what social dividend the NBN will deliver to this infrastructure starved country and particular regional and provincial centres.”
Oh good that old furphy gets a airing again well at least you didn’t say it all was all in the national interest (cue Advance Australia Fair), so what is FTTH going going to do to these areas, what is it doing in Scottsdale, Midway Point and Smithton in Tassie for example? – any discernible change to the local economy after 12 months of NBN that you or anyone can detect?
” You only have to read the many and varied NBN success stories out there, how small businesses like photographers can with ease send data to clients without having to resort to the burning of discs and snail posting them.”
What NBN success stories?, or do you mean business that could get a high speed connection before but didn’t want to pay for it now they are on a pilot NBN trial for free or virtually minimal mates rates pilot phase charges and they love it – jeez that is a surprise!, and how do they compare with business success stories on ADSL2+ or HFC, or is the NBN success story a special better type of success story?
I assume FTTH Greenfield estates that have had FTTH for years have the highest number of at home photography businesses than other other area of Australia?
” You would have many of us stuck on super slow ADSL for decades to come, no thanks.”
Well putting aside the fact that many are satisfied with ADSL being ‘stuck’ as you put it is in the eye of the beholder.
“And give many of the rest of us some technical credence PLEASE, umm, we know for a fact that you can not run the amount of services currently on the NBN from a laptop!! Have a close look at the photos of an NBN point of presence patch panels being installed, you know the big thick bendy red and blue thingies WELL THEY supply the power for the infrastructure.”
Sorry I just thought you could run 41 customers off a laptop server, then again I forgot everyone of those customers are using HD video conferencing 24/7, sending 3D HD X-Rays to Darwin and back whilst downloading the entire BigPond movie catalogue to four points in the home, you know, your typical NBN BB user.
:)
Like this success story and ironically, a photographer alain…!
“The National Broadband Network (NBN) has begun switching on trial customers in the New South Wales first release site of Kiama Downs, with Internode boasting its first connection today.
The lucky customer is Paul Gosney, a professional freelance photographer who moved with his wife and two children from Lane Cove to Minnamurra (located in NSW’s south coast) in April this year. He moved specifically to be one of the first people connected to the Federal Government’s $35.9 billion fibre network.
“I decided the NBN meant we weren’t going to be disadvantaged by moving from Sydney and, indeed, it might even give us certain advantages. With 95 per cent of my work still based in Sydney or in places that I get to from an airport, that was an important factor in planning our lifestyle change,” he said in a statement. {END}…
Go on say you wanted example(S)…and this is only one, as you did previously… sigh!
Seems most times you ask for examples they are supplied (and ignored) and when you are asked for examples you are unable to supply even one…!
With each day alain, each and every one of your comments is being disproved… sadly my friend [sic] you are now too submersed in your own little world/agenda to even recognise it…!
@Rizz
You are banned RS, you found a Delimiter loop hole and you are exploiting it, it makes your trolling no fact comments even more irrelevant than before (if that’s at all possible), responding to you in any meaningful way is a total waste of space.
@ alain, since you asked, please let me answer. Firstly, I thought you were no longer corresponding? Anyway…
FYI – Rizz is not banned! But again I ask, why does it matter to you if RS is banned or not? Why are you so frightened of RS…? Seriously, your (and you only) remonstration and begging (twice just today) is delicious to see…!
I think what’s upset you the most (apart from embarrassment of those strange contradictions) is knowing that I like you, can actually use “your loop hole” and post under another name, eh alain/advocate (and whoever else you may be…?). Difference being, I did/do not try to hide who I am.
Of course I could have done it previously but chose not to…but as I said fire/fire!
Anyway, my trolling no fact comments you say..? Well from above, such as…
1. Giving Dean a +1 and Tezz a +1+?
2. Answering your incorrect claim, by showing a photographer intentionally moving to an NBN area?
3. Asking you a simple but obviously unanswerable question (sigh)… since us taxpayers are so called suckers, would TLS shareholders have been suckers too, if FTTN had been built by Telstra?
Why are these trolling comments? Seriously… are there any mirrors at your place? Because…in fact the biggest trolling comment at this thread imo, is hypocritically, the very one of your’s I am currently replying to…!
Anyway… I see the NBN rolls on…and with each passing day, the boxes are ticked :-)
“Well putting aside the fact that many are satisfied with ADSL”
Get a 12/1mbps plan and stop your incessant whining.
your only as fast as the slowest point in your network. Also wholesale IP costs are significant, $40 to $200 a mbps. are providers going to pay $20 per mbps for CVC and then $100 per mbps for wholesale IP?
the only other thing i would say is wouldn’t it depend on what sort of customer base and how much traffic is intra-vrf or internet. for the business providers out there that are focused on providing VPN services and like products the cost of wholesale transit is not going to be as great as compared to a provider who has a customer base which has a much greater use of traffic outside of their network?
Hi Renai,
What separates a “good” ISP from a “bad” ISP? The good one has ALWAYS excess AGVC/IP capacity, and sometimes some other fun stuff (like peering and onshored helpdesk). The bad one NEVER has sufficient AGVC/IP.
All of the other layers in the network in Mark’s diagram are once off, sunk (and relatively cheap compared to ongoing interconnect) costs.
As much as what John says is normally a bit whacko, I think he is nearly on the money here.
I disagree with your assumption that everyone will buy at least 200Meg of CVC off the bat to give a good experience. Anyone who has played in the ISP space knows that the very cheap ISPs will run their interconnect links flat out. This can be interesting when you start dropping L2TP tunnel control packets.
I’ve read all this, and more… And still don’t know where to stand. I doubt I ever will.
I figure it’ll be like this, and sorry I don’t have the clean way of writing it…
“You never get credit for what never happened.”
Watch someone get hit by a bus… “You Should’ve Done Something/More!”
Shove someone, to avoid the bus… “Idiot! Why’d you do that?! They were fine!”
I’ve used 10+ ISPs over extended periods, on many connections, speeds, price-points.
Internode might be godly in their design, but I’ve never felt it once. TPG/aaNet/Exetel might be ugly & oversubscribed, but I’ve never felt it once. They’ve both had ‘hiccups’, and I received the same service & outcome. Meanwhile, I’ve read complaints about both. The complaint, quantity, response varies wildly, along with the people making them. In the end, I found the majority was user-related (person/software/hardware).
In the end, I think it’ll be closer to an insurance decision. Choose the premium, based on the perceived risk and cost, that you’re happy with. There will ALWAYS be FUD. Only you can choose your buy-in rate.
If it’s a “premium” or a “cheap ‘n’ nasty” provider, your money is still spent on faith…
The NBN will only work if the price points are appropriate.
I’m currently on ADSL with Telstra. I’m currently on a 25GB ADSL2+ Plan (so thats a 20/1 Mbps connection I think).
As I have a Telstra Home Phone Line as well the cost for line rental is approx $21. My broadband cost is approx $40. This means I am paying about $60/mth for internet access.
According to Internode’s pricing here: http://www.zdnet.com.au/internode-reveals-nbn-commercial-pricing-339319025.htm
To get a similar type of plan – 25/5 Mbps, 30GB – would cost $70/mth (which, according to the article above, includes a telephone service).
So, in essence, there’s a $10 difference for 10GB more with an increase in speed of 5/1 Mbps.
For me – that’s not so bad. However, not everyone is in the same boat. For some people that $10 increase may be too much (which would see them having to go for a slower service or one with less data allowance).
Since ADSL is disappearing this means, essentially, consumers will not have a choice in the matter (and me, being a Telstra customer, definitely will not have choice).
Now – I am also a regional user. Does Internode’s prices only cover metro areas or does it also cover regional users?
I’m sick to death of having to pay more and missing out on services simply because I live in a regional area.
If the NBN allows ISPs to provide the same services to customer at the same price no matter the location – and that price is reasonable to allow for a customer to continue receiving the service they are currently paying for via ADSL – then all good.
However, I imagine that is not the case, which is why there is an argument over pricing.
Interesting comparison Corsair…. especially as I am on a similar Telstra plan (mine’s 100GB though).
Biggest anomaly I can see however is the old “up to”…If you are like me, although I am on 20Mbps, I have never obtained more than 6Mbps (normally get a fairly constant 5.7)…! So not really apples/apples.
Perhaps you live closer to an exchange, though!
Cheers.
Actually, it is apples-apples, purely because there will be no other option.
I live in Berry. Therefore, I get my broadband and phone access via Telstra and ADSL.
Now, if I recall, the copper is getting removed. Gone.
So what other option will I have?
The NBN is the only option so, because of that, it has to be an apples-apples comparison. Pretty simple really.
However, you are right about the bandwidth, as I’ve managed to get download speeds of about 1.5MB/s.
That equates to about 12 Mbps so it would the equivalent of the 12/1 Mbps plans on the NBN.
However – there are lot of factors that go behind getting consistent 12/1Mbps which is a much larger infrastructure issue (since its a global thing after all).
Wanted to add to my last statement that – because of many aspects that come into play when measure speed/bandwidth:
There is no guarantee that, on the NBN, you will always get 12/1, or 25/5, etc.
Hope people are aware of that.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/we-never-promised-a-uniform-retail-nbn-price-conroy-339319083.htm
@Corsair
“I’m sick to death of having to pay more and missing out on services simply because I live in a regional area.”
Well many of us are sick of hearing country people’s smug remarks, suggesting how amazing & value the country is… Only to hear you whinging you can’t have everything at your doorstep & cheap.
You made your bed, now sleep in it.
Really, mate? Nice to see elitism is alive and well in this country.
All I wanted to was to have an even keel. I wanted to know why – considering its all Internet based and the Internet is a GLOBAL infrastructure – metro areas always benefit more from this than regional areas.
The whole point of the NBN was to be able to deliver Internet access to regional (and some rural) areas that metro areas had been enjoying for years.
Your comment does nothing but increase the hate between regional/rural users and metro users.
Think you need your ego checked mate.
Pot-Kettle-Black.
Comments are closed.