The National Broadband Network Company has included a lengthy section in its submission to the national competition regulator examining wireless and mobile broadband technology and acknowledging its potential to compete with the predominantly fibre-based NBN rollout.
Since it was formed, NBN Co has consistently argued that fixed and wireless broadband services were complementary, with residences and business primarily to use fixed broadband in future for most of their access needs, but wireless to fill in the gaps when users were away from their base infrastructure. In addition, the company has highlighted the ability of fibre infrastructure to act as backbone links to wireless nodes such as mobile phone towers.
However, in its submission (PDF) to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission dealing with Telstra’s structural separation undertaking recently published, NBN Co acknowledged the potential impact of wireless for the first time.
While it considered that wireless services were complementary to fibre services and that wireless’ ability to compete was limited by the amount of users per tower and the amount of tower, NBN Co noted that “it is possible for wireless broadband services to deliver speeds of 12Mbps (the initial entry level service to be offered by NBN Co on its fibre network)”.
“It is conceivable that wireless service speeds in particular areas may be comparable to the speed of NBN Co’s entry level services as the NBN rolls out,” the document added.
However, it appears as if NBN Co’s submission has underestimated the potential speed improvements which carriers like Telstra are planning to make over the next few years. In recent field trials of the fledgling LTE standard which it is rolling out on its network, Telstra obtained around 80Mbps speeds.
It is not expected that users will obtain anything like these speeds in real-world conditions, and fibre offers a number of other advantages compared with mobile broadband — for example, substantially improved latency, and better reliability. However, the theoretical speeds do but up against NBN Co’s own planned speed ceiling of 100Mbps on its fibre network.
Another contentious aspect of the NBN policy’s treatment of wireless services is a condition in its contract with Telstra which prohibits Telstra from marketing its mobile broadband services as a substitute for fibre broadband services. In its submission, NBN Co stated that this would have “no effect on competition for wireless broadband services”, and that Telstra didn’t currently promote its wireless services with reference to its fixed network.
“To the contrary, Telstra promotes its wireless network as superior to other wireless networks in terms of speed, coverage, reliability and value for money,” wrote NBN Co. “This is consistent with Telstra’s business model of being a full service telecommunications provider and being able to meet customers’ fixed and wireless telecommunications needs.”
However, NBN Co noted:
“The payment to Telstra for the disconnection of copper and HFC premises, without the restrictions on promotion of wireless services as substitutable for fibre services and the provisions for a deduction in the disconnection payment for wireless substitution, could create significant commercial incentives for Telstra to migrate its customers to the Telstra Next G wireless networks, because Telstra would then avoid the need to pay NBN any ongoing access fees and retain a higher proportion of its revenues, but still collect the payment for disconnections.”
NBN Co further noted: “Appropriate limitations on Telstra’s ability to migrate customers to another Telstra platform are integral to the viability of the NBN Co business case.”
opinion/analysis
Well, well. Talk about adding fuel to a fire.
What NBN Co’s comments here represent is nothing less than a fairly substantial admission — for the first time — that the company is rather worried about the potential for Telstra customers, when their ADSL broadband connections are eventually disconnected, to avoid signing up for the NBN and instead sign up to get most of their broadband needs from Telstra’s powerful Next G mobile network.
The Coalition and other organisations have long raised this as an issue. However, up until now, the Government and NBN Co itself have staunchly maintained their position that fixed and wireless broadband services are complementary.
NBN Co’s comments today reinforce that view (which is good, because it happens to be true), however, they also finally give validity to the view that not all consumers will see fixed broadband as necessary at all in the future. Those with no latency requirements for their applications, or with fairly modest quota and speed requirements, will likely be able to be serviced through mobile broadband.
Now I don’t particularly find any of this disturbing. However, what I do find disturbing is NBN Co’s admission that it needs to shift Telstra customers onto its own infrastructure (and not Telstra’s mobile network), to maintain the integrity of its own business case.
There we have it — in plain black and white. The natural movement of the telecommunications market would see many customers switch exclusively to mobile broadband, if Telstra were allowed to promote it. But the Government’s NBN plan will work against that natural movement, artificially focusing those customers towards the fixed broadband infrastructure of the NBN.
I understand the reasons for it. But to my mind, whenever anyone — be it a company, a government or a regulator — attempts to force consumers down one path and against their natural inclinations, they will end up with pie all over their face. You cannot force a market — it has a mind of its own. It will be fascinating to see how the Government and NBN Co’s attempt to do so plays out in the years ahead.
Image credit: Telstra
Great article – truest line ever written: “whenever anyone — be it a company, a government or a regulator — attempts to force consumers down one path and against their natural inclinations, they will end up with pie all over their face”
Cheers!
OK – I’ll be brave and disagree! :O
“attempts to force consumers down one path and against their natural inclinations”
The agreement says nothing about Telstra *not* selling their wireless broadband to people who want to use it as an alternative to the NBN. All it says is that Telstra cannot *promote* the product as such. That’s all! People will all still have the choice to use the services offered as they see fit, so I think the idea that this is some sort of restriction of trade is getting a little ahead of ourselves.
No it dictates that Telstra cannot sell the NBN wireless as an alternative, even though for a certain market demographic (i.e. basic users) it can be an alternative, as it is for many people today
I choose to believe David Thodey’s own words:
“The only constraint we have is to directly promote wireless instead of the NBN fixed broadband, so that’s very, very specific,”
“I mean, our intent is to get a customer to migrate and use the fixed NBN broadband and to take wireless.
“It is only a very limited constraint of a direct substitution for NBN fixed broadband, so I don’t think it’s an issue at all.”
http://technologyspectator.com.au/industry/telecommunications/nbn-will-not-stop-wireless-promotion-thodey
Im going to take what Thodey when dealing with the NBN with a grain of salt, since Telstra is being bribed by the government
I agree. Telstra (and their competitors) will just have to be careful how they word their published advertisements.
My Telstra Ultimate connection feeds my linux box at between 1,5 and 12 Gb/sec and I’m sure that will improve.
Gb/s? Wow.
(Typo much?)
It certainly doesn’t explain why is everyone so tied to Microsoft – so I don’t agree with it.
I know that the NBN could scale out to 1Gbps over the years, but given that wireless could be rolling out those sorts of speeds I don’t know which way I’d go.
The idea of the NBN vs Wireless is an interesting one, because it’s like they’re oblivious to the fact that almost all devices starting to hit the market have wireless, and it’s becoming more and more important.
If I was a business I’d almost ignore wired services, and even if I was to have a local wireless network, I’d be able to hook that into a wireless device from Telstra to get 3g out of the business.
Hopefully they start thinking about unmetered local content or something, to replace the old PIPE idea, that internal to Australia we can have open, unmetered content across our huge new pipe – especially with bit-torrent traffic.
It’s frustrating how many companies feel that if they can’t compete they need to be protected, I mean, in the near future – at those speeds, we could have no need for local tv stations – because we could subscribe to US stations over IP, but local stations will of course look to the government to protect them, and somehow have a national jurisdiction protection for content – when the internet is a global community.
I see the same thing here – they’re starting to be scared with the speeds Telstra is managing to get, and remembered they have a 10 year rollout, and how far mobile has developed in that time, and will be looking for protection of their multi-billion dollar network that could be almost obsolete by the time it reaches some people.
Wireless getting 1Gbps real world speeds? Not for a while I wouldn’t think. Remember just because someone can do it in a lab doesn’t mean much until a commercially deployable solution comes about.
Also getting that much speed out of microwaves may prove more expensive than just running a cable. We don’t know.
Further, a sane business would want to opt for fixed line because it’s more secure and let likely to be interrupted by outside factors (jamming).
“If I was a business I’d almost ignore wired services, and even if I was to have a local wireless network, I’d be able to hook that into a wireless device from Telstra to get 3g out of the business”
You wouldn’t be in business long. I know the temptation, but in the real world, neither the performance of wireless (yes, even NextG/3G) is up to par for a business to rely upon, nor is the pricing anything close to viable for a business to rely upon.
So technically/”on paper” wireless looks a viable alternative, but the reality & particularly Telstra’s reality of wireless, it’s still an edge case.
It’s valid that the NBN Co recognise this edge case & I’m sure that Malcolm Turnbull will claim this as some massive sign of NBN failure, but it’s not at all.
As the good book says, “Don’t Panic!”
Telstra’s not-yet-released LTE network claims 70-80 Mbps, but gets 30-40 Mbps in initial tests (with no contention yet): http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1757758 . Once it’s available to the public, those speeds will be divided among the greater number of users, dropping to 4-8 Mbps, which is more or less what users of Verizon’s LTE network are seeing now (on a good day).
It’ll be at least 10-15 years before we can get 50 Mbps wireless in real life. Maybe Perlman’s DIDO approach will help by reducing contention, but nobody expects gigabit wireless over any kind of useful range for decades. And in that time, fibre speeds will also increase.
Certainly there will still be people who choose wireless internet, but it will always remain much slower, much less stable and much more expensive per GB than fibre, as it is today with ADSL.
Telstra’s not-yet-released LTE network claims 70-80 Mbps, but gets 30-40 Mbps in initial tests (with no contention yet): http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1757758 . Once it’s available to the public, those speeds will be divided among the greater number of users, dropping to 4-8 Mbps, which is more or less what users of Verizon’s LTE network are seeing now (on a good day).
It’ll be at least 10-15 years before we can get 50 Mbps wireless in real life. Maybe Perlman’s DIDO approach will help by reducing contention, but nobody expects gigabit wireless over any kind of useful range for decades. And in that time, fibre speeds will also increase.
Certainly there will still be people who choose wireless internet, but it will always remain much slower, much less stable and much more expensive per GB than fibre, as it is today with ADSL.
“Certainly there will still be people who choose wireless internet, but it will always remain much slower, much less stable and much more expensive per GB than fibre, as it is today with ADSL”
Indeed, but it still has no effect on wireless demand exceeding supply though, which will be the direct opposite of the NBN FTTH, supply will always exceed demand by a substantial margin.
Greater wireless demand drives speeds down, since there’s a fixed amount of wireless bandwidth shared among users. This was a big problem for Optus a few years back, and still is for Vodafone.
Greater fibre demand doesn’t affect the quality of service at all, so long as supply remains plentiful, but greater take-up will eventually lower prices.
My post was about return on investment between the two infrastructures, too much excess capacity is what you don’t want because you have over engineered a massive CAPEX in anticipation of a demand that is not there.
Even the NBN Co acknowledges this is a problem, with concerns expressed in the SAU about ‘demand uncertainty’ for FTTH.
It’s a good point, but you have to balance that against the greater overall costs of building it out piece by piece, over a longer time period – and with an infrastructure project like this, you have to consider the longer term view.
Either approach has costs and benefits, many of them indirect and hard to predict. The lower overall costs of a consolidated national roll-out come with a greater cost in interest. The boost to the economy (short- and long-term, direct and indirect) from the roll-out is weighed against the loss of capital for other projects.
I don’t think anyone doubts that we’ll need FTTH eventually, but I suspect a lot of people will need it sooner than you might think – demand for bandwidth has grown by an average of 45% annually for at least 15 years. This means that in 10 years when the NBN is complete, people will expect *40x* more bandwidth than they’re happy with now, and 100Mbps will be considered barely adequate by many.
That means fibre would never ever be economical to deploy.
Since capacity in fibre is upwards of 10 gigabits / second (in commercially available equipment that has been on market for 5+ years)
Yes but current commercial deployment of fibre is based around where the highest demand is, mainly corporate serviced loops in the large cities, or increased demand out of large exchanges because of multiple deployments of competitor high speed ADSL2+ DSLAM’s., not where they hope it will happen.
Yes but current commercial deployment of fibre is based around where the highest demand is, mainly corporate serviced loops in the large cities, or increased demand out of large exchanges because of multiple deployments of competitor high speed ADSL2+ DSLAM’s., not where they hope it will happen.
Except your creating a feedback loop the reason why businesses are located where they are sure as hell isn’t because of the rent, access to communication infrastructure is a primary concern. An example of where I am 2km out of the inner city rents drop but so does availability of communications infrastructure. It doesn’t improve because all the investment happens here where the “demand” is and more business move it. Tele commuting isn’t going to big thing that reduces traffic congestion it is be the fact that SME will have a choice of where to locate their business not based on access to communication infrastructure but on what is best for the business.
I don’t think there is anything unexpected in this – of course the business case as it stands needs Telstra customers (and customers of everyone else for that matter). Telstra is the Top Dog in the game, and if NBNCo isn’t carring a good amount of their traffic, then it’s a hell of an uphill battle.
The way I read this was the NBNCo is far less concerned about Telstra deploying an amazing new technology or service against it, it is far more concerned about the possibility of Telstra turning their enormous marketing and advertising guns upon the NBN. With a vendor/customer relationship, NBNCo can make living with Telstra a workable, and probably profitable, partnership. As a competitor, it’ll likely turn into a bloodbath.
I don’t see how this is an admission of the potential threat of Wireless. Everyone who has been analysing the NBN debate have been aware of this. This report changes nothing in this regard.
And if Telstra actually did try to represent wireless as an equivalent service to fixed-broadband, without the NBN deal forcing their hand, then there would be consumer backlash when some customers find some of the things they expect of their home connection are simply not possible or too expensive to do (due to smaller quotas) on wireless.
Consumers aren’t stupid. They know margarine is not butter through they can use margarine instead of butter. I don’t see how wireless vs fixed-line is any different.
Well it’s not just a ‘wireless threat’ the NBN Co is worried about!
“the new technological and bandwidth capabilities of the NBN give rise to a greater degree of demand uncertainty than exists for traditional networks and services;”
FTTH bandwidth and technical capabilities is a concern period, I thought everyone needed FTTH, obviously the NBN Co itself are not so sure.
BTW thanks Renai for running with this, the NBN SAU is a real eye opener as you have pointed out.
I don’t see a problem, NBNCo is giving Telstra a big pile of money specifically to migrate their customers from Telstra to NBN infrastructure NOT a pile of money to turn into a marketing campaign to switch those customers from one lot of Telstra infrastructure to another lot of Telstra infrastructure.
Is there actually any part of the contract that physically limits Telstra’s ability to switch customers to wireless and avoid the NBN if it is what a customer wants? I haven’t seen anything like that, merely this moratorium on their ability to actively advertise and promote the fact that they can.
That’s kind of in the article, they’re worried Telstra can take their money for the copper and turn people onto Wireless instead of the NBN, and pocket that money too.
We went through this discussion when the deal was done. How is this new?
“promotion of wireless services AS SUBSTITUTABLE for fibre services”.
Wireless is not a substitute for fibre, the contract puts no restrictions on the promotion of wireless except as a substitute for fixed fibre services.
The wireless threat is a trend that is happening irrespective of the NBN being rolled out or not, Telstra not being able to advertise NextG as a alternative to the FTTH NBN is a minor point in the equation.
What the NBN rollout is facing and that goes for all existing fixed line infrastructure is the trend of a increasing number of residences deciding to disconnect their landline and go wireless ONLY.
Just because FTTH is running past a wireless only residence doesn’t mean they will therefore reconnect, because bandwidth and massive download quotas is not the reason they decided to go all wireless in the first place.
If you are already paying for mobile telephony and wireless data on a monthly capped plan which is sufficient for all your needs more and more residences are asking the question, why pay for a line based plan on top of all that?
Also the increasing trend in the high population density inner city areas of the capital cities to multi-story unit complexes will only accelerate that trend, plugging in a 3G wireless modem or even tethering from your smartphone is quick and easy, no wires, no ONT box, no fuss.
It’s not the complementary aspect of wireless that is a threat to NBN uptake it is the ‘instead of’ feature of wireless, which is really in its infancy of development potential.
Actually increasing density will be a reason to transition from wireless back to wired, due to contention and signal issues becoming a problem.
Not to mention, how exactly do 2 people share a usb 3g wireless modem at the same time? or is everyone buying 2 of these … enlighten me.
“Actually increasing density will be a reason to transition from wireless back to wired, due to contention and signal issues becoming a problem.’
Not aware this is happening in vast numbers that is of significance over all in avalanche of wireless SIO’s are you?
“Not to mention, how exactly do 2 people share a usb 3g wireless modem at the same time? or is everyone buying 2 of these … enlighten me.”
Why is sharing of or not of a 3G modem significant in the overall accelerating sales of these devices?
If you want to take density as an argument, Australia is one of the least densely populated countries around the world, even if you just take into account the cities
Marketing/promotion of wireless as primary Internet substitution is just a normal part of a market economy. Vivid after all is essentially doing this and I don’t see why NBNCo should seek to contractually prevent Telstra from doing it.
I do however see a concern from NBNCo about spending migration fees on a non-NBN service. The solution to this would simply to require Telstra migration fees to be paid only when customers retain a new NBN service (from any RSP). If NBNCo are not doing this already, they’re idiots.
Renai,
Honestly, I think this is all blown out of proportion. The term that was included in the deal was specifically so that Telstra wouldn’t take a list of migrated customers, and offer them a special deal to take up Next G instead of NBNCo.
Basically, due to them having the list of customers to disconnect, this could easily have been used as a direct marketing list for them to try and “steal” the userbase back.
So effectively it simply there to stop them from getting paid to disconnect a customer (who in all good faith is then meant to become an NBN customer) and then taking them back with a targeted discounted wireless offer.
Pretty standard for a commerical deal of this type I would think.
“So effectively it simply there to stop them from getting paid to disconnect a customer (who in all good faith is then meant to become an NBN customer) and then taking them back with a targeted discounted wireless offer.’
Well they could still make that offer, they just cannot sell it as a NBN FTTH alternative, besides I am not sure Telstra is interested in a avalanche of new customers onto NextG post NBN anyway, they are flat out keeping up with existing demand of masses of customers leaving the inferior coverage and speed of competitor networks.
“So effectively it simply there to stop them from getting paid to disconnect a customer (who in all good faith is then meant to become an NBN customer) and then taking them back with a targeted discounted wireless offer.’
Well they could still make that offer, they just cannot sell it as a NBN FTTH alternative, besides I am not sure Telstra is interested in a avalanche of new customers onto NextG post NBN anyway, they are flat out keeping up with existing demand of masses of customers leaving the inferior coverage and speed of competitor networks.
Agreed, probably not a good idea to mass migrate to Next G given the constraints.
Realistically, I’m just suggesting that the clause was put in there to try and prevent that kind of double play (likely or not)
Personally, with friends that rely on wireless broadband now because telstra wont upgrade their RIM – I am just waiting for all the idiots that think wireless can replace fixed line to not connect to the NBN.
They will quickly find out that it drops out constantly, is the most expensive bandwidth in the country, and will clog up to hell with all the new subscibers.
My DSL line is lucky to get 2500kbs on a good day, but I all my wireless/satalite friends are still envious of it.
NBNCo are predicting 50% of users will connect at 12/1Mbps (page 118 of NBNCo Corporate Plan – http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/publications-and-announcements/latest-announcements/nbn-co-corporate-plan-released). The estimated retail pricing of a 12/1Mbps plan with 50GB of quota is $53-$58 (page 105). Less than $10 extra month, more than doubles the speed to 25/5Mbps and quadruples the quota to 200GB. I would argue that <$10 is small amount of money for significant extra value, therefore I would conclude that the majority of the 50% simply want a basic internet connection and are choosing primarily on price.
The NBNCo Corporate plan acknowledges that "sensitivity to NBN Basic Service price" is the leading cause of leakage to wireless (page 116). Any of the wireless operators who can pitch a service with performance close to 12/1Mbps and as little as 3GB quota for less than $50 may be able to snare significant market share from NBNCo. Currently leakage to wireless is predicted at 13%. If there are less people connecting to fibre, then NBN prices will rise, or at best not fall in line with current estimates (page 132).
The problem is that analysts continue to be distracted by the GB speeds, which are not available currently and not forecast to makeup more than 1% until 2026 (page 118). They should be focusing on the average customer who just wants basic email and web browsing. Wireless plans are cheaper than ADSL and NBN now, but offer slower speeds and less downloads. The only advantage NBNCo have is being able to offer faster speeds, but they've chosen to introduce speed tiers and nullified this.
NBNCo now attempting to defend their position by reducing competition, not delivering a better product. It doesn't cost more to deliver the higher speeds as it is purely a software setting. Higher speeds will almost certainly lead to more revenue increases in CVC (data) revenue (page 118). We continue to experience this with Telstra in ADSL market where they added artificial speed tiers (384Kbps upload limit still exists). If it wasn't for Internode installing their own DSLAMs and offering uncapped speeds, it is highly likely the fastest residential speed would still be 1.5Mbps ADSL1.
False. According to page 118 NBNco are predicting ~36% of users will connect at 12/1Mbps by 2028 the rest ~64% will connect at 25mbps or higher. The 52% number you are talking about is for FY2012. But we covered this last time you tried to misrepresent the facts here: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/20/in-defence-of-turnbulls%E2%80%99-nbn-speed-claims/
I am not sure what the the NBN are predicting, pick a number out of the air, any number will do,based on the following statement from the SAU.
“the new technological and bandwidth capabilities of the NBN give rise to a greater degree of demand uncertainty than exists for traditional networks and services;”
In other words we have no idea what it will be.
Then read page 118 it’s pretty clear what they are predicting.
In your case you don’t have a clue, in everyone else’s NBNco are just stating the obvious, in other words: News at 11…
Then read page 118 it’s pretty clear what they are predicting.
In your case you don’t have a clue, in everyone else’s NBNco are just stating the obvious, in other words: News at 11…
So what’s your spin on this?
“the new technological and bandwidth capabilities of the NBN give rise to a greater degree of demand uncertainty than exists for
traditional networks and services;”
That is the same quote from your last comment so no spin, just more news at 11.
Yes I thought you would avoid it.
Yes I thought you would avoid it.
Avoid what? I gave you an answer: NBNco are just stating the obvious. Exactly what else is there to say?
I’m amazed that you find it acceptable that over 1/3 will be taking the slowest option because it is cheaper and the lack of progress this will bring. That 1/3 have to be very vulnerable to poaching by cheaper wireless operators. In fact I wonder if some of the fall from 52% is actually loss to wireless operators.
We might be building a superfast fibre network, but the end user speeds are looking likely to be very average even by today’s standards.
1/3 will be taking the slowest option that means 2/3 will be taking the faster options. 2/3 is a majority however it is not surprising that the biggest group are taking the cheapest option. One just has to look at current ADSL2+ trends to see the evidence. How many people are on 1tb plans vs 10gb plans? Exactly.
Oh noes NBN is doooooomed, because if you subscribe to a wireless service you cannot also have a fixed line service. This is written in law… apparently.
So that’s a yes, we will need faster speeds in the future.
Quota limits people in the amount they can download. Speed limits people in the activities they can undertake.
High definition video conferencing with a medical practitioner or grandkids in another city once a month. Possible on an 10GB quota, challenging on a 12/1Mbps speed limit.
I’m sorry you misinterpreted my statement about average speeds. Today the average for ADSL2+ is in the region of 10-11Mbps, HFC is 100Mbps yet with the NBN we will be going backwards and reintroducing speed tiers an artificial concept designed to drive revenue, creating a digital divide.
What a ridiculous statement and totally irrelevant. The plans are cheaper thus those plans have more subscribers.
So once again we do need faster speeds. That is a confirmation that YES we do need faster speeds. Now let’s talk about price do you believe the price of a 100/40mbps plan will cost the same amount in 2028 as it does today?
I didn’t misinterpreted anything…
Got a source to back up that claim?
It’s all about choice YOU get to choose what speed you want not the length of the copper. Keep in mind I don’t necessarily agree with the speed tiers, I’ve always said the 25 and 50mbps plans should be dumped (if you look the graph they might as well) 12mbps should be kept if only to shut the whiners up or at least until satellite speeds improve.
http://i.imgur.com/609eZ.png
That’s not a digital divide because anyone that wants say 100mbps can get it. If I want 100mbps now I have to move to New England, that is the only way.
Actually it is a digital divide, because you have to pay for those higher speeds (and the lower ones too, compared to ADSL2)
Your going to be claiming that there is no economic divide in countries like America, because its possible for them to buy a Lamborghini (even though they have no money to afford to do so)
A divide is something thats sensitive to incomes and financial pressure, something your post address’s none of
Actually it’s not a digital divide. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the current digital divide and how it relates to the NBN. I cannot get a certain speed. Only those in designated areas (HFC covered for example) can get those speeds. If you want it you have to move. That is a digital divide, it is based on what is available and what is not available in an area…. are you suggesting that all those who cannot get HFC and will be covered by fibre with the NBN will opt for the lowest speed?
Today, that’s quite true. Many users are satisfied with the wireless service you can get for ~$30 (though some of those 13% are forced into it by distant ADSL exchanges and pair gaining, and few would get even close to 12Mbps).
But if you project bandwidth trends forward, it’s a different story in the future. Bandwidth demand has historically grown 45% each year, so users happy with 3Mbps now will want around 20Mbps in 5 years, and will be demanding at least 100Mbps in 10 years, when the roll-out is complete. People won’t be satisfied with 12Mbps for long (who still uses dialup today?)
Add to that the landline advantages in stability, security and consistency, and the NBN’s included voice connection (costs extra for wireless), and I suspect the wireless leakage will drop below today’s 13%.
The NBNCo’s forecasts directly contradict your wishful thinking about demand for speed. The biggest challenge is that without opportunities to trial faster speeds there will be less drive to upgrade.
A significant number of people now have a mobile phone with a plan that is sufficient for all their phone calls. They simply pull out the phone in their pocket, rather than searching for the landline phone. I would content that for these people the landline is there for historical reasons and/or ADSL.
Apparently not, NBNco’s forecast on the very page you keep mentioning show that more people will be on the faster plans than the slower plans, according to them people will be dumping the 12, 20 & 50mbps plans for 100, 200 & 500mbps plans by 2028. All of the faster plans grow over the 16 year period and the slower ones shrink. Namarrgon is right. You are wrong.
But then again they are not so sure as the NBN faces ‘demand uncertainty’.
Which means anyone can be right.
News at 11.
Apparently not, NBNco’s forecast on the very page you keep mentioning show that more people will be on the faster plans than the slower plans, according to them people will be dumping the 12, 20 & 50mbps plans for 100, 200 & 500mbps plans by 2028. All of the faster plans grow over the 16 year period and the slower ones shrink. Namarrgon is right. You are wrong.
Up to 80Mbps yeah right
My Next G that I am forced to use due to having the nerve of wanting a new house gets is up to 14Mbps last night I checked my optus connection ~1Mbps on speed test and then next g could not even load the page.
On the odd occasion I can load it its slower than dial up Due to congestion.
Once you go to wireless as your primary connection you don’t have a connection anymore from my experience
AJ
I would like to take up the following comment:
“for example, substantially improved latency, and better reliability. However, the theoretical speeds do but up against NBN Co’s own planned speed ceiling of 100Mbps on its fibre network.”
Err, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution
our NBN has 2.5 gbps shared between 32 users.
LTE has 300 megabits, shared between 0 – 800 users.
(20 mhz of spectrum, in 5mhz blocks, upto 200 active users per block)
Approximately 75 megabits per 5mhz block.
Anyone that has a 4×4 LTE adapter, is 4 users (spread over 4x5mhz blocks, to gain a maximum 300 megabits)
Anyone that has a 2×2 LTE adapter is 2 users. for a maximum of 150megabits etc.
If you are speaking theoretical, or internal testing trials, be fair. I’m pretty sure NBNCo have tested 1gbps over their fibres (even if the CPE they are rolling out won’t be capable of it at first).
Nothing in what has been written contradicts the argument that ‘mainstream’ wireless is anything other than complementary. The thrust of NBNCo’s argument is that Telstra may try to promote it as a viable alternative, an equivalent to, FTTH. Something which it clearly will not be.
And those attempting to posit anything to the contrary rely on the acceptance that Some May at Some Times get a d/l speed equivalent to the NBN lowest plan speed.
It is a competitor only to the extent that Telstra might attempt to promote it as such, and that the users are willing to accept d/l speeds most likely substantially less than minimum NBN speed. And whatever you do don’t mention upload speeds, quotas, or cost.
(Renai, are you related to Annabel Hepworth ?? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/nbn-cos-wireless-admission/story-fn91v9q3-1226121550778)
Yawn.
Another silly article.
Wireless has it’s own issues, spectrum availability & customer ratios vs download rates & download limits.
Not stopping sales outstripping fixed line sales though is it?
Population # > Premises #
Yes and…?
Wow.
Population # > Premises #
Sometimes, just sometimes….not all the time….but sometimes the market is actually not 100% correct and can end up strangling itself unless there are those (with the power to guide it) who can see & understand the pitfalls that lie ahead and plan accordingly.
Trusting in a sense of pure, unadulterated, confidence in the market is *not* the way to go. United States of America anyone?
Yes, wireless is great and will continue to grow, but this self-deluding mentality that it can and will replace or head-to-head compete with fixed line is disingenuous at best…Coonan the Barbarian-ish at worst….and represents an attempt to cloud the issue so that the cold hard fact is not brought to the fore:
Wireless and fixed are complementary technologies and each has it’s advantages & disadvantages.
For wireless to truly shine it will need to be supported by a upgradeable fibre backbone….ie. the NBN.
As the chief technology officer of Telstra, Dr Hugh Bradlow, intimated:
….”It will be a “cold day in hell” before wireless networks will eclipse the capability of fixed [fibre] networks”…
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/49380-cold-day-in-hell-for-nbn-challenger
Finally, arguing that fiber will be superseded by new wireless technologies is pure fantasy…why? because as David Braue states:
…”Fibre is a physical medium, not a communications technology; just like all wireless standards must propagate through air, all future optical communications standards will propagate through fibre.”….
http://www.zdnet.com.au/coonan-the-barbarian-nurtures-lib-paradox-339320842.htm
All NBN naysayers….please….do yourselves and other a favour…..read that again & try *sigh* to understand it!
This means that in most cases the upgradeability of the fibre will simply mean the upgrading of the equipment at each end of the fibre *pipe* ….not the medium ie. fibre itself…..just as wireless improvements will require new transmission equipment at each end….surely you guys are not suggesting we attempt to change the medium for wireless…ie. air!!!
Get real, face facts and the laws of physics (ie. the ones we have…not what you wish/hope we had or discover)…
Stop the self-delusion…
Do it once, do it right, do it with fibre…
No one has said least of all me that wireless is a substitution for fixed line based on technical issues like speed and quotas, the Coalition have not, their alternative plan is not about let’s replace fixed line with all wireless, you are arguing with yourself.
it looks as though the coalition’s alternative is now very similar to the one rudd took to the electorate a few years ago and the coalition were against.
doesn’t it to you guys?
It’s exactly that, the coalition will always be one step behind when it comes to broadband. No one was impressed with OPEL, no one was impressed with FTTN, When the government announced FTTH that is what got every one talking because finally someone was looking beyond the next election with a real broadband policy… and that when the coalition decided that a FTTN patchwork was a good idea.
thanks for the heads up here last night too humbertcumberdale256, in regards to the buck each way. i was graphically introduced to what you warned me of today, and it is certainly a very strange and bewildering occurrence?
You taking over from the banned RS as the double act with HC?
You taking over from the banned RS as the double act with HC?
rs and hc, is that some special anti nbn code, you guys use, rofl.
That’s an interesting assessment but like I said you’ll get used to it. I’ve come across people far more pedantic they’ll have their random meltdowns here and there you just laugh and move on.
I don’t agree that the Coalition will always be behind; although of course they lost a lot of ground with the pathetic mumblings of the shadow ministers before Turnbull.
in a perfect world, without all the argy bargy, we would have lundy and fletcher as communications minister – shadow and rudd and turnbull as pm – opposition leader, from my perspective.
you can all pick who fills which roll according to taste, rofl
Well facts are facts. FTTN is a step (a big one) behind FTTH. Unless they can get DIDO up and running it will continue to be that way.
Wasn’t OPEL largely the same as the Rural Blackspots Program and wireless for the last 7%? It’s only that Labor delayed it by several years?
Labor canceled it because it was a lemon, a band-aid solution and a waste.
Its the exact same as Labors plan for 7% of rural australia, so if you call that a dud then Labors NBN (or at least part of it) is also a dud
OPEL was a fixed wireless solution for the completely rural areas of Australia, something the Labor government cancelled as soon as they got into government
But then again Labor cancelled their own solution as soon as they got into Government as well.
:)
@HC256
“Labor canceled it because it was a lemon, a band-aid solution and a waste.”
That comment therefore could apply to both cancellations.
Lucky for us 93% is fibre then…
False. OPEL was a fixed wireless solution AND a bunch of DSLAMS. In others words a stop gap solution. A lemon. A waste. Nothing else to see here move along.
Are you admitting Labor did something right? Me too, I’m glad we finally agree on something and the current NBN plan is the right way to go.
No.
hi ‘again’ alain, my you are a busy bee.
as you say no, can you please itemise the actual differences between the policies of the rudd broadband plan circa 2007 and the coalitions current broadband plan then please, for us ‘not so worldy’ types, thanks.
to me they are very ‘similar’.
oh and please no artificial flavouring and colouring, which i can see you are now renowned for, just the black and white, ta ;)
The Rudd broadband circa 2007 was for a RFP from those parties interested in responding, it did not specifically say it must be FTTN or FTTH, each respondent could provide their own solution or even a mix.
There was no Rudd policy on anything specific other than a commitment to go for a broadly based RFP process after the 2007 election, the specifics came later after that process failed and they decided to go all FTTH.
hi alain,
i believe that the opposition’s current plan doesn’t say fttn only either. mr turnbull actually mentioned using ftth in certain estates, as well as wireless and satellite alternatives too, as far as i know – didn’t he?
seems following your intuitive inclusion, you demonstrate that the opposition’s current plan is even more like the rudd plan than i first thought.
thanks mate.
hi alain,
i believe that the opposition’s current plan doesn’t say fttn only either. mr turnbull actually mentioned using ftth in certain estates, as well as wireless and satellite alternatives too, as far as i know – didn’t he?
seems following your intuitive inclusion, you demonstrate that the opposition’s current plan is even more like the rudd plan than i first thought.
thanks mate.
There was no Rudd plan with a mix of wireless FTTN and FTTH or anything in between, their 2007 election policy was to invite the industry to respond to a RFP if they won Government, they had no idea what the outcome of the RFP was at that point.
To say the Coalition policy is the ‘same as the 2007 Rudd plan’ that didn’t even exist with any sort of infrastructure mix mapped out for the electorate to vote on is incorrect.
oh alain you are such a wag.
you clearly said only hours ago, and i quote, ‘each respondent could provide their own solution or even a mix’
and just a few hours later you say, there was no rudd plan with a ‘mix’ of wireless fttn and ftth or anything in between.
so please explain. they could provide their own mix, as long as it didn’t include wireless, fttn or fttp or anything in between?
really alain, which planet did you just arrive from?
more credit to hubertcumberdale256
Hi RS.
hi alain,
not going to address my comment and admit that the oppositions plan is now similar to rudd’s original, which they criticised back then?
because it is, isn’t it!
it’s not meant to be an argument just a simple observation.
No, I have nothing to add to my most recent comment, it still stands.
Some recent history for you – The dates listed denote mass uptake of those products/services. Those apps have each caused massive growth in network utilization:
2000 – Google
2003 – Skype
2006 – Youtube
2007 – Facebook
2009 – Netflix (network streaming)
2010 – Wireless devices needing backhaul
Clearly, these things haven’t been there since the “start” of the internet. New apps will evolve and equally strain the networks they traverse.
http://www.newsat.com/Company-News/satellite-versus-nbn-for-internet-roll-out.html
I think many people are forgetting the massive difference between 4G/LTE services and 3G in regards to contention utilization and performance
4G is able to use MIMO to its full effect, and has much more efficient algorithms in regard to dealing with contention (as well as around half the latency on average)
People should not be basing their current wireless experience with what they would expect with Telstra’s LTE service when it comes online to the public.
I mean have a look at TeliaSonera’s network in sweden, it has an average (yes thats right, average, not peak) speeds of ~35 mbps down (http://www.unwiredinsight.com/teliasonera-lte). The reason why TeliaSonera is able to offer such speeds is due to the fact that they use a significant portion of the spectrum, something that only 4G allows
Also remember that TeliaSonera’s 4G is an unlimited wireless (see http://www.telia.se/privat/mobilt-bredband/)
Quoting that article:
“However, since all LTE networks will be under-utilised to begin with, measured speeds will not be representative of the speeds and capacities ultimately to be expected in fully-loaded networks, which may be much lower”
“While these results must be treated with caution, since measurements were based on an under-utilised LTE network in excellent signal conditions, they confirm theoretical performance assessments.”
Yep, sounds like real-world to me.
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/357131/streets_stockholm_lte/
There is another one, with your so called real world testing
I think you don’t understand what I mean by “real-world”. How many subscribers were on LTE in August 2010?
And for teh lols’ here is another one, where extensive testing was done over 20000 points
http://www.telecoms.com/26452/teliasonera-lte-network-%E2%80%9Csignificantly-better-than-3g%E2%80%9D-early-testing-reveals/
Remember that this is just the initial, first release of LTE, TeliaSonera’s network wen’t up in 2010.
There is nothing stopping them (or any other company) from allocating more spectrum, or setting up more base stations, to meet up with demand, the exact same way that Telstra does with its network
Actual real world testing is the demand for Telstra LTE outstripping the infrastructure upgrades required to meet that demand.
I bet Telstra is glad it doesn’t have to divert resources both financial and labour to upgrading its fixed line infrastructure where demand has virtually flatlined and ARPU’s are poor and in the words of the NBN Co is a infrastructure that faces ‘demand uncertainty’.
From the article:
“While Epitiro said that it had a 95 per cent confidence level in the accuracy of its results it admitted that as the current subscriber base for TeliSonera’s LTE network is quite low it is still too early to judge the effect that contention will have on real world performance. Equally, as the network is only available in a relatively small radius the results are only indicative of stationary performance and it is not know how it will stand up in-motion, such as on trains and cars.”
Did you read the actual report?
Comments are closed.