How important will NBN contention ratios be?

149

analysis Will cheaper ISPs provide a degraded level of service on the NBN compared to ‘premium’ ISPs, through the use of poorer contention ratios? We’ll look at both sides of the issue in this follow-up article on the future of retail ISP competition under the NBN.

On Thursday I published an opinion piece exploring what retail competition between Australia’s ISPs would actually look like in the new world of the National Broadband Network which is gradually dawning. In this article, I argued that competition on the NBN would rest almost solely on price, as the importance of other differentiating factors between ISPs like Telstra, Optus, TPG and iiNet would diminish to zero as the network was rolled out.

As the discussion following the article progressed, there were a number of different responses. Some readers agreed with me, while others emphasised what they saw as the continuing importance of factors such as customer service levels, the availability of content from different ISPs, and other value-added services. However, as the debate continued, one issue in particular began to stand out as a controversial one that would not go away: The issue of network performance.

One of the main differentiating factors between the different ISPs offering retail NBN broadband services, many readers argued, would be the extent to which they provisioned adequate backhaul bandwidth to service customers’ connections. In short, every NBN customer should theoretically get the same speeds on the fibre running out to their premise, but real-world network speeds would depend on what bandwidth their ISP had provisioned beyond the fibre access network.

Now, this debate is very old one, and my own opinion on it has changed several times. With this in mind, in this article I want to go into the recent history of this debate, and then look at the current contention ratio discussion with respect to the NBN. I’ll weigh the evidence on both sides and try and come to some conclusions which may help further the discussion.

Firstly, it’s important to note that the contention ratio issue does exist with Australia’s network infrastructure today. In fact, it is one of the core issues in play when we talk about how well the various broadband networks around the country perform. As a number of readers have highlighted, some ISPs, notably TPG, do currently suffer from a large number of complaints on their forums on sites like Whirlpool, with users criticising the company for slow ADSL broadband speeds, particularly at night when more home users are more fully utilising their home broadband connection.

Whether it’s “speed issues”, “packet loss”, “slow download speeds”, “congestion” or as one user put it, “dropout-ageddon”, it seems clear that TPG continues to receive more complaints about this kind of problem than other ISPs do, leading to long-running speculation that the company is not provisioning enough bandwidth to each telephone exchange to be able to support the number of customers connected. At night, so the highly speculative theory goes, TPG’s network gets overloaded and customers can’t get the high-speed broadband they’ve paid for.

The issue of contention ratios is also one which affects other forms of network infrastructure in Australia. If you dig to the bottom of problems such as Optus’ network hiccups after it won a huge slice of the iPhone market in 2008, Vodafone’s ‘Vodafail’ problems in 2010 and 2011, or even the sporadic complaints from those on the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, you’ll find that the problem is fundamentally the same; too many users, on network infrastructure that didn’t have enough capacity provisioned to handle their download demands.

So will this congestion issue apply to the NBN, particularly the NBN’s fibre rollout?

In the past, I have argued that it will. In late July 2011, I published an article arguing, much as many of Delimiter’s readers have argued over the past several days, that the network topography of an ISP’s connection to the NBN featured many areas where an ISP could skimp on the services it provided to customers by under-provisioning bandwidth, similarly to the way they currently can with Australia’s copper network. In fact, much of ISPs’ networks won’t actually change much, when the NBN is introduced — in some cases, just the customer access part of it.

In short, you replace copper with fibre, but congestion can still occur in the rest of the network. I recommend you check out the excellent diagrams included with that article, as supplied by networking engineer Mark Newton. At the time, this was a popular argument, and it was backed by the opinion of experts such as then-Internode MD Simon Hackett, who also argued that each ISP would have a different contention ratio which they would apply to the numbers of customers supported by each parcel of backhaul bandwidth at each NBN point of interconnect.

Now, some elements of this argument are still valid. However, since July 2011, a number of other factors have actually changed, leading me to believe that there will be much more similarity between the performance of NBN ISPs than was previously believed. I’ll go into why I believe that now.

When we last discussed this issue in depth in July 2011, Hackett disclosed that tests of the NBN’s fibre in Tasmania had shown that when ISPs provisioned backhaul to users, they would need to apply at least 200Mbps of capacity to each NBN point of interconnection, in order to be able to guarantee the NBN’s 100Mbps speeds to each customer.

Why 200Mbps? Said Hackett at the time: “Simply, so that more than one customer at once is capable of achieving the advertised 100 megabit download speeds the fibre can provide. This results in a need to have 100 megabits to allow any 100 megabit service to work, plus another 100 megabits of ‘burst’ capacity (for a total of 200 megabits) to allow for the transient needs of more than one customer using the network at once.” 200Mbps could actually serve “quite a lot of customers”, according to Hackett; although eventually, of course, ISPs would need more so-called supporting ‘Connectivity Virtual Circuit’ (CVC) bandwidth as they added on bulk customers to their networks.

At the time, it did indeed appear that not every ISP would want to pony up for a full 200Mbps of CVC connection each month, given that this would cost $4,000 per NBN PoI per month; meaning that if you wanted to supply NBN services nationally to the network’s 121 PoIs, you’d be paying almost half a million dollars per month. And the issue of contention immediately raised its ugly head. I’m sure that the number-crunchers inside ISPs were giving themselves a great deal of headaches at that point as they tried to figure out how the NBN profit equation could work, especially in the network’s early days, and how close to the line they could push network performance.

However, several things have changed since this time.

Firstly, in August 2011, NBN Co announced that it would offer customers a rebate on the first 150Mbps of CVC pricing to ISPs until there were 30,000 premises passed in what it described as “a connectivity serving area” — which connects to one of its planned 121 points of interconnect. Given that each ISP will only be taking a slice of the total NBN fibre market, what this means is that in the short to medium time frame (that is, much of the next decade, for many areas), it will be quite hard for contention ratios have a big impact, given that the substantial rebate on CVC pricing would suggest each major ISP will be able to afford to adequately provision their new NBN customers.

In the long-term, another factor also comes into play.

Since mid-2011, Australia’s ISP industry has gone through substantial consolidation. In November and December 2011, iiNet bought substantial slices of the Canberra and South Australian markets through the purchases of TransACT and Internode, and in April M2 bought Primus.

These moves, along with previous acquisitions, usually by iiNet, have had the impact of basically consolidating Australia’s fixed broadband market into just four major players — Telstra, Optus, iiNet and TPG (keeping in mind its acquisition of PIPE Networks), all of which now have very strong networks, including extensive fibre infrastructure, access to multiple redundant international fibre connections, and deep pockets of capital to soak up costs. A couple of other substantial players — principally M2 and Dodo — are bringing up the behind.

Now, with the previous generation of smaller ISPs, I would find it easy to believe that they would find it hard to be able to afford to provision enough bandwidth to each NBN PoI to meet their customer requirements while making some profit on top. In fact, this very issue was raised by Internode’s Hackett in July 2011; and Hackett cited an inability for Internode to be able to compete in an NBN world as one reason why he sold the company to iiNet.

However, despite the complaints about a perceived level of congestion on TPG’s network, I find it hard to believe that the company — or any of the other three major players — will not provision enough bandwidth on the NBN to meet their customer commitments in each area, especially given the 150Mbps CVC rebate head start they will have. All of the four players left have more than enough scale to get this job done and take some profit, without resorting to such levels of degraded service. We don’t see that kind of behaviour from Telstra, Optus or iiNet today, and it’s hard to believe that much of it will be seen from TPG.

As then-Exetel chief executive John Linton wrote in July 2011, if NBN ISPs do under-provision bandwidth, it would be “obvious”, given that the NBN’s underlying fibre technology is so inherently reliable and stable. If TPG or anyone else starts skimping, tests will very likely be able to determine this. And also bear in mind that churning to another ISP on the NBN can be done virtually instantly; there should be no fortnight-long gap without broadband to disincentivise people to switch ISPs.

Now, I’m not going to say that congestion won’t be an issue at all on the NBN’s fibre; certainly I think the issue of network congestion is one that has existed as long as humanity has built communications networks of any kind, and it will continue to exist until we greatly surpass our society’s current knowledge of theoretical and applied physics.

I think that when it comes to the smaller crop of ISPs in Australia, particularly those buying NBN access through a wholesaler and not directly from NBN Co, congestion will be a topic of much discussion amongst their users. And there still remains the possibility that low-cost ISPs such as TPG will take a ‘closer to the line’ approach than more ‘premium’ ISPs such as iiNet.

For example, I would consider it reasonable to believe that a lower cost ISP would provision only 175Mbps in a scenario that an ISP like iiNet might provision 200Mbps. Or alternatively, to pick an example out of the air, they might allocate 200Mbps per 200 customer premises, where a premium ISP would provision 200Mbps per 175. I don’t know the precise ratios, but I’m betting that a low-cost ISP would be watching the performance of every NBN PoI closely and pushing things closer to the line than a ‘safe’ ISP like iiNet.

There is certainly evidence that ISPs are currently looking in detail at this area as they try to weigh up what their financial models will look like in an NBN world. In September, for example, Primus general manager of marketing and products Andrew Sims declared his company was “pretty comfortable” with his company’s NBN pricing at that time, noting that the ISP wasn’t targeting “the higher users” in the market, and that there was still a bit of work to do to examine specifically how contention ratios in the network would change as more users started to adopt the NBN.

However, a further factor also applies here. Let’s assume that some cut-rate ISPs do under-provision bandwidth on the NBN. One has to wonder whether to what extent that the majority of ISPs’ users would even notice. As Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has pointed out a number of times (and I agree), there are very few applications which will actually consistently require the full 100Mbps (eventually 1gbps) speeds which the NBN will offer customers. Even high-definition video streams will only require something in the order of below 10Mbps each at most.

When Internet users are using an ADSL broadband network, which is limited to 24Mps in theory and usually below 16Mbps in practice, any speed impact on their connection is readily apparent. But when much faster, lower latency fibre connections are in widespread use, congestion would need to be heavy indeed for most users to notice there is a problem.

For example: Is your 100Mbps connection only delivering real-world speeds of 75Mbps? Or even 50Mbps? No problem: That’s still way more than enough bandwidth to deliver the speeds you need to do almost anything, in a very timely manner, on the Internet, compared to the paltry ADSL2+ speeds most Australians use today. Under-provisioning by only a small amount could have a drastic impact on ADSL congestion. But given that the NBN’s extravagantly high speeds won’t usually be tapped to their full extent, I think ISPs will be able to get away with a lot more when it comes to the network’s fibre.

Delimiter reader Dan also raised another tantalising possibility this week: What about if NBN ISPs stopped guaranteeing maximum speeds available under the NBN and started guaranteeing minimum speeds? For example, what if ISPs started playing with contention ratios as a commercial offering, offering a series of plans like this:

  • 100/40Mbps maximum, 12Mbps minimum, 500GB data, $300/month
  • 100/40Mbps maximum, 4Mbps minimum, 500GB data, $160/month
  • 100/40Mbps maximum, 1Mbps minimum, 500GB data, $80/month

In this scenario, the first plan would have a much better contention ratio than the second plan, which would in turn feature a better ratio than the third plan. Users would have the guarantee of minimum speeds under all, and the likelihood of regularly bursting to much higher speeds, but the guaranteed minimums would change, depending on how much you wanted to pay per month.

Are these examples where NBN contention ratios would apply in a good manner, or a bad banner? I think it’s an interesting example where much of the choice would actually be left up to the user. Just how good a service are you prepared to pay for? One suspects that NBN Co’s boffins have considered these kinds of scenarios at some level, but that few others in the ISP industry have.

Overall, what it feels like to me here is that with respect to the NBN, both the commercial and technical aspects of the network currently appear set up in a way that will limit any congestion problems for the vast, overwhelming majority of Australian broadband users in the vast majority of cases; especially when compared with today’s broadband networks.

Of course, I also feel that the dynamics of this situation have changed a great deal over the past 12 months; and they could change again. Perhaps in 12 months’ time I will need to write another analysis piece going into the situation again. But then, that would be an endeavour which I would enjoy greatly, so it’s all OK ;)

149 COMMENTS

  1. I think it will be a difficult job to provision for the NBN. The premium ISPs could probably run with less CVC compared to the budget ones. I will need to explain that obviously. The big downloaders seem to invariably be attracted to the ISPs with the biggest data allowance for the least money, and they use it. Where as premium ISPs get the users who don’t look for huge quotas, because the huge quota plans are quite expensive. There was a comment by Simon Hackett I think that the average usage on a 200GB plan was 30GB. With your users being the lighter users, who download single streams such as video or a file, etc, things are good. Now if you are the budget ISP who has every leecher in town on your network what happens? Well they use that bandwidth, and they use it hard, with torrents that open up hundreds on connections.
    Now, your average customer is attracted by the cheap prices of the budget ISP. He wants to stream some video. BUT one the same CVC and backhaul you have most of the areas uber downloaders trying to store the entire contents of the internet on their banks of hard drives. Lets say you are one of 10 customers just to keep the numbers simple. You have your one connection you want data for, the 9 other users could have 900 connections send them data. Poor you, you get around 0.1% of the bandwidth.
    To see this effect, try downloading in peak period. You cannot download at full speed and you might get somewhere between a 1/3 and a half of off peak speeds. Now kick off a few more downloads, you can eventually max out your connection. That bandwidth comes from somewhere and when there is contention it comes from other users share.

  2. “Will cheaper ISPs provide a degraded level of service on the NBN compared to ‘premium’ ISPs, through the use of poorer contention ratios?”

    Yes.

    But that’s exactly what happens now anyway.

    Better contention ratios will cost ISPs more, so the consumer will pay more. That old adage of “you get what you pay for” holds true.

  3. How fast will ISPs be able to adjust their CVC? I wonder if it’s fairly instantaneous (I don’t really see any reason why it couldn’t be) then ISPs could automatically adjust CVC in response to usage (e.g. increasing it at peak times, decreasing it otherwise).

    • Interesting question Dean.

      CVC is paid in 1Mbps blocks/month. Does that mean they’d have to wait for the end of the month to change? Unlikely. That would be VERY limiting, since they could have dozens of users added daily depending on an area.

      I think it likely they’d be able to change it on a day by day basis, paying for what is required according to how long it is required. There would surely be people paid to just, as Renai said, keep a careful eye on provisioning on a daily basis and adjust accordingly. I’m sure there are people now that do so, but with the emphasis on total available speed/customer being SO much more pronounced on the NBN as a selling point, I think this job becomes MUCH more vital than has been the case in the past.

    • CVC “width” isn’t a variable thing – it’s contractual. You specify how much you want, and that’s what you get. To change, I would imagine you could only do it within monthly NBN Co billing cycles.

      One of the ISPs in the Tasmanian trial – (and I forget which one now, but I have a feeling it was iiNet) – hadn’t purchased enough CVC bandwidth in the early stages, and the Coalition jumped on it as “NBN fails to deliver promised speeds”.

      Once it was clear it was the CVC width, and more was allocated, problem solved.

      In the end, it’s up to the ISPs to dimension their CVC configuration appropriately.

  4. Renai,
    Aren’t the hypothetical plans you suggest somewhat like the plans you used to be able to get in the past (from Telstra and others)

    As I vaguely recall, you used to be able to purchase a connection from Mr Telstra with 0kb/sec guaranteed with burst to say 512kb/sec. Basically you took what was left over on that circuit. You could also opt for some >0 guaranteed speed or a guaranteed max speed .

    • Burst with zero commit was something you could get on Telstra Frame Relay up until about a decade ago.

      Some other carriers offered it too.

      It was a nifty product but died eventually they realised that ISPs were buying it and getting inter-capital bearers for next to nothing.

      jsl

  5. Wheres Mathew with his CVC / AVC ramblings? Shouldnt he be here by now sprouting some dribble about how the internet world will end because of the costings of upgrading the CVC for the RSP ?

    :)

    • If you like I can probably type it in from memory. I have seen it plastered across nearly every NBN article for over 6 months.

    • Matthew got banned on Delimiter for telling Rennai to “go f… himself” so we won’t be seeing his ramblings for the rest of the month

      • I wish he and the other Liberal apologists would get permabans – Im so sick of them running around sprouting dogma like “it’s a waste of taxpayers money” when it’s funded by bonds etc etc etc!!

          • Critical analysis is one thing which I’m sure we all want, nay, demand Mathew. After all, these are politicians for goodness sake and we need to keep the bastards honest – Labor or Coalition!

            But restating the same single issue day in and day out… NBNCo plan uptake projections from 2010… whilst totally dismissing the actual numbers, which are now surpassing those projections, isn’t “critical analysis”, imo.

          • I’m sick on NBN naysayers whose “critical analysis” of the NBN is nothing more than repeating what NBNCo. envisaged 3 years ago, is being proven conservative AND is currently being rewritten, both in the new Corporate Plan AND the new SAU that they are writing.

            We are capable of critical analysis. You simply do not wish to see it. We have always been critical of the CVC pricing….and now the SAU is being changed to represent that. We are STILL critical of the number of POI’s. We are STILL critical of the lack of competition BUT realise that the CURRENT lack of competition WON’T change under a Coalition plan, because it will be a handout to the most capable company for a national network….oh yeah TELSTRA.

            You say you don’t want another Telstra? And yet, you’d be happy for the Telstra we have to stay AND for an FTTN to give them more power? You say that’s what we’ll get under the NBN? Seeing as it can ONLY happen if privatised, how about you make noise ABOUT it being a BAD IDEA to privatise it (which I’d jump alongside you with), rather than simply bashing a good plan? Why? Because you have a deep seated and as far as I can see, ungrounded mistrust of government. Are they perfect? No. Did governments build Aust Post? Telecom Australia? Our electrical grid? Our water pipes? Our national highways? Yes. AND it’s not THE GOVERNMENT building the NBN to boot. It’s NBNCo.- a bunch of blokes who do it for a living, under government oversight!

            What makes you think this is vastly different from any of those things?

            You repeat the same criticisms Matthew, but you refuse to answer any actual rebuttals against them. That is not “analysis” that is FUD. Or trolling. Whichever you prefer to call it. WHY else would you essentially EXACTLY reproduce your arguments across VAST areas of the technology net, when the rest of us actually read and change our arguments to suit the discussion??

            We are at the VERY beginning of, factually, one of the largest single infrastructure builds in our nation’s history. Until now, it has been untested and ALL we had were predictions. NOW NBNCo. are updating their predictions based on what they learnt in the trial areas. Will you even LOOK are these updates with an analytical eye? Or will it only be critical? If they mark up the average speed tier uptake, will you instantly conclude they’re doing it because it makes the numbers better? Or because after trials and consultation, it’s what they HAVE SEEN will happen?

            Critical analysis has BOTH sides of the coin. And all I’ve ever seen from you is the “NBN is bad” side. Give us something good for a change. You can’t POSSIBLY believe every SINGLE part of the NBN is useless?? They have ALOT of work to do with the CVC, (which they are addressing) they have alot of work to do to ensure the rules that govern wholesale access are fair and enforceable (something that took the ACCC 10 YEARS to get to with Telstra and they STILL get around them, but which with NBNCo. and the ACCC themselves hope to have completed by the end of this year!) which is not hard considering BOTH the ACCC AND NBNCo. were founded FOR THE CONSUMER. This idea that they’re only out for maximising profits makes NO sense. They are a GBE; the profits the government will reap are FAR less important than the benefit for the consumer. Like Aust. Post and the reason no-one considers selling it.

            Here’s something bad about the NBN- we, as consumers, will no longer be getting the “price decreases every year” side of the ball game. But I think you’d find many MANY people would happily trade that up, as long as prices were still reasonable and the SERVICE was reliable. Here’s something else bad about the NBN- the little guy has less of a chance. This is NOT a good thing. But considering there are ALREADY companies springing up that are trying to address this, they will either keep calm and carry on, OR, move out of the game and into something that is more worthwhile. Don’t forget, many dozens of these smaller ISP’s currently, only offer services primarily to locals and aren’t INTERESTED in seeking national market share. They’re there to provide a decent service to their community alongside the behemoth that is Telstra. This situation is GREATLY deflated in an NBN world. Does it mean we won’t lose some small RSP’s? No, we will. But does it mean for those few hundreds of people that have to find something else, the ENTIRETY of Australia gets better broadband, part of the reason they existed anyway? It most certainly does.

            Please Matthew, ADD something to the debate. Don’t just spout the same Corporate Plan quoting, showing how NBNCo.’s “own numbers” show how bad they’ll fail. If you TRULY believe you’re smarter than ALL the people at NBNCo. AND the experts that have drawn similar (not the same, but similar) conclusions to NBNCo…..well, I don’t think I really need to speculate on that, because that would be ridiculous. For any of us.

            Do you have some sort of conspiracy theory that the NBN is JUST another way for “da govment” to filter, control or lock in voters?? If not, WHY do you simply believe all their numbers aren’t worth the paper they’re written on?? They have to have SOME merit, or even the PRO-NBNers would’ve been scratching their heads. Most of us are swing voters. Alot of us DON’T like Gillard. WHY would we vote for them if they were trying to “pull the old wool over the eyes” on the ONE thing many of us find VERY important??

            Please, give me something??

      • I don’t know where you received this piece of misinformation from. If you were familiar with my writing style then you would realise that such language is never my style.

        Obviously the fact that I’m posting this clearly disproves your point.

  6. “However, a further factor also applies here. Let’s assume that some cut-rate ISPs do under-provision bandwidth on the NBN. One has to wonder whether to what extent that the majority of ISPs’ users would even notice.”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself. This is exactly the point. Until EVERY website is 3D (shudder), HD and interactive, ordinary web browsing on a 50Mbps connection could see over half your speed disappear before you’d notice. Of course, if you’re downloading or streaming multiple video streams, it WILL make a big difference. But for now, I think the RSP’s know they can get away with less provisioning, watching it carefully and increasing as average required speed usage increases.

    I actually wrote this out on the last thread (NBN contention ratios) but Chrome for Android crashed as I tried to post it >:Z.

  7. I don’t think users will really see contention. ISPs understand that users will not put up with crap. Even if you buy a Hyundai, you do not do so with the expectation that it is slower than all the other cars, or breaks down more often.

    ISPs will purchase as much bandwidth into the NBN CSA as their customer base requires. However, do expect some types of content to be ‘managed’ further up the chain. By that, I mean various types of content, or services that are not time critical. We see it today – with the local youtube proxy at your ISP (on the google-cache) only buffering the first few seconds of a file to begin play, before waiting for the viewer to catch up before it downloads more. It doesn’t have any negative effect on the user, and in this case it done by youtube themselves – but it does help manage bandwidth.

    I say this for the following reason – ISP, under the NBN model will be providing a range of revenue-generating services, over the fibre. The ISP cannot afford for these services to be unreliable – and for consumers it doesn’t make much sense to start using multiple AVCs – its not cost effective.

    Every ISP has peak-hour congestion, its about how they manage it that is important. Running flat out contention so you start dropping packets on the CVC will provide totally unacceptable performance for all users, and break lots of content types. The cost to install hardware at the POI to manage a small number of users (compared to the scale the equipment is designed for) is also very cost ineffective.

    You’ll see what you do today, with Telstra based services – manage the customer base usage from the outside, and then upgrade your DSL VLAN interconnect as required. Like the NBN, it is really bad to run contention on the Telstra interconnect – as you can start dropping user PPPoE sessions…

    And, if ISPs really start having problems, they’ll simply start reducing quota to get rid of undesirable customers..

  8. Simon Hackett was talking about CVC not backhaul.

    “the first 150Mbps of CVC pricing to ISPs until there were 30,000 premises passed in what it described as “a connectivity serving area” — which connects to one of its planned 121 points of interconnect. Given that each ISP will only be taking a slice of the total NBN fibre market, what this means is that in the short to medium time frame (that is, much of the next decade, for many areas), …”

    Sorry for the big quote but I had to do it to show the stupidity of what you’ve written (sorry but it is). Are you seriously claiming no CSA will pass 30,000 premises inside the next decade? Think again Renai. The bloody thing’s supposed to be finished before then.

    The NBNCo is only connecting premises when the first retail service is ordered. If they run fibre down a street then every house in that street is passed. How long does it take to pass 30,000 premises on that basis?

    “However, a further factor also applies here. Let’s assume that some cut-rate ISPs do under-provision bandwidth on the NBN. One has to wonder whether to what extent that the majority of ISPs’ users would even notice. ”

    Do you think someone who’s bought a 12/1 service because they’ve been told that with the NBN what you buy is what you get will be happy when they get 3Mbps at peak times? Contention happens on the low speed connections too. Don’t restrict your examples to 100Mbps.

    “What about if NBN ISPs stopped guaranteeing maximum speeds available under the NBN and started guaranteeing minimum speeds? ”

    What if the NBNCo got rid of the CVC and did that with a virtual p2p connection from the POI to the end customer? Simon Hackett is/was right.

    “One suspects that NBN Co’s boffins have considered these kinds of scenarios at some level …”

    This one suspects the NBNCo is offloading risk at every opportunity. They did it with the roll out tenders (and then blamed everybody else) and they’re doing it here. If the NBN doesn’t give you the speed you’ve paid for it’s your ISP’s fault not ours. It’s a recurring pattern, Renai. You should look at it.

    • I was going to mention the rebate cutoff point misunderstanding, but another point that seems to have been missed is what happens to network connections when running at capacity – it doesn’t just reduce speeds for everyone connected, it increases latency and causes packet loss which can both be detrimental to real time video streams (to choose one of Renai’s examples).

  9. I think it is going to be a bigger issue under the NBN compared to what we have now.

    Simply because the peak to average ratio is going to be so much higher. I am the kind of user that will pay extra to be able to use the full 1000mbps whenever I need it. But I could get away with <100GB quota per month (based on current usage), that is a much different problem to my current 8/1.5 ADSL2+ M speeds I get now.

    Oh, and I don't think the under the NBN that cost will be the only issue. I believe that content and quality of service will be as important.

    • Correct. Due to the access speeds boosting so much the contention ratios will be worse. As a percentage, users will utilise those access connections less, however when they do – they will use up a significantly higher percentage of available backhaul bandwidth than now. This means that less users could saturate the backhaul. Sure the speeds are going to be a lot better than we see now – however maxing out the available access speed may well not be as easy as it is now.

  10. I also think that we will see some new and novel ways of selling plans. The quota concept is a “construct” of sorts, I think/hope we will see a more direct way of selling capacity. Internode have basically ruled out the return of “flat rate” plans, but that doesn’t stop new and different ideas being marketed by RSPs.

    But I do think the ACCC will need to evolve their thinking. I think they currently would frown upon a plan that marketed a peak speed (the tail link speed) and some kind of service level that related to the contention ration/bandwidth pool or whatever. This is where the 14 PoI model would be superior.

  11. > What about if NBN ISPs stopped guaranteeing maximum speeds available under the NBN and started guaranteeing minimum speeds?

    It is an interesting and idea worth pursing, but how would an RSP guarantee the minimum speed within the current NBNCo plan structure? Purchasing AVC CIR is very expensive (see page 101 of NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010). If an RSP cannot prioritise the packets within the NBNCo network, then providing the guarantee will either be very risky or involve some very heavy handed tactics.

    Imagine the different NBN that we would be experiencing now if AVC plans were CIR and bursted to the full 1Gbps speed? Unfortunately NBNCo is a monopoly and RSPs like Internode with a history of innovation are constrained by what NBNCo offer. It is a return to the days when Telstra was the only ADSL provider and all the plans were slight variations of the wholesale offering.

    • “Unfortunately NBNCo is a monopoly”

      That’s not unfortunate at all. That’s a good thing.

      “RSPs like Internode with a history of innovation are constrained by what NBNCo offer.”

      False. There is nothing stopping Internode from being innovative by what NBNco are offering.

      “It is a return to the days when Telstra was the only ADSL provider and all the plans were slight variations of the wholesale offering.”

      False. There is larger variety of plans on offer with the NBN.

      • ‘That’s not unfortunate at all. That’s a good thing.”

        So you are happy with the current Telstra monopoly?

        ‘False. There is nothing stopping Internode from being innovative by what NBNco are offering.’

        Which is a interesting stance to take as Internodes ‘innovation’ in the current environment is based on what they can do with their own DSLAM’s (now iiNets also) in a Telstra exchange, the key innovation compared to other ISP’s on Internode’s plan list being Annex M speeds.

        Under the NBN there is no such ISP internal technical control because you don’t have a key piece of hardware that is the equivalent of a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer in the link that is the exclusive property of the ISP..

        ‘False. There is larger variety of plans on offer with the NBN.’

        Variety is in the eye of the beholder, a ISP sells what wholesale plans the NBN Co allows them to sell, that is all ISP’s sell the same NBN plans mirrored at the exact same speeds that everyone else sells.

        • “So you are happy with the current Telstra monopoly?”

          Nope. Big difference between Telstra and NBNco. Do some research and stop your whining.

          “Which is a interesting stance to take as Internodes ‘innovation’ blah blah blah”

          My comment stands. There is nothing stopping Internode from being innovative by what NBNco are offering. Stop your whining.

          “Variety is in the eye of the beholder”

          False. There are more NBN plans available than were ever available on ADSL or ADSL2+. The fact that you can choose from 4 different speeds to suit your own needs proves this. Stop your whining.

          • > Nope. Big difference between Telstra and NBNco. Do some research and stop your whining.

            I struggle to see a significant difference between Telstra & NBNCo. Within 10-15 years NBNCo will be private companies seeking to maximise profits for shareholders.

            > My comment stands. There is nothing stopping Internode from being innovative by what> NBNco are offering. Stop your whining.

            One of the most significant pieces of innovation from Internode was ADSL2+ without speed tiers. The AVC speed tiers make that impossible. Free or unmetered content is also more challenging to provide because of CVC charges.

            “Variety is in the eye of the beholder”
            False. There are more NBN plans available than were ever available on ADSL or ADSL2+. The fact that you can choose from 4 different speeds to suit your own needs proves this. Stop your whining.

            Yippee. Lets go back to 2000, when we had 3 speed levels on ADSL and it wasn’t possible to even use the full capability of the connection. It’s great to know NBNCo have taken us back to the same monopoly pricing structure.

          • “I struggle to see a significant difference between Telstra & NBNCo.”

            I’m not surprised. You struggle with a lot of things.

            “One of the most significant pieces of innovation from Internode was ADSL2+ without speed tiers”

            That’s great. Now they can innovate even more with the NBN thanks to the speed tiers.

            “The AVC speed tiers make that impossible.”

            False.

            “Lets go back to 2000, when we had 3 speed levels on ADSL and it wasn’t possible to even use the full capability of the connection.”

            That was completely different.

            “It’s great to know NBNCo have taken us back to the same monopoly pricing structure.”

            Your solution is to remove those choices and have every one on the same speed tier regardless if they want/need it or not. More choice is better not less. Get out.

          • > I’m not surprised. You struggle with a lot of things.

            What I would like is some rational discourse with an explanation of why NBNCo won’t demonstrate the same problems as Telstra.

            > That’s great. Now they can innovate even more with the NBN thanks to the speed tiers.

            How? They are constrained by the speed tiers. They cannot offer a burst to gigabit speed without paying the $150 AVC charge.

            > Your solution is to remove those choices and have every one on the same speed tier regardless if they want/need it or not. More choice is better not less. Get out.

            Considering that NBNCo are installing hardware that is 1Gbps capable, but applying artificial caps in an attempt to reduce risk, unfortunately impacting unfairly on lower socio-economic groups and curbing innovation.

            Cameron in the post below clearly demonstrates the type of innovation that RSPs simply cannot innovate because of NBNCo choices.

          • Mathew rather than going around in circles with people again explaining vertical integration etc, why don’t “you” tell us why we are so wrong supporting the NBN… by supplying your own fully comprehensive NBN alternative for our perusal?

            Please…!

          • Alex dont encourage him, he has this stupid notion that each poi and attached FSA should be owned by different companies so they can “innovate”!

            *facepalm*

            Seen his willd-ass theories on WP hundreds of times and they are pure Liberal fantasy!

          • “What I would like is some rational discourse”

            I’d like that too but with your comments that is simply impossible. Your failure to take into account factual information is well known.

            “How?”

            Easy.

            “They are constrained by the speed tiers.”

            False. They can offer more choices.

            “Considering that NBNCo are installing hardware that is 1Gbps capable, but applying artificial caps blah blah blah”

            The speed tiers are there for a reason. Try and work it out. It’s really not that hard.

          • Coming into this real late, but lets see if Mathew is still reading.

            Difference between Telstra and NBNCo is simple. Telstra, in the model we’re discussing here, has a corporate interest at both the wholesale and retail level, while NBNCo, in the model we’re discussing here, will only have a corporate interest at the wholesale level.

            That difference alone is all you need.

            Once NBNCo sells the bandwidth to the ISP’s, its care factor approaches zero – its not an ISP that is also selling to the common man, so has no vested interest in limiting what the ISP’s can do, it only cares about the contracts it has with the ISP’s, and what CVC they have bought.

            Once Telstra sells the copper line to another ISP, its care factor doesnt change much – it still competes with that onsold product at the retail level, as an ISP.

            If Bigpond had been separated from Telstra way back when, then this wouldnt be an issue. But it wasnt, so now it IS an issue.

            Put it a different way. When Telstra was Government owned, there was no care factor, as they werent concentrating on the best return for the stockholders. You could even say the same when the Government owned 51%.

            You’re reaching for the time that NBNCo is privatised. At that point, its STILL going to be a wholesaler. The ISP’s are the retail side of things, so with that simple separation, you remove the bias of vertical integration.

    • Yeah, I have been pondering what might happen if the NBN wholesaled a fixed 1gbps AVC and RSPs could use the customer side NTU to implement traffic shaping that could be updated at will during the billing cycle.

      The RSP would still need to manage their CVC and core network but with some dynamic traffic management in the NTU I think we could see interesting retail offerings.

      As always the challenge would be in the marketing of the retail offering, customers need to understand what they are buying. But with the potential explosion in content servces/offerings this could be abstracted potentially.

      I do think that NBNco will need to support RSPs if they want to see significant innovations, but unlike Telstra it is in NBNco’s interest to do that.

      • > I do think that NBNco will need to support RSPs if they want to see significant innovations, but unlike Telstra it is in NBNco’s interest to do that.

        Can you explain why you think it would be in NBNCo’s interest? If you read the Statement of Expectations sent to NBNCo by the Government you will find almost zero reference to features that will provide the kind of features you are suggesting. In fact I would argue that much of NBNCo’s behaviour has been about minimising risk to the company rather than driving innovation.

        • Simply because they are a wholesaler of internet only. They do better when their customers (RSPs) buy more services from them.

        • There are two thing that will drive changes to the service offering of NBN co. The expectation of their customers(the RSP) and pressure from same and pressure from their bosses(the government). The only way the second will work is if NBN co remains in government hands. It will be fair easier to for the government of the day to change what is expected to be delivered with a government owned business than it is for a private enterprise.

    • As much as I hate responding to your diatribes….

      “Hpw would an RSP guarantee the minimum speed within the current NBNCo plan structure? Purchasing AVC CIR is very expensive (see page 101 of NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010). If an RSP cannot prioritise the packets within the NBNCo network, then providing the guarantee will either be very risky or involve some very heavy handed tactics.”

      Easily.

      3 accounts with NBNCo.
      #1 account holds a 8:1 CVC/AVC ratio
      #2 account holds a 25:1 ratio
      #3 account holds a 100:1 ratio

      You see people who don’t work for Tony know how to think outside the box…

  12. > Of course, I also feel that the dynamics of this situation have changed a great deal over the past 12 months; and they could change again.

    The next game changer could possibly be the release of 1000/400Mbps, which is rumoured to be later this year. Suddenly CVC requirements go up to a minimum of 2000Mbps per POI. That is $40,000/month.

    • My judgement is that 1Gbs end user access services will not be economical viable for families for a very long time. I think NBN is keeping the boat off until they start to focus on business services. Think it is safe to assume that most families in Australia will have problems affording this kind of access speeds WITH a reasonable amount of data included. You talking about such a small portion of market, that it is even the question IF it is economical viable for any size ISP to offer these kind of services to the home market. It asks a huge kind of investments for a tiny amount of services. But likely there will be a market for specialized ISP’s who focus on the business market. THIS will be for sure a difficult market to engage in.

      • > assuming costs don’t change

        You can see the CVC price changes on page 103 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan (Dec 2010).
        * $20/Mbps until average data usage across the network reaches 110GB
        * $15/Mbps when average data usage across the network reaches 200GB
        * $10/Mbps when average data usage across the network reaches 310GB
        * $8.75Mbps when average data usage across the network reaches 650GB in 2025.

        Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.

          • $6.20 if you happen to use NBNCo’s estimates for a low usage 12/1Mbps connection. If you happen to be someone who downloads a lot of data where the CVC costs $10, then 720% x $10 = $72.

          • “NBNCo are predicting that only 1% will connect at 1Gbps in 2026 (page 118 of NBNCo Corporate Plan). Meanwhile almost 50% of the have-nots on fibre will still be connecting at 12/1Mbps.”

            Guess who?

        • We would be far better off with Telstra’s charges and conditions, as demonstrated at Brisbane South and the Velocity estates. Agreed Michael???

          • Of course the stark difference being that Telstra or Opticomm fibre estates are not bank rolled by the taxpayer nor is the pricing regime overseen by the ACCC.

            To say that the pricing in these estates is a indicator of pricing if Telstra rolled out FTTH to all of Australia with a intended footprint the size of the NBN with all risk underwritten by the taxpayer and it’s wholesale pricing set by the ACCC anyway is disingenuous.

          • That’s a bit of a straw man.

            If Telstra hypothetically received *all* its funding from the taxpayers, and the ACCC hypothetically set the prices down at something similar to NBN pricing, then obviously the outcome (in terms of pricing, at least) wouldn’t be that bad.

            Neither of those things are likely to happen.

            The post you are quoting refers to (as I understand it) a more likely scenario where Telstra gets handouts for regional areas while debt-funding a FTTN/FTTN build to denser areas to enhance their integrated, privately-owned monopoly, with relaxed regulations. The ACCC took YEARS to declare wholesale ADSL, and they are unlikely to deny Telstra the commercial returns they would want for a new fibre network.

            Competition can’t drive prices down when the barriers to entry are high. It’s a simple law of economics. (Turnbull’s speech where he claimed the NBN was suspending the laws of economics was simply hilarious. He doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of natural monopolies.)

            There’s simply no reason to believe that this issue (bandwidth pricing) and how it affects contention ratios would be any better under Telstra.

          • “Of course the stark difference being that Telstra or Opticomm fibre estates are not bank rolled by the taxpayer nor is the pricing regime overseen by the ACCC.”
            You might need to do a bit more research into the South Brisbane fibre network…

          • The South Brisbane exchange location move and upgrade to FTTH was a agreement between Telstra and the Qld Government because the State Government wanted the old Telstra exchange site to build a hospital.

            To compare that specific one off funding arrangement with funds mainly contributed by Telstra as therefore being the ‘same as the NBN’ is not correct.

          • “The South Brisbane exchange location move and upgrade to FTTH was a agreement between Telstra and the Qld Government because the State Government wanted the old Telstra exchange site to build a hospital.
            To compare that specific one off funding arrangement with funds mainly contributed by Telstra as therefore being the ‘same as the NBN’ is not correct.”

            Indeed. You cannot compare them on price. Nor funding. But then, you ALSO cannot compare them, therefore, on likelihood of service, price to the consumer, switch-over time/costs, actual bandwidth available AND almost anything else that could be likened to the NBN FTTH.

            So how’s about this- no one compares the South Brisbane work to the NBN at all…..oh wait….look where Malcolm/Joe are getting ideas about whether or not it will cost the consumer money to swap to the NBN. Or how long it takes. Or whether it is viable nationally.

            Sorry alain. If it is used as anything other than a basic FTTH rollout comparison (ie general lessons learnt from FTTH, not specific to any set of circumstances) it is not relevant- and yet the anti-FTTH brigade CONSISTENTLY use South Brisbane as a reason FTTH won’t work. Hence, why Pro-NBNers use its’ pricing as a comparison to what we’re likely to see under a Telstra regime outside of NBNCo.- even if not relevant.

            As the old adage goes if you like “If you can do it, we can do it too….”

          • Also 7T, some people will claim this as a fair and legitimate deal between Telstra and the Qld Government (which it was).

            But at the same time, will flatly refuse to accept the NBNCo/Govt – Telstra and Optus deals as legitimate.

            :/

          • @seven_tech

            ‘So how’s about this- no one compares the South Brisbane work to the NBN at all…..oh wait….look where Malcolm/Joe are getting ideas about whether or not it will cost the consumer money to swap to the NBN. Or how long it takes. Or whether it is viable nationally.’

            I don’t know where you are going with this, Malcom/Joe compared Sth Brisbane connect costs or how long it takes to the NBN where?

            ‘and yet the anti-FTTH brigade CONSISTENTLY use South Brisbane as a reason FTTH won’t work.’

            They do where? The South Brisbane exchange is a one-off between Telstra and the Qld State Govt not likely to be repeated ever again under those same circumstances, nothing I have read says it is being used as a argument as to why FTTH won’t work.

          • Excerpt A- From: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/14/4g-comments-taken-out-of-context-says-hockey/

            Joe Hockey: “This is verified by industry reports of Telstra’s experience in South Brisbane, which suggest it is taking two technicians half a day to finalise the cutover from copper to fibre.” When discussing how long and how much it will cost to swap from copper to FTTH. NOT relevant to the NBN, as already proven.

            Excerpt B- From: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/nbn-pricing-revisited/

            Malcolm Turnbull: “But the NBN is entirely new in the Australian context; nobody has deployed a large scale fibre to the premises network in established areas. And insofar as there is one relevant point of comparison in South Brisbane, where Telstra is currently building an FTTP network, all publicly available information indicates that it costs a lot more and takes a lot longer than projected.”

            Again, not relevant. This is ONE small exchange, done with cross-subsidising, because it HAD to be done. It is NOT a comparison for a full national rollout.

            Would you like some more?

            Please alain, South Brisbane has been used by the Coalition as an argument FOR the FTTN AND an argument AGAINST FTTH for any particular point they wish to make.

            It is not relevant or even comparable to the NBN. End of story.

          • Actually there where significantly dearer and had much slower up-load speeds until very recently – the NBN going commercial forced them to get competitive!

          • There is no competition with the NBN in estates that have FTTH supplied either by Telstra or Opticomm, it is agreement between them and the estate developer.

            The only competition would come from the nearest wireless tower/s.

          • Well, isn’t that amazing. A monopoly caused prices to be dropped and services to be improved. Wow, see how efficient non duplication of infrastructure can be of benefit. It’s a shame Telstra chased Optus around the streets with HFC. Each could have offered offered affordable high speed broadband and made some money.

          • So who is right there? I’d suggest it isn’t Opticom. Why? Because since they have followed the NBNCo price scheme ISPs have reduced their Opticom plans. This supports what the ISP was saying about Opticom prices being high.

  13. “Even high-definition video streams will only require something in the order of below 10Mbps each at most.”

    While we are picking random numbers out of the air, why don’t we say it’ll only use 1Kbps?

    For demonstration, check out this 6k by 6k image that only takes 25KB! http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4636/highres.gif

    Hehehe.

    When talking about the FUTURE it’s important to put EVERYTHING into context. If you attempt to compare today’s needs with tomorrows capabilities you end up with very odd results.

    • Yeah, what happens if/when 4K video becomes normal. AV receivers are already on the market that are capable.

      YouTube currently supports 4096 x 3072 resolution apparently.

      • The number of 4k (and higher) digital video cameras available is exploding, display resolution is increasing all the time and it won’t be long before this technology is mainstream. I’m guessing within 10 years things like 4k webcams will be quite normal if not sooner.

  14. @renai one thing I forgot to mention in your previous topic was router performance, this is on area where ISP’s can skimp and badly affect their overall network performance.

    Good ISP’s really over engineer their core networks to make sure this will never be an issue. Eg i know a small top quality isp that last year installed 4x brand new Cisco ASR9000’s (2 per DC) into its core network. These things are so epic they could manage the traffic for an ISP 10x it’s size!

    So yes all these thing do add up to differentiate ISP to ISP performance.

  15. Contention vs Congestion

    Its important to understand the difference.
    Congestion = bad customer experience.
    Contention is used by the ISP to manage and minimize congestion = good customer experience.

    The Busy Hours

    This is usually between 6pm and 11pm.
    Managing the Busy Hours is the most challenging period for an ISP..
    This is often when customers may experience congestion if there is too much contention.

    No Congestion vs Best Effort

    This depends on service types.
    For example if a user buys an IPTV package they are going to require enough bandwidth to ensure a congestion free experience on that service. ISPs will use quality of service to deliver IPTV.
    Another example might be YouTube which would probably be delivered on a best effort basis.

    In all cases it is the responsibility of the ISP to manage contention to minimize congestion.
    Some ISPs will manage contention better than others.
    At the end of the day you generally get what you pay for.

    • > ISPs will use quality of service to deliver IPTV

      The quality of service won’t work on the NBNCo network unless AVC CIR is purchased at an additional cost.

      • QOS is something under discussion. It has been for a while now. The next meeting is in August.
        Just as users cannot set QOS on their own network traffic, ISPs setting QOS on their own traffic on a shared network is open to abuse and errors. They have agreed that it isn’t wise to allow this and now are working toward a way to have QOS on other services.

  16. The biggest problem for all ISP’s, except Telstra as they own all/most of the 121 long term POI’s, is the cost of POI backhaul/transmission. This will significantly impact the commercial models of ISP’s and result in various market choices – Contention, Market Exit, Ignoring certain POI’s/CSA’s, using various aggregators etc. etc.

    In today’s ISP world, ISP’s who resell Telstra/Optus/AAPT/TPG ADSL ports, also avail themselves of their suppliers CONTENDED state or national DSL aggregation networks/AGVC’s. And then apply as much or as little IP transit as they choose to based on the economic model and product/company positioning.

    For the DSLAM builder ISP’s, they have been VERY careful to optimise their DSLAM roll-out to areas that provide acceptable ROIC models with payback periods well in advance of the coming NBN coverage and ultimate DSLAM obsolescence. All national ISP’s who have deployed their own DSLAM’s also continue to re-sell Telstra, Optus and AAPT DSL ports – today’s market will roll over to the NBN market in an evolutionary way with a continued mixture of direct POI connectivity in high customer density CSA’s and the continued reliance on a national aggregation solution from Telstra/Optus/AAPT Wholesale.

    The real story here should be – what is the per Mbps cost of connectivity for each ISP from their CBD located POP’s to the 121 NBN POI’s? This is the debate that has not been had. Remember who was advocating to the ACCC for the 121 POI model – YES – the national transmission network owners, protecting their investments (fair enough) but the Lemming reseller ISP’s were silent at that time and are now saddled with the stark reality of either get big quick (Internode sale to iinet) or maintain a laser like focus on core geographic markets (Adam in Adelaide). As a case study, look at how many ISP’s will offer services in Tasmania.

    In tomorrow’s world the smaller reseller ISP’s will have to either purchase transmission links to each of the 121 POI’s at a cost significantly higher than the $20 per Mbps CVC cost or use re-wholesalers CONTENDED aggregation networks.

    The sad reality of the NBN is, the government is spending $42B of our money to give us a future that will have less supplier choice, less product/plan innovation and HIGHER product performance expectations but a product REALITY that will deliver about the same as you get today… what a waste of time/money/effort…. Politics + Non-Commercial Decisions = Disaster

    • “The sad reality of the NBN is, the government is spending $42B of our money to give us a future that will have less supplier choice, less product/plan innovation and HIGHER product performance expectations but a product REALITY that will deliver about the same as you get today… what a waste of time/money/effort…. Politics + Non-Commercial Decisions = Disaster”

      I’ll target your final point here.

      Its not 42$ Billion, its 36.5$ Billion and its an investment much like Telstra or CBA were. Both of those businesses were exceedingly successful, Im all for the government doing it again. Its probably the most clever decision they’ve had so far. Creating a return on investment is what I’d prefer taxpayers dollars to be spent on, not some half-assed Dollars for Nannies program Abbott wants to roll out .

      While money in roads / hospitals seems like a good idea, the states have to front up the rest – given that the majority are either in debt (see QLD / Vic ) or struggling with what to do when the boom runs out (NT / WA) – they’re both a further direct burden on the economy. While we’re not struggling economically, we should be pushing these major projects. Not only do they generate extra income, it does it in a fashion where the risk is minimal.

      You also mentioned that we can get current speeds on the NBN similar to what we can get today. This isnt in any way, shape or form true. Get on Next G, see what speeds you get over wireless at peak time. It wont be even close to the ‘up-to 42mbps’ on LTE they claim. Try and do the same on ADSL, ‘up-to 24mbps’ wont occur. In peak time most of these RIMs or Exchanges you’re connecting to are now so congested that the service can almost be unusable in some areas. Then theres the issue of how many homes arent connected to copper in some way – believe me; its alot more than Telstra’s willing to claim. Why do you think they’re running around now trying in vain to upgrade ‘Top Hats’ on key marginally profitable areas ? Because they’re getting paid for it.

      The NBN is coming whether you like it or not now – the real question is, will it be FTTH (the right option) or FTTN (the ‘Technologically Retarded’ version) path ?

      • The essence of my comments are:

        1. 121 POI’s from a Small/Mid size ISP is very problematic. For Telstra it is ‘manner from heaven’, for Optus it is a slight annoyance and for all others it ranges from a PITA to the demise of their business

        2. Contention on backhaul exists today in a ADSL/3/4G (or whatever access) world – it will exist in an NBN world too – at a much worse level (due to 121 POI backhaul costs) – assuming ISP’s aim for the same ARPU per GB allowance

        3. Competition and choice will reduce in the market which will mean you will pay more for less – this is the Governments Socialist agenda

        4. Governments never get anything right – they are anti-Darwinian – nature, like natural markets, flourishes when the conditions are right and die when they are not. Wasting our money for a zero sum game is crazy.

        • @ No NBN Thanks. 3. “Competition and choice will reduce in the market which will mean you will pay more for less – this is the Governments Socialist agenda”.

          a) Pre-NBN Australian’s had one only “Australia wide” network provider. Telstra.

          b) Post -NBN there will be (even as the naysayers have said when trying to bag the NBN) probably “ONLY” 4 or 5 Australia wide RSP’s available to 100% of Aussies and 93% will have a vastly superior to Telstra’s network, 100mbps, upgradeable available..

          So, which do you think offers more actual/better choice to all Aussie consumers? 1 provider with – 24mpbs at best or 4 or 5 providers with 100mbps upgradeable?

          Ah but, but, but HFC, ok…

          c) Then pre-NBN of course we had HFC available to (iirc) 30% of Aussies from 2 providers. the funny part is (depending upon what day it is, the moon, tides or something) the NBN critics will either say HFC was a woeful failure, to equate that to (as the closest to the NBN) the NBN also being a failure. Or conversely, claim HFC a wonderful competitive technology being closed for no reason but to “force” people on to the NBN. *sigh*

          d) refer b) and add Optus too.

          So, which do you think offers more actual choice to all Aussie consumers? 2 providers available only to 30% with – 100mpbs max or 4 or 5 providers available to 93% with 100mbps upgradeable?

          When you sign up to a fixed provider now do you care who owns the network?

          Or when you purchase anything from anywhere, do you care who owns the distribution network?

          The answer is no (be honest)… well no, everywhere else on earth, but the NBN… where naysayers invent ridiculous excuses, which they would never apply to anywhere else.

          Seriously

  17. Not much I can add to this as small ISP-director. Good research and quotations by the writer. However on one point I would like to make. It is incorrect to assume that smaller ISP’s would have relatively more problems with congestion. We currently have access to 5x1Gbs internet feeds with Tier-1 carriers, 2x1Gbs peering for home-state peering and 1x1Gbs for internation peering. When we test the speeds from our core network we reach on each of those services easily 80% of the theoretical speed. Our access servers are connected to this, so I can safely assume that on our network the maximum possible speed is reached on the ADSL services. We cruising currently between 10%-20% usage on our core feeds. When one of the services will be touching the 50%, we expand the capacity. Under the NBN we follow the same practice, only the frequency of upgrading will be much MUCH faster. But does it change our business model or affect our financial position: NO. I do not advertise my business here, hence that is the reason why I do not supply our company name. However I would like to make the point that big and small ISP’s are very diverse and that this will not change with the NBN. I believe that ISP’s have to be more transparent on their infrastructure so end users can make a more informed decision. Also a compulsory statement on netneutrality (no traffic shaping without telling your end users) and TIO-complaints would be a good idea. Would make it all a bit more transparent for the end users. We went in a few times with ISP’s as crisis manager when it was already to late anyhow and we were sometimes utterly shocked to discover that there was not even a network plan or some form of network design. Imagine yourself standing in front of a cabinet with hundreds of cables and not knowing where one goes to. But we also now that many ISP’s have their infrastructure perfectly and proactively under control.

  18. I don’t think contention ratios and their effect upon performance under a NBN network will have high profile in deciding a residents choice of which ISP to go with, as Renai pointed out in his comments it will much easier to swap ISP’s under the NBN with the current churn system (for those ISP’s that subscribe to it) or a Telstra tech visit to a exchange for a manual DSLAM jumper swap being totally eliminated with a simple instant software switch by the NBN Co.

    ISP’s will therefore have to be more savvy about retaining customers by making sure their NBN performance all down the line is not too shabby relative to other ISP’s.

    The ACCC I read are also going to be more stringent on advertised speeds and if those speeds are actually met by customers under the NBN, I just don’t hope the blame game is not trotted out every time – ‘it must be the NBN Co vs it must be the ISP’.

    Having said that about the ease of swapping ISP I am sure ISP’s will try and lock punters in by other methods, hence the marketing importance of the lock-in package, they don’t really want customers just buying a bog standard NBN Plan off them then pick and choosing their TV, voice and wireless requirements add-ons elsewhere.

  19. Contention ratio is just a measure of a network’s architecture.

    Packet loss is a measure of performance.

    If demand on a link exceeds capacity there will be packet loss which will initially cause TCP connections to slow down to share the available capacity and will quite adversely affect services using UDP like games and certain types of video streaming.

    Actions which limit demand include usage quotas. This makes it hard for a service provider that doesn’t have quotas to deliver a low packet loss service in a bandwidth constrained environment. If the provider has an overloaded network path between you and the content you want to consume you will find the data arrives slower than from somewhere that the path is ample.

    If that overloaded link is ALWAYS in the path your online experience will always be impacted.

    An example would be the backhaul from the NBN POI to your ISP or the CVC your service depends on.

    If your service provider is very good at traffic engineering they might ensure that below some magic quota threshold your packets are put to the front of the queue.

    Since only 6 or 7 RSPs have the necessary market share to fund backhaul from the POIs I doubt we are going to see any big cheap and cheerful ISPs serving via the NBN. I also doubt we will see many small ISPs buying access from those big players but that’s another issue entirely.

    • > If demand on a link exceeds capacity there will be packet loss which will initially cause TCP connections to slow down to share the available capacity and will quite adversely affect services using UDP like games and certain types of video streaming.

      For those who don’t understand the impact of packet loss on TCP connections it is worth reading about Congestive Collapse and TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm. Basically it is not pretty.

      In the real world, I’ve seen a 4Mbps link turn effectively into 1Mbps link because the link advertised it self as 100Mbps and the router would send packets at a rate of up to 16Mbps using slow start and then drop back to under 1Mbps when the packets were dropped at the other end of the link. The throughput chart was a mess of rapidly changing values. Throttling the link to 4Mbps solved the problem, but that solution won’t work for the NBN.

      The impact on UDP which doesn’t guarantee delivery is even worse.

    • > Since only 6 or 7 RSPs have the necessary market share to fund backhaul from the POIs I doubt we are going to see any big cheap and cheerful ISPs serving via the NBN. I also doubt we will see many small ISPs buying access from those big players but that’s another issue entirely.

      I’m curious as to who you think the 6 – 7 RSPs will be.

      I think the certainties are: Telstra, Optus, iiNet and TPG.
      Vodafone is a dark horse because they have a large mobile phone customer base that they could leverage and existing infrastructure.

      • Woolworths and Coles maybe? – Woolworths especially have a large prepay sim market.

        :)

      • Your point about market share is interesting in the light of the latest ACCC statistics on Fixed line BB market share, which highlights the stark reality as at 2010-2011.

        Telstra 41%, Optus 16%, iiNet 12%, TPG 10%, Primus 7% others 18%.

        There are 196 ISP’s in Australia which means if you take out the top 5, 191 ISP’s are competing for 18% of the market.

        The importance of keeping Telstra happy is blindingly obvious, the ‘problem’ of Telstra upgrading its own infrastucture under a Coalition Government is also blindly obvious but I am not so sure about the 191 sitting in the 18% market share in a NBN world, especially if a international player like Vodafone with plenty of cash enters the market discounting NBN to the bone and making the fat on the wireless margins as a package.

        • You’ve just proved, without even trying, what a joke the so called competition is/has been pre-NBN and would revert to being under the Coalitions alternative.

          • Why would the market share outlined above change under the NBN, especially if you keep in mind the top two Telstra and Optus hold 57% of the market, the rest have to make do with 43% between them?

          • @Alain simple, Telstra and Optus have the biggest DSLAM installs (over 2000 for telstra) and backhaul networks – under the NBN it’s irrelevant – any ISP can sign up with NextGen for their “NBN Connect” service and access every POI in Australia, they dont even need to install a switch in each POI!

            That’s called leveling the playing field!!

          • You mean apart from the fact that Optus and Telstra will have had their stranglehold on the wholesale infrastructure disolved under the NBN? Obviously they still have the advantage of the large customer bases that will be especially helpful early on, but will that remain?

            I think you need to ask how they will adapt to a level playing field where they don’t have such a disproportionate advantage. The likes of iiNet are used to running on thinner margins.

          • The connection between BigPond having 41% market share and Telstra Wholesale having DSLAM’s that any ISP can resell plans from in many cases at better value than BigPond itself escapes me.

          • What it demonstrates to me is, while Telstra may officially have 41% market share (take your word), Telstra equipment is actually utilised by a vastly greater number of clientele than just the 41%.

            Meaning Telstra, with their unhealthy conflict of interest as both wholesaler and retailer, still to this day, actually have a much higher and completely uncompetitive stranglehold (market share) than the direct numbers would suggest (which I think we “all” know, even if “some” just won’t admit it).

            However, with the much more competitive NBN having completely separated wholesale/retail, with a claimed (even by the naysayers) 4 or 5 RSP’s available to “all Aussies (not just one – Telstra)”, Aussies who have never, and would never, have had another choice, will finally have a choice of something rather than Telstra, or rebadged Telstra, “if” they so choose.

            As non-biased Aussie consumers, I’m sure we are all pleased for this improvement in not just in competition, but in overall comms, for all Aussies :)

          • Except that we are left with some promises by NBNCo to the ACCC to not raise prices which are worth less than a brass razoo compared with the current competition at the DSLAM level which has driven down prices and increased innovation.

          • @ Mathew, “promises from NBNCo not worth a brass razoo…” ?

            Is this coming from the same Mathew who bombards everyone daily, with NBNCo said on pg 118 and claims it must be so, because NBNCo said?

          • “which are worth less than a brass razoo”

            Mathew, your comment here illustrates irrational thinking. I would like to see evidence if you are going to claim that NBN Co breaks its promises intentionally.

          • I did not mean for my statement to be interpreted as suggesting that NBNCo break promises intentionally. I expect it would be common knowledge among people reading this, that as demand rises NBNCo plan to cut the unit price at a rate significantly less than what demand increases (page 101, 103). Therefore a promise to maintain the same pricing is in my opinion worthless.

            If NBNCo need to raise per unit prices, then it will indicate that the whole project is in serious trouble. At that point the promise will mean zilch because it will be a choice between bankruptcy, government bail out or increasing per unit pricing.

          • How could we not know Mathew? You have plastered it all over the internet. But you use the avergae users increase in data usage to state there will be a 720% in CVC charges for the average user. But what you never mention is what the bottom line of that is. For the average user a $6.20 increase by 2025. Big deal.

          • “DSLAM level which has driven down prices and increased innovation”

            I’m still waiting for some of that “increased innovation” that allows ISPs to offer 100/40mbps connections… oh wait that’s the NBN I’m thinking of not “current competition at the DSLAM level”

          • The $6.20 figure you so like quoting is based on the $1 estimate for a 12/1Mbps user (page 103 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan). Are you suggesting that a 12/1Mbps user will be the average user on the NBN?

          • No he hasn’t but you have (incessantly) and continue to Mathew, hence my comment (copy/paste of your comment at ZD) here

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/23/how-important-will-nbn-contention-ratios-be/#comment-476121

            You can’t have it both ways, tell us that 50% will be on 12/1 (in 2025) but then want to do your sums on the 1%.

            If you admit the actual figures suggest NBNCo will and are exceeding these “conservative” projections then he can redo the sums to reflect this. But until such time, “using your claim”, it’s $6.20.

          • @HC

            ‘I’m still waiting for some of that “increased innovation” that allows ISPs to offer 100/40mbps connections… oh wait that’s the NBN I’m thinking of not “current competition at the DSLAM level”’

            Of course that comparison is not the same as comparing DSLAM completion today from the likes of Internode that allows them to market Annex M on their own exchange gear as a marketing edge over other ISP’s.

            What you need to explain to keep the DSLAM comparison the same is how ISP’s that all offer NBN Co set 100/40 Mbps plans can ‘innovate’ with that speed that will make them unique from all other competitor NBN Co 100/40 Mbps plans.

          • “The $6.20 figure you so like quoting is based on the $1 estimate for a 12/1Mbps user (page 103 of the NBNCo Corporate Plan). Are you suggesting that a 12/1Mbps user will be the average user on the NBN?”

            That is the exact same user you are getting all your calculations from. So I can’t use the exact same figures and put a dollar amount to them?
            You also keep saying the 12/1 plan will be the majority of users, ignoring reality, and now you are crying foul?

          • “Of course that comparison is not the same as comparing DSLAM completion today from the likes of Internode that allows them to market Annex M on their own exchange gear as a marketing edge over other ISP’s.”

            That’s right the comparison is not the same because fibre is light years ahead of ADSL2+ AND Annex M. Annex M is not innovative. Stop your whining.

            “What you need to explain to keep the DSLAM comparison the same is how ISP’s blah blah blah”

            I dont need to explain anything. The assumption here is that what was offered on ADSL2+ is innovative. I don’t believe anything offered on ADSL2+ in innovative. If you do you must have really low standards. Annex M is not innovative. Stop your whining.

            “with that speed that will make them unique from all other competitor NBN Co 100/40 Mbps plans”

            What ISP offering ADSL2+ is unique for offering ADSL2+??? Annex M is not innovative. Stop your whining.

            Also while we are here please explain how ISPs will “innovate” with a FttN patchwork plan that you endorse.

          • @HC

            ‘That’s right the comparison is not the same because fibre is light years ahead of ADSL2+ AND Annex M. Annex M is not innovative’.

            lol Annex M is not innovative because you don’t like it being brought up as being so because you cannot offer any equivalent comparison under the bland ‘everyone sells the same NBN Co speeds’ plan list.

            ‘I dont need to explain anything. ‘

            Oh I see, more on that later.

            Once you again you have decided as to what defines ‘innovative’ because you have a pro NBN agenda to push, sorry it’s not that easy, I am sure Internode decided it was quite innovative as it gives them a marketing edge over competitors in Agile and Chime enabled exchanges.

            ‘Also while we are here please explain how ISPs will “innovate” with a FttN patchwork plan that you endorse.’

            Apparently ‘I don’t need to explain anything’.

          • Annex M is not innovative because it’s just another profile and part of the DSL standards – it’s no different from NBN Co turning on a 250/100 FTTH plan, it was there all along and they’ve just chosen to enable it and offer it to customers!

          • “lol Annex M is not innovative because you don’t like it being brought up”

            I’m sure I don’t care if you bring it up. If anything it actually helps my argument…

            “you cannot offer any equivalent comparison under the bland ‘everyone sells the same NBN Co speeds’ plan list.”

            What are the equivalents of the following “bland” plans on ADSL2+:

            12/1mbps = ???
            25/10&5mbps = ???
            50/20mbps = ???
            100/40mbps = ???
            250/100mbps = ???
            500/200mbps = ???
            1000/400mbps = ???

            Go.

            “Once you again you have decided as to what defines ‘innovative’ because blah blah blah”

            I haven’t decided anything. I will ask you to clarify what you consider “innovative” though: Do you consider Annex M to be innovative? Yes or No?

            “Apparently ‘I don’t need to explain anything’.”

            Actually you do. You believe in all this supposed “innovation”. I don’t. You need to explain how ISPs will “innovate” with a FttN patchwork since this is now apparently a new and the all defining property of what makes or breaks a communications infrastructure build.

          • @ Alain

            “There was a hell of a lot more to it than that glib one liner, I am sure Hackett would be happy that you thought what they did was nothing special.”

            Mate, I worked for and ISP as Customer Delivery Manager and Data Center Manager and AnnexM is not rocket science no matter what Internodes press release says! The truth of the matter is on lines over 1.5km’s you gain a couple hundred kbits extra Uplink for a loss double the size of the gain on the downlink!

          • @Alex

            ‘while Telstra may officially have 41% market share (take your word),’

            Well it’s not my ‘word’ it’s the latest ACCC published statistics covering June 2010 – 2011 available on their web site.

            ‘Telstra equipment is actually utilised by a vastly greater number of clientele than just the 41%.’

            Yes I know, the 41% is Telstra’s retail market share, you are just enforcing my previous point.

            ‘Meaning Telstra, with their unhealthy conflict of interest as both wholesaler and retailer, still to this day, actually have a much higher and completely uncompetitive stranglehold (market share) than the direct numbers would suggest (which I think we “all” know, even if “some” just won’t admit it).’

            The point is that Telstra ADSL is under the jurisdiction of the ACCC and the ACCC have made further deliberations pushing Telstra ADSL wholesale costs downward which are contained in the Interim Access Determination which was effective February this year, which will then lead to a Final Access Determination after receiving submissions from ISP’s in March.

            ISP’s compete with each other and sell quite effectively ADSL and ADSL2+ plans using Telstra DSLAM’s in direct competition with BigPond, with wholesale pricing they pay to Telstra set by the ACCC.

            ‘As non-biased Aussie consumers, I’m sure we are all pleased for this improvement in not just in competition, but in overall comms, for all Aussies :)’

            I don’t see any difference in wholesale plans either NBN Co or Telstra Wholesale with pricing and access conditions set by the ACCC to stimulate competition on monopoly infrastructure,what I do see with the NBN is the shut down of all competing infrastructure.

            Currently we have a competitive scenario which will be removed in the bland all NBN world, ISP’s that have their own gear in Telstra exchanges and it is resold to others at the wholesale level in many cases are fiercely competitive with each other and the two biggies BigPond and Optus on ADSL2+ and Naked DSL price and plan speed innovation.

            The main advantage that ISP’s have over the No1 BigPond at the moment is Naked DSL, BigPond don’t sell it even though Telstra Wholesale have it available as ULL product.

            So that is a case where ISP’s take advantage of Telstra Wholeasale pricing on the ULL which is set by the ACCC anyway that BigPond does not.

            I am not sure what you call that, an example of vertical integration in reverse perhaps?

          • “What you need to explain to keep the DSLAM comparison the same is how ISP’s that all offer NBN Co set 100/40 Mbps plans can ‘innovate’ with that speed that will make them unique from all other competitor NBN Co 100/40 Mbps plans.”

            Alain I would would much much prefer to have a dozen RSP’s offering me 100/40 Mbps plans with the ONLY DIFFERENCE being price/quotas then is :

            “Of course that comparison is not the same as comparing DSLAM completion today from the likes of Internode that allows them to market Annex M on their own exchange gear as a marketing edge over other ISP’s.”

            because Annex M as offered by Internode as well as other ISP’s is useless to 95% of the population.
            It’s just not fast enough period, even if you are right next door to the exchange. Who gives a rats*** about that type of innovation, bring on the NBN for real broadband competition. Not the “competition if you can call it that” where I live now (a regional centre in South Australia) where all I get is the choice of Telstra or Internode. Even the local backhaul to the nearest POP is a duopoly with the company that Internode goes through not much better then Telstra and hence we don’t have access to all the plans that Internode offer compared to the their metro customers.

            Under Labor’s NBN I will get multiple choices of 12,25,50,100mbit download and 40mbit upload speeds. All for different prices and quotas from a hell of a lot more RSP’s than just TWO. That’s all the innovation I need and I believe what most Australians want.

          • Great post Avid Gamer, totally nailed it.

            As you can see the whole “innovate” line is nothing but an excuse and a distraction. What ever ISPs supposedly did to “innovate” with ADSL2+ they can do with fibre x4 and then x7 when the faster plans become available. Verdict: fibre wins again.

          • @Avid Gamer

            ‘Alain I would would much much prefer to have a dozen RSP’s offering me 100/40 Mbps plans with the ONLY DIFFERENCE being price/quotas then is :’

            Well no it’s not because the innovation under DSLAM is differing speed where Internode offer higher upload speeds than anyone on bog standard ADSL2+.

            ‘Under Labor’s NBN I will get multiple choices of 12,25,50,100mbit download and 40mbit upload speeds. All for different prices and quotas from a hell of a lot more RSP’s than just TWO. That’s all the innovation I need and I believe what most Australians want.’

            Yes I know all of that but the comparison to ISP owned DSLAM control is STILL not the same.

          • “Well no it’s not because the innovation under DSLAM is differing speed where Internode offer higher upload speeds than anyone on bog standard ADSL2+.”

            AMAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZING!!!

            How innovative!

            Wait.

            No seriously.

            Faster upload speeds are important now?

            Annex M brings upload speed closer to download speed on ADSL2+

            Come to think of it this is important and this is “innovative”

            How very interesting.

            So really NBNco are innovating by offering plans with even greater symmetry on fibre.

            ISPs can rest easy. The work is done for them.

            Fibre wins again!

          • Good point Hubert,

            This is just a continuation of the ridiculous double standards from those who oppose the NBN for oppositions sake.

            They laud ADSL “innovation” but now to suit the agenda, want to quash any further and “vastly superior innovation”?

            :/

          • Of course you both directly avoid the comparison because there is no equivalence under the the NBN Co wholesale mothership where all ISP’s sell the exact same speeds at the same wholesale price points as any other ISP, nor is there any equivalence of ISP’s having their own internal cost and technical control equipment in the last mile link like there is today, all equipment including the box in the residents home belongs to the NBN Co.

            As a ISP you only market download and upload speeds in plan categories they allow you to market.

          • “Of course you both directly avoid the comparison because there is no equivalence”

            Exactly. There is no equivalent because fibre is superior and copper is redundant. Glad we got that sorted.

            “where all ISP’s sell the exact same speeds at the same wholesale price points as any other ISP”

            As opposed to ADSL2+ where they sell a multitude of different speeds without even knowing what they are selling due to it being “up to” 24mbps. Consumers have no choice with copper but they do with fibre. Fibre > copper.

            “nor is there any equivalence of ISP’s having their own internal cost and technical control equipment in the last mile link like there is today”

            Exactly. Fibre makes all that redundant. Glad we got that sorted too. Fibre > copper.

            “As a ISP you only market download and upload speeds in plan categories they allow you to market.”

            As an ISP you only market download and upload speeds in plan categories that you may or more likely may not get. Fibre wins again.

          • Perhaps the opposition can, along with FTTN, also offer 2G to rural Aussies and their trusty followers can argue how much more innovative that is too…

            *rolls eyes*

          • alain
            Sorry but your whole DSL innovation argument is akin to arguing over the superiority of rubber tyres on the horse and buggy as the horseless carriage was growing in poularity

          • “Of course you both directly avoid the comparison because there is no equivalence under the the NBN Co wholesale mothership where all ISP’s sell the exact same speeds at the same wholesale price points as any other ISP, nor is there any equivalence of ISP’s having their own internal cost and technical control equipment in the last mile link like there is today, all equipment including the box in the residents home belongs to the NBN Co.
            As a ISP you only market download and upload speeds in plan categories they allow you to market.”

            alain, this is exactly the point.

            I fail to see how every Australian having access to VASTLY superior services, for a small relative increase in overall broadband spend and ONLY having access to these same services, with variations on price and quota, from all RSP’s is a bad thing??

            Innovation is not LIMITED to wholesale provisions. There is innovation in retail also and good RSP’s will continue to find it. It is quite boggling that you wish the “innovation” of the current system, which sees less than 50% of Australians getting access to 12Mbps, to continue REGARDLESS of the fact that innovation in a capped ceiling market leads ultimately nowhere. If ISP’s could “innovate” under wholesale conditions now, they’d do it- we’d have multiple HFC pipes (NOT overlapping), multiple THOUSANDS of exchanges with Annex M (instead of a few hundred) and a MUCH higher fibre penetration than we already do. But we don’t. Because innovation is only code for smart spending. And smart spending by private companies in this country is NOT producing new wholesale infrastructure. Hence the NBN.

            Innovation is limited to what the company and its’ employees think of, NOT simply by what the infrastructure allows. There WILL be innovation in the NBN world, it will simply be DIFFERENT to that of the non-NBN world.

            The NBN is not the apocalypse incarnate for business OR consumers. Stop trying to portray it as such. Even if you don’t get “your way” and the NBN goes in AND proves it is nowhere near as successful as promised, this country has survived 17% interest rates, 4 recessions and 1 (shortly 2) GFC’s. A 1% hit to the budget over 10 years is not going to bankrupt us if it flops and it’s JUST as likely to NOT flop, as much as you’d never admit.

          • @Abel Adamski

            ‘Sorry but your whole DSL innovation argument is akin to arguing over the superiority of rubber tyres on the horse and buggy as the horseless carriage was growing in poularity’

            Actually your analogy is quite good but not in the way you intended, I am sure the carriage manufacturer that had rubber tyres had a marketing edge over those that did not.

          • I’m sure the carriage maker did have an advantage over other carriage makers under suc circumstances alain, no one is arguing that.

            Do you really believe rubber tyred buggy makers had the edge over automobile manufacturers?

            *rolls eyes*

          • “nor is there any equivalence of ISP’s having their own internal cost and technical control equipment in the last mile link like there is today”

            btw what happens to all of this with a FttN patchwork plan?

          • LOL Hubert… +1

            DSLAMs are a wonderfully innovative and competitive driver which we need but will be lost under the NBN. So vote 1 FTTN?

            :/

  20. I am getting the NBN next year (yes, lucky me). The current cost for 100/40 from Exetel looks attractive and affordable.

    The first year or two should not be a problem given the small numbers that would be connected. Should things turnout badly and I found the speed was becoming inadequate a later stage, I would have still have had the benefit of a much faster speed at appreciably cheaper cost than I am currently paying.

    Furthermore, the quality of the VOIP calls I make, the video screaming I watch would have been far superior.

    If Exetel turned out to be offering a lesser quality product, changing ISP would become self evident.

    There may be, however, many other reasons I may change ISP. For instance, I might switch to an ISP offering an attractive triple play, as is commonly the case in many European countries. Or I may do so for reasons I cannot yet anticipate.

    It is important to remember that when something new comes on the scene, there is a strong temptation to want to speculate about its future. In the case of the NBN, many things, some not yet known, will come into play.

    I note that some commentators use the future tense in their proclamations, perhaps the conditional tense would be more appropriate.

  21. “As a number of readers have highlighted, some ISPs, notably TPG, do currently suffer from a large number of complaints on their forums on sites like Whirlpool, with users criticising the company for slow ADSL broadband speeds, particularly at night when more home users are more fully utilising their home broadband connection.”

    Although it’s great to read up on the future, it is important to remember that whingepool has made it clear that POSITIVE threads will be deleted and only ‘have a whinge at TPG’ threads will be alllowed over and over…..

    Attached is a collection of threads either closed down and redirected, but more commonly removed without breadcrumb trace.
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11742808/TPG_Caps.zip

    Mods have been approached regarding this and feel that its NOT their job to aggregate the common topics to highlight any ongoing (if any) issue.

    Might as well rename the wp tpg area – “This thread has been deleted…”

    Again, using impartial websites need both sides to be considered.
    Broadband choice – TPG #1 ISP plan and #2 ISP used by ‘educated’ users.
    http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/

    Bring on the NBN, anyone with inside news of TPG’s plans gets a set of steak knives.

    D
    (clearly a tpg dealer, who’s now walked away from whingepool)

    • “Although it’s great to read up on the future, it is important to remember that whingepool has made it clear that POSITIVE threads will be deleted and only ‘have a whinge at TPG’ threads will be alllowed over and over…..”

      So what? TPG has many times more people complaining about speed than every other ISP combined.
      And the responses from reps about what could be causing the slowdowns? Pure bullshit.

      “Again, using impartial websites need both sides to be considered.
      Broadband choice – TPG #1 ISP plan and #2 ISP used by ‘educated’ users.
      http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/

      I see the plan is number one, the ISP is number 3, did it just drop? Or
      is there a seperate list for ‘educated users’
      I just assumed that the plans were cheap and the users used the plans for purposes that evening slowdown wasn’t a worry.

      “Bring on the NBN, anyone with inside news of TPG’s plans gets a set of steak knives.”

      Will be interesting to see the reps excuses for slow evening speeds under NBN. “It was a full moon the light was interfering with the optical fibre” “There are too many stars in the country compared to the city, that makes it slow”

    • > Although it’s great to read up on the future, it is important to remember that whingepool has made it clear that POSITIVE threads will be deleted and only ‘have a whinge at TPG’ threads will be alllowed over and over…..

      Sounds like the same gaming of the herring system that NBN fanbois engage in to have dissenting opinions hidden by the moderators.

      > Mods have been approached regarding this and feel that its NOT their job to aggregate the common topics to highlight any ongoing (if any) issue.

      Without having looked at the threads in detail, I do tend to agree that mods should remain neutral. Why don’t you take on the task of curating the threads and highlighting common themes?

  22. Regardless of what your opinion is, I move that anyone claiming “The Government never gets anything right” and that any government spending is ‘unnatural’ and “anti-Darwinian’ have their copy of Atlas Shrugged torn forcefully from their hands. And then that person should be forced to rely on Transfield for all their roads, Monjon for their security needs and Mailboxes Etc. for their postal service.

    • Thanks for the literary reference – Looters and Moochers, that’s who will build and use the NBN – perfect analogy!

      • Why is it we pay taxes (not that the NBN is coming from out of income taxes anyway) if not to build for the nation’s future anyway?

        • I would love to be able to direct where my taxes (PAYG and GST) are spent – that’s true democracy!

        • @Alex

          ‘Why is it we pay taxes (not that the NBN is coming from out of income taxes anyway) if not to build for the nation’s future anyway?’

          For the sake of brevity I am not going to argue with your ‘income tax’ statement, it has been flogged to death before, as to the nations future it will depend on what the nations future has always depended on, that is Australia being one of the worlds biggest mining pits where the main problem is they cannot get it out of the ground fast enough.

          The nations future depending on HD video streaming to four points in the home is of no consequence.

          • No that is not correct and you know that, that topic has been discussed in great detail in other discussions in Delimiter over the past year or so, and you know that as well, I don’t intend to regurgitate it all over again.

          • The NBN isn’t being paid for with taxes. I agree it has been discussed over and over that the NBN is being funding by borrowing which will be repaid by future profits.
            You and a few other still keep saying taxes are paying for it. This is incorrect and no matter how many types you say that it is not correct.

          • Thanks Noddy, it’s no wonder the typical excuses about what occured previously are again resurfacing to hide the facts.

            So to recap, apparently according to the ever contradictory anti-NBNers to suit the argument at the time, the NBN is being paid for by taxpayers (on budget) or is debt sneakily being hidden (off budget).

            Bit like HFC is/isn’t great and the many others they entertain us with…

            *sigh*

          • alain
            Precisely the point, lucidly made

            “as to the nations future it will depend on what the nations future has always depended on, that is Australia being one of the worlds biggest mining pits where the main problem is they cannot get it out of the ground fast enough.”

            BUT you did neglect to mention why we have such a lack of diversity and investment opportunities.
            Would you care to elucidate further as the mining boom is for a more limited time frame than the pundits preach. What then for a 2 horse Nation who has severe skills shortages and increasingly inadequate infrastructure.

            I note in the recent commission on our future direction it was noted that innovation and research and development are difficult for us due to our lack of patents in key and foundation science and technology, I wonder how this came to be for a supposedly inventive Nation??

          • Well if you think that NBN FTTH and only NBN FTTH is only solution that will take us into the $$$ for everyone ‘digital age’ when mining winds down I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how Greenfield estates or TransACT residences in Canberra that have been using FTTH for years and years have advanced into the ‘digital age’ way ahead of us poor suckers on ADSL2+ or HFC?

            Like Optus and Vodafone with 4G infrastructure and playing catch up with Telstra, will us copper based ‘fixed liners’ ever catch up to that massive head start?

          • For starters OptiComm estate FTTH plans where massively poor value for money due to the premium wholesale pricing model used and second the point of the NBN is ubiquity, having 93% of premises with FTTH makes service possible that are possible with Tony & Malcolm’s patchwork quilt of obsolete technologies.

            Knowing that the minimum speed everyone has means governments and companies have a consistent standard minimum speed to work with instead of the current average speeds in Aus of about 6mbps (many get faster and many get much slower speeds) and this is what you Liberal Party apologists simply refuse to understand.

            Small to Medium Business will be the biggest beneficiary of all, instead of paying for slow unreliable DSL lines they can buy nice fast 100/40mbps FTTH services and remove substantial bottle necks to productivity!

          • DOH, typo, should read:

            “having 93% of premises with FTTH makes service possible that aren’t possible with Tony & Malcolm’s patchwork quilt of obsolete technologies.”!!

          • I would be interested to hear your thoughts alain, on why the Coalition plan to roll out FTTP in Greenfield estates and not copper based ADSL2 or FTTN?

            Rather telling that even the Coalition and their 50’s views accept FTTP is in fact the future and “others” don’t?

          • “I would be interested to hear your thoughts alain, on why the Coalition plan to roll out FTTP in Greenfield estates and not copper based ADSL2 or FTTN?”

            Alex it certainly is puzzling how the coalition endorse FttH in greenfields when they also insist “nobody needs fibre” however the thing to realise here is that they are basically admitting that fibre is the future but they don’t want to admit they are wrong and endorse a backwards plan for greenfields that still relies on copper as that would make them look even more silly than they already do. Of course what they are forgetting is if fibre is the future (which they are acknowledging with FttH in greenfields) then where does this leave the rest of Australia? At what point do they plan to upgrade to a proper FttH build? Wouldn’t it be far more logical and save a lot of trouble by skipping a technology that is already redundant? What do people in greenfields need fibre for if the rest of Australia isn’t hooked up too? Answers to these questions need to be answered by the coalition before they can be taken seriously in this debate.

    • Looking at the tech, once they get it going, it could be useful for P2P wireless but doesn’t seem to be something that could be used for more than that.

      • Have to disagree here Noddy. There are real world applications, based on how we work now. In short, near field communications. Tap and go if you will.

        Picture your external HDD/server jammed with data, and you want to back it up. On a standard USB connection, it’ll take hours. With this, link two blu ray wifi capable drives, you have a 175 Gps transfer speed.

        Net result is a change in data transfer, using NFC over something like USB. Until a wired connection matches that sort of speed, its not necessarily a bad thing.

        Useless for NBN type connections (and yeah, agreeing with the FUD comments), but for static non-mobile uses, its actually a nice step forwards. 1m range is quite a distance on a desktop.

        In the mobile world, you allready have tap and go with a few mobiles (think Galaxy III has it with other G III’s), so there is also scope to use your mobile as a tethered modem or similar, with the 1m range working for other wireless devices. Like a laptop or tablet.

    • “At the moment, they’ve only transmitted signals as far as one metre.”

      So basically it’s useless atm!

      “That should be scaled up before long — though the researchers admit 1km is probably an upper limit.”

      I’ve read more details articles and the frequencies used (heading toward the terahertz range) mean this would be line of sight PtoP only!! not exactly a Wifi replacement!

    • All above points- Noddy, djos and Abel are true…..doesn’t mean there won’t be FUD

      Better to plan for the worst and hope for the best rather than wake up with a testicle missing….

      :D

  23. Coming into this late, so not going to read through all the comments, but have a simple question.

    Right now, NBNCo gives the first 150 Mps free, up to 30k sub’s per exchange. Will that change if the bandwidth is increased tenfold from 100 Mps to 1000 Mps?

    If it doesnt, then 1000 Mps is going to get very expensive, very fast. The contention ratio issue isnt going to change when the limits increase from 100 to 1000, so the ISP’s who offer 1 Gps are going to need to buy 1.5 Gps, 2 Gps, or whatever.

    A fair bit above the 150 Mps they get for free.

  24. There seems to be two sides of the debate.

    Those who say “If you never take a risk you will never fail” and those who say “If you never take a risk you will never succeed”.

  25. Anyone interested, I’ve started up a Fibre4Oz blog, just as a holder for now:

    http://fibre4oz.blogspot.com.au/

    Any feedback, support, questions…..mumblings, whatever would be appreciated. Spread things around (not like STD’s people, come on, minds out of the gutter…) and hopefully we can get something off the ground.

Comments are closed.