NBN Co to deceive users on FTTN/FTTB speeds

88

truth

news The National Broadband Network Company has issued a product specification document in which it openly considers the possibility of allowing customers on its planned Fibre to the Node or Basement (FTTN/B) infrastructure to order speeds between 50Mbps and 100Mbps which their connections could not actually deliver.

Under Labor’s NBN policy, some 93 percent of Australian premises were to have received fibre directly to the premises, delivering guaranteed maximum download speeds of up to 1Gbps and maximum upload speeds of 400Mbps. The remainder of the population was to have been served by a combination of satellite and wireless broadband, delivering speeds of up to 25Mbps.

Originally, the Coalition’s policy was to have seen fibre to the premises deployed to a significantly lesser proportion of the population — 22 percent — with 71 percent covered by fibre to the node technology, where fibre is extended to neighbourhood ‘nodes’ and the remainder of the distance to premises covered by Telstra’s existing copper network. The Coalition’s policy was also to continue to use the HFC cable network operated by Telstra and would also target the remaining 7 percent of premises with satellite and wireless.

However, NBN Co’s Strategic Review published in December last year changed the paradigm, with the company recommending (and the Coalition supporting) a vision in which up to a third of Australian premises will be served by the HFC cable networks of Telstra and Optus, and Fibre to the Node and Fibre to the Basement used in other areas not already covered by Labor’s FTTP approach.

In April, NBN Co issued a product consultation paper to retail ISPs such as Telstra, Optus, TPG and iiNet with which it hopes to gain feedback on how those FTTN and FTTB connections will actually be sold, both to retail ISPs as well as to end user customers.

The document notes that the FTTN/B connections are expected to be used to connect about 40 percent of Australian premises. Early trials of the deployment model has shown the FTTN infrastructure capable of delivering raw download speeds of 105Mbps over a distance of 100m from a local test node, while the FTTB trial has delivered speeds of 90Mbps.

In its document, NBN Co noted that it planned to offer five speed tiers for the FTTN/B infrastructure — 12/1Mbps (download/upload), 12/5Mbps, 25/10Mbps, 50/20Mbps and 100/40Mbps. These tiers mimic NBN Co’s existing speed tiers for its Fibre to the Premises infrastructure.

However, NBN Co noted that selecting the correct speed tier would be “the responsibility of the end user and the provider”.

“For example, NBN Co does not intend to prevent end users and/or providers from ordering the ‘Up to 100Mbps’ speed tier for a service that would typically experience speeds of less than 50Mbps,” the document states. “To assist in ordering FTTN/B services, NBN Co will consider developing a service qualification tool that enables providers to check the estimated speeds available to premises.”

It appears possible that NBN Co’s option of allowing end users to order broadband speeds which their copper lines may not be capable of delivering may actually contravene consumer law, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission having come down heavily on ISPs and telcos in the past for advertising services that they could not deliver, or at prices which were deemed to be misleading of the actual cost involved.

NBN Co’s product specification document also opened the door for a FTTN/B product model which would do away with set speed tiers entirely, similarly to the way that current ADSL broadband plans are advertised as offering speeds “up to 24Mbps”, but typically deliver substantially less.

“In this model, FTTN/B end users would receive whatever speed that their premises can deliver — as long as that speed is above the agreed performance minimum of 25Mbps,” the document states. “NBN Co proposes retaining speed tiers, to enable wholesale and retail providers to better monetise the improved value proposition of the many services that will be able to receive 50-100Mbps downstream speeds.”

NBN Co is also considering offering traditional ADSL-based services (but still delivered through FTTN/B) in order to next-generation VDSL services. Such services would be limited in speed to 24Mbps, but would have the advantage of offering the highest ADSL speeds possible while allowing end users to retain their existing ADSL modems.

Lastly, NBN Co is also considering offering selectable speed/stability profiles for its FTTN/B services, similar to the way that some ISPs currently offer different ADSL profiles. This would enable users to trade-off better line stability against better line speed, latency and jitter.

NBN Co also made a number of other revelations in its document. For example, contrary to the current system, NBN Co is considering forcing end users and retail ISPs to provide their own in-house model equipment, and the company is also considering dumping plans to provide users with their own battery backup equipment to keep its network operational inside users’ premises, in the case of power blackouts.

Similarly, the company is considering passing on the cost and organisation of in-premises equipment installation onto ISPs.

opinion/analysis
It is my clear opinion that NBN Co should not be allowed to advertise broadband services either to retail ISPs or end user customers without being able to deliver those speeds. I believe this would be a contravention of the Trade Practices Act and would speedily attract the attention of the ACCC.

Beyond this, of course, the bigger picture here is that we are seeing just how stark the difference is between Labor’s existing FTTP-based NBN plan and the Coalition’s ‘Multi-Technology Mix’ alternative. Under Labor’s plan, NBN Co had no problem guaranteeing end user speeds as high as 100Mbps, and then eventually 1Gbps. Under the Coalition, NBN Co has explicitly stated that its services must only be able to deliver minimum speeds of 25Mbps, and that everything above that is up for question. Wow. That’s basically not even next-generation broadband. And visionary, it is not.

We’re also seeing the culture of NBN Co change significantly here. I cannot imagine NBN Co under its previous management canvassing the possibility of openly deceiving its end user customers with regard to their broadband speeds. The fact that the company is now doing so under its new management speaks volumes about how it has changed in just a few short months. No wonder we’re seeing a huge management and staff exodus. I wouldn’t stand for this kind of crap either.

88 COMMENTS

      • Having spent years waiting, it turns out that… I didn’t have to wait at all. All I had to do is believe.™

        Considering I’m on a Top Hat with 23503/1012, I’m pretty much on a speed and latency as officially guaranteed by the NBN Co from now on. Just believe in having an NBN-grade service and you’ll have one too. There’s an NBN within all you guys too, if you just look hard enough! Thank you, Turnbull. For sale: Ruby slippers. $50.

        • @ Quink For sale: Ruby slippers. $50.

          I believe Turnbull’s grandmother is for sale too.
          She used to be guaranteed to run at 25 m/s 93 % of the time for $29 billion. Delivered by 2016.
          Now she will run up to 25 m/s 60 % of the time for $46 billion. Delivered by 2020.
          Apparently this is being advertised as faster, cheaper and sooner.

      • I feel like this needs an article unto itself. After this entire process, the guaranteed minimum upload speed on a FTTN connection is 1mbps? I don’t even have words to describe how frustrating this is – especially when viewed in light of a 400mbps upload speed that could be guaranteed over fibre.

  1. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the resulting low order rates of 100Mbps will be used by Turnbull as “proof” that we “don’t need/want fibre”.

  2. I hate the coalition’s broadband plan as much as anyone else, but this is inevitable when using copper at any point in the network. They were never going to be able to guarantee speeds unless they hard locked it down at a low speed (ie, ADSL1). To be honest, I’d rather an “up to” than a “this is what you get, even if your line can do better”. To go back to ADSL1, would you rather be arbitrarily capped at 1.5/256 when you know your line can get 8/1? Just for national consistency? I wouldn’t, but then, perhaps I’m a touch more selfish ;)

    • I was “voluntarily” capped at 1.5 Mbps on ADSL1 for years, as I thought paying another $10/month to find out if it’d do better than the c 1.7 Mbps I should get based on my distance from the exchange wasn’t good value.

      My ISP couldn’t tell me what I could potentially get, other than upto 8Mbps, but agreed to waive the charge for the speed boost for a month so I could find out, and it turned out I can get 6 Mbps as Telstra had done some upgrades on my RIM.

      We’re now looking at more of the same.

      • And guess what. Unless you feel like taking a gamble on a 2 year contract choosing between 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps (presumably made quite a bit more expensive too) when you don’t know what your line will support you’ll pick 50 Mbps. And then the coalition will deem it as proof that people don’t want 100 Mbps. Never mind that near enough no line will be able to do 100 Mbps on VDSL2 anyway. slow clap

  3. I thought Turnbull’s strategic review stated that guaranteeing a minimum of 25 mb/s was not possible.They stated 12 mb/s was more likely speed that could be guaranteed.Hence the reason Turnbull has changed his terminology to “UP to” 25 mb/s.

  4. “However, NBN Co noted that selecting the correct speed tier would be “the responsibility of the end user and the provider”

    In other words, we will “guarantee” a certain speed, but if we can’t actually deliver it, it’s “your fault”.

    #headdesk

  5. Well tit for tat, if NBNCo can’t deliver 25mbps, should the service be offered without the wholesale cost? That’ll put a cat in with the pigeons.

  6. “NBN Co has explicitly stated that its services must only be able to deliver minimum speeds of 25Mbps”

    The promise of a minimum of 25mbps went out the door a while ago. Its “up to” 25 mbps now.

  7. *Premises.

    It doesn’t matter how many times you say premise, it will not magically appear into the vernacular.

    Both Malcolm Turnbull and Julia Gillard looked very unprofessional when they used the word ‘premise’ in their speeches when the correct word is ‘premises’.

    It’s time to lift the game.

    Good work on everything else.

    Cheers
    Anthony

    • hey mate,

      I’m going to come out here and say a big “fuck you” to you.

      I accidentally wrote the word “premise” a single time — just once! — in this article, and uses “premises” another dozen times. Yet you jumped all over yourself to lecture me for making a tiny typo once — in a word I got right another dozen times in the article!

      I often write 4,000 words a day, which you are able to read completely for free. You can choose to be a grammar nazi about one or two words I get wrong if you want to. But at least be a little bit polite about it.

      And yes, I fixed the single typo I made. Happy now? Bitch?

      Renai

      • Usual thing with free content – it has to be absolutely perfect, with no typos. Because obviously we’re paying you enough to go through and copy-edit multiple times, no every piece that you write.

        I see a lot crappier writing being delivered by huge corporations, so make as many little mistakes as you like!

      • Some people completely miss the point of some things as they are too busy searching for something to criticise.
        I for one (And i am sure there are many others) am thankful for your input to the site. Delimiter are one of the few places i know of on the net where we can get news about what is actually happening in the communications and technology sectors in Aus. So thank you for the time and effort you and the other writers at Delimiter put in each day to bring us that news.

      • “I accidentally wrote the word “premise” a single time — just once! — in this article, and uses “premises” another dozen times. ”

        …Surely you meant “used” in this sentence Renai. “Uses” is clearly out of place.

        It’s time to lift the game.

  8. It’s a race to the minimum now :(

    Such a different mindset when you’re protecting the bottom values as opposed to reaching for the higher ones per NBNCo originally.

    I really really really hope the Coalition are remembered as having disemboweled the NBN.

    At least if the NBN had been finished per original spec we might be complaining about over capitalising (maybe!!). As it is we’re being stuck with a technological equivalent of two cans strung together.

  9. @ Renai: Looks like it may be time to stop calling it the CBN as it truly is the FBN in every way now. (FraudBand Network)

    I almost dont want to read IT news any more, the destruction of the NBN is just too depressing! :-(

      • Nice way to misrepresent him…in academic circles “publish” has a specific meaning, and posting a poll is not one of them.

        • “Sadly, Mark Gregory lives in an academic fantasy land that has minimal relationship with reality.”

          And tinman… this “fantasy land/minimal reality” description is coming from one who has desperately grasped one projection only from the previous corporate plan, whilst ignoring (or even stranger, dismissing) all other projections contained within the same corporate plan… then repeating his lone spiel relating to this one projection, relentlessly, pretty much daily (and at many forums/blogs simultaneously) for many years… and still?

          :/ amazing

  10. Any service provided of copper should be just that, a service. There is no way to guess or qualify any speeds; it just needs to be ‘best possible speed’ for every connection. Anything less is really going to cause a stir for people not getting what they are paying for.

    Also, and as an FYI, the Trade Practices Act (1974) was rolled in to the new Australia Consumer Laws in 2010. There were a lot of changes but S53 that related to misrepresentation (false advertising) is now even more controlled and defined in the new ACL.
    http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/content.aspx?doc=the_acl/legislation.htm

  11. Oh look, the same shit as ADSL speeds again, gee, maybe it’s because they can overcharge and deliver practically nothing and get away with it?

  12. It’s hard to look at the stars, when you got your head in the sand. (Or in Turnbull’s case – head up his policy).

  13. Hi just did a speed test not a govt sanctioned one it was upload 0.62mbps download 9 .70 mbps wonder why it was taking all night to upload a game to You Tube.
    Turbull should be tarred and feathered along with the rest of the Govt Luddites over destroying NBN

  14. So where is Hackett in all of this?
    It’s starting to look like they invited him to the board just to silence him.

    • +1000

      To retain any integrity he may wish to reconsider his position

      It is supposed to be Essential National Infrastructure to serve Australia’s economy for many decades.

      If he can’t deliver that get out

    • HFC in the National Broadband Network

      > The intended HFC upgrades will allow NBNCo to deliver high speed (30-40 megabit per second) upstream data rates in the HFC network – a dramatic contrast to typical 1-2 megabit upstream data rates in retail HFC services today.

      > High upstream speeds are one of the critical requirements of the NBN. It is a key to providing genuine improvements to the utility of access to the Internet for all Australians.

      > This is an outcome that I am deeply committed to seeing happen in the NBN (across all technologies).

      And now we’ve been promised a minimum of 1 Mbps. It might be 5 Mbps. Turnbull previously indicated 4-6 Mbps. KPN is doing vectoring with a maximum of 80/8 Mbps. Belgacom is doing vectoring with a maximum of 70/6 Mbps. BT is a bit better at around 10 Mbps. So, I’m going to say that Hackett’s mission seems like it has failed for the majority of us. I’m on near enough 25/1, and on a top hat that’s less than two years old, so will likely be at the very end of anything NBN Co does, if anything at all.

      I don’t doubt for a second that Mr. Hackett has tried to prevent an outcome like this. Nor do I blame him in the politicised and quite possibly toxic climate he’s working in.

      > This is an outcome that I am deeply committed to seeing happen in the NBN (across all technologies).

      • (BT’s is up to 76/19 Mbps, actually, but it’s not vectoring and as such it’s much rarer than Belgacom’s or KPN’s offerings. All three are on thicker cables than here in Australia too, according to my research.)

      • Simon Hackett had fantasies of being a Heidegger to the LPN, putting their wacked out extremism back onto a sane footing.

        Fantasies. Cloud cookoo land. Such is the inner world of Simon Hackett.

    • If only… Rather them stop it, wait for someone with the balls to come into power and finish it the way it was meant to be.

  15. Anyone else remember all the NBN rage Matthew used to go on about because the Labor NBN was offing a 12Mbps plan? Remember how we used to tell him the Coalition one did too, but he’d lecture us on how wrong we were?

    It really is amazing how many folks the Liberals sucked in with their “Most accountable, transparent guvermunt evah!!” bullshit…

      • Apparently the same BS too…

        Seriously suggesting FttP is more unfair than FttN because it’s faster and creates a bigger difference in equality of access is really clutching at straws…

        So the numbers (yes we’ve all seen them before) were inline with forecasts?… So perhaps other forecasts would have been correct too…!

        Sorry Soth this was to our dear persistent friend…

    • I’m still around and not overly happy with the Coalition plan, but at least there is a greater level of honesty that Labor’s 1Gbps spin that only started because of Google Fibre. If people like yourself and others had campaigned harder for equality in access speeds rather than accepting a crippled network because you could afford the more expensive plans then there is more chance that FTTP would have survived. However the sad reality is that in April 2013, 47% of fibre connections were 12Mbps, so for most people FTTN won’t make much difference at all.

      • ” If people like yourself and others had campaigned harder for equality in access speeds rather than accepting a crippled network because you could afford the more expensive plans then there is more chance that FTTP would have survived.”

        I didn’t campaign for tier equality, because I think it’s fine for people to have a choice in what they need and and pay proportionately.

        Because I’m not a greedy self entitled nob, I also thought it was fine for Labor to charge higher tier users more to subsidise the lower tiers.

        Expecting everyone to pay some flat rate fee so all connections would be 1Gbps would lead to a lot more “have nots”, as folks like pensioners and people on disability would just not be able to afford it.

        • +1

          But of course as opposed to “some”, your above comment is the common sense approach, i.e. sans political motivated stupidity…

  16. “It is my clear opinion that NBN Co should not be allowed to advertise broadband services either to retail ISPs or end user customers without being able to deliver those speeds. I believe this would be a contravention of the Trade Practices Act and would speedily attract the attention of the ACCC.”

    There has to be an op-out for informed consent, tho’. If my option is 25/10, because my line maxes out at 45/20, I’d probably be happy to pay for the 50/20 connection. Ideally there’s some pro-rata middleground, where you pay proportionate to your attainable speed, but most of these changes seem geared towards pushing complexity from NBNCo to RSPs/users.

    Also, while I agree that the minimum capable speed of 25/1 is not visionary, and it not a step up for some people now, it is basically a USO, right? And I’m pretty sure the current data USO is orders of magnitude lower than 25mbps.

    Also also, it’s nice that they’re looking at offering ADSL2+ from the nodes, so end users don’t have to spend on new routers/terminals, but I wonder what kind of cost that is going to add to the rollout? The actual cost, not the ‘but we’re saving x billion on not supplying end point hardware so net win!’.

    • > Also also, it’s nice that they’re looking at offering ADSL2+ from the nodes

      Huh? Isn’t that going to cause problems with vectoring, at least deep down in the spectrum? And what are the odds they’ll have Annex M?

      • Precisely

        You can always up your plan with an RSP if it is attainable.

        However as you say Quink ;)

  17. Of course this has been an issue with the Fixed Wireless roll-out as well, but was not important, until it happened to FTTN as well.

    I think the best thing now is for TPG to be allowed to deliver it’s fibre or anyone else that want too and money given to upgrade other areas of the country to best practicable speeds.

    iiNet sold it’s entire fibre network to NBN Co so the bureaucrats do not give a toss what anyone else gets now.

  18. I guess this is how they get around the nightmare of working out who can get what speed, using whatever connection, depending on where you are…

    “The peasants have no bread…Let them eat cake!”….and it’s not like there is a Minister of Science to point out the absurdity of what they are doing…

  19. Wheres Mathew when you need him.

    He was complaining about Speed-tiers on Fibre. Is he going to complain about speed tiers on FTTN?

    At least Fibre had a chance of hitting the speeds they were offering, I wonder how he will spin this.

    • On FTTP you had vastly more options on speed too, realistically getting whatever tier you bought in to. Under FTTN I’m pretty sure there will be people that will only be able to get 12Mbps (if that). This gov has form in broken promises :(

    • I don’t support speed tiers full stop and this remains my position regardless of which party supports the policy. Internode introduced ADSL2+ to the residential market in Australia and dropping speed tiers was a radical and brilliant move. Labor’s plan to re-introduce them was a retrograde step.

      Speed tiers are needed in countries where quotas don’t exist because they limit the amount a connection can be used, but with rapidly increasing speeds, speed tiers are not effective and provide hard limits on how the network can be used.

  20. And there we have it, people. Deliberately misleading the public has become official government policy. But at least we elected liars who are fiscally responsible…..unless they lied about that, too.

    • that was obvious a few years back when coalition were in opposition. cough. carbon tax.
      no politician is any better than another.

  21. What is even the point of speed tiers on FTTN? It should just be what ADSL is now and give you a best effort. I doesn’t even cost NBNco anything extra to provide these extra speeds.

    It all reminds me of the days of Telstra with their crappy 256Kbps, 512Kbps and 1.5Mbps.

  22. Would you consider reporting 1Gbps as 1000Mbps. I am pretty sure that average non techie has no idea of what the bit rates mean. Saying 1000Mbps may make it more clearer as to how much we are being ripped off.

  23. I’m Over this fail of a government who only see’s plans for reduction is our place we call home! NBN under liberal was only meant too be a fail. And they are trying hardly too make it fail! As supporters of NBN when it was under labor we need to group together make it heard we are not happy! It seems as voters we really have no control over votes we need to be loud and change that for the future! Changes are really needed!

  24. Come on people, you’re obviously completely ignorant as to what “guaranteed maximum” speeds means on your holy grail “true fibre” NBN – no RSP in their right mind was *ever* going to provision enough NBN CVC backhaul to offer uncontested maximum speeds above (or even approaching) 100mbps services at a price you’d be willing to pay, particularly once take-up started to inch up from “negligible” to the forced “you have to take NBN or we’ll pull your copper”.

    The real *wholesale* cost (purchased from the NBN by your RSP) for a 1GBPS service is $20k – yes, that’s $20,000 per month, and is the wholesale cost of just the bandwidth (not counting the “port” rental). Think about the contention that is going to be required to bring that to an affordable price for a retail service.

    I’ll happily have FTTN/B if it brings me faster internet sometime in the next few years, rather than in the 10 years (if ever) that it would have taken the old NBN model to grind its way through the solid rock upon which my suburb is built. I’ll happily pay an efficient commercial outfit such as TPG to provide it, too!

    The old NBN model would never have made a commercially-viable return high enough to get it off government life-support, which means that taxpayers would have funded its monopoly forever, and as I’m one of the small group of people in Australia who pays net tax, I’m fairly happy that the cost is going to come down, and that we’ll move to a more user-pays system.

    Your entitlement syndrome is something to behold, that’s for sure.

    • So many already debunked, time and time again, Turnbullesque points there Paul.

      But I love the last comment about entitlement, especially considering “you’ll be happy with FttN/B”.

      :/ amazing

      • Debunked only by many people with a visceral hatred of Abbott, Turnbull, the Liberal party in general, and with an aversion to paying for things that they think they deserve to get for nothing.

        Sick of the first-world-problem whinges I constantly hear on this site – must stop reading.

        • “Debunked only by many people with a visceral hatred of Abbott, Turnbull, the Liberal party in general, and with an aversion to paying for things that they think they deserve to get for nothing.”

          Say no more Paul, your motive for NBN opposition is now abundantly clear for all to see.

          Please continue to read Delimiter and the comments herein and at least try to learn. But if the truth continues to hurt so, may I suggest a return to the comfort zone of the Australian or Tele…

          BTW just how much are you paying for FttN/B or do you think you deserve it for nothing?

          :/ amazing

    • A network that is capable of, and defined to meet certain minimum standards, is not the same as a network that has no such definition or minimum standard.

      FTTN by nature of design cannot be (cost effectively) legislated to meet the same speeds as fibre.

      However your argument does not support either option as a preference as it’s arguing a scenario that exists for both.

      Simply because both can run at 10/1 does not mean FTTN is the better choice.

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

      Aggregation and provisioning ratios is an answer to a different question. The argument is both specious and bordering on malicious as misrepresents the facts.

      • “A network that is capable of, and defined to meet certain minimum standards, is not the same as a network that has no such definition or minimum standard. FTTN by nature of design cannot be (cost effectively) legislated to meet the same speeds as fibre.”

        Which is all very well, but when you’re an RSP purchasing services from a monopoly who have “picked winners” and signed up for some very expensive technology choices, no ability to apply commercial pressure to bring down cost, and have to purchase sufficient backhaul to the rest of the internet and amortise the cost of that backhaul across all your customers on an NBN area, then real life (or real business) meets your idealised world.

        I have gigabit networking around my house too, but I can’t afford the backhaul to get gigabit connections to the rest of the internet for all my users.

        There are a lot of very smart technical people here who need to develop a little more economic literacy, and real live business experience – move out of their parents’ homes, and try real-world budgeting. Running a country is like running a household, but harder.

        • I think the point your missing Paul, is the MalCo NBN can’t guarantee speeds due to physics.

          You can only get X speed at Y metres from the node. There will be many cases where people will physically be unable to get X speed.

          The NBNCo NBN, you could actually get the speed you paid for.

          Conflating backhaul with this issue is disingenuous. If an RSP is supplying crap backhaul, you can easily switch to a better supplier. That was where true competition shone through with the Labor plan. The Liberal plan just means were all saddled with a mess of arguing with NBN/RSP’s about whether it’s an NBN infrastructure issue or an RSP infrastructure issue when we get crap speeds…

          • Actually it should be reasonably easy to determine where the fault lies. Even basic ADSL modems will show you the line speed. I would be surprised if FTTN modems didn’t offer the same functionality.

        • “Running a country is like running a household, but harder.”
          Actually nothing could be further from the truth, nor is running a country like running a business.
          I suggest some relevant research as this belief provides the foundation for your evaluation.

          • +1 Abel…

            I personally love the ridiculous “move out of the parents home” comment.. it really paints a clear picture of the author…

            :/ amazing

      • “Simply because both can run at 10/1 does not mean FTTN is the better choice.”

        One would need to consider a range of factors, such as cost, performance and most importantly how the network will be used. For example if you need occasionally to move many TB of data, a courier can often be quicker option.

        We know as a fact that 47% of FTTP premises are 12Mbps. It is more than likely that FTTN can adequately meet the needs to these people.

        • “We know as a fact that 47% of FTTP premises are 12Mbps. It is more than likely that FTTN can adequately meet the needs to these people.”

          Ah yes “likely” to meet the needs of “todays minority” is good future policy…

          :/ amazing

          • If you had read Labor’s NBNCo Corporate Plan, you would be well aware that there is predicted to be very little fall in 12/1Mbps connections on fibre.

        • “We know as a fact that 47% of FTTP premises are 12Mbps. It is more than likely that FTTN can adequately meet the needs to these people.”

          hey mate,

          I’m sorry, but this is not a rational statement. I’m sure you’re aware that the NBN is not being built for today’s needs but for the needs of the next century. And those needs will most certainly exceed 12Mbps.

          Because of this and quite a few other strange statements (such as your claim that 1Gbps speeds are not “commercially viable”) over the past few days, I’m placing you on a pre-moderate list.

          Delimiter is a technical forum based on evidence … your statements are not making a lot of sense at the moment, mate ;)

          Cheers,

          Renai

    • Apparently 1Gbps services were available for RSPs to order in December 2013, but the fact that not a single RSP is offering them should give everyone a good indication that 1Gbps is simply not commercially viable.

  25. I remember Turnbull claiming speeds would be “up to ISPs” prior to the election.

    This ridiculous statement assumes the supplier has no control, and ignores the elephant in the room (both of them, in fact). Inaccurate, vague and about as specious as it gets.

    As was pointed out well before the election, any FTTN would feature ‘up to’ speeds. This has been the case for virtually every DSL deployment in any location elsewhere across the entire planet. To presume a different outcome from the very markets Turnbull used to justify, is probably a little naive.

    The ‘up to’ speeds model of sale, is currently accepted by the ACCC; the precedent is already set. Declared or otherwise that’s highly-unlikely to change.

    We now know the minimum anyone can expect is 24 mbit down. There is no minimum acceptable upstream defined.

    Forget the 100 mbit trial result shown by Telstra, as much as a showcase of what is possible, it’s irrelevant unless those speeds are legislated and defined.

  26. “Under Labor’s plan, NBN Co had no problem guaranteeing end user speeds as high as 100Mbps, and then eventually 1Gbps.”

    I have to call you out on the guaranteed speeds, Renai. At no point did NBNCo guarantee speeds for residential services (AVC PIR). The NBNCo Corporate Plans clearly refer to these as Peak Information Rate services. Committed Information Rate (CIR) AVC is available for order, but wasn’t cheap (e.g. 5/5Mbps was $300/month) and this was on top of the required AVC PIR service.

LEAVE A REPLY