This article was originally published for Delimiter Members only. In late September 2016, Delimiter ceased publishing new articles. Because of a number of operational and other factors associated with this decision, we subsequently withdrew membership articles from publication. If you would like to see a copy of this article, please contact Delimiter directly with your request. Requests by Delimiter Members will be granted. We will consider all other requests on their merits.
I hope he has a paid subscription, would be the only reason to keep him around.
Lol, while reading this I was ticking off all the possible LibTroll arguments. :-D
Nice piece of fiction Renai. :-D
PS, Im sure that under the ALP there will still be some issues & setbacks, but at least it’ll be a proper national infrastructure project again for the Public Good, not a half assed government funded commercially oriented rollout!
Richard? He is one of the disasters that destroy the rollout? OK, not likely he would be employed by them, but if he was I can see that happening.
According to Richard, ‘it’s as if he wrote the MTM plan himself’.
One wonders.
Richard is not out of his bed under the bridge just yet!
I can’t believe Renai wrote this, he’s such a Liberal shill and constantly compromises his journalism in a pathetic attempt to achieve a false “balance”.
This is just like that time he spent five years supporting Malcolm Turnbull and his FTTN nonsense.
I’m never reading Delimiter again.
LOL +1
+1
I think you summed the shill up perfectly. Shame on him for… wait a minute…
Something just isnt right here…
I didn’t realize Delimiter was purchased by News Corp? i want a refund for my subscription.
Obviously Renai’s office has been raided by the AFP and that NBN guy taking photos is sitting at his desk writing this.
I cannot confirm or deny that the AFP have offered me a lucrative contract worth at least $300k to write hit pieces against a FTTP rollout for the NBN.
I keep rereading Renai’s post looking for a specific word.
Snoogans.
;-)
Renai needs to ban this guy… Can’t have people like Renai complaining about Renai’s work… :D
You’ve self-trolled!
+1 was just thinking the same Renai, but you put it more eloquently.
Clickbaiting in his own comments section :p
I can’t believe Renai wrote this
I understand his editor makes him do it! Poor Renai chained to a desk and only getting bread and water between articles!!
#JeSuisRenai!
Bread and water is on the good days.
But Renai LeMay didn’t write this!
Cable TV Subscribers Still Unhappy, New Consumer Reports Survey Shows Fiber, smaller companies, and municipal broadband did best in our latest telecom ratings
My main concern with Labour’s NBN policy is how they’ll handle congestion due to the nodes’ 1/1Gbps back-haul. Currently we have nebulous promises that the links will be upgraded if they become a problem, but if Labor win the election will NBNCo spend money upgrading infrastructure they plan to replace?
My brother is installing them in NQ, they have three empty slots for more gigabit cards and the dark fibre laying there waiting for when it is needed.
Yep, I’m aware that there are upgrade paths. The question is will NBNCo spend the money to utilise those options if they know they’ll be scrapping the gear soon?
They only have 2 pairs of fibre per node even tho the NANT-E Line card has 4 SFP ports – this means the max bandwidth NBN can supply to each node is 20/20 Gbps. (Which is heaps and much better than the paltry 1/1 Gbps they have now)
It would cost less than $2k to replace the 1/1 GE SFP’s for each node with 10/10 GE SFP and the problem would be pretty much sorted. They could further improve the situation by installing the second pair of Fibre’s with 10/10 GE SFP modules too.
This would result in:
1x pair of 10/10 GE SFP’s = 52/52 Mbps minimum peak bandwidth per premises (192 port node)
or
2x pair of 10/10 GE SFP’s = 104/104 Mbps minimum peak bandwidth per premises (192 port node)
Fair enough, those costs certainly make it feasible. Though would they need to replace the hardware at the other end of the fibre link as well? But even then if it doubled the cost to $4k I wouldn’t imagine that breaking the bank.
There is a cynical part of me that keeps pointing out that Labor could also build serious political capital by not upgrading the links and as performance degrades simply saying, “Well, that’s FTTN. Blame the LNP.”
Yes, there is an SFP at each end of the fibre (POI & Node) but they are quite cheap now a days (a few hundred each for 10/10 GE).
Wouldn’t the other end of the node’s link be the local FSAM rather than the POI? Not that it makes a difference to the cost involved in replacing SFP modules.
To be strictly technically correct, the Node Fibre connects into the FAN and then back to the POI.
PS, I just realised this doc actually confirms the info I have that the Nodes are connected by only 1/1 GE atm (the AAS is 10 GE) – see page 30.
There are a couple of really good points there, particularly about CVC pricing and the 120 POI balls up.
The rest? Yeah, someone gives you a bowl full of scrambled eggs, you’re going to be making an omelette, even if you’d rather have them poached…
Yeah they have both been issues of contention from day 1.
Assuming FTTP is back on track, I will be interested to see if CVC pricing comes down as connected population goes up.
And I think the 120 POI will get beaten down at some point. Either the ACCC will change their mind, or some smaller operators will get together and challenge it in court.
Labor’s plan is for CVC pricing will come down as data consumption goes up.
* CVC pricing starte at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage was 30GB/Month and the plan is for it to fall to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
* 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.
Dropping the pricing of CVC ahead of this curve is a subtle but effective way of strangling the adoption of high speed internet, because to maintain the same rate of return, AVC has to rise to compensate for the loss of revenue.
Is that based on the new policy or the old?
If its the old, it was always subject to changes based on usage etc.
If its new, can you point me at the relevant materials?
I will point out that you are beating up the “soft elements” of the design, the things that can and will change if they are not appropriate, or are found to be hindering things. Wasn’t NBN under the Coalition considering scrapping AVC or some such? Those sort of changes are much easier to make than replacing Copper with Fibre.
> I will point out that you are beating up the “soft elements” of the design, the things that can and will change if they are not appropriate, or are found to be hindering things.
Since there is very little evidence that anyone cares that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2026, I doubt very much that the soft elements will change. The moment of opportunity has probably already passed Australia by.
> Those sort of changes are much easier to make than replacing Copper with Fibre.
But not significantly easier, especially if there is no interest in change. Sadly most fibre fanbois are still deluded into thinking that Labor are promising them a 1Gbps connection at a price they can afford.
“Since there is very little evidence that anyone cares that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2026, I doubt very much that the soft elements will change. The moment of opportunity has probably already passed Australia by.”
What an odd thing to say. Do you really think the numbers on 1gbps at the moment matter a jot to what it will be in 2026. Are you really that shortsighted?
“But not significantly easier, especially if there is no interest in change. Sadly most fibre fanbois are still deluded into thinking that Labor are promising them a 1Gbps connection at a price they can afford.”
What are you babbling about. Of course it is significantly easier. Resorting to “fanbois” now are we. How childish.
You have already shown that not only can you not back up the tripe you spout, but that you are purposefully phrasing comments in a way that supports your own argument. And yet you refer to the people who support “Fibre to the Premise” as “Fanboys”. I’m sorry but the way you purposefully mislead and ignore reality, perhaps you should look at yourself before accusing others of “fanboyery”.
Sad
Mathew
Since there is very little evidence that you care that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2020.
if we assume that the 1% are the top 5% of income earners in Australia then it FoD or moving won’t present a significant barrier.
So then no problem with labor getting 1% on 1Gbps by 2026 then
if we assume that the 1% are the top 5% of income earners in Australia then it FoD or moving won’t present a significant barrier.
I’m on 100Mbps, and I can assure you, I’m a looooong way from being in the top 1%…and frankly I find it offencive you think those of us that want a decent connection to be in Gina Rinehart’s league…
if we assume that the 1% are the top 5% of income earners in Australia then it FoD or moving won’t present a significant barrier.
Still persisting with the FoD lie even though I’ve called you on it twice?
Dosen’t matter how “interested” you are, and you can “organise” as much as you like in your street Mat :o)
Currently applications are only accepted from applicants who are originally planned to receive fixed wireless or satellite technologies and wish to switch to fibre technology.
AVC has to rise to compensate for the loss of revenue.
Not going to happen when 79% of people choose 25Mbps or lower, is it?
Well Tinman AVC doesn’t need to rise if the sell more cvc at a lower price to equal to higher price cvc selling less they would not be a loss on revenue
I don’t really agree with the whole AVC/CVC thing, it should just be wide open speed wise with volume charges (same as Google Fiber and some ISP’s in NZ).
I know but that Mathew thinking reduce cost of cvc but they won’t use more lol
> Well Tinman AVC doesn’t need to rise if the sell more cvc at a lower price to equal to higher price cvc selling less they would not be a loss on revenue
Except that that breakeven, NBNCo are reliant to the unit price of CVC falling at a significantly slower rate than the price falls. This is neatly documented in the NBNCo Corporate Plan in both numbers (growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls) and statement of intent. “This has been achieved by keeping the AVC as low as possible in order to encourage consumers up the speed tiers, and relying on CVC revenues to drive ARPU growth”
Except that you still haven’t explain if you sell less at a higher price or sell more at a lower price there would be a lost in revenue
Labor’s financial plan for NBN relied on CVC revenue growing exponentially to deliver a financial return. Labor’s target is for $/Mbps to fall 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.
As typical with Labor plans, this is optimistic, and doesn’t leave space for additional price cuts (except the Liberals did just that).
Mathew said: Labor, Labor, Labor.
Haven’t the Liberals been running things the last three years Mat, or have you been asleep?
+1 for the Omnifunny.
However (and in the spirit of the piece), I’d like to point out one more gaping hole in the New Labor Miracle: Where’s the minimum guarantee?
If Labor really believes in what they’re peddling, let’s see them put in place a minimum deliverable speed guarantee, something along the lines of:
“Under our solution, all recipients of the NBN will be able to rely on a minimum download speed of X and a minimum upload speed of Y.”
“Any time their speed falls below this level their ISP will be required to fix the problem within 1 week.”
“If they can’t fix the problem then the ISP will no longer be able to advertise that their services is an NBN-level service. They can call it something else. Sub-NBN, perhaps?”
“If they fail to do this, they will owe their users a pro-rata discount on the price of their service, depending on how far their delivered service falls below the mark.”
“Finally, the values of X and Y will be indexed yearly at the rate predicted by Nielsen’s Law i.e. X and Y increase 50% year on year.”
…Now let’s see which providers support which model for the NBN!
It would be entertaining to see which providers support which! +1
If you read the first NBNCo Corporate Plan, Labor expected that congestion would vary between RSPs and that this would be a point of differentiation between budget and premium RSPs.
With FTTN it doesnt matter which RSP you use, the peak CIR for FTTN is 5/5 mbps vs 78/39mbps for GPON.
NBN’s own documentation (page 30 of design rules) confirms that all nodes only have 1/1Gbps backhaul to the FAN.
Funnily enough those are the kind of speeds you hear when folk complain respectively about their NBN service being ‘slow’. Aside from the initial issues you don’t really see many FttP people complain about their internet coming to a 5/5 crawl!
Exactly, my ADSL2 service is 12 mbps all day everyday, If I was on FTTN and it slowed down to 5/5 mbps I’d be livid!!
Plenty of complaints on whirlpool about FTTP congestion.
Usually because they signed up with Optus or Dodo, very few Telstra or SkyMesh customers have had any congestion issues on FTTP.
Sure there’s issues with both no network is 100% fault free Mathew.
Glaring difference however is:
FttP: 2.5Gbps in 1/32 split (ie worst case NBN provided speed = 85 Mbps)
FttN: 1Gpbs in 1/192 split (ie worst case MTM provided speed = 5 Mbps)
Means when folk complain about FttP speeds its typically an RSP issue with lack of backhaul/CVC.
Issues with FttN slowing to 5Mbps means there’s enough people connected already that the node itself is oversubscribed and only MTM can fix that!
Their failure, then, was not mandating that either NBNCo or RSPs would be required to publish such contention ratios.
HFC will fall over before they have a chance to get to it. Barely anyone is using it right now that is a fact. Modern day ADSL. FTTN is ADSL.
FTTN suffers the same problems as ADSL because it is ADSL. Noise and the cable to the pits that is only ever serviced for voice. People are being sold a dud and already suffering outages. Again because it is ADSL. Why do you think they’ve been buying brand new copper instead of fibre ? To save face but they’ve run out of money now.
I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.
“FTTN suffers the same problems as ADSL”
Certainly does, we are seeing that in every town/city that has been connected to it.
“because it is ADSL”
Have to pull you up there sir, it is a form of DSL, not specifically ADSL. You would have more credability saying xDSL
Cheers
“Have to pull you up there sir, it is a form of DSL, not specifically ADSL. You would have more credability saying xDSL”
I have pointed this out to him multiple times and he keeps repeating it.
I know that in general understanding VDSL =/= ADSL, however if you take away trade name context, and look purely at the bandwidth and type of technology, it is an asymmetric digital subscriber line in how it is implemented. I.e. you can download significantly faster than you can upload. I would presume he means ‘in spirit it is ADSL’ – not pushing the bounds there as much.
If he was to call it ITU G.992.5, then you could pick on him more.
The amount of times he has repeated it, I am not sure he is saying it is “in spirit ADSL”.
There are ways of saying what he wants to say without even mentioning ADSL. I want arguments being made against FTTN and the MTM to be solid, because the LibTrolls will just play semantics and play the man instead of the ball when picking which person to argue with.
That is all. It weakens his argument so that the LibTrolls have something to grip onto and spinny spin spin.
“I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.”
Already done it. It is sexy. Unfortunately, the other end terminates at a Media Converter that connects to a VDSL modem in bridge mode. Had to electrically isolate my main switch gear after a lightning strike 2 streets away took half my network out via the phone line. Don’t want that happening again.
Now of course, if I had FTTP rather than FTTN, this would have been a completely unnecessary step.
At a total outlay of $80 for media converter, 2 X SFP 1000-SX modules and 20m of pre-terminated 62.5/125 µm fibre I thought it was a bargain. 1000-LX modules are no more expensive – literally $15 for generics.
Damn those pesky libs. Fibre isn’t necessarily more expensive than copper!
“I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.”
You can. Then all the way to the desktop
lol
I wonder whether any other generation has seen such astounding revolutions of data and values as those through which we have lived. Scarcely anything material or established which I was brought up to believe was permanent and vital, has lasted. Everything I was sure or taught to be sure was impossible, has happened. Winston Churchill 1930
Finally. Someone in the media has at last mentioned that the high NBN plan pricing for speeds higher than 25Mbps could be a factor in subscribers choosing 12 or 25.
Where I live has FTTN due to be switched on in a few months. I am personally thinking I’ll bite the rather large bullet (shotgun cartridge) and pay the $30 a month more for 100/40 ($80 vs $50), because I would feel cheated by the 25/5 knowing everything I do about the NBN and also because I have the money. (It is also very likely that my speed would be 80-90 down.)
I have had 13-15Mbps down on ADSL2+ since 2008 and many other people would be in the same boat. 25Mbps from 13-15 is hardly worth bothering about.
But most people will baulk at the high pricing and settle for 25/5 or lower. A huge number of people will be let down by the NBN. Not a nice result for $50 billion + ongoings.
Yeah people are picking the pricing tier they are happy with or already purchasing at!
The speed they get is often a secondary issue if they’re even told there is a choice to be had (because RSP’s have 0 incentive to up sell to a higher tier which just causes them CVC headaches).
> RSP’s have 0 incentive to up sell to a higher tier which just causes them CVC headaches
OnTheNet is a small RSP that offers 100/40 and gets consistently high review scores.
Over to you, where is your evidence they are “doomed”?
I’d suggest that Simon Hackett is respected by the community and reasonable source. We have seen considerable consolidation amongst independent RSPs (e.g. TPG purchased Internode, iiNet & Adam).
As noted the blog post I linked to small regional RSPs may be able to survive, but will struggle to grow outside their region.
> I came to the conclusion that it was the rarest of rare birds — a policy that maintained visionary ideals (near universal fibre) while also pragmatically considering the path needed to enact that vision.
Labor’s is the perfect policy if you:
– are in the less than 1% that Labor expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2026.
– support a digital divide where today 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower while only 16% are on 100Mbps (down 3% in 2015) and RSPs are not selling 1Gbps plans (6 years are Labor announced 1Gbps in response to Google fibre)
– believe that shiney fibre will solve all the worlds ills.
Lol Mathew
– are in the less than 1% that coalition expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2020.
– support a digital divide where today 65% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or faster while the current network only required to deliver up to 25Mbps
Apparently you believe rusted copper by claiming FTTN is faster than FTTP
I’ve never claimed that FTTN is faster than FTTP unless you impose speed limits on FTTP. If you impose speed limits on FTTP and remove the speed tiers on FTTN then based on current usage profiles (79% connected at 25Mbps or slower) then most Australians will have a faster internet service on FTTN.
Speed tiers on FTTP is like buying a Ferrari and then putting a speed limiter to limit the maximum speed to 10Km/hr.
Tell us about 50/12 again Mathew? That was a winner for you too eh? *sigh*
And in years to come we can ask you to repeat the same crud you are now repeating ad nauseum ad infinitum, just as you did 50/12, when the stupidity of having done so again finally hits home, as 50/12 appears to have.
And I’ll ask yet again… stop being disingenuous and also tell us the percentage of customers on 25mbps or more (remember to factor FTTN is slower and some can’t access higher than 25mbps).
And tell us, the percentage which could connect to 1Gbps in 2026 on FTTN?
Tell us about the digital divide on MTM of not having access to technology our overseas competitors do and the impact this will have on our economy …
GO it won’t hurt you to look at both sides, even only once…
Or better still keep flogging that dead horse, backward logic?
And we know what speed tiers are Mathew, but Ferrari or your rusty commodore, they both will have speed tiers so why TF bag one and not the other?
Oh of course…
You’re welcome
And in years to come we can ask you to repeat the same crud you are now repeating ad nauseum ad infinitum
I just had the funniest image of Mathew telling his grand kids “When I was a young man, Labor made 79% of Australia use 25Mbps or slower!…Hey!! You kids get off my lawn!!”
Hello Mathew, yoo hoo.
No response? No answer(s)?
Oh dear, once again clearly demonstrating that you backward thinkers “are” all spat out from the same mould.
You’re welcome
BTW +1 Tin
Lol Mathew
So if we use you bogas FTTN no speed teir claim that you like using and apply it you your 1% Gbps claim. You argue against it.
But then removing speed teirs Fromm FTTN still won’t be faster than FTTP speed teirs as its only required to delive a 1 sec in a day 25Mbps
The point is does it matter for the majority of Australians when they won’t be accessing speeds faster than 25Mbps?
For those that require faster speeds there is always the option of FoD or moving.
yep, lets just ignore the 1 million customers who want 100/40 Mbps+!
#LibTrollLogicFail
Lol so you do support the coalition fast broadband for the rich then with FOD
For those that require faster speeds there is always the option of FoD
Only if they are on wireless or satellite, so stop lying about people on FttN/FttB being able to get FoD…
> yep, lets just ignore the 1 million customers who want 100/40 Mbps+!
Significantly less than 1 million when you consider that based on Labor’s numbers:
– Only 70% of premises passed by the NBN are expected to connect.
– FTTP footprint is at most 93%
– 16% (and falling) are connecting at 100Mbps
– Coalition plan is for 20% FTTP
– HFC footprint is capable of 100Mbps (and faster)
Government policy should be aimed supporting the average person not providing a benefit for the elite unless you are a fan of upper class welfare.
Government policy should be aimed supporting the average person not providing a benefit for the elite unless you are a fan of upper class welfare.
And that policy should be…..?
You never actually get to that part…
…
…whatever the Coalition and their whims decide .
Such as OPEL someone was strangely talking up just a few days ago…lol or rolling out what they themselves referred to as FRAUDBAND…
But 50/12… 1/2026… but Labor
> And that policy should be…..?
Construction of an NBN that supports the minimum speeds as determined by community standards based on the tasks that people should be able to perform.
> You never actually get to that part…
When you respond with some thoughts on tasks that people should be able to perform on the NBN (e.g. medical consultation) and then what the minimum speeds are (e.g. 100/100Mbps) then we can talk about the required technology.
Of course nobody will do take that step, because it will simply show Labor’s plan as being unable to deliver the benefits Labor promised.
Low-income users denied NBN benefits
“With the quality of high definition that you’ve got, being able to come across this sort of a network, you could easily have a quick hook-up and actually work out, ‘OK, do I need to take him to hospital, or could we keep him at home?’,” Mr Smith said.
But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN’s most basic package.
“You certainly can’t do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream — it’s impossible,” Mr Quigley said.
Construction of an NBN that supports the minimum speeds as determined by community standards based on the tasks that people should be able to perform.
Ok, than you for the courtesy of a response.
How will this be paid? Are you thinking of a project that can pay for itself, or should this be entirely taxpayer funded?
When you respond with some thoughts on tasks that people should be able to perform on the NBN (e.g. medical consultation) and then what the minimum speeds are (e.g. 100/100Mbps) then we can talk about the required technology.
/sigh, I’ve responded many times about what could be done with a proper high speed NBN, both to you, and Richard and Reality/Alain, both here and on ZDNet, over years now. Don’t go all “goldfish memory” on me like Alain, I know your agenda is a notch higher than theirs, and I agree that tiers is probably not the way to go in this day and age. I’ve stated this to you previously, a few times.
The Australian qoute and commentary
As I’ve said, agree, but who pays for it? I lean Socialist Market/Socialist Democracy, and don’t have a problem with paying higher taxes to help the less fortunate get a leg up, but “Free Internet for all at the taxpayer expense” is a line I draw.
So Mathew you support the 1 sec in a day 25Mbps and 5 disconnects as a minimum standard
” If you impose speed limits on FTTP and remove the speed tiers on FTTN then based on current usage profiles (79% connected at 25Mbps or slower) then most Australians will have a faster internet service on FTTN.”
No shit sherlock.
If you limit FTTP but don’t limit FTTN, FTTN will be faster for most… Wow… what a fucking shock.
Where as FTTN is like buying a clapped out old wreck that can’t even reach the speed limit.
“If you give each Australian 25 cents and then give me 25 billion dollars the average Australian will have a thousand dollars”
+ 1
Speed tiers on FTTP is like buying a Ferrari and then putting a speed limiter to limit the maximum speed to 10Km/hr.
No it isn’t, something like that is a cap, not a tier…
Come on Tm…
You can’t expect actual analogies which make sense from these people.
After all, remember these are the same people who described FTTP as the Ferrari/Rolls Royce network… again not being able to understand that the NBN, like roads, isn’t the vehicle but the infrastructure.
So go easy ;)
Lol Rizz thought you where going to come out before there where roads there where no roads lol.
You can’t expect actual analogies which make sense from these people.
Yeah, but I do like to point out when their analogy is flawed.
The whole car analogy is flawed to start with, FttN vs FttP is more like a car vs a truck, it’s in the amount they carry, not the speed.
Mathew electrical one was even worst
Ferrari states that the car has a top speed exceeding 349 km/h. But if you owned one you wouldn’t be driving at those speeds on the public highways.
However in a car with that kind of horsepower, you have the headroom to push the pedal-to-the-metal so that you can swiftly and easily pass that 12-wheeler semi that is blocking your way.
While not carrying very much of a load (data) at all :o)
Thats why the “car v car” analogy kinda sucks when talking about FttP, it’s not about the speed it, it’s about the amount of data it can carry.
In 2009, you could squeeze 43 terabits per second over a single optical fiber with just one laser transmitter
In reality, the speed over optical fiber is not dependent or governed by the FTTP topography!
Transmission rates are totally dependent and governed by the generation of PON technology that is deployed on the network, which is currently GPON on the NBN.
GPON specifications
Maximum capacity per user:
Download: 2.5Gbps
Upload: 1.25Gbps
Now you’re taking it off on a tangent to what I was discussing (which was the appropriateness of analogies).
Mathew please stop using the 25mbps or slower comment. You have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely wrong in your comments regarding this. 79% on 25 mbps and below is close to the original plans expectations. The difference was that the original plan specified that around 50% of was on 12mbs or lower. Whereas in actuals, only 30%(give or take) are on 12mbs or lower. Which means that more are on the 25mbs level. Which means that around the 20% mark are PAYING MORE for the NBN. Hence the higher ARPU.
So just to remind you.
Original NBN plan – Paid for by 50% on 25mbs and above.
Currently the NBN is sitting at roughly 70% on 25mbs and above.
(Rough figures as I don’t have the documents in front of me)
It is frankly sad that you persist in using that argument, when it is clearly wrong and irrelevant.
Also, the pricing etc is actually something that can be relatively easily changed, as compared to the Copper v Fibre argument.
So long as the Finances pay the rollout off, which under the original plan it was going to do, (based on the higher than predicted ARPU), then the actual breakdown of the speed plans is irrelevant.
> Mathew please stop using the 25mbps or slower comment. You have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely wrong in your comments regarding this. 79% on 25 mbps and below is close to the original plans expectations.
It is no where close to the original expectations. Labor’s original expectation was that at least 5% would be on 250Mbps by now and that very few would be on 25Mbps. The only reason that so many are on 25Mbps are that Telstra don’t offer 12Mbps. Change that and I suggest the numbers on 12Mbps would change dramatically.
> Also, the pricing etc is actually something that can be relatively easily changed, as compared to the Copper v Fibre argument.
I have to agree with you since you used the term “relatively easy”, however it will be very challenging to change the NBNCo agreement with the ACCC & RSPs. The current agreement took two years for agreement to be reached and at that point in time RSPs were not selling NBNCo plans. Changing the wholesale prices now will completely change the business model of RSPs.
> So long as the Finances pay the rollout off, which under the original plan it was going to do, (based on the higher than predicted ARPU)
The current ARPU is higher than predicted, but still well below what Labor’s plan required: a wholesale ARPU of greater than $100/month. It is still doubtful that the average Australian is prepared to pay $200/month for Internet.
> then the actual breakdown of the speed plans is irrelevant.
In which case FTTN / HFC shouldn’t worry you since you consider speed irrelevant or is your argument that only a special elite should receive the benefits of the NBN?
The fact remains that Labor’s artificial financial model is currently providing only an elite 16% with the minimum speed that is required for the benefits Labor promised as documented by Labor in the NBNCo Plan.
“It is no where close to the original expectations. Labor’s original expectation was that at least 5% would be on 250Mbps by now and that very few would be on 25Mbps.”
Where exactly are you getting those figures?
Not that it matters. Labor’s original expectation was that the FTTP would continue to rollout, and areas such as inner city and business district regions would become FTTP enabled. Demographics does have an affect on this sort of rollout, why else do you think that companies target these areas?
“The only reason that so many are on 25Mbps are that Telstra don’t offer 12Mbps. Change that and I suggest the numbers on 12Mbps would change dramatically.”
Why the numbers are higher is irrelevant to the fact that higher numbers of 25 users + lower numbers of 12 users equals a higher return on investment. As evidenced by the higher ARPU.
“I have to agree with you since you used the term “relatively easy”, however it will be very challenging to change the NBNCo agreement with the ACCC & RSPs. The current agreement took two years for agreement to be reached and at that point in time RSPs were not selling NBNCo plans. Changing the wholesale prices now will completely change the business model of RSPs.”
Rubbish. Are you telling me, that the RSP’s would argue against the price of CVC dropping across the board? ACCC would only fight against a price drop if it was somehow hurting competition.
Which leaves only the POI bit. Which I think could probably be challenged. Sure it would take time, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen.
“The current ARPU is higher than predicted, but still well below what Labor’s plan required: a wholesale ARPU of greater than $100/month. It is still doubtful that the average Australian is prepared to pay $200/month for Internet.”
Unless you can provide a source, then that is a complete fabrication.
“In which case FTTN / HFC shouldn’t worry you since you consider speed irrelevant or is your argument that only a special elite should receive the benefits of the NBN?”
Nope. You are assuming that because people “CHOOSE” not to take something right now, that is the same as people being “PREVENTED” from taking something ever. This is technically what the Coalition plan does.
The Labor plan gave a baseline that allowed movement from 12mb up to 1gb. So long as enough people where purchasing plans to meet the ROI requirements and the costs to continue the rollout, then the exact makeup of the plans was irrelevant. In this case, a greater number of users on 25mb means that they would have met their requirements.
Which you know, but it doesn’t meet your “needs” so you change the wording to make it appear that 80% on 25mb or below is a “bad” thing. When in actuality you can’t tell from those figures, as they are not detailed enough.
“The fact remains that Labor’s artificial financial model is currently providing only an elite 16% with the minimum speed that is required for the benefits Labor promised as documented by Labor in the NBNCo Plan.”
No it doesn’t. It assumes that the majority will only require X speed at this point in time, as time passes, it assumes that costs will come down, making the faster speeds more affordable. It also assumes that as technology improves and the underlying infrastructure is upgraded, new speed tiers will become available at the top. So a 25mb plan today, may be the cost equivalent of a 100mb plan tomorrow.
> Nope. You are assuming that because people “CHOOSE” not to take something right now, that is the same as people being “PREVENTED” from taking something ever.
People on FTTP are being prevented from taking full advantage of the service by speed tiers and are being denied access to the benefits that Labor used to justify building the NBN.
> This is technically what the Coalition plan does.
WRONG! The Coalition plan provides FoD or moving location. Neither of these options are as bad as you might think. FoD is actually cheap compared to the cost of moving house.
> No it doesn’t. It assumes that the majority will only require X speed at this point in time, as time passes, it assumes that costs will come down, making the faster speeds more affordable.
Sorry but WRONG! 100Mbps is the minimum speed that Labor determined in the NBNCo Corporate Plan would provide access to the services that Labor promoted as the reason to build the NBN.
If you replaced ‘require’ with ‘can afford’ then your statement is slightly more accurate.
> It also assumes that as technology improves and the underlying infrastructure is upgraded, new speed tiers will become available at the top. So a 25mb plan today, may be the cost equivalent of a 100mb plan tomorrow.
Rather than making numbers up, I suggest that you actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan that Labor wrote and understand the artificial financial model Labor developed. NBNCo is not making a profit today because it requires the wholesale ARPU to reach well over $100. Sure prices will fall but at a much slower rate than Labor is expecting consumption of services to rise.
1Gbps sounds really fast today, but in 2026 when Labor planned for less than 1% to be connected at 1Gbps will it still be considered really fast? I doubt it. The reality is that unless people pay more for internet, on a global scale internet speeds in Australia will continue to decline.
“People on FTTP are being prevented from taking full advantage of the service by speed tiers and are being denied access to the benefits that Labor used to justify building the NBN.”
Are you on drugs? Do you even read what you write? That sentence in the context of the Labor plan for the NBN which was to provide Fibre to the Premise to 93% of the population, is just madness.
“WRONG! The Coalition plan provides FoD or moving location. Neither of these options are as bad as you might think. FoD is actually cheap compared to the cost of moving house.”
Did you really just suggest that “moving house” was a choice…. Did you have a straight face when you did that?
“Sorry but WRONG! 100Mbps is the minimum speed that Labor determined in the NBNCo Corporate Plan would provide access to the services that Labor promoted as the reason to build the NBN.”
I don’t know what you are referencing here. Are you suggesting that the Labor Plan was going to remain at a static price forever and ever. Is that REALLY what you are saying?
“If you replaced ‘require’ with ‘can afford’ then your statement is slightly more accurate.”
And then you use “Can afford” as an argument, after suggesting FoD or MOVING HOUSE as reasonable alternatives.
“Rather than making numbers up, I suggest that you actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan that Labor wrote and understand the artificial financial model Labor developed. NBNCo is not making a profit today because it requires the wholesale ARPU to reach well over $100. Sure prices will fall but at a much slower rate than Labor is expecting consumption of services to rise.”
What the model that changed slightly every year to take into account the various different changes in society and business. The Corporate plans that were only ever planned to 3 years out, and then got revised the next year. That corporate plan. Tell me, what “Year” was it estimated that it would have an ARPU of $100?
“1Gbps sounds really fast today, but in 2026 when Labor planned for less than 1% to be connected at 1Gbps will it still be considered really fast? I doubt it. The reality is that unless people pay more for internet, on a global scale internet speeds in Australia will continue to decline.”
And you still haven’t pointed out the document, nor have you acknowledged the years that the document specifically covers.
You are really just grasping at straws aren’t you?
> Unless you can provide a source, then that is a complete fabrication.
NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.
> And you still haven’t pointed out the document, nor have you acknowledged the years that the document specifically covers.
Struggling with comprehension? NBNCo Corporate Plan. Pick any year and the underlying numbers don’t vary significantly, except for the extension of project timelines to account for delays.
“NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.”
Comment is invalid.
In the real world its actually much less than half that (and at last report the ARPU was higher than projected to meet the 8% ROI).
Currently its around $43 (Feb 2016 $4 increase year on year) and it was estimated to be less than 40 ( whilst being enough to meet the 8% ROI under NBN FttP)
Under MTM and LPA everything’s screwed at the ROI is less than 3% (if not -ve now) and they aren’t releasing any more figures
> In the real world its actually much less than half that (and at last report the ARPU was higher than projected to meet the 8% ROI).
That is because the ARPU is steeply discounted during the initial years of the project. In the NBNCo Corporate Plan, Labor kindly included two charts on how the fall in price/unit (GB/month & average network speed). If you study these charts you will quickly see that for CVC:
* Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
* 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.
This is what I mean when I state that the fibre fanbois have been blinded by the bright shiny light and have not looked with a critical eye about what Labor is planning to deliver.
There is a reason that 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower and Labor is planning for less than 1% to have 1Gbps in 2026. I suggest it is not a lack of demand, but the cost of faster services.
ooookay, 6 year old plan. Got it. What about the current plan (CP16), is that better? Have they fixed it? If not, what should they do?
Or doesn’t it matter, you just want to bash Labor and get people to defend them because you’re so unreasonable/inflexible??
“NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.”
Be Specific Mathew, give me a document, and the page that this referenced. It is your call you tell me.
It will be amusing if it is the one that I think it is.
So Mathew is that now or by 2026?
Liberals’ is the perfect policy if you:
– are in the less than 0% that Liberals expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2026.
– support a digital divide where today 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower while only 16% are on 100Mbps (down 3% in 2015) and RSPs are not selling 1Gbps plans (6 years are Labor announced 1Gbps in response to Google fibre); compared to people connecting to the non-FTTP rollouts which will be lucky to receive 25Mbps on average for any service
– believe that dull copper will solve all the worlds ills.
Fixed that for you.
Great to see you rational commentary that is well grounded in facts., NOT!
FoD will easily supply 1Gbps. If you can afford 1Gbps under Labor’s plan then the cost of FoD won’t be an issue because it is less than other house renovations and cheaper than moving.
Just remember every timeyou support Labor’s FTTP you are supporting a policy with the stated objective of less than 1% having 1Gbps in 2026.
Ah Mathew, living in fantasy land still!
NBN Co doesnt even provision more than 1 Gbps in bandwidth to the entire node, it can add another 1 Gbps link using the spare fibre pair but that’s it. The FTTN FAN’s aren’t currently provisioned to provide 10/10 Gbps uplinks to the nodes.
FTTN are connected by fibre backhaul, which is trivial and inexpensive to upgrade to 10Gbps if congestion occurs.
You clearly have no f’n clue Mathew (but we knew that already), the AAS Switches in the FAN are connected via 10 Gbps back to the POI but all the ports servicing the nodes are 1Gbps. Upgrading them would likely require new switches and new SFP’s!
If trivial why are they restricted to a single 1Gbps currently.
a 1/192 split of 1Gbps = 5Mbps per customer which is below the current average that Australians get on ADSL!!
Mathew
Just remember every timeyou support Coslition MTM you are supporting a policy with the stated objective of less than 1% having 1Gbps in 2020.
There fixed it for you
> Just remember every timeyou support Coslition MTM
Where have I said I supported the Coalition MTM policy?
Pointing out that for 80% it delivers the same experience as Labor’s NBN plan is not the same as expressing support.
Sadly it appears the fibre fanbois are afraid of critical thinking because they are afraid the bright lights might be a mirage.
Well Mathew you keep going on about labor 1% on 1Gbps by 2026 considering they haven’t been in for 3 years but do not say anything about coalition 1% on 1Gbps by 2020.
Lol that is what people a choosing NOW for speeds last time I checked it wasn’t 2026. But considering the coalition network is only required to deliver speeds of what they are choosing now but are unable to supply faster in 4 years time when its complete.
But looks like you haveing a little fit when I use your own statement against you.
Where have I said I supported the Coalition MTM policy?
fibre fanbois
Kinda outed yourself there, didn’t ya ;o)
Great to see you rational commentary that is well grounded in facts., NOT!
Get your own facts straight Mat, they aren’t accepting applications from anyone on FttN”
Currently applications are only accepted from applicants who are originally planned to receive fixed wireless or satellite technologies and wish to switch to fibre technology.
Unfortunately none of the examples of why you would build a fibre network are currently possible on Labor’s FTTP with speed tiers. Under Labor’s plans in 2026 less than 1% of the country will have the 1Gbps and might be able to access some of those services.
No one in Australia heard of Googles intention in 2010. I wasn’t until 2011 that they launched the trial in a residential community in Palo Alto. Nah! You wouldn’t have heard of that either! 30th March 2011, Kansas City was announced! At this point Google Fiber had not experienced deploying any FTTP/GPON network except for their trial.
Google was not a household name until it announced the Google Fiber business model December 12, 2012.
1Gbps/1Gbps capability comes strictly from the choice of network topography (FTTP) and PON technology (hardware) (GPON). Gigabit Passive Optical Networks (GPON) standard determines the bitrate. Google didn’t invent it!!
NBN Co received there technical advice from Verizon who have had a number of years experience deploying FTTP/GPON in United States
I have take up figures from several U.S. providers who provision gigabit connections, including 10Gbps. There are almost 80 them. Residential customers don’t subscribe Gigabit services.
Gigabit speeds are generally taken up by industry, advanced manufacturing, tech innovation hubs, Cloud / Bigdata / IoT / M2M providers, medical & healthcare. Residential usage is not on the list. Why would you expect them to be?
Research & development suggests that before 2020, 100Gbps PON technology will be available.
Chattanooga, TN deployed GPON/FTTP in 2010 and the first city in United States to achieve this. In March, they upgraded the network to 10Gbps. Now…. why would they do this?
You Australian Muppets really do have to keep up!
> No one in Australia heard of Googles intention in 2010.
> Google was not a household name until it announced the Google Fiber business model December 12, 2012.
Try a little bit of research. Considering that 1,100 communities applied in 2010 to be the first city with Google FIbre,I suggest it was reasonably well known especially within the IT community. There is a direct quote from Quigley that the only reason for announcing 1Gbps fibre was in response to Google Fibre.
“”The reason we announced one gigabit was simply because when the government said you’ve got to provide at least 100Mbps, Google at the time made an announcement that they were providing 1 gigabit in the US. And suddenly we went from a situation facing [those] in the media saying ‘what on earth does anyone need 100 megs for?’ to saying ‘this is already redundant, it is already out of date, you can’t do one gig’,” he told a Parliamentary inquiry into the benefits of the NBN in Sydney this morning.” http://www.zdnet.com/article/1gbps-nbn-a-response-to-google-quigley/
May 17, 2011: ANNOUNCEMENT. Kansas City, Missouri included to offer service to both side of the State line. The network became available September 2012.
March 19, 2013: Google announced project expansion to Olathe, Kansas
The Google Fiber footprint is NOT a national broadband network or a citywide network in Kansas. The footprint is a series of networks called “fiberhoods” which were affluent neighborhoods cherry picked. Therefore it is not available in all areas.
Google Fiber also has competitors such as Time Warner Cable (now defunct) and AT&T and many customers refused to change. The initial take up was poor and behind schedule
Initially, Google Fiber did not allow servers to be connected to their networks for either residential or business plans.
Bring on your hype now Mathew. Bring it!
> The Google Fiber footprint is NOT a national broadband network
I didn’t say that Google Fibre was a national broadband network. I merely pointed out that Quigley on the same platform as Gillard & Conroy while the government was in caretaker mode for the 2010 election announced NBNCo would be offering 1Gbps.
> Bring on your hype now Mathew. Bring it!
I’m not sure what point you are attempting to argue. Are you are arguing that Labor’s stated goal of having less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026 to be a laudable achievement that is worth of much adulation which will result in Australia being a world leader?
If so I disagree. I don’t think 1% connected at 1Gbps today would be considered a pass mark in many countries.
I didn’t say that Google Fibre*snip*
Much like the rest of your comments, there is no such thing as “Google Fibre”…this has been pointed out to you many times…
So Mathew if “Labor’s stated goal of having less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026 to be a laudable achievement that is worth of much adulation which will result in Australia being a world leader?”
What would the 1% on 1 Gbps by 2020 is by the coalition that your arguing for
Chattanooga Tennessee
EPB deployed gigabit FTTP/GPON in 2010 to entire population to drive their Smart Grid technology, the gigabit killer application, and provide high speed connectivity and innovation to all citizens. This regenerated and transformed the city to an innovation hub
Population: 167,674
1Gbps take up: 7000
10Gbps take up : 10
The BBC recently broadcast on excellent documentary on Chattanooga, complete with interviews straight from the horse’s mouth, including profiles on the select few customers who have the gigabit speed connectivity. The remainder of the population take the minimum 100/100 Mbps option.
“I merely pointed out that Quigley on the same platform as Gillard & Conroy while the government was in caretaker mode for the 2010 election announced NBNCo would be offering 1Gbps.”
The polywaffle is meaningless.
FTTH/GPON was selected well before 2010. The GPON standard was approved by ITU-T in 2007.
The polywaffle is meaningless.
Hell, even Telecom (pre-Telstra) were looking at replacing the CAN with fibre in the early 90’s.
@ l’homme d’étain
“there is no such thing as “Google Fibre”
Correct!
Some have claimed that fibre [SIC] is English spelling. Actually it’s the French spelling and it relates to scientific & physics units of measure (see Fibronique – Système international d’unités, SI) http://www.metrologie-francaise.fr/fr/si/unites-mesure.asp
It’s just an observation that contributors mostly link and refer to broadband news & info mostly from Europe and U.K. But unfortunately the U.K. & Europe are struggling to play catch up. This is almost as pathetic as using Whirlpool links as technical references! :-/
If “FIBER” (rather than “FIBRE” [SIC]) was searched on, perhaps they will get more relevant up-to-date information and broadband news from the U.S. who are more than 15 years ahead in broadband initiatives, attitudes and innovation, which by the way, has largely contributed to it’s economic recovery.
“In Singapore you can order 1Gbps for home with the first six months free for $49.90/month”
“In Kong Kong 1Gbps was available for a pricey $215/month”
Wow and how much is it here, Mathew?
Oh that’s right – FTTN is unable to achieve 1Gbps, so we can’t even get it…
Now see if that sinks in at all, even marginally, before you start the ad nauseum/ad infinitum 1 Gbps/2026 spiel bagging the previous network which “was able to achieve 1Gbps”
The problem is the fools who try to play with words.
Fiber To The Home (FTTH) does not possess the literal meaning of “Home” in this context.
It can be any premises ranging from a shack in the Blue mountains in Sydney to a University, medical research facility or an advanced manufacturing plant such Volkswagen, who were attracted to gigabit connectivity Chattanooga, Tennessee. They have 3,200 employees and they are an assembly plant for Passats http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/facts.html
> Oh that’s right – FTTN is unable to achieve 1Gbps, so we can’t even get it…
FTTP is able to achieve 1Gbps yet 6 years are Labor promised 1Gbps, and almost 3 years (December 2013) after NBNCo made 1Gbps wholesale plans available to RSPs we have zero RSPs offering 1Gbps plans.
1Gbps not being available today has nothing to do with MTM. In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.
It has everything to do with Labor ineptitude in creating an artificial NBNCo financial model with speed tiers.
> Now see if that sinks in at all, even marginally
Stop being blinded by Labor lies and understand what they were promising: 1Gbps to the elite 1% in 2026.
If the cost FoD is too high a price, then it is very unlikely that your income places you in the 1% that Labor planned to have a 1Gbps connection in 2026.
Lol Mathew can we used your excuse for the 50/12 uhmm but Telstra isn’t offering it lol
1Gbps not being available today has nothing to do with MTM.
Your comment is invalid.
In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.
If the cost FoD is too high a price, then it is very unlikely that your income places you in the 1% that Labor planned to have a 1Gbps connection in 2026
Your comment is retarded, they don’t offer FoD to anyone on FttN, HFC or FttB.
Currently applications are only accepted from applicants who are originally planned to receive fixed wireless or satellite technologies and wish to switch to fibre technology.
“In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.”
BULLSHEEEEEEEEET!
NBN Tasmania officially launched Australia’s first national broadband network rollout at Midway Point, northeast of Hobart in 2010. At the launch Gillard & Conroy simply commented on the current maximum capabilities of the network.
Last time I checked the calendar 7 September 2013 occurred before 17th December 2013. If your knowledge of the calendar is wrong is it just possible you might be wrong about more complex issues?
You’ve been caught with your dick stuck in the mouth of a dead pig!
The Gig was announced as reported April 2013. I am not going to post the link again because you don’t even understand a simple calendar timeline!
See that scrollbar on the right of your browser window? Scroll up.
The pig is dead and it’s moving much faster than you are. You can’t even keep up!
Please tell our Labor. Maybe they can propose an alternative financial model which might see RSPs offering speeds faster than 100Mbps.
And what would be the point of that when FTTN can’t
The superiority & evolution of the PON technologies was already well known by engineers at NBN Co when the network was designed. This is why they originally chose Passive Optical Network technology. Just ask Peter Ferris
This is what is meant by “future proof” and “ubiquitous”
You heard those word repeated many times and you didn’t know what they mean?
Upgrading the PON electronics to the latest technology is not expensive and very easy to do. There is no need to change any of the network infrastructure or the fiber. They can even have GPON and NG-PONx running on the network at the same time.
@Mathew
Read my lips!
GPON is 1Gbps capable technology. Synchronous & asynchronous!
> GPON is 1Gbps capable technology. Synchronous & asynchronous!
It is capable of even faster than that. However Labor have chosen to hobble FTTP with speed tiers which means currently for 79% on NBN their FTTN, FTTB, HFC & FTTP is essentially the same.
The Liberals could fix this by removing speed tiers on FTTN making it faster than FTTP.
“The Liberals could fix this by removing speed tiers on FTTN making it faster than FTTP.”
PMSL! BULLSHIT
FTTN/VSDL2 is not able to achieve any more than 100Mbps 400m of copper.
“It is capable of even faster than that. ”
Faaaaaark! What planet are you from retard?
GPON ….. The G stands for GIGABIT.
1Gbps-capable GPON components can be swapped out at end-points with 10Gbps-capable NG-PON or 40Gbps-capable NG-PON2 on any part of the network.
You’re a hack!
Passive Optical Networks are light years ahead of Active networks!
That pig you’re humping might be dead, but he’s much smarter than you!
It is capable of even faster than that. However the Liberals have chosen to hobble FTTP with speed tiers which means currently for 79% on NBN their FTTN, FTTB, HFC & FTTP is essentially the same.
The Liberals could fix this by removing speed tiers on FTTN making it faster than FTTP.
Indeed they could, why haven’t they?
Oh, and fixed it while replying ;o)
“As the roll out of Australia’s high-speed broadband network edges closer, facts are increasingly competing with fiction as to what the final product will actually deliver.”
2011: Myth-busting the National Broadband Network – Engineering Week Lecture at Macquarie University https://youtu.be/6a2ne1WKxek via @YouTube
Labor’s fiction that Australians will receive 1Gbps?
How Fast is the NBN by Rod Tucker has a chart of “average peak download speeds”. It is predicting an average peak of 7Gbps in Singapore in 2025. How does that compare with Labor’s goal of <1% in 2026?
“Labor’s fiction that Australians will receive 1Gbps?”
It’s the first time I heard that Labor invented Gigabit Passive Optical Network standard
That’s a 2011 chart! It’s 2016. What planet are you from?
Just as well my broadband connection is on a gigabit network because you are a dunce!
Yeah Nah! ;-)
This one’s for you, Richard.
I hope he has a paid subscription, would be the only reason to keep him around.
Lol, while reading this I was ticking off all the possible LibTroll arguments. :-D
Nice piece of fiction Renai. :-D
PS, Im sure that under the ALP there will still be some issues & setbacks, but at least it’ll be a proper national infrastructure project again for the Public Good, not a half assed government funded commercially oriented rollout!
Richard? He is one of the disasters that destroy the rollout? OK, not likely he would be employed by them, but if he was I can see that happening.
According to Richard, ‘it’s as if he wrote the MTM plan himself’.
One wonders.
Richard is not out of his bed under the bridge just yet!
I can’t believe Renai wrote this, he’s such a Liberal shill and constantly compromises his journalism in a pathetic attempt to achieve a false “balance”.
This is just like that time he spent five years supporting Malcolm Turnbull and his FTTN nonsense.
I’m never reading Delimiter again.
LOL +1
+1
I think you summed the shill up perfectly. Shame on him for… wait a minute…
Something just isnt right here…
I didn’t realize Delimiter was purchased by News Corp? i want a refund for my subscription.
Obviously Renai’s office has been raided by the AFP and that NBN guy taking photos is sitting at his desk writing this.
I cannot confirm or deny that the AFP have offered me a lucrative contract worth at least $300k to write hit pieces against a FTTP rollout for the NBN.
I keep rereading Renai’s post looking for a specific word.
Snoogans.
;-)
Renai needs to ban this guy… Can’t have people like Renai complaining about Renai’s work… :D
You’ve self-trolled!
+1 was just thinking the same Renai, but you put it more eloquently.
Clickbaiting in his own comments section :p
I understand his editor makes him do it! Poor Renai chained to a desk and only getting bread and water between articles!!
#JeSuisRenai!
Bread and water is on the good days.
But Renai LeMay didn’t write this!
Cable TV Subscribers Still Unhappy, New Consumer Reports Survey Shows Fiber, smaller companies, and municipal broadband did best in our latest telecom ratings
http://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/cable-tv-subscribers-still-unhappy-consumer-reports-new-survey-shows/
:-O
Burn the witch ;)
My main concern with Labour’s NBN policy is how they’ll handle congestion due to the nodes’ 1/1Gbps back-haul. Currently we have nebulous promises that the links will be upgraded if they become a problem, but if Labor win the election will NBNCo spend money upgrading infrastructure they plan to replace?
My brother is installing them in NQ, they have three empty slots for more gigabit cards and the dark fibre laying there waiting for when it is needed.
Yep, I’m aware that there are upgrade paths. The question is will NBNCo spend the money to utilise those options if they know they’ll be scrapping the gear soon?
They only have 2 pairs of fibre per node even tho the NANT-E Line card has 4 SFP ports – this means the max bandwidth NBN can supply to each node is 20/20 Gbps. (Which is heaps and much better than the paltry 1/1 Gbps they have now)
It would cost less than $2k to replace the 1/1 GE SFP’s for each node with 10/10 GE SFP and the problem would be pretty much sorted. They could further improve the situation by installing the second pair of Fibre’s with 10/10 GE SFP modules too.
This would result in:
1x pair of 10/10 GE SFP’s = 52/52 Mbps minimum peak bandwidth per premises (192 port node)
or
2x pair of 10/10 GE SFP’s = 104/104 Mbps minimum peak bandwidth per premises (192 port node)
Fair enough, those costs certainly make it feasible. Though would they need to replace the hardware at the other end of the fibre link as well? But even then if it doubled the cost to $4k I wouldn’t imagine that breaking the bank.
There is a cynical part of me that keeps pointing out that Labor could also build serious political capital by not upgrading the links and as performance degrades simply saying, “Well, that’s FTTN. Blame the LNP.”
Yes, there is an SFP at each end of the fibre (POI & Node) but they are quite cheap now a days (a few hundred each for 10/10 GE).
Wouldn’t the other end of the node’s link be the local FSAM rather than the POI? Not that it makes a difference to the cost involved in replacing SFP modules.
To be strictly technically correct, the Node Fibre connects into the FAN and then back to the POI.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/network-design-rules.pdf
PS, I just realised this doc actually confirms the info I have that the Nodes are connected by only 1/1 GE atm (the AAS is 10 GE) – see page 30.
There are a couple of really good points there, particularly about CVC pricing and the 120 POI balls up.
The rest? Yeah, someone gives you a bowl full of scrambled eggs, you’re going to be making an omelette, even if you’d rather have them poached…
Yeah they have both been issues of contention from day 1.
Assuming FTTP is back on track, I will be interested to see if CVC pricing comes down as connected population goes up.
And I think the 120 POI will get beaten down at some point. Either the ACCC will change their mind, or some smaller operators will get together and challenge it in court.
Labor’s plan is for CVC pricing will come down as data consumption goes up.
* CVC pricing starte at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage was 30GB/Month and the plan is for it to fall to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
* 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.
Dropping the pricing of CVC ahead of this curve is a subtle but effective way of strangling the adoption of high speed internet, because to maintain the same rate of return, AVC has to rise to compensate for the loss of revenue.
Is that based on the new policy or the old?
If its the old, it was always subject to changes based on usage etc.
If its new, can you point me at the relevant materials?
I will point out that you are beating up the “soft elements” of the design, the things that can and will change if they are not appropriate, or are found to be hindering things. Wasn’t NBN under the Coalition considering scrapping AVC or some such? Those sort of changes are much easier to make than replacing Copper with Fibre.
> I will point out that you are beating up the “soft elements” of the design, the things that can and will change if they are not appropriate, or are found to be hindering things.
Since there is very little evidence that anyone cares that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2026, I doubt very much that the soft elements will change. The moment of opportunity has probably already passed Australia by.
> Those sort of changes are much easier to make than replacing Copper with Fibre.
But not significantly easier, especially if there is no interest in change. Sadly most fibre fanbois are still deluded into thinking that Labor are promising them a 1Gbps connection at a price they can afford.
“Since there is very little evidence that anyone cares that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2026, I doubt very much that the soft elements will change. The moment of opportunity has probably already passed Australia by.”
What an odd thing to say. Do you really think the numbers on 1gbps at the moment matter a jot to what it will be in 2026. Are you really that shortsighted?
“But not significantly easier, especially if there is no interest in change. Sadly most fibre fanbois are still deluded into thinking that Labor are promising them a 1Gbps connection at a price they can afford.”
What are you babbling about. Of course it is significantly easier. Resorting to “fanbois” now are we. How childish.
You have already shown that not only can you not back up the tripe you spout, but that you are purposefully phrasing comments in a way that supports your own argument. And yet you refer to the people who support “Fibre to the Premise” as “Fanboys”. I’m sorry but the way you purposefully mislead and ignore reality, perhaps you should look at yourself before accusing others of “fanboyery”.
Sad
Mathew
Since there is very little evidence that you care that less than 1% will have 1Gbps in 2020.
if we assume that the 1% are the top 5% of income earners in Australia then it FoD or moving won’t present a significant barrier.
So then no problem with labor getting 1% on 1Gbps by 2026 then
I’m on 100Mbps, and I can assure you, I’m a looooong way from being in the top 1%…and frankly I find it offencive you think those of us that want a decent connection to be in Gina Rinehart’s league…
Still persisting with the FoD lie even though I’ve called you on it twice?
Pretty disappointing Mat…
I guess you haven’t been keeping up. Plenty of interest in FoD here:
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2490418
Thinking of organising an area application for my street: http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/technology-choice-program/area-switch.html
https://twitter.com/NBNBenefits
Dosen’t matter how “interested” you are, and you can “organise” as much as you like in your street Mat :o)
https://www2.nbnco.com.au/technology_choice/individual_premises_switch
Troll on matey, or learn to read :o)
Not going to happen when 79% of people choose 25Mbps or lower, is it?
Well Tinman AVC doesn’t need to rise if the sell more cvc at a lower price to equal to higher price cvc selling less they would not be a loss on revenue
I don’t really agree with the whole AVC/CVC thing, it should just be wide open speed wise with volume charges (same as Google Fiber and some ISP’s in NZ).
I know but that Mathew thinking reduce cost of cvc but they won’t use more lol
> Well Tinman AVC doesn’t need to rise if the sell more cvc at a lower price to equal to higher price cvc selling less they would not be a loss on revenue
Except that that breakeven, NBNCo are reliant to the unit price of CVC falling at a significantly slower rate than the price falls. This is neatly documented in the NBNCo Corporate Plan in both numbers (growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls) and statement of intent. “This has been achieved by keeping the AVC as low as possible in order to encourage consumers up the speed tiers, and relying on CVC revenues to drive ARPU growth”
Except that you still haven’t explain if you sell less at a higher price or sell more at a lower price there would be a lost in revenue
Labor’s financial plan for NBN relied on CVC revenue growing exponentially to deliver a financial return. Labor’s target is for $/Mbps to fall 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.
As typical with Labor plans, this is optimistic, and doesn’t leave space for additional price cuts (except the Liberals did just that).
Mathew said: Labor, Labor, Labor.
Haven’t the Liberals been running things the last three years Mat, or have you been asleep?
+1 for the Omnifunny.
However (and in the spirit of the piece), I’d like to point out one more gaping hole in the New Labor Miracle: Where’s the minimum guarantee?
If Labor really believes in what they’re peddling, let’s see them put in place a minimum deliverable speed guarantee, something along the lines of:
“Under our solution, all recipients of the NBN will be able to rely on a minimum download speed of X and a minimum upload speed of Y.”
“Any time their speed falls below this level their ISP will be required to fix the problem within 1 week.”
“If they can’t fix the problem then the ISP will no longer be able to advertise that their services is an NBN-level service. They can call it something else. Sub-NBN, perhaps?”
“If they fail to do this, they will owe their users a pro-rata discount on the price of their service, depending on how far their delivered service falls below the mark.”
“Finally, the values of X and Y will be indexed yearly at the rate predicted by Nielsen’s Law i.e. X and Y increase 50% year on year.”
…Now let’s see which providers support which model for the NBN!
It would be entertaining to see which providers support which! +1
If you read the first NBNCo Corporate Plan, Labor expected that congestion would vary between RSPs and that this would be a point of differentiation between budget and premium RSPs.
With FTTN it doesnt matter which RSP you use, the peak CIR for FTTN is 5/5 mbps vs 78/39mbps for GPON.
NBN’s own documentation (page 30 of design rules) confirms that all nodes only have 1/1Gbps backhaul to the FAN.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/network-design-rules.pdf
Funnily enough those are the kind of speeds you hear when folk complain respectively about their NBN service being ‘slow’. Aside from the initial issues you don’t really see many FttP people complain about their internet coming to a 5/5 crawl!
Exactly, my ADSL2 service is 12 mbps all day everyday, If I was on FTTN and it slowed down to 5/5 mbps I’d be livid!!
Plenty of complaints on whirlpool about FTTP congestion.
Usually because they signed up with Optus or Dodo, very few Telstra or SkyMesh customers have had any congestion issues on FTTP.
Sure there’s issues with both no network is 100% fault free Mathew.
Glaring difference however is:
FttP: 2.5Gbps in 1/32 split (ie worst case NBN provided speed = 85 Mbps)
FttN: 1Gpbs in 1/192 split (ie worst case MTM provided speed = 5 Mbps)
Means when folk complain about FttP speeds its typically an RSP issue with lack of backhaul/CVC.
Issues with FttN slowing to 5Mbps means there’s enough people connected already that the node itself is oversubscribed and only MTM can fix that!
Their failure, then, was not mandating that either NBNCo or RSPs would be required to publish such contention ratios.
HFC will fall over before they have a chance to get to it. Barely anyone is using it right now that is a fact. Modern day ADSL. FTTN is ADSL.
FTTN suffers the same problems as ADSL because it is ADSL. Noise and the cable to the pits that is only ever serviced for voice. People are being sold a dud and already suffering outages. Again because it is ADSL. Why do you think they’ve been buying brand new copper instead of fibre ? To save face but they’ve run out of money now.
I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.
“FTTN suffers the same problems as ADSL”
Certainly does, we are seeing that in every town/city that has been connected to it.
“because it is ADSL”
Have to pull you up there sir, it is a form of DSL, not specifically ADSL. You would have more credability saying xDSL
Cheers
“Have to pull you up there sir, it is a form of DSL, not specifically ADSL. You would have more credability saying xDSL”
I have pointed this out to him multiple times and he keeps repeating it.
I know that in general understanding VDSL =/= ADSL, however if you take away trade name context, and look purely at the bandwidth and type of technology, it is an asymmetric digital subscriber line in how it is implemented. I.e. you can download significantly faster than you can upload. I would presume he means ‘in spirit it is ADSL’ – not pushing the bounds there as much.
If he was to call it ITU G.992.5, then you could pick on him more.
The amount of times he has repeated it, I am not sure he is saying it is “in spirit ADSL”.
There are ways of saying what he wants to say without even mentioning ADSL. I want arguments being made against FTTN and the MTM to be solid, because the LibTrolls will just play semantics and play the man instead of the ball when picking which person to argue with.
That is all. It weakens his argument so that the LibTrolls have something to grip onto and spinny spin spin.
“I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.”
Already done it. It is sexy. Unfortunately, the other end terminates at a Media Converter that connects to a VDSL modem in bridge mode. Had to electrically isolate my main switch gear after a lightning strike 2 streets away took half my network out via the phone line. Don’t want that happening again.
Now of course, if I had FTTP rather than FTTN, this would have been a completely unnecessary step.
At a total outlay of $80 for media converter, 2 X SFP 1000-SX modules and 20m of pre-terminated 62.5/125 µm fibre I thought it was a bargain. 1000-LX modules are no more expensive – literally $15 for generics.
Damn those pesky libs. Fibre isn’t necessarily more expensive than copper!
“I would love the day to connect a fibre SFP straight into my router.”
You can. Then all the way to the desktop
lol
I wonder whether any other generation has seen such astounding revolutions of data and values as those through which we have lived. Scarcely anything material or established which I was brought up to believe was permanent and vital, has lasted. Everything I was sure or taught to be sure was impossible, has happened. Winston Churchill 1930
Finally. Someone in the media has at last mentioned that the high NBN plan pricing for speeds higher than 25Mbps could be a factor in subscribers choosing 12 or 25.
Where I live has FTTN due to be switched on in a few months. I am personally thinking I’ll bite the rather large bullet (shotgun cartridge) and pay the $30 a month more for 100/40 ($80 vs $50), because I would feel cheated by the 25/5 knowing everything I do about the NBN and also because I have the money. (It is also very likely that my speed would be 80-90 down.)
I have had 13-15Mbps down on ADSL2+ since 2008 and many other people would be in the same boat. 25Mbps from 13-15 is hardly worth bothering about.
But most people will baulk at the high pricing and settle for 25/5 or lower. A huge number of people will be let down by the NBN. Not a nice result for $50 billion + ongoings.
Yeah people are picking the pricing tier they are happy with or already purchasing at!
The speed they get is often a secondary issue if they’re even told there is a choice to be had (because RSP’s have 0 incentive to up sell to a higher tier which just causes them CVC headaches).
> RSP’s have 0 incentive to up sell to a higher tier which just causes them CVC headaches
This is only true for small RSPs which under Labor’s plan were doomed. Refer to NBN Points of Interconnect and the future of competition blog post by Simon Hackett and look at what has happened in the last 6 years.
For larger RSPs it is quota which controls how much data a user transfers. a 100Mbps connection has a theoretical limit of 32.4TB/month.
That doesn’t seem to be a true statement Mathew.
http://www.onthenet.com.au/personal/personal-nbn
https://www.facebook.com/OntheNet/reviews
OnTheNet is a small RSP that offers 100/40 and gets consistently high review scores.
Over to you, where is your evidence they are “doomed”?
I’d suggest that Simon Hackett is respected by the community and reasonable source. We have seen considerable consolidation amongst independent RSPs (e.g. TPG purchased Internode, iiNet & Adam).
As noted the blog post I linked to small regional RSPs may be able to survive, but will struggle to grow outside their region.
> I came to the conclusion that it was the rarest of rare birds — a policy that maintained visionary ideals (near universal fibre) while also pragmatically considering the path needed to enact that vision.
Labor’s is the perfect policy if you:
– are in the less than 1% that Labor expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2026.
– support a digital divide where today 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower while only 16% are on 100Mbps (down 3% in 2015) and RSPs are not selling 1Gbps plans (6 years are Labor announced 1Gbps in response to Google fibre)
– believe that shiney fibre will solve all the worlds ills.
Lol Mathew
– are in the less than 1% that coalition expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2020.
– support a digital divide where today 65% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or faster while the current network only required to deliver up to 25Mbps
Apparently you believe rusted copper by claiming FTTN is faster than FTTP
I’ve never claimed that FTTN is faster than FTTP unless you impose speed limits on FTTP. If you impose speed limits on FTTP and remove the speed tiers on FTTN then based on current usage profiles (79% connected at 25Mbps or slower) then most Australians will have a faster internet service on FTTN.
Speed tiers on FTTP is like buying a Ferrari and then putting a speed limiter to limit the maximum speed to 10Km/hr.
Tell us about 50/12 again Mathew? That was a winner for you too eh? *sigh*
And in years to come we can ask you to repeat the same crud you are now repeating ad nauseum ad infinitum, just as you did 50/12, when the stupidity of having done so again finally hits home, as 50/12 appears to have.
And I’ll ask yet again… stop being disingenuous and also tell us the percentage of customers on 25mbps or more (remember to factor FTTN is slower and some can’t access higher than 25mbps).
And tell us, the percentage which could connect to 1Gbps in 2026 on FTTN?
Tell us about the digital divide on MTM of not having access to technology our overseas competitors do and the impact this will have on our economy …
GO it won’t hurt you to look at both sides, even only once…
Or better still keep flogging that dead horse, backward logic?
And we know what speed tiers are Mathew, but Ferrari or your rusty commodore, they both will have speed tiers so why TF bag one and not the other?
Oh of course…
You’re welcome
I just had the funniest image of Mathew telling his grand kids “When I was a young man, Labor made 79% of Australia use 25Mbps or slower!…Hey!! You kids get off my lawn!!”
Hello Mathew, yoo hoo.
No response? No answer(s)?
Oh dear, once again clearly demonstrating that you backward thinkers “are” all spat out from the same mould.
You’re welcome
BTW +1 Tin
Lol Mathew
So if we use you bogas FTTN no speed teir claim that you like using and apply it you your 1% Gbps claim. You argue against it.
But then removing speed teirs Fromm FTTN still won’t be faster than FTTP speed teirs as its only required to delive a 1 sec in a day 25Mbps
The point is does it matter for the majority of Australians when they won’t be accessing speeds faster than 25Mbps?
For those that require faster speeds there is always the option of FoD or moving.
yep, lets just ignore the 1 million customers who want 100/40 Mbps+!
#LibTrollLogicFail
Lol so you do support the coalition fast broadband for the rich then with FOD
Only if they are on wireless or satellite, so stop lying about people on FttN/FttB being able to get FoD…
https://www1.nbnco.com.au/technology_choice/individual_premises_switch
> yep, lets just ignore the 1 million customers who want 100/40 Mbps+!
Significantly less than 1 million when you consider that based on Labor’s numbers:
– Only 70% of premises passed by the NBN are expected to connect.
– FTTP footprint is at most 93%
– 16% (and falling) are connecting at 100Mbps
– Coalition plan is for 20% FTTP
– HFC footprint is capable of 100Mbps (and faster)
Government policy should be aimed supporting the average person not providing a benefit for the elite unless you are a fan of upper class welfare.
And that policy should be…..?
You never actually get to that part…
…
…whatever the Coalition and their whims decide .
Such as OPEL someone was strangely talking up just a few days ago…lol or rolling out what they themselves referred to as FRAUDBAND…
But 50/12… 1/2026… but Labor
> And that policy should be…..?
Construction of an NBN that supports the minimum speeds as determined by community standards based on the tasks that people should be able to perform.
> You never actually get to that part…
When you respond with some thoughts on tasks that people should be able to perform on the NBN (e.g. medical consultation) and then what the minimum speeds are (e.g. 100/100Mbps) then we can talk about the required technology.
Of course nobody will do take that step, because it will simply show Labor’s plan as being unable to deliver the benefits Labor promised.
Low-income users denied NBN benefits
“With the quality of high definition that you’ve got, being able to come across this sort of a network, you could easily have a quick hook-up and actually work out, ‘OK, do I need to take him to hospital, or could we keep him at home?’,” Mr Smith said.
But when The Australian approached Senator Conroy and Mr Quigley to describe the level of service users could expect at lesser network speeds, they said high-definition video conferencing was not possible on the NBN’s most basic package.
“You certainly can’t do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream — it’s impossible,” Mr Quigley said.
Ok, than you for the courtesy of a response.
How will this be paid? Are you thinking of a project that can pay for itself, or should this be entirely taxpayer funded?
/sigh, I’ve responded many times about what could be done with a proper high speed NBN, both to you, and Richard and Reality/Alain, both here and on ZDNet, over years now. Don’t go all “goldfish memory” on me like Alain, I know your agenda is a notch higher than theirs, and I agree that tiers is probably not the way to go in this day and age. I’ve stated this to you previously, a few times.
As I’ve said, agree, but who pays for it? I lean Socialist Market/Socialist Democracy, and don’t have a problem with paying higher taxes to help the less fortunate get a leg up, but “Free Internet for all at the taxpayer expense” is a line I draw.
So Mathew you support the 1 sec in a day 25Mbps and 5 disconnects as a minimum standard
” If you impose speed limits on FTTP and remove the speed tiers on FTTN then based on current usage profiles (79% connected at 25Mbps or slower) then most Australians will have a faster internet service on FTTN.”
No shit sherlock.
If you limit FTTP but don’t limit FTTN, FTTN will be faster for most… Wow… what a fucking shock.
Where as FTTN is like buying a clapped out old wreck that can’t even reach the speed limit.
“If you give each Australian 25 cents and then give me 25 billion dollars the average Australian will have a thousand dollars”
+ 1
No it isn’t, something like that is a cap, not a tier…
Come on Tm…
You can’t expect actual analogies which make sense from these people.
After all, remember these are the same people who described FTTP as the Ferrari/Rolls Royce network… again not being able to understand that the NBN, like roads, isn’t the vehicle but the infrastructure.
So go easy ;)
Lol Rizz thought you where going to come out before there where roads there where no roads lol.
Yeah, but I do like to point out when their analogy is flawed.
The whole car analogy is flawed to start with, FttN vs FttP is more like a car vs a truck, it’s in the amount they carry, not the speed.
Mathew electrical one was even worst
Ferrari states that the car has a top speed exceeding 349 km/h. But if you owned one you wouldn’t be driving at those speeds on the public highways.
However in a car with that kind of horsepower, you have the headroom to push the pedal-to-the-metal so that you can swiftly and easily pass that 12-wheeler semi that is blocking your way.
While not carrying very much of a load (data) at all :o)
Thats why the “car v car” analogy kinda sucks when talking about FttP, it’s not about the speed it, it’s about the amount of data it can carry.
In 2009, you could squeeze 43 terabits per second over a single optical fiber with just one laser transmitter
In reality, the speed over optical fiber is not dependent or governed by the FTTP topography!
Transmission rates are totally dependent and governed by the generation of PON technology that is deployed on the network, which is currently GPON on the NBN.
GPON specifications
Maximum capacity per user:
Download: 2.5Gbps
Upload: 1.25Gbps
Now you’re taking it off on a tangent to what I was discussing (which was the appropriateness of analogies).
Mathew please stop using the 25mbps or slower comment. You have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely wrong in your comments regarding this. 79% on 25 mbps and below is close to the original plans expectations. The difference was that the original plan specified that around 50% of was on 12mbs or lower. Whereas in actuals, only 30%(give or take) are on 12mbs or lower. Which means that more are on the 25mbs level. Which means that around the 20% mark are PAYING MORE for the NBN. Hence the higher ARPU.
So just to remind you.
Original NBN plan – Paid for by 50% on 25mbs and above.
Currently the NBN is sitting at roughly 70% on 25mbs and above.
(Rough figures as I don’t have the documents in front of me)
It is frankly sad that you persist in using that argument, when it is clearly wrong and irrelevant.
Also, the pricing etc is actually something that can be relatively easily changed, as compared to the Copper v Fibre argument.
So long as the Finances pay the rollout off, which under the original plan it was going to do, (based on the higher than predicted ARPU), then the actual breakdown of the speed plans is irrelevant.
> Mathew please stop using the 25mbps or slower comment. You have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely wrong in your comments regarding this. 79% on 25 mbps and below is close to the original plans expectations.
It is no where close to the original expectations. Labor’s original expectation was that at least 5% would be on 250Mbps by now and that very few would be on 25Mbps. The only reason that so many are on 25Mbps are that Telstra don’t offer 12Mbps. Change that and I suggest the numbers on 12Mbps would change dramatically.
> Also, the pricing etc is actually something that can be relatively easily changed, as compared to the Copper v Fibre argument.
I have to agree with you since you used the term “relatively easy”, however it will be very challenging to change the NBNCo agreement with the ACCC & RSPs. The current agreement took two years for agreement to be reached and at that point in time RSPs were not selling NBNCo plans. Changing the wholesale prices now will completely change the business model of RSPs.
> So long as the Finances pay the rollout off, which under the original plan it was going to do, (based on the higher than predicted ARPU)
The current ARPU is higher than predicted, but still well below what Labor’s plan required: a wholesale ARPU of greater than $100/month. It is still doubtful that the average Australian is prepared to pay $200/month for Internet.
> then the actual breakdown of the speed plans is irrelevant.
In which case FTTN / HFC shouldn’t worry you since you consider speed irrelevant or is your argument that only a special elite should receive the benefits of the NBN?
The fact remains that Labor’s artificial financial model is currently providing only an elite 16% with the minimum speed that is required for the benefits Labor promised as documented by Labor in the NBNCo Plan.
“It is no where close to the original expectations. Labor’s original expectation was that at least 5% would be on 250Mbps by now and that very few would be on 25Mbps.”
Where exactly are you getting those figures?
Not that it matters. Labor’s original expectation was that the FTTP would continue to rollout, and areas such as inner city and business district regions would become FTTP enabled. Demographics does have an affect on this sort of rollout, why else do you think that companies target these areas?
“The only reason that so many are on 25Mbps are that Telstra don’t offer 12Mbps. Change that and I suggest the numbers on 12Mbps would change dramatically.”
Why the numbers are higher is irrelevant to the fact that higher numbers of 25 users + lower numbers of 12 users equals a higher return on investment. As evidenced by the higher ARPU.
“I have to agree with you since you used the term “relatively easy”, however it will be very challenging to change the NBNCo agreement with the ACCC & RSPs. The current agreement took two years for agreement to be reached and at that point in time RSPs were not selling NBNCo plans. Changing the wholesale prices now will completely change the business model of RSPs.”
Rubbish. Are you telling me, that the RSP’s would argue against the price of CVC dropping across the board? ACCC would only fight against a price drop if it was somehow hurting competition.
Which leaves only the POI bit. Which I think could probably be challenged. Sure it would take time, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t happen.
“The current ARPU is higher than predicted, but still well below what Labor’s plan required: a wholesale ARPU of greater than $100/month. It is still doubtful that the average Australian is prepared to pay $200/month for Internet.”
Unless you can provide a source, then that is a complete fabrication.
“In which case FTTN / HFC shouldn’t worry you since you consider speed irrelevant or is your argument that only a special elite should receive the benefits of the NBN?”
Nope. You are assuming that because people “CHOOSE” not to take something right now, that is the same as people being “PREVENTED” from taking something ever. This is technically what the Coalition plan does.
The Labor plan gave a baseline that allowed movement from 12mb up to 1gb. So long as enough people where purchasing plans to meet the ROI requirements and the costs to continue the rollout, then the exact makeup of the plans was irrelevant. In this case, a greater number of users on 25mb means that they would have met their requirements.
Which you know, but it doesn’t meet your “needs” so you change the wording to make it appear that 80% on 25mb or below is a “bad” thing. When in actuality you can’t tell from those figures, as they are not detailed enough.
“The fact remains that Labor’s artificial financial model is currently providing only an elite 16% with the minimum speed that is required for the benefits Labor promised as documented by Labor in the NBNCo Plan.”
No it doesn’t. It assumes that the majority will only require X speed at this point in time, as time passes, it assumes that costs will come down, making the faster speeds more affordable. It also assumes that as technology improves and the underlying infrastructure is upgraded, new speed tiers will become available at the top. So a 25mb plan today, may be the cost equivalent of a 100mb plan tomorrow.
> Nope. You are assuming that because people “CHOOSE” not to take something right now, that is the same as people being “PREVENTED” from taking something ever.
People on FTTP are being prevented from taking full advantage of the service by speed tiers and are being denied access to the benefits that Labor used to justify building the NBN.
> This is technically what the Coalition plan does.
WRONG! The Coalition plan provides FoD or moving location. Neither of these options are as bad as you might think. FoD is actually cheap compared to the cost of moving house.
> No it doesn’t. It assumes that the majority will only require X speed at this point in time, as time passes, it assumes that costs will come down, making the faster speeds more affordable.
Sorry but WRONG! 100Mbps is the minimum speed that Labor determined in the NBNCo Corporate Plan would provide access to the services that Labor promoted as the reason to build the NBN.
If you replaced ‘require’ with ‘can afford’ then your statement is slightly more accurate.
> It also assumes that as technology improves and the underlying infrastructure is upgraded, new speed tiers will become available at the top. So a 25mb plan today, may be the cost equivalent of a 100mb plan tomorrow.
Rather than making numbers up, I suggest that you actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan that Labor wrote and understand the artificial financial model Labor developed. NBNCo is not making a profit today because it requires the wholesale ARPU to reach well over $100. Sure prices will fall but at a much slower rate than Labor is expecting consumption of services to rise.
1Gbps sounds really fast today, but in 2026 when Labor planned for less than 1% to be connected at 1Gbps will it still be considered really fast? I doubt it. The reality is that unless people pay more for internet, on a global scale internet speeds in Australia will continue to decline.
“People on FTTP are being prevented from taking full advantage of the service by speed tiers and are being denied access to the benefits that Labor used to justify building the NBN.”
Are you on drugs? Do you even read what you write? That sentence in the context of the Labor plan for the NBN which was to provide Fibre to the Premise to 93% of the population, is just madness.
“WRONG! The Coalition plan provides FoD or moving location. Neither of these options are as bad as you might think. FoD is actually cheap compared to the cost of moving house.”
Did you really just suggest that “moving house” was a choice…. Did you have a straight face when you did that?
“Sorry but WRONG! 100Mbps is the minimum speed that Labor determined in the NBNCo Corporate Plan would provide access to the services that Labor promoted as the reason to build the NBN.”
I don’t know what you are referencing here. Are you suggesting that the Labor Plan was going to remain at a static price forever and ever. Is that REALLY what you are saying?
“If you replaced ‘require’ with ‘can afford’ then your statement is slightly more accurate.”
And then you use “Can afford” as an argument, after suggesting FoD or MOVING HOUSE as reasonable alternatives.
“Rather than making numbers up, I suggest that you actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan that Labor wrote and understand the artificial financial model Labor developed. NBNCo is not making a profit today because it requires the wholesale ARPU to reach well over $100. Sure prices will fall but at a much slower rate than Labor is expecting consumption of services to rise.”
What the model that changed slightly every year to take into account the various different changes in society and business. The Corporate plans that were only ever planned to 3 years out, and then got revised the next year. That corporate plan. Tell me, what “Year” was it estimated that it would have an ARPU of $100?
“1Gbps sounds really fast today, but in 2026 when Labor planned for less than 1% to be connected at 1Gbps will it still be considered really fast? I doubt it. The reality is that unless people pay more for internet, on a global scale internet speeds in Australia will continue to decline.”
And you still haven’t pointed out the document, nor have you acknowledged the years that the document specifically covers.
You are really just grasping at straws aren’t you?
> Unless you can provide a source, then that is a complete fabrication.
NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.
> And you still haven’t pointed out the document, nor have you acknowledged the years that the document specifically covers.
Struggling with comprehension? NBNCo Corporate Plan. Pick any year and the underlying numbers don’t vary significantly, except for the extension of project timelines to account for delays.
“NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.”
Comment is invalid.
In the real world its actually much less than half that (and at last report the ARPU was higher than projected to meet the 8% ROI).
Currently its around $43 (Feb 2016 $4 increase year on year) and it was estimated to be less than 40 ( whilst being enough to meet the 8% ROI under NBN FttP)
Under MTM and LPA everything’s screwed at the ROI is less than 3% (if not -ve now) and they aren’t releasing any more figures
> In the real world its actually much less than half that (and at last report the ARPU was higher than projected to meet the 8% ROI).
That is because the ARPU is steeply discounted during the initial years of the project. In the NBNCo Corporate Plan, Labor kindly included two charts on how the fall in price/unit (GB/month & average network speed). If you study these charts you will quickly see that for CVC:
* Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
* 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.
This is what I mean when I state that the fibre fanbois have been blinded by the bright shiny light and have not looked with a critical eye about what Labor is planning to deliver.
There is a reason that 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower and Labor is planning for less than 1% to have 1Gbps in 2026. I suggest it is not a lack of demand, but the cost of faster services.
ooookay, 6 year old plan. Got it. What about the current plan (CP16), is that better? Have they fixed it? If not, what should they do?
Or doesn’t it matter, you just want to bash Labor and get people to defend them because you’re so unreasonable/inflexible??
“NBNCo Corporate Plan as released by Labor clearly outlines that wholesale ARPU has to rise above $100/month for financial targets to be reached.”
Be Specific Mathew, give me a document, and the page that this referenced. It is your call you tell me.
It will be amusing if it is the one that I think it is.
So Mathew is that now or by 2026?
Liberals’ is the perfect policy if you:
– are in the less than 0% that Liberals expect will connect to 1Gbps in 2026.
– support a digital divide where today 79% on fibre are connected at 25Mbps or slower while only 16% are on 100Mbps (down 3% in 2015) and RSPs are not selling 1Gbps plans (6 years are Labor announced 1Gbps in response to Google fibre); compared to people connecting to the non-FTTP rollouts which will be lucky to receive 25Mbps on average for any service
– believe that dull copper will solve all the worlds ills.
Fixed that for you.
Great to see you rational commentary that is well grounded in facts., NOT!
FoD will easily supply 1Gbps. If you can afford 1Gbps under Labor’s plan then the cost of FoD won’t be an issue because it is less than other house renovations and cheaper than moving.
Just remember every timeyou support Labor’s FTTP you are supporting a policy with the stated objective of less than 1% having 1Gbps in 2026.
Ah Mathew, living in fantasy land still!
NBN Co doesnt even provision more than 1 Gbps in bandwidth to the entire node, it can add another 1 Gbps link using the spare fibre pair but that’s it. The FTTN FAN’s aren’t currently provisioned to provide 10/10 Gbps uplinks to the nodes.
see page 30: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/network-design-rules.pdf
FTTN are connected by fibre backhaul, which is trivial and inexpensive to upgrade to 10Gbps if congestion occurs.
You clearly have no f’n clue Mathew (but we knew that already), the AAS Switches in the FAN are connected via 10 Gbps back to the POI but all the ports servicing the nodes are 1Gbps. Upgrading them would likely require new switches and new SFP’s!
If trivial why are they restricted to a single 1Gbps currently.
a 1/192 split of 1Gbps = 5Mbps per customer which is below the current average that Australians get on ADSL!!
Mathew
Just remember every timeyou support Coslition MTM you are supporting a policy with the stated objective of less than 1% having 1Gbps in 2020.
There fixed it for you
> Just remember every timeyou support Coslition MTM
Where have I said I supported the Coalition MTM policy?
Pointing out that for 80% it delivers the same experience as Labor’s NBN plan is not the same as expressing support.
Sadly it appears the fibre fanbois are afraid of critical thinking because they are afraid the bright lights might be a mirage.
Well Mathew you keep going on about labor 1% on 1Gbps by 2026 considering they haven’t been in for 3 years but do not say anything about coalition 1% on 1Gbps by 2020.
Lol that is what people a choosing NOW for speeds last time I checked it wasn’t 2026. But considering the coalition network is only required to deliver speeds of what they are choosing now but are unable to supply faster in 4 years time when its complete.
But looks like you haveing a little fit when I use your own statement against you.
Kinda outed yourself there, didn’t ya ;o)
Get your own facts straight Mat, they aren’t accepting applications from anyone on FttN”
Currently applications are only accepted from applicants who are originally planned to receive fixed wireless or satellite technologies and wish to switch to fibre technology.
https://www1.nbnco.com.au/technology_choice/individual_premises_switch
And every time you support MtM, you support a system making your issue way worse:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-fttn-users-increasingly-opting-for-slower-speeds/
Going to have to fix this though
“(6 years are Labor announced 1Gbps in response to Google fibre)”
1. Google fibre doesn’t exist!
2. I you mean Google FIBER, they weren’t even heard of 6 years ago!
Sorry, but first post on Google Fiber blog was February 10, 2010: http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html.
Unfortunately none of the examples of why you would build a fibre network are currently possible on Labor’s FTTP with speed tiers. Under Labor’s plans in 2026 less than 1% of the country will have the 1Gbps and might be able to access some of those services.
No one in Australia heard of Googles intention in 2010. I wasn’t until 2011 that they launched the trial in a residential community in Palo Alto. Nah! You wouldn’t have heard of that either! 30th March 2011, Kansas City was announced! At this point Google Fiber had not experienced deploying any FTTP/GPON network except for their trial.
Google was not a household name until it announced the Google Fiber business model December 12, 2012.
1Gbps/1Gbps capability comes strictly from the choice of network topography (FTTP) and PON technology (hardware) (GPON). Gigabit Passive Optical Networks (GPON) standard determines the bitrate. Google didn’t invent it!!
NBN Co received there technical advice from Verizon who have had a number of years experience deploying FTTP/GPON in United States
I have take up figures from several U.S. providers who provision gigabit connections, including 10Gbps. There are almost 80 them. Residential customers don’t subscribe Gigabit services.
Gigabit speeds are generally taken up by industry, advanced manufacturing, tech innovation hubs, Cloud / Bigdata / IoT / M2M providers, medical & healthcare. Residential usage is not on the list. Why would you expect them to be?
Research & development suggests that before 2020, 100Gbps PON technology will be available.
Chattanooga, TN deployed GPON/FTTP in 2010 and the first city in United States to achieve this. In March, they upgraded the network to 10Gbps. Now…. why would they do this?
You Australian Muppets really do have to keep up!
> No one in Australia heard of Googles intention in 2010.
Sorry, but very wrong: http://whrl.pl/Rcofqw.
> Google was not a household name until it announced the Google Fiber business model December 12, 2012.
Try a little bit of research. Considering that 1,100 communities applied in 2010 to be the first city with Google FIbre,I suggest it was reasonably well known especially within the IT community. There is a direct quote from Quigley that the only reason for announcing 1Gbps fibre was in response to Google Fibre.
“”The reason we announced one gigabit was simply because when the government said you’ve got to provide at least 100Mbps, Google at the time made an announcement that they were providing 1 gigabit in the US. And suddenly we went from a situation facing [those] in the media saying ‘what on earth does anyone need 100 megs for?’ to saying ‘this is already redundant, it is already out of date, you can’t do one gig’,” he told a Parliamentary inquiry into the benefits of the NBN in Sydney this morning.”
http://www.zdnet.com/article/1gbps-nbn-a-response-to-google-quigley/
> Residential customers don’t subscribe Gigabit services.
So none of the Google fibre’s customers are residential? None of the customers in Singapore, Korea, Estonia, etc. are residential?
Mathew so let’s your you argument against you.
So 1100 communities applied in 2010 so only 5% of all the USA applied. Would make it not known would it Mathew.
Sorry to disappoint you Mathew in your gigabit dreamworld.
Drop your bogus bullshit and move on!
FFS Retard! It’s spelt GOOGLE FIBER! It a subsidary division!!
https://fiber.google.com/about/
“Try a little bit of research. Considering that 1,100 communities applied in 2010 to be the first city with Google FIbre”
Do your own research you muppet!
The winners were never announced in 2010. In December 2010 Google pushed back the announcement to 2011
Try as much as you like, but you will never have the the ability, skills and knowledge to rewrite U.S. Telecommunications history.
Remember, I have access to FCC connection statistics on fully built networks!!!!
The NBN project, such as it is has not even managed to get halfway. You are counting your chickens before they even get to hatch!
I have lived in San Francisco East Bay Area since 2005.
No! Residential customers do NOT subscribe to 1Gbps connections!
Suck it up!
> Try as much as you like, but you will never have the the ability, skills and knowledge to rewrite U.S. Telecommunications history.
I’m not rewriting history. Google Fibre was announced on 10-Feb-2010 and news was picked up by numerous blogs and news agencies (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/business/la-fi-google11-2010feb11).
> No! Residential customers do NOT subscribe to 1Gbps connections!
Is why in plans and pricing there are two tabs “Residential Plans” & “Small Business”, but the tab for “FTE 100 Business” is hidden?
https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/
I also refer you to “So Where Else in the World Can You Get 1 Gbps to the Home?” (https://gigaom.com/2010/02/11/so-where-else-in-the-world-can-you-get-1-gbps-to-the-home/) dated 11-Feb-2010. In Kong Kong 1Gbps was available for a pricey $215/month.
In Singapore you can order 1Gbps for home with the first six months free for $49.90/month (http://www.starhub.com/personal/promotions/broadband/unbeatable-home-broadband-deals.html).
Show me your bogus overseas gigabit broadband take up rates!
Make sure you get them from reliable sources! i.e Not main stream media and blog/forum spam! :-O
Australians don’t know shit about broadband in America.
You’re a fucking joke!
“:Google Fibre”
Not again FFS
They are called Google Fiber you moron!
“Is why in plans and pricing there are two tabs “Residential Plans” & “Small Business”, but the tab for “FTE 100 Business” is hidden?”
No it isn’t
History:
Beta Test. Free trial
August 2011: Google Fiber Goes Live at a small residential campus community associated with Standford University in Santa Clara Valley adjacent to Palo Alto, California.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4661/google-fiber-goes-live-near-stanford
March 30, 2011: ANNOUNCEMENT. Kansas City, Kansas was selected as the first city to receive Google Fiber
https://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/ultra-high-speed-broadband-is-coming-to.html
May 17, 2011: ANNOUNCEMENT. Kansas City, Missouri included to offer service to both side of the State line. The network became available September 2012.
March 19, 2013: Google announced project expansion to Olathe, Kansas
The Google Fiber footprint is NOT a national broadband network or a citywide network in Kansas. The footprint is a series of networks called “fiberhoods” which were affluent neighborhoods cherry picked. Therefore it is not available in all areas.
Google Fiber also has competitors such as Time Warner Cable (now defunct) and AT&T and many customers refused to change. The initial take up was poor and behind schedule
https://techcrunch.com/2012/08/31/with-google-fiber-sign-ups-behind-schedule-google-lowers-pre-registration-thresholds/
This fact was also reported in Australian media
http://paulwallbank.com/2012/09/02/do-we-really-want-fibre-broadband/
Initially, Google Fiber did not allow servers to be connected to their networks for either residential or business plans.
Bring on your hype now Mathew. Bring it!
> The Google Fiber footprint is NOT a national broadband network
I didn’t say that Google Fibre was a national broadband network. I merely pointed out that Quigley on the same platform as Gillard & Conroy while the government was in caretaker mode for the 2010 election announced NBNCo would be offering 1Gbps.
> Bring on your hype now Mathew. Bring it!
I’m not sure what point you are attempting to argue. Are you are arguing that Labor’s stated goal of having less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026 to be a laudable achievement that is worth of much adulation which will result in Australia being a world leader?
If so I disagree. I don’t think 1% connected at 1Gbps today would be considered a pass mark in many countries.
Much like the rest of your comments, there is no such thing as “Google Fibre”…this has been pointed out to you many times…
So Mathew if “Labor’s stated goal of having less than 1% connected at 1Gbps in 2026 to be a laudable achievement that is worth of much adulation which will result in Australia being a world leader?”
What would the 1% on 1 Gbps by 2020 is by the coalition that your arguing for
Chattanooga Tennessee
EPB deployed gigabit FTTP/GPON in 2010 to entire population to drive their Smart Grid technology, the gigabit killer application, and provide high speed connectivity and innovation to all citizens. This regenerated and transformed the city to an innovation hub
Population: 167,674
1Gbps take up: 7000
10Gbps take up : 10
The BBC recently broadcast on excellent documentary on Chattanooga, complete with interviews straight from the horse’s mouth, including profiles on the select few customers who have the gigabit speed connectivity. The remainder of the population take the minimum 100/100 Mbps option.
I suggest you listen very carefully:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vwfw2
Suck it up!
“I merely pointed out that Quigley on the same platform as Gillard & Conroy while the government was in caretaker mode for the 2010 election announced NBNCo would be offering 1Gbps.”
The polywaffle is meaningless.
FTTH/GPON was selected well before 2010. The GPON standard was approved by ITU-T in 2007.
Hell, even Telecom (pre-Telstra) were looking at replacing the CAN with fibre in the early 90’s.
@ l’homme d’étain
“there is no such thing as “Google Fibre”
Correct!
Some have claimed that fibre [SIC] is English spelling. Actually it’s the French spelling and it relates to scientific & physics units of measure (see Fibronique – Système international d’unités, SI)
http://www.metrologie-francaise.fr/fr/si/unites-mesure.asp
However….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2009
Charles Kuen Kao “for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2009/
Explain That Stuff – Fiber Optics (Chris Woodford is a British science writer)
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/fiberoptics.html
It’s just an observation that contributors mostly link and refer to broadband news & info mostly from Europe and U.K. But unfortunately the U.K. & Europe are struggling to play catch up. This is almost as pathetic as using Whirlpool links as technical references! :-/
If “FIBER” (rather than “FIBRE” [SIC]) was searched on, perhaps they will get more relevant up-to-date information and broadband news from the U.S. who are more than 15 years ahead in broadband initiatives, attitudes and innovation, which by the way, has largely contributed to it’s economic recovery.
“In Singapore you can order 1Gbps for home with the first six months free for $49.90/month”
“In Kong Kong 1Gbps was available for a pricey $215/month”
Wow and how much is it here, Mathew?
Oh that’s right – FTTN is unable to achieve 1Gbps, so we can’t even get it…
Now see if that sinks in at all, even marginally, before you start the ad nauseum/ad infinitum 1 Gbps/2026 spiel bagging the previous network which “was able to achieve 1Gbps”
The problem is the fools who try to play with words.
Fiber To The Home (FTTH) does not possess the literal meaning of “Home” in this context.
It can be any premises ranging from a shack in the Blue mountains in Sydney to a University, medical research facility or an advanced manufacturing plant such Volkswagen, who were attracted to gigabit connectivity Chattanooga, Tennessee. They have 3,200 employees and they are an assembly plant for Passats
http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/facts.html
Your GIG Is Here:
http://chattanoogagig.com/
> Oh that’s right – FTTN is unable to achieve 1Gbps, so we can’t even get it…
FTTP is able to achieve 1Gbps yet 6 years are Labor promised 1Gbps, and almost 3 years (December 2013) after NBNCo made 1Gbps wholesale plans available to RSPs we have zero RSPs offering 1Gbps plans.
1Gbps not being available today has nothing to do with MTM. In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.
It has everything to do with Labor ineptitude in creating an artificial NBNCo financial model with speed tiers.
> Now see if that sinks in at all, even marginally
Stop being blinded by Labor lies and understand what they were promising: 1Gbps to the elite 1% in 2026.
If the cost FoD is too high a price, then it is very unlikely that your income places you in the 1% that Labor planned to have a 1Gbps connection in 2026.
Lol Mathew can we used your excuse for the 50/12 uhmm but Telstra isn’t offering it lol
Your comment is invalid.
Your comment is a lie.
Show me where a 1Gbps service is being offered. They are only offering (“post Malcolm”) in 2018+ as a Medium Business Service ( http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/Integrated-Product-Roadmap.pdf )
Your comment is retarded, they don’t offer FoD to anyone on FttN, HFC or FttB.
https://www2.nbnco.com.au/technology_choice/individual_premises_switch
GG, Thanks for playing.
“In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.”
BULLSHEEEEEEEEET!
NBN Tasmania officially launched Australia’s first national broadband network rollout at Midway Point, northeast of Hobart in 2010. At the launch Gillard & Conroy simply commented on the current maximum capabilities of the network.
It was officially announced to the public as reported April 2013, which was several months before the election that NBN Co fully utilizes GPON, by December 2013.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/04/nbn-co-to-offer-1-gigabit-broadband-speeds-by-december/
1Gbps / 400 Mbps was available December 17th 2013
http://techau.com.au/1gbps-service-now-available-on-nbn/
>> “In fact NBNCo only started offering 1Gbps plans after the Liberals were in government.”
> BULLSHEEEEEEEEET!
…
> 1Gbps / 400 Mbps was available December 17th 2013
http://techau.com.au/1gbps-service-now-available-on-nbn/
“A federal election to determine the members of the 44th Parliament of Australia took place on 7 September 2013.” (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2013).
Last time I checked the calendar 7 September 2013 occurred before 17th December 2013. If your knowledge of the calendar is wrong is it just possible you might be wrong about more complex issues?
You’ve been caught with your dick stuck in the mouth of a dead pig!
The Gig was announced as reported April 2013. I am not going to post the link again because you don’t even understand a simple calendar timeline!
See that scrollbar on the right of your browser window? Scroll up.
The pig is dead and it’s moving much faster than you are. You can’t even keep up!
Keep working that pig duckie!
“FTTP is able to achieve 1Gbps”
FALSE! It’s now 2016!
Passive optical fiber networks, ie FTTP, are now able to achieve 40Gbps (NG-PON2)
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/itu-t-approves-40-gbps-passive-optical-networking-standard/2016-03-04
Please tell our Labor. Maybe they can propose an alternative financial model which might see RSPs offering speeds faster than 100Mbps.
And what would be the point of that when FTTN can’t
The superiority & evolution of the PON technologies was already well known by engineers at NBN Co when the network was designed. This is why they originally chose Passive Optical Network technology. Just ask Peter Ferris
This is what is meant by “future proof” and “ubiquitous”
You heard those word repeated many times and you didn’t know what they mean?
Upgrading the PON electronics to the latest technology is not expensive and very easy to do. There is no need to change any of the network infrastructure or the fiber. They can even have GPON and NG-PONx running on the network at the same time.
@Mathew
Read my lips!
GPON is 1Gbps capable technology. Synchronous & asynchronous!
> GPON is 1Gbps capable technology. Synchronous & asynchronous!
It is capable of even faster than that. However Labor have chosen to hobble FTTP with speed tiers which means currently for 79% on NBN their FTTN, FTTB, HFC & FTTP is essentially the same.
The Liberals could fix this by removing speed tiers on FTTN making it faster than FTTP.
“The Liberals could fix this by removing speed tiers on FTTN making it faster than FTTP.”
PMSL! BULLSHIT
FTTN/VSDL2 is not able to achieve any more than 100Mbps 400m of copper.
“It is capable of even faster than that. ”
Faaaaaark! What planet are you from retard?
GPON ….. The G stands for GIGABIT.
1Gbps-capable GPON components can be swapped out at end-points with 10Gbps-capable NG-PON or 40Gbps-capable NG-PON2 on any part of the network.
You’re a hack!
Passive Optical Networks are light years ahead of Active networks!
That pig you’re humping might be dead, but he’s much smarter than you!
Indeed they could, why haven’t they?
Oh, and fixed it while replying ;o)
“As the roll out of Australia’s high-speed broadband network edges closer, facts are increasingly competing with fiction as to what the final product will actually deliver.”
2011: Myth-busting the National Broadband Network – Engineering Week Lecture at Macquarie University
https://youtu.be/6a2ne1WKxek via @YouTube
Labor’s fiction that Australians will receive 1Gbps?
How Fast is the NBN by Rod Tucker has a chart of “average peak download speeds”. It is predicting an average peak of 7Gbps in Singapore in 2025. How does that compare with Labor’s goal of <1% in 2026?
“Labor’s fiction that Australians will receive 1Gbps?”
It’s the first time I heard that Labor invented Gigabit Passive Optical Network standard
That’s a 2011 chart! It’s 2016. What planet are you from?
Just as well my broadband connection is on a gigabit network because you are a dunce!
Keep humpin’ that dead pig troll!
15 cities announced as developers of gigabit applications at smart cities summit
http://americancityandcounty.com/technology/15-cities-announced-developers-gigabit-applications-smart-cities-summit
Mozilla picks Austin for gigabit grant
https://gcn.com/articles/2016/06/03/mozilla-austin.aspx
Chattanooga’s gigabit Internet highlighted at Smart Community Week:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/jun/15/chattanoogas-gigabit-internet-praised-confere/371095/
Mozilla Gigabit Community Fund – Learn on Tomorrow’s Networks
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/gigabit/
Comments are closed.