LTE will kill the NBN, just as unicorns are real

By
External Contributor
-
89

This article is by Matthew Hatton, a disgruntled consumer and opinionated writer based in Newcastle. You can find him on Twitter at @bernietb. This opinion piece was originally published on his blog, The Rant-O-Matic, and is re-published here with his permission.

opinion Another day, another company announces something and it’s followed by another piece of insanity from the opposition on how it means that we don’t have to build the National Broadband Network anymore. All in all, it’s pretty pathetic.

I, for one, am utterly sick of it. I’m sick of the bullshit. I’m sick of the twisting of the truth. I’m sick of the deliberate, inflammatory disinformation. If you want to criticise something, criticise it on factual shortcomings. Don’t criticise it on your “as real as unicorns” political reasons.

Let’s get one thing very, very clear straight away: Any form of over-the-air mobile broadband is not – in any way – a replacement for a wired network like the NBN. It’s just not. What it is, however, is a fantastic piece of complementary technology that allows consumers and business the chance to expand their horizons beyond what’s available if you’re limited to development on a PC chained to desk.

Of course, the idea of having two similar but different technologies existing at once and providing similar services is completely beyond the seemingly small minds of those opposing such a situation. But then, it’s not like we’d expect them to understand the technical and practical limitations that exist in having this “one or the other but not both” mindset – especially when it comes to why mobile just isn’t the answer.

While Telstra’s (and Optus’s … and maybe even Vodafone’s) LTE (4G) mobile broadband networks will improve bandwidth within the mobile space compared to what we’re used to (especially for those of us trying to use our iPhones on Optus …), it’s not going to come anywhere near improving on the service promised by the Labor Government in the National Broadband Network.

In short, no mobile technology available currently (yeah, LTE is a current technology – it exists in the US already) is designed to deal with people doing the vast majority of their computing on it.

And by “computing” I don’t just mean stalking your ex-girlfriends on Facebook or sending drunken, abusive emails to that guy that pushed you into the girl’s toilets in Year 4. I mean “computing” in the sense of what we’re likely to be using our internet connections for in the next few years – everything from radio to television to telecommuting to uploading your 50,000 photographs from last year’s family Christmas party to phoning your sister who’s currently shacking up with her ski instructor boyfriend somewhere in the Swiss Alps to … f*ck knows, because we haven’t thought of it yet.

Mobile technology just isn’t up to everyone – and it will be everyone if these idiots had their way – doing that, all day, every day. These are the sort of traffic loads that we’re talking about the network being able to handle.

If we were to try and attempt this, the number of mobile phone towers that would need to be erected in order to provide enough coverage to stop the network collapsing under the sheer number of connections being made would be enough to send all those people scared of phone radiation into some sort of catatonic state.

That’s not even mentioning how much the latency that exists on mobile networks would screw with anything data intensive that requires quick responses would pretty much be left pissing into the wind. If you want to drag up the old hospital analogy – do you want your doctor performing surgery from an iPhone? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Mobile broadband just isn’t the answer to replace our current, falling apart copper network. It’s just not. So can we just stop with saying it is?

Thanks.

Image credit: Mary Bliss, Creative Commons

Related posts:

  1. Fatality: Optus plans to kill Telstra’s 4G monopoly
  2. Will Android kill Australia’s iPhone obsession?
  3. Nokia Australia gets real Aussie as chief
  4. Telstra’s 4G just “bragging rights”, says Optus CEO
  5. As Labor and the Coalition duel over the NBN,
    the real winner is Telstra

89 COMMENTS

  1. Brilliant piece. I’m sick of the bullshit too, but with the likes of ‘The Australian’ pushing its coalition propaganda every single day, I fear it’s going to be a continuing uphill battle educating people about the facts of the NBN.

  3. “I don’t just mean stalking your ex-girlfriends on Facebook or sending drunken, abusive emails to that guy that pushed you into the girl’s toilets in Year 4”

    “to phoning your sister who’s currently shacking up with her ski instructor boyfriend somewhere in the Swiss Alps ”

    Got some issues there Renai? :)

    You need to get someone in the mainstream press to re-publish your articles. But therein lies the problem doesn’t it!

    • Got some issues there Renai? :)

      May I direct your attention to the following disclaimer at the top of the page:

      This article is by Matthew Hatton, a disgruntled consumer and opinionated writer based in Newcastle. You can find him on Twitter at @bernietb. This opinion piece was originally published on his blog, The Rant-O-Matic, and is re-published here with his permission.

    • *That’s* what you took away from reading that Charles? Really?

      No, no issues. Just taking the easy approach when looking for examples for things.

      Also, if mainstream media would like to offer me a job (or pay me to argue with them about why they’re ruining the country), I’m open to offers.

  4. A useful analogy that someone else came up:
    Fixed Internet — Wireless
    Mains Power — Batteries
    Running Water — Bottled Water

    Batteries haven’t killed off mains power, and bottled water hasn’t killed off running water – despite the obvious portability advantages.

    • On a similar topic, whenever I hear someone saying that future advances in wireless technology will make fibre obsolete, it puts me in mind of someone saying that future advances in bicycle courier technology will make road trains obsolete. I think part of the problem here is that the average punter doesn’t quite appreciate the scale of difference between what the fixed and wireless networks do.

      • True — most people don’t understand that fibre offers an exponential increase in capacity compared to wireless. They don’t understand that receiving the NBN means getting the same technology to their front door which telcos use to push the nation’s internet traffic between capital cities. Insanity.

  5. What some fail to realise is that for wireless technologies to become truly useful, access needs to be ubiquitous.
    The only way that this is going to become a reality is if there are wireless nodes everywhere, and when I mean everywhere, I’m talking about at the end of every single piece of fibre at every single building.
    For this to happen requires an NBN level investment.

    • That was exactly my point.

      While it’s fine to think that wireless technology will improve over time, the unintended consequences of having to provide a similar services to the NBN are just silly. People still bitch about phone towers going up near their homes, yet you’ll need one on every street corner to implement a wireless NBN.

      Not to mention what happens when 5G technology rolls around….

      • Wireless technology *will* improve over time. Up to whatever Shannon’s Limit happens to be.

        In parallel with this, unless the reset of the world suddenly ceases all research in optics, exactly the same thing will happen in fibre. Up to whatever its maximum happens to be.

        At the end of the research road, which will be faster, fibre or wireless? Bets anyone?

  6. Unicorns aren’t real?

    Seriously though, great piece. If we need a singular demonstration of how a congested and highly contested wireless network can be, look no further than Vodafone’s 2100Mhz network.

    It’s amazing the difference when your Vodafone device drops onto one of their new 850Mhz towers – (mainly CBD’s so far) – magical.

    But with everyone on a single wireless NBN, dialup will be more reliable.

    • Right, so let me get this straight

      You are going to say wireless is shit because our worst carrier happens to have invested close to no money in upgrading their infrastructure?

      By the same token I am going to claim that fiber is shit because of greenfields in Canberra, lets see how that goes….

      (the amount of logical fallacies being used by NBN proponents is staggering)

      • Okay Deteego, let’s get a few things straight, I tolerate your critisims and engage with you because I consider you to be of equal experience when it comes to the issues at hand with the NBN when compared to me, and as such you are likely to be able to provide a useful insight considering (I am assuming based upon your posts) your background is slightly more telecommications focused than mine.

        But if you want to try and use the same tactic on Micheal Wyres I would suggest you look up who it is you are talking too.

        • I know who he is, but that doesn’t change what he says. Its not my fault he is about as objective as a politician on an opposing party

          If he is going to twist everything around to make the NBN look like the solutions to everyones IT telecommunication problem and not having anyone to comment about it, then that is ‘magical’

      • He was using the vodafone network as an example of what happens when a wireless network is congested.

        He didn’t say wireless is shit.

        Wireless is complimentary to fibre. Saying that we don’t need fibre because wireless does the job is like saying we don’t need cars because a bike can get you from a to b.

        Wireless use will continue to grow because of the portability but it is no replacement for a good solid wired network and the fibre network will assist the wireless network.

        Now before you go and attack me as being an NBN apologist, understand that I know that it’s economically risky and some people don’t think the taxpayer should fund it.(We’re not. We’re investing in NBNco and should get our money back and then some).

        I get that you don’t agree with the whole NBN argument but at least argue with facts. Mobile broadband will NEVER be a replacement for fibre.

        • And I was using an example of fiber speed connections when a company doesn’t manage their fiber network. It was very obvious he was trying to imply that such contention is normal for wireless networks (when it isn’t).

          In fact with the NBN CVC ratios, and as Commsday Writer Graeme Lynch stated here on WP (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1622994&p=40#r784), NBNCo’s CVC charges will enforce an artificial contention ratio onto the fiber platform, something that doesn’t exist in fiber networks worldwide. The point of making a fiber network is kinda killed when you force artificial contention onto the network (the only contention should be the AVC charges, which again is only there because they chose to use a shared system, i.e. GPON). Of course, there wouldn’t be any CVC charges if the capital cost wasn’t so ridiculous, and current ISP’s/RSP’s don’t pay any CVC charges at all (along with a lower ULL/LSS price) unless they are forced to in regional/rural areas (where they have to go through TW)

          The point is, you can’t say technology is bad by singling out a bad scenario which isn’t indicative of what happens in general. The NBNCo fiber will generate about as much of a guarantee of speeds as any wireless network will, with wireless case its because of spectrum (physical limitations) and with NBNCo it will be with CVC (financial limitations)

          I get that you don’t agree with the whole NBN argument but at least argue with facts. Mobile broadband will NEVER be a replacement for fiber.
          No it won’t, but because of NBNCo’s significant capital cost (and NBNCo forced to pay it off), wireless can very easily put a massive dent into NBNCo’s viability, which normally wouldn’t happen at all. The argument has never been about wireless replacing NBN, the argument has been about wireless eating into NBNCo’s market because of the extreme cost NBN will have to deal with in regards to the capital of their FTTH network. There isn’t any fiber wholeseller in the world that imposes CVC charges, and ours will be a fixed line monopoly, so every RSP/ISP is forced to pay for those CVC charges (along with providing backhaul, i.e. actual internet).

          And as has been evident globally, wireless has actually been eating into wired connections. The number of wireless only networks in EU recently rose to 25%, in the UK its 20%. In australia its 13%. There is a very clear trend to wireless because of its mobility, and it seems (for households), the only demand for FTTH required speeds (lets say 50+) is multidwelling households with heavy internet users or the niche heavy internet downloaders. Wireless is starting to become less complimentary and more of an alternative

      • Firstly, for the record – (though it shouldn’t matter or need to be said) – my political views are very much liberal leaning. So don’t come the political bias/leaning crap. This has nothing to do with politics.

        Unlike many in this argument – (yes I’m looking at you, News Limited) – I have the ability to be objective and separate the political shenanigans from the technical realities.

        I gave the Vodafone example – (as others have pointed out) – as an example of what happens when a network is badly congested.

        Let’s expand that a little.

        There are currently three major mobile networks – Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone. Let’s say that everyone in Australia has a mobile service of some description – (stats say on average that everyone has more than one) – and that Telstra has 50% of the market, Optus 30% and Vodafone 20%.

        If the NBN went completely wireless, 100% of customers would be on ONE network. The NBN wireless network. Vodafone are struggling to give decent coverage to 20%. Optus have their struggles too. Telstra has done a pretty reasonable job, but do have issues in some areas.

        How do you think a single wireless network is going to cope with 100% of the subscribers? I know you are intelligent enough to extrapolate the answer of “pretty shitful”.

        An LTE network INCREASES the problem because more people are trying to get an even higher amount of bandwidth. If you want to give people a reasonable, reliable coverage on wireless, there would need to be literally THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of towers to keep up. And they’ll have to be strung together with what?

        Fibre. Fibre that will have to be strung everywhere to connect them all up.

        Fibre strung everywhere? May as well just run fibre to people’s homes – it’ll be about the same cost, and orders of magnitude more reliable and upgradable.

        Wireless is latent, contended, and unreliable. The only “good” thing wireless gives you is mobility.

        And since the NBN is about FIXED services, the mobility argument is moot. Even the wireless proportion of the NBN – (about 4%) – is FIXED wireless, not mobile.

        Wireless is NOT the answer. The laws of physics dictate that it will never be a match for fibre.

        • Firstly, for the record – (though it shouldn’t matter or need to be said) – my political views are very much liberal leaning. So don’t come the political bias/leaning crap. This has nothing to do with politics.
          I said you are biased, that doesn’t imply you are politically biased (its obvious you are not), I just used that as an analogy

          I gave the Vodafone example – (as others have pointed out) – as an example of what happens when a network is badly congested.
          And I gave an example of a fiber network that is badly congested. Is there a point to this?

          If the NBN went completely wireless, 100% of customers would be on ONE network. The NBN wireless network. Vodafone are struggling to give decent coverage to 20%. Optus have their struggles too. Telstra has done a pretty reasonable job, but do have issues in some areas.
          Yeah thats great, but its also a strawman/dichotomy. Would you mind telling me who is advocating putting 90%+ of people on wireless? Its definitely not the liberals, nor is it in any of the articles that even News LTD has been publishing

          An LTE network INCREASES the problem because more people are trying to get an even higher amount of bandwidth. If you want to give people a reasonable, reliable coverage on wireless, there would need to be literally THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of towers to keep up. And they’ll have to be strung together with what?
          Even though this isn’t really the point, if you read up about 4G here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G), you will see the reason why its FOURG and not THREEG is because it uses significantly different technologies in deploying the wireless. 4G has much better spectral efficiency then 3G (which means it delivers more data per cell), it has complete MIMO support, IPV6, topology levering etc etc etc. In fact, if Vodaphone upgraded their current network to LTE right now, and didn’t put up any new towers, they would fix their congestion issues (assuming the issue wasn’t with their backhauls). The difference between 3G and 4G is like the difference between dialup and fiber. 3G was never designed for IP services, it was designed for voice. The way it delivers internet data is incredibly naive and ineffecient (use of inefficient algorithms in regards to spectrum switching and authentication, i.e. OFDMA vs CDMA etc etc). To put things into perspective, using just a single spectrum band Verizons 4G in America is delivering speeds of 12/4 mbits in average/heavy average congested situations, and they just upgraded a few towers

          Fibre. Fibre that will have to be strung everywhere to connect them all up.. It already is, all of Telstra’s Towers are already connected by fiber cores. They are not going to connect new towers onto the NBN because that would just complicated their mobile network and make it less efficient (instead they will just connect the towers to their current mobile backhaul). This is also just an argument for fiber backhaul, and all our backhaul is currently fiber (if you haven’t noticed)

          Wireless is latent, contended, and unreliable. The only “good” thing wireless gives you is mobility.
          And NBN is expensive and contended. (btw, 4G severly cuts latency down, as also seen by Verizon in real world situations)

          Wireless is NOT the answer. The laws of physics dictate that it will never be a match for fibre.
          Laws of physics also state that fiber cannot move, laws of economics and market demands also state there is no credible argument that there is demand (on a purely speed basis) for fiber to the homes, as well as stating that if you spend such huge capital on a project, regardless of how technologically superior it is, it won’t mean jack if its outcompeted on cost. If you want to argue in a vacuum and only consider one area of science (and to be more accurate, one portion of one area of science) instead of the real world where we deal with economics, finances, market demands and laws and all that jazz, then I thing the bubble needs to be ‘popped’ and you need to be brought into the real world

          • If I’m biased, then so are you. Thanks for proving that point. You’re right in one sense though – I am biased – towards debating the actual facts.

            Let’s get back to some.

            A 3G vs 4G argument is bunk. On a good day you get about 2Mbps out of a 3G connection. If you’re talking 4G at 100Mbps, that’s a 50-fold increase in bandwidth PER SUBSCRIBER, regardless of the technology – you still have to deliver enough bandwidth to enough towers – (again, I reiterate, via fibre) – to provide enough heavy lift to provide a reasonable expectation of service to end users.

            You might get 100Mbps at 3am with nobody else using your tower. You might get 5 or 6Mbps in a highly populated cell in the middle of the day – (read: inconsistent/unpredictable).

            Radio spectrum is still radio spectrum. It’s still finite, and unless you want us to live inside a vacuum, it will never reach the speed of light. In my experience, light tends to travel at the speed of light.

            Radio waves do not – unless inside that aforementioned vacuum.

            Now, if you had ANY idea about how the NBN prices out the CVC component of their network, you’d probably shit your pants.

            Their pricing calculator demonstrated at their recent industry forums – (something you should try and go to sometime – you might actually learn something about what you’re trying to attack) – produced some stunning results.

            A 40,000 site private network, at 10/10Mbps per connection with 25Mbps burst, 150GB per site per month, with reasonable CVC contention ratios came out at $28.64 per month, per connection, wholesale price.

            While they didn’t reveal the formula for their contention ratio calculation – (the change in the number of POIs has changed it slightly, and as of a couple of weeks ago they were still modelling those changes into the formula) – in my experience after 15 years in the industry, the last six of which have been directly in telecommunications, the final contention ratio results were actually quite generous.

            Don’t believe me? Fine – but give Sarah Palmer from NBN Co a call and ask for a demonstration of the calculator. NBN Co are more than willing to engage with the industry and discuss their pricing structures.

            I bet you wouldn’t have the guts to do it.

          • You’re right in one sense though – I am biased – towards debating the actual facts.
            Let me fix that for you
            You’re right in one sense though – I am biased – towards debating the actual facts that I liked, ignoring the other inconvenient ones.
            There we go, all done

            A 3G vs 4G argument is bunk. On a good day you get about 2Mbps out of a 3G connection. If you’re talking 4G at 100Mbps, that’s a 50-fold increase in bandwidth PER SUBSCRIBER, regardless of the technology – you still have to deliver enough bandwidth to enough towers – (again, I reiterate, via fibre) – to provide enough heavy lift to provide a reasonable expectation of service to end users.
            No, what is bunk is you ignoring facts (which seems to be what you are biased against). Ignoring the inconvenient facts but only listening to the ones that you like isn’t helping your cause. Again here is the 4G link so you can educate yourself
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G

            There is also the fact that 4G, unlike 3G, uses multiple spectrum bands, of which a lot of spectrum is available (its just held by governments)

            If you are going to ignore the selective FACTS that you don’t like, then there is no point in debating it, and you can join the “fiber is always better then wireless because it offers so much speed” band

            A 40,000 site private network, at 10/10Mbps per connection with 25Mbps burst, 150GB per site per month, with reasonable CVC contention ratios came out at $28.64 per month, per connection, wholesale price.
            Thats nice, now lets compare that to TPG offering unlimited for $60 a month that also attracts all the leechers. You are providing a plan that is going to be 28.64 + 24 (AVC) = $50.84 a month. Now lets throw in providing actual backhaul (so you know, we can actually download off the internet) + profit margins + other costs ISP’s have to deal with. Wait whats this, its suddenly sounding like a rip off. That figure will probably in the end reach a nice $75+ (for the consumer), looking at the margins that internode/iinet add ontop of raw costs from the financial plans

            While they didn’t reveal the formula for their contention ratio calculation – (the change in the number of POIs has changed it slightly, and as of a couple of weeks ago they were still modelling those changes into the formula) – in my experience after 15 years in the industry, the last six of which have been directly in telecommunications, the final contention ratio results were actually quite generous.
            Yah, just like the Telstra AGVC charges were ‘generous’ when we were stuck in the dark ages pre 2006 with one of the worst plan/price ratios of any country in the OECD. Thats kinda what happens when every ISP/RSP is forced to resell off a monopoly whole-seller (and at least with Telstra they also got the backhaul supplied)

            Don’t believe me? Fine – but give Sarah Palmer from NBN Co a call and ask for a demonstration of the calculator. NBN Co are more than willing to engage with the industry and discuss their pricing structures.
            Your above figures already proved what I was saying. I have already had people working at ISP’s providing figures for CVC charges, all of which are disgustingly high. To get into perspective ISP/RSP’s currently do not pay ANY (you know, that $28.64 you are talking about). Furthermore ULL/LSS is $17 for metropolitan/suburban areas (with metro city being $6). That is in fact the only cost ISP/RSP’s have to pay for RIGHT NOW. In some areas (where there is no backhaul), they are forced to go through TW, which is reflected in their pricing for plans in those areas (TPGS 500GIG for 60 a month vs unlimited for 60 a month). Of course this all makes sense, because if you read the business case, thats how NBNCo is actually paying off that massive $$$$$$$ debt (its those CVC charges) which it has to pay off, something that Telstra doesn’t have to do since the capex off the CAN was payed off zonks ago.

          • No no no. The $28.64 actually INCLUDES the AVC price. Try again.
            And backhaul (plus all the other costs) on a service providing 150 gigs per month to a private network that we do not even know about (such as the usage patterns on this supposed network?).

            vs

            The $6/17 that ISP’s currently pay, with no CVC, which means there is no progressively increasing cost for the amount of bandwidth ISP’s/RSP’s deliver to customers. That CVC will increase MUCH higher if people, you know, actually USE their fiber networks and expect to download at the speeds the fiber network is downloading.

            Furthermore the CVC is a progressive cost, in the sense that ISP’s get charged more for the actual bandwidth that you provide to the customers.

            Give her a call mate.
            I would recommend you give a call to an actual ISP (such as TPG) and ask THEM how much the CVC costs will be for their network

          • Just pointed out I don’t need to.

            You obviously need a few lessons on how the NBN actually works though. Start with Sarah. Then try Patrick Flanagan, he’s the head of construction. Steve Christian can help too – he’s in charge of service delivery.

            If you’d bothered to learn about what you’re obviously so passionate about, you’d have already heard them speak about how it works.

            Come back to me when you learn something about it. In the meantime, I’ll not be wasting effort repeating myself over and over.

          • And the CVC is the backhaul – (again showing you don’t know how it works).

            And since this is a private WAN example, traffic out to the internet wouldn’t be necessary, so there’s nothing else to add to the $28.64 – maybe a little rack space to house your core router.

          • And the CVC is the backhaul – (again showing you don’t know how it works).
            Yes, the CVC is for the internal NBN backhaul, not for the backhaul that actually provides the internet to the ISP/RSP’s. Unless you are expecting people to only download/upload within Australia

            $6 to $17 hey? Tell that to the ISPs paying $25 or more.
            $6 to $17 is what they have to pay Telstra for the ULL
            $24+ is what they will have to pay for NBNCo (including CVC)

          • ISPs also then pay for fibre backhaul from the DSLAM to their core network – that costs nothing does it?

            Spare me the lessons mate. I’ve been doing this stuff for years.

          • ISPs also then pay for fibre backhaul from the DSLAM to their core network – that costs nothing does it?
            Why don’t you reveal the cost, I’m sure you know how much it is ;)

            You see, you are not taking one thing into account, and that is that those internal costs for companies such as TPG which own their own backhaul (i.e. PIPE) is close to zero. Of course this is the difference between a retailer and a whoeseller

            Just pointed out I don’t need to.
            No I am pretty sure you do, because there isn’t any way that TPG can sustain its business model with the CVC charges at those same prices (at least without making a larger loss)

            You obviously need a few lessons on how the NBN actually works though. Start with Sarah. Then try Patrick Flanagan, he’s the head of construction. Steve Christian can help too – he’s in charge of service delivery.
            If you’d bothered to learn about what you’re obviously so passionate about, you’d have already heard them speak about how it works.
            I don’t need any sale selling advertisements from vested interests. I have no clue what this mystical private WAN network that you are talking about is even realistic for every type of ISP in Australia.

            And the funny thing is, the catch 22 is that if the CVC charges are as low as you are stating, then they don’t add up to the revenue for-casted in the business case, which means that NBN will not pay for itself as its stating

          • Costs are about the same, varies dependent on your DSLAM provider, and backhaul provider. Marginally cheaper than an NBN CVC contract – but I’m happy to pay a dollar or two more per connection for high reliability, low latency, and up to 40Gbps capability.

            You do know that current GPON technology can already deliver 40Gbps if required, don’t you?

            You don’t need sales pitches from vested interests huh? Sounds like you’re scared to know the facts.

            Ball is in your court.

            As I suggested, come back to me when you know how the NBN works. Otherwise, stop wasting my time comparing TPG – (who actually charge you $59.95 for their “$29.95” deal) – with every other ISP in the land.

            The NBN is a completely different model – learn about it.

          • but I’m happy to pay a dollar or two more per connection for high reliability
            If its a dollar or two more, then NBNCo would go broke and wouldn’t be able to raise the revenue it requires to pay itself off

            You do know that current GPON technology can already deliver 40Gbps if required, don’t you?
            Changing the subject, eh?

            And I think you mean *PON, not GPON.

            You don’t need sales pitches from vested interests huh? Sounds like you’re scared to know the facts.
            Ball is in your court.
            I already know the facts that I need to know from NBNCo, that is the type of network and how much they are charging. Anything else is a sales pitch from a vested interest. I am not going to listen to them on how much they thing it will cost ISP’s with varying business models

            Otherwise, stop wasting my time comparing TPG – (who actually charge you $59.95 for their “$29.95″ deal) – with every other ISP in the land.
            Yeah, thats why I was saying $60. There is a reason I am quoting specifically TPG (and why you are conveniently dodging the question) is because they are the few ISP’s that spent their own cash investing into infrastructure which is what is allowing them to deploy services at a cost that won’t be possible over NBN

            Of course, most sane ISP’s now (in the back of their mind) that its obvious the NBN will never pay itself off, even Malone said so.

            You got yourself into at traphole regarding the CVC, since as I said earlier, IF the CVC charges are as low as you say they are, then NBNCo will not pay itself off, and that is the mighty catch22. I also would love to hear an explanation on how NBNCo wants to encourage everyone to go unlimited with such a pricing scheme (and you know, not have customers download at sub par speeds on fat pipes)

          • *yawn*

            The NBN seeks to recover the costs over the 30 year life of the project. The AVC charges alone are worth around $2b per annum in revenue, even at around 65 to 70% uptake – (since each premise can have up to six services, uptake can actually be well beyond 100% but you already know that). Throw in CVC revenue, NNI revenue, and other ancillaries.

            You do the maths.

            Goodnight troll boy :)

          • The NBN seeks to recover the costs over the 30 year life of the project. The AVC charges alone are worth around $2b per annum in revenue, even at around 65 to 70% uptake –
            Yes, and maybe you should have a GOOD look at the CVC revenue, because if you are seriously stating that, if on average, every premise is only going to pay ~$2 in CVC charges, then the NBN will fall into massive loss

            In fact that figure doesn’t make any sense on so many levels because
            1. It is ridiculously low for any ISP, I mean they could just spend $2 in CVC charges but then everyone would be getting crap contention
            2. It doesn’t add up to the revenue forecasts shown (hint: basic math. If NBNCo, has a full monopoly and they are getting an average of $2 per internet connection, and there are around 10 million premises in Australia, and for benefit for doubt we will double that figure for heavy internet users, that is just 4 million dollars a month. So mind telling how the flying eyebrow, on page 103 of the business plan, 8.7.2 by NBNCo, it is forecasting CVC charges of TWENTY DOLLARS (yes this is without AVC charges).
            3. CVC products, as per page 110, section 9.1.1, says that CVC will generate 30% of the revenue (with AVC being 50%). This will change throughout the year, in fact there is a handy graph on page 112. There is no way in hell that NBNCo will get that much revenue from CVC charges at just $2 a month

            The ONLY people that are trolling is
            1. The genius’s at NBNCo that you called
            2. You

            I would have to say its a bit of both, although most likely (and judging by what I am reading in the business case), the previous figure you was without AVC charge, which would make sense

          • basic math. If NBNCo, has a full monopoly and they are getting an average of $2 per internet connection, and there are around 10 million premises in Australia, and for benefit for doubt we will double that figure for heavy internet users, that is just 4 million dollars a month.

            Dude. If you’re going to use the “basic math” arguement at any point it helps if you check your figures.

            That should be $40 million a month.

          • Yeah that was a typo, it was clearly meant to be $40 million (Relei, please can you add edit in god dammit)

            As you can tell from the graph at 9.1.1 at page on page 110, with 10 million premises passed at year 2019, NBNCo is making ~4 billion dollars in revenue, with at that same time around 30% from CVC charges (from the graph at page 111)

            Ergo, it doesn’t add up whatsoever. Micheal Wyres is either being being deceitful/misrepresentative at the worst or he made a mistake earlier (that earlier figure is only CVC charges) and either he (or whoever he called) isn’t willing to admit to it (or NBNCo is being deceitful/misrepresentative to him and he hasn’t bothered to check the figures)

          • Eh sorry, thats actually meant to be $13 billion dollars in revenue, since its the total revenues connected

          • since its the total revenues premises with an NBN connection, not the premises just connected

          • Okay, I’m trying to duplicate your figures, the total revenues in FY2019 according to the graph is $4 billion, approxmiately 30% of which is CVC, with approximately 6.8 million premises connected.

            With this figures the average CVC charge should be in the order $14.70/m. Does this correlate with your calculations?

          • Okay, I’m trying to duplicate your figures, the total revenues in FY2019 according to the graph is $4 billion, approximately 30% of which is CVC, with approximately 6.8 million premises connected.

            You can tell on page 103, NBNCo is overcharging on CVC (for their ARPU) and undercharging for the AVC, to encourage people to up speed tiers (but it means we will all be stuck on low quotas or have horrible contention)

            At 2015 it looks like 30%. So the average CVC charges at that time would be $116 per premise (116×2767000= 320972000 which is around 320 million, which is around 30% of the revenue of 1.075 billion)

            At 2019, with from the graph seems to be around 27% CVC at 3.972 billion, revenue from CVC is 1.072 billion, which puts it at around $155 per premise (155 * 6887000 = 1.072 billion)

            This is what people were talking about in regards to NBNCo predicting that people will suddenly pay a lot more for their internet connections, which is a complete reverse of what historically has happened.

            Note that the figures above won’t take into account heavy premium corporate users, which would lower it a bit (so home users would probably average at around $80-90, to get good contention for a 1000/400 service, it would cost around a thousand dollars a month for CVC, which is what corporations and business’s would purchase, this is also detailed in the business case)

          • I already said they deployed DSLAMS (AGILE is the subsidiary of internode that deploys DSLAMS and DSL related infrastructure). Its just in comparison to TPG its nothing, and the size of PIPE (owned by TPG) backhaul compared to the links that TPG has is also miniscule. PIPE has international links (through guam), again another reason why TPG can provide unlimited internet for $60

            You can check here how many DSLAMS TPG has deployed
            http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/australian_exchange_guide

            As you can see here, the number of AGILE DSLAM’s is minuscule. Im in middle of sydney and I can’t get AGILE DSLAM.

            I’m sorry I should have rephrased that, Internode deployed little infrustructure compared to iiNet (and especially TPG), but then again, Internodes size isn’t very large (~250k customers, iiNet and TPG have around 500-600k+)

          • Okay, first of all TPG brought PIPE. They have an advantage of the market in the same way Telstra has, because they own the company that owns the dark fibre.

            Second of all, because they own the dark fibre, TPG will tend to make a loss or minimial profit in it’s retail service provides, especially if they try and give decent contention ratio. This is a very common practice worldwide. It’s why Sky in the UK can ofter cheap Broadband, and so can O2, and so can Orange, they all minimalise their profits in their ADSL2+ networks and offset that low profit, or loss, against the high profit mobile or television services.

            Third, once NBN Co comes live, for corperate contracts and intra-POI connects for ISPs, PIPE will still be able to provide peering deals for ISPs who cannot afford the capital outlay to run their own cables. Meaning that PIPE networks will still be very profitable, and can still be used to offset the costs associated with running an NBN service.

            Fourth, because of them still offseting I don’t see them giving up their ultra low pricepoint unlimited service because it is way to popular to give up.

            Oh and while we’re at it, TPG have managed to deploy so many DSLAMs because they tend to buy second hand equipment from other providers, like Optus, as said providers upgrade their DSLAMs to more reliable and efficent equipment.

            I know you’re a Uni student, and the promise of unlimited Internet for $60 a month is too good to pass up, but there is an old saying you get what you pay for. TPG are awesome, but NBN killer they are not.

          • Why the hell do you even try deteego? You used to troll WP hard and yet people prove you wrong again and again. Nothing sinks in when people correct you. You are NOT interested in discussion only firing people up.
            And yet again, here – you are proven wrong AGAIN and this time by someone who is actually well known in the industry and has hands on experience… give it up mate.

          • Actual Michael Wyres was wrong, because if you check on page 105, the average predicted price for a 12/1 service of 50 gb would retail for ~$56 (what a rip compared to unlimited for $60, but shrugs). $24 of those dollars are from the AVC, and another ~$15 are CVC charges (the rest being profit and other charges such as providing internet).

            So I have no idea what (you) or Michael Wyres was smoking, but there is no way in hell that CVC charges would be $2, and if they would be, NBNCo would generate a massive loss (even more massive then just the $20). Because, if it was just $2, then the raw charge would be around $28, with a profit margin (as predicted on page 105 of 15%), final price would come to around $32, a long way off $56.

            Im sorry bro, the only people trolling here are you and Michael (although he most likely just made a stupid mistake as said earlier). The figures just don’t add up, according to NBNCo (and common sense)

          • Hehe…funny deteego…it’s really funny just how many facts you have wrong about the construction of the NBN, the financials of the NBN, and how ISPs are run in general, that you’re just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

            Notice that nobody agrees with your understanding of it? There’s a good reason for that.

            The NBN directly effects the market segment that I work on, so I’ve been following every technical and financial specification since the day that buffoon Conroy got up and announced it.

            I need to be on top of it – it’s my job. I’ve been to every briefing NBN have ever held. I’ve listened, taken notes, reported about what I’ve seen and heard.

            You’ve got nothing. I’ve given points of reference against every statement I’ve made.

            I will give you one thing though – you’re entertaining and I enjoy your posts. Keep them up – we’ll see who’s right at the end.

          • Michael, when you provide figures that makes sense with the business case, I will take a note of what you are saying.

            And since you spend so much time going to those lovely NBNCo briefings, maybe you can ask them how they expect to generate the required CVC revenue as outlined on 111-112 if you are arguing that an aggregated cost per NBN connection will be around $2-10

            Either they are hiding something, or you are

          • Or you’ve never worked in the industry and don’t understand…

            You’re entire argument in regards to how reasonable contention ratios are calculated – (and therefore how they are priced across the entire customer base in regards to CVC provisioning) – is just flawed. It’s wrong.

            Low usage users subsidise high usage users.

            The wholesale cost for a 12/1 AVC is $24, the 25/1 is $27, the 25/10 is $31, the 50/20 is $34, and the 100/40 is $38.

            Each size costs NBN Co roughly the same amount to deliver. Now, given they need to reach a 7% IRR, the MINIMUM wholesale cost they can give is $21.50 – (ie: 21.50 + 7% “profit” is ~24.00)

            Do you think they haven’t added some safety margin? Even if the cost to actually deliver it is $19.00 per AVC, that’s about a 26% markup to get to $24.00.

            Even if it is $19.00 per AVC – (I actually believe it would be lower, but NBN aren’t going to reveal that – I’m being conservative) – they make $5, $8, $12, $15, and $19 “profits” for the various AVC sizes. For each and every connection.

            They’ll have similar modelling on the CVC pricing. As long as they make their 7% to pay back the government bonds – (ie: cover the entire cost of building the ENTIRE NBN) – they’re sweet.

            You’re trying to compare the NBN to a commercial business model – (at least 15% return over 3 to 5 years) to a government body trying to make 7% over 30 years. They can afford to be conservative with their “profit” margins.

            This is not a commercial entity – it just does not compare.

            And it’s not supposed to. The wholesale pricing is designed for a level playing field. Every ISP gets the exact same pricing per AVC and CVC as every other ISP. It doesn’t matter a bugger if it’s Bigpond with 20 trillion users, or some bozo in his garage with 20 users.

            The idea is to level it out, so the ISPs who are actually prepared to innovate and deliver applications and services ON TOP of the raw data connection the NBN provides them will win in the market place.

            What do you get from an ISP these days? Data, a few email accounts, and maybe some webspace. That’s it for a basic connection.

            The NBN takes that responsibility away from the ISPs and (luckily) Telstra. So the ISP’s charge you $50 or $60? So what? That’s what they charge now. But now they’re making more profit margin on the basic infrastructure, so they can plough that back into more services.

            IPTV – $10.00 a month more.
            VoIP – $5.00 a month more.

            etc
            etc

            The big guys – (like your precious TPG *cough*) – will still win, because they’ll be able to more easily afford the add on services. There will be an explosion in the number and type of new services.

            It’s about RETAIL competition. Data carriage is not a big deal anymore. It becomes a “utility”, not a business model per se.

          • A further note on AVC pricing.

            If you have more than one service provisioned into your NTU, they get the entire cost of the connection as “profit”.

            1 connection for data.
            1 connection for voice.
            1 connection for IPTV.

            is 3 AVCs.

            $24 + $24 + $24 = $72…how do your numbers look now?

          • Michael, they won’t have a dedicated 12Mbps conduit for VoIP services, they’ll likely bundle it with the data service, and then get the NTU to do a virtual split.

            So, that’s $58. Not $72.

          • Absolutely.

            But you have the option of separate. Many (probably most) will bundle, some won’t.

            Perhaps voice wasn’t the perfect example – but the point still stands :)

          • Its not a discrepancy, its the fact that NBNCo is trying to predict usage patterns from now into the future. If I wanted to call them, it would be a waste, because they wouldn’t be able to say (lets say in 10 years time) how much users will be downloading. If there is a tedency goes on the higher plans, then we would be getting ripped off due to CVC (this also goes against the history of telecommunications, price is always the biggest factor in penetration), however if the tendancy is for everyone to stick on light usage (due to how much more expensive the heavy plans would be), NBNCo wouldn’t get the CVC. Michaels figure of $2 is off by a factor of 5 (at least) as an average, and if everyone just uses the light plans, they would go broke. However the light plans, due to how the CVC tax is modeled, are going to be substantially cheaper then any 50/25 that offers 500 gig (or even 12/1 unlimited)

            The way that CVC works, is that its cost is quite low for the lower plans (what we would call light users). Of course if you want to be cynical, you can say this was due to political pressure on the whole “NBN would raise the internet plans for the disadvantaged low income earners (even though it did, just not as proportionally high compared to the heavy plans). CVC costs however start to skyrocket when you get medium and heavy users, especially on higher speed plans. CVC charge is not a bandwidth charge, its contention. This means that CVC costs start going really high, for example, when you have a lot of people downloading off the internet in peak hour, and ISP’s (or any decent one) would buy more CVC then they expect to use, for these ‘peak’ or ‘burst’ scenarios.

            There is a reason why I specifically asked Michael to call TPG, and not Internode or iiNet, whos markets is mainly light/medium users (they have a different business model that appeals to a different market). TPG, since they offer unlimited at a very cheap price, deal with massive number medium/heavy users. iiNet/Internode are thus, not surprisingly, the ISP’s that (obviously) have no issue with NBN, but then again they have never deployed any infrastructure apart from some DSLAMS (which is what allows companies like TPG to offer unlimited for $60 a month and be sustainable, TPG has the highest DSLAMS apart from Tel/Optus and they also have their own fiber backhaul network, which allows them to use ULL/LSS as much as possible). CVC charges also start to skyrocket when you start bumping up speed tiers, because that creates massive contention

            The CVC charges for a company like TPG would be factors higher then Internode or iiNet (or similar companies). This is also the same reason why TPG hasn’t been commenting on the NBN or stating that the NBN wouldn’t raise prices (in fact they said that the NBN should do a CBA some time back). The only way that TPG can prevent this is by, like, doubling their market share (so they get a lot of light users that they can leverage off the heavy ones), but then we will have the same situation with ISP’s as we have banks (4 massive players, limited competition)

            ISP’s of the likes of iiNet or Internode (although Malone is at least being a lot more impartial and realistic about the situation then Hackett, he stated that its highly obvious NBN will go into debt) support the NBN because the NBN’s CVC modelling supports them (assuming their market type stays the same, lot of light/medium users). The CVC model however doesn’t support the ISP’s which have actually pushed Australia forward (like TPG did with quotas, forcing all the other ISP’s to do the same due to competition).

            Also as a discretionary note, all current NBN plans don’t have AVC or CVC charges, so don’t use their plans as examples of what real costs would be. This is what I mean by the NBN putting us in the dark ages of pre 2006 (where everyone was forced to wholesale using a contention charge, in this case Tesltra’s AGVC). Everyone was stuck on “light” or “medium” quota plans, and any ISP that offered anything substantially larger wasn’t sustainable, because the minute people actually started downloading and using that quota the AGVC costs would skyrocket that they would make a loss.

            CVC costs are only low when you have everyone using the internet incredibly lightly, both in terms of speed and data being downloaded

          • The big guys – (like your precious TPG *cough*) – will still win, because they’ll be able to more easily afford the add on services. There will be an explosion in the number and type of new services.
            Thats all I needed to hear, NBNCo is purposely distorting the market through CVC charges, and the only way TPG will able to sustain unlimited is by either doubling their market share (not good for competition in general) or adding overpriced bundles ontop of internet packages the leverage their high CVC costs.

            Gillards golden rule of competition is complete bullocks, NBNCo is forcing all of the ISP’s to turn into highly inefficient triple play bundles to make a profit, due to CVC charging

          • What a load of sh*t…

            …where did I say anything about “purposeful distortion” of the market?

            I’m happy to have a debate with anyone about anything – but not with an inexperienced fool who makes up statements to suit their side of the argument.

            You sir, have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

          • What a load of sh*t…
            …where did I say anything about “purposeful distortion” of the market?
            You didn’t say it, thats what the CVC tax is doing. You indirectly implied it. You yourself also said that. Its cause and effect
            CVC = cause
            effect = market distortion

            Basically all ISP’s will end up having to follow the business model of iiNet/Internode or Telstra. I definitely do not want that

            It’s about RETAIL competition. Data carriage is not a big deal anymore. It becomes a “utility”, not a business model per se.
            Its not a big deal anymore, because it can’t be, because CVC gets extraordinarily more expensive the larger your data carriage is, i.e. distorting the market

            You yourself said, that in order for TPG to pay off its massive CVC cost (because, as both you and I mentioned, CVC costs are low if you leverage them with a lot of light users, however TPG in comparison to the likes of iiNet or Internode, has incredibly few light users, TPG attracts almost all of the leechers in Australia), they will have to start adding value packages. Furthermore, those ‘value’ added packages actually have to be overpriced for what they deliver, otherwise TPG won’t be recovering the loss at all.

            Which means, as I said earlier, TPG will have to stop providing unlimited, or add overpriced packages ontop of their service, its a lose lose for the consumer (or TPG has to add a LOT of light users to leverage their costs, i.e. increasing their market share)

            Thats called distorting the market, its basic economics 101. It always happens when you add a tax (like CVC) that has to mandated into a marketplace (in this case ISP/RSP).

          • Tax?

            Bwahahaha…is that you Mr Abbott?

            Seriously. I give up – you’ve turned this into a joke now. Post all you like – I’m not going to repeat myself again and again.

          • It’s about RETAIL competition. Data carriage is not a big deal anymore. It becomes a “utility”, not a business model per se.
            This my friend is another way of saying that CVC is distorting the market. It becomes a “utility”. You are turning every ISP, into a “utility” due to CVC charges. That is distorting the market. I really cannot make that any more clear

            Its all well and good that for the internet plans you happen to have, only $2 are being added. For others (such as people on TPG, 3rd Largest ISP in Australia), it will cost them an extra $20-30, or they will lose unlimited (or whatever else). I happen to be one of those, all thanks to the government

            Tax?
            Uh, the CVC is a tax based on contention. Or you can call it a charge proportionate to contention. Call it whatever you want

            Bwahahaha…is that you Mr Abbott?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

            Honestly, I thought you were better then this Michael. I thought we were having a civil debate, and you start acting like a child

            I can honestly say you are acting like Conroy right now

            Seriously. I give up – you’ve turned this into a joke now.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

            *yawn*, again?

            Post all you like – I’m not going to repeat myself again and again.
            You don’t have to post again. You have already made your point load and clear. You already said that the CVC will turn every ISP into a “utility” like Internode or iiNet, that purposely overcharge on the thing they are actually providing (internet) and make up for it in other areas.

            And you know what the funny thing is? Fiber is all about internet, and nothing else, its about fat pipes. Not gonna be much good having everyone stringed up to fiber, when if they want to use the advantages of fiber (downloading more), it costs more then what it normally would

          • This is seriously painful to watch.
            I agree, when someone resorts to insults it most often means they are getting desperate

          • iiNet/Internode are thus, not surprisingly, the ISP’s that (obviously) have no issue with NBN, but then again they have never deployed any infrastructure apart from some DSLAMS

            BULLSHIT.

            Agile, which is owned by Internode didn’t deploy any infrastructure?

            And what about iiNetwork?

          • It is painful in that the arguement has reached a point where both sides are resorting to misinformation and logical fallacies.

            You responses are just as painful to read a Michael’s Deetego.

          • I already said they deployed DSLAMS (AGILE is the subsidiary of internode that deploys DSLAMS and DSL related infrastructure). Its just in comparison to TPG its nothing, and the size of PIPE (owned by TPG) backhaul compared to the links that TPG has is also miniscule. PIPE has international links (through guam), again another reason why TPG can provide unlimited internet for $60
            You can check here how many DSLAMS TPG has deployed
            http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/australian_exchange_guide
            As you can see here, the number of AGILE DSLAM’s is minuscule. Im in middle of sydney and I can’t get AGILE DSLAM.
            I’m sorry I should have rephrased that, Internode deployed little infrustructure compared to iiNet (and especially TPG), but then again, Internodes size isn’t very large (~250k customers, iiNet and TPG have around 500-600k+)

          • You responses are just as painful to read a Michael’s Deetego.

            Yes, but I am right, and in the end thats what matters. This conversation dragged out painfully because Michael provided fudgy figures, and then couldn’t back them up.

            I still haven’t heard from him how he expects NBNCo to make a profit on $2 of CVC charges.

            Still nothing from him admitting that the CVC charges cannot be an average of $2, he then wen’t harping on about AVC charges, which had nothing to do what I was talking about (I was talking about specific CVC revenue, every other fiber network around the world has scaling AVC charges, thats nothing new)

          • The above confirms my discussion above in regards to the sub-$30.00 pricing INCLUDES both AVC and CVC pricing – as we’ve seen above, I’ve been told by someone that this wasn’t true.

            I was wrong about one thing though…I had a memory that the figure I quoted was $28.67…it was in fact $28.97. My bad.

          • The above concludes you don’t know how to read

            They specifically stated, in that ‘brochure’, that they are examples (not real life figures). And I still haven’t heard what those CVC prices for an ISP like TPG would be (playing a bit of dodgeball, are we?)

          • LOL deteego

            In your cat fight easily won by Michael (first round knock out) you dare mention Fudged figures?

            You who some 6 -8 weeks ago, claimed per head figures for determining your strange NBN costs but then divided by per household, to disgracefully exaggerate that figure by some 2.5x…hypocrite…!

            Also you love to claim that you are right, but still refuse to admit (or even acknowledge – you simply ignore…LOL, how juicily lovely) that you were WRONG when you claimed the Senate (upper house) is where governments are formed…! Something I’m sure most children even know!

            Seriously…!

  7. Those wireless solution supporters are most likely never downloaded a file larger than 100 MB via the wireless network in the city, has no clue how wireless system works in theory or understood what the hack is bandwidth.

    They never look into the required Electrical POWER to power those wireless signal tower stations! Or look in to studies suggesting such towers would also be dangerous to people living around them plus they require high maintenance thanks to the unpredictable heavy weathering of the Australian climate.

    If wireless is to provide a constant download / upload speed anywhere close to a good ADSL 2 connection, an Australian suburb may require one signal tower for about every 500 devices! (Today an average household have at least two devices that can go online!)

    The NBN question should be a done deal, we voted YES for it TWICE! Just build it!

    Knowing Malcolm Turnbull is indeed some one with decent tech knowledge, I am sure he understands the reality behind the technology, I feel bad for him having to put up with his ‘leaders’ ‘not always gospel truth’ policies.

    • And you most likely have no clue that the current wireless network is 3G (only of which Telstra’s is considered decent), which is not indicative of 4G wireless at all. I would recommend you read this page to educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G)

    • Mind you, thats $29.95 completely unblundled , it gets reduced to 20, or even down to 9 dollars a month

      NBNCo can’t even offer internet for anything lower then ~$30 because the minimum AVC charge is $24 a month (and thats not even taking into account profit margins and AVC). Exetel for example offers ADSL for $27 a month (http://www.exetel.com.au/a_plan_pricing_new.php)

      • I was attempting to demonstrate that the advent of LTE will be unlikely to make it more competitive with fixed lines. Telstra has positioned themselves as a premium provider and much to The Australian’s chagrin, won’t ever be able to ‘kill’ the NBN themselves.

        As LTE is being rolled out in CBD areas only for now, this will be a business product really.

        A good portion of the NBN might be rolled out before LTE becomes ubiquitous.

        • Over current fixed line networks, you are right, it won’t

          However in the case of NBN, its a completely different story, as I have pointed out why above

      • If you read the NBNCo Corporate Plan (page 106), their estimate for the cheapest plan is $53-$58 at 12/1Mbps. So wireless will be cheaper.

        The problem I see is that NBNCo are predicting (page 118) that 50% of customers for the foreseeable future (beyond 2028) will opt for the 12/1Mbps plan. This suggests that these customers are extremely price sensitive. A half reasonable wireless operator should be able to entice a significant percentage of these customers away from the NBNCo. The question is how many? NBNCo are currently predicting 13%, but if it goes higher then it will challenge the business model.

        It does make you wonder, because if NBNCo didn’t cap speeds then wireless operators would be at a significant disadvantage and data growth is likely to grow driving NBNCo revenue.

        Sure wireless almost certainly won’t replace cable for those of us who rely and/or use our internet connections heavily, but with less people on the NBN prices will be higher.

        • Its 13% now, and its been increasing by ~1-2% a year for the past few years. In other words, its highly unlikely that the figure that NBNCo is using in its business case is indicative of what will happen in reality

          Furthermore with CVC charging, its less likely that NBN will be offering unlimited data plans that are going to compete against wireless on price.

  9. “ski instructor boyfriend somewhere in the Swiss Alps to … f*ck knows, because we haven’t thought of it yet.”

    And thats the BIG thing about the NBN FTTH network. Will provide a space for people to develop stuff we havent even thought of yet and pipes big enough to make those ideas work for more than a couple of years.

Comments are closed.