Communications Minister Stephen Conroy must acknowledge the incoming generation of wireless broadband products represents a threat to the economic case for the National Broadband Network, Malcolm Turnbull said yesterday, in the wake of the revelation that NBN Co itself was concerned about the issue.
This week it was revealed that NBN Co had included a lengthy section in a submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission acknowledging the potential that wireless and mobile broadband technologies have to compete with its predominantly fibre-based rollout. The company stipulated that it was important that limitations be placed on Telstra’s ability to migrate its customers to its Next G network — rather than the fibre NBN — once its copper network was decommissioned, in order to ensure its business case remained viable.
The news represents one of the first statements by NBN Co discussing the potential impact of wireless broadband uptake on its business case; with the company preferring in the past to emphasise the complementary nature of fixed and wireless broadband technologies.
In a statement reacting to NBN Co’s revelation, Turnbull said the Coalition had argued that the increase of wireless-only households was a threat to the economics of the NBN. “They are relying on an independent study that forecasts a rise from 13 per cent of wireless only households to 16.4 per cent by 2040; however, these forecasts should be taken with extreme caution,” the Shadow Communications Minister said.
“Everyone who has had even a cursory look at the NBN business case has acknowledged this threat; it now seems that even the NBN Co themselves have acknowledged it. Perhaps now Senator Conroy can also acknowledge this threat rather than simply accusing every rational telco analyst of not understanding the laws of physics.”
A spokesperson for Conroy has not yet responded to a request for comment on the matter.
The news comes as debate continues to exist about the potential which wireless broadband technologies have to undermine the primarily fixed broadband NBN. In Germany, for instance, it was revealed this week that giant telco Vodafone — also one of Australia’s largest mobile players — was considering migrating all of its ADSL customers across to its mobile network, using the Long-Term Evolution standard which the company, alongside Telstra and Optus, is planning to implement in Australia.
The company cited the cost of using the copper network maintained in the country by incumbent telco Deutsche Telekom as a basis for its proposal.
In Australia, Vodafone so far appears to be taking a different approach, having confirmed plans to trial fixed-line broadband services offered across the NBN itself. In addition, the country’s other two major mobile telcos, Telstra and Optus, have so far appeared to be focusing on bundling mobile and fixed broadband services together rather than promoting wireless broadband as a stand-alone solution for residential use.
However, even some of the nation’s larger fixed-line ISPs believe wireless is the way of the future.
In a post on his blog this week, Exetel chief executive John Linton said he had for the past four years been keeping records of the performance of his company’s own wireless broadband service, which uses Optus’ network, as well as a comparable Telstra service.
” … while the average speed on my Optus service has quadrupled, the cost of the service has fallen by 80 percent – if you like – the cost/speed performance of a wireless data service has improved twenty fold in three years,” Linton wrote. “The speed improvement on the Telstra wireless broadband service has improved more than five times (using a borrowed 4G sim from an acquaintance) but the fall in cost has not been as dramatic as that of the Optus service.”
The ISP chief — a long-time critic of the NBN proposal — said Conroy and then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had made, at the time the NBN policy was launched, “all sorts of statements about the unsuitability of wireless for regional Australia and those lies and stupidities can now be seen, by even the naivest and technologically illiterate person as being as untrue and stupid”.
“Wireless broadband, as “predicted” over four years ago will continue to meet more and more current ADSL user’s needs as each month passes,” said Linton. “The fact it doesn’t need a ‘telephone line’ to make it work also means the price advantage of wireless over ADSL will continue to widen.”
opinion/analysis
A few months ago, I thought we had finally laid the wireless/fixed broadband debate to rest. It seemed that most commentators agreed at that point that the two technologies, although overlapping in some areas, would largely be complementary, with wireless not being able to match the latency and throughput of fixed broadband, and fixed broadband not being able to match wireless’ mobility.
However, as we’ve seen this week, this is a debate that just keeps on keeping on.
As a constant user of broadband (fixed and wireless), my gut tells me that wireless broadband is just not going to be enough to service the nation’s needs. I personally want as much bandwidth as I can get (geeks are greedy like that), and when I’m out of the office, Telstra’s Next G service, great though it is, is simply no match for my home ADSL2+ connection.
However, could it be possible that most Australian Internet users don’t feel the same when it comes to their home connection? And could it be possible that most users will eventually receive decent-enough services from LTE that they won’t see a fixed connection as necessary? It certainly could. The strength of the wireless debate is such that I feel we all need to keep an open mind on it at the moment. We just don’t know quite enough about how powerful the new generation of wireless technologies will be yet, and to what extent our bandwidth needs will continue to grow.
Image credit: Telstra
Consumers are hurting a lot and while single geeks might be happy to pay exorbitant amounts for NBN, I am simply not going to pay it, nor can I afford it. My $39 Bigpond cable servce at 25Mbps will be replaced by a wireless service at the same price, rather than some $70-$150 NBN thing. On top of all of this I dislike the way the government and Conroy have forced this monopoly on us all. Pulling down the existing cable network just so it can force people on to NBN, I won’t be forced, sorry, but you can keep it.
Hi Anderson, realistically I think you will be able to get a similar service for the same price under the NBN — I don’t think you’ll be paying any more. In fact, you’ll likely be paying more for wireless ;)
I’m curious as to why you think this when the NBNCo are predicting $53-$58 as the price range for the 12/1Mbps plans. (page 105 of NBNCo Corporate Plan – http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/main/site-base/main-areas/publications-and-announcements/latest-announcements/nbn-co-corporate-plan-released. Wireless plans (with smaller quotas) are already available for $20/month. I don’t see how NBNCo can possibly match that pricing. Note that the comparison needs to be purely on price. Wireless plans have less quota and slower speeds.
The fact is that NBNCo state that sensitivity to pricing is the biggest driver of the move to wireless (page 116). NBNCo are predicting 50% of people will connect at 12/1Mbps (page 118) and I would argue that can only be due to price sensitivity. That means 50% of NBNCo’s predicted customer base are vulnerable to poaching by wireless operators. Now obviously it’s unlikely they will poach all 50%, but what happens to the NBNCo Business Plan if the number of premises passed by fibre which connect falls from 70% to 65% or 60% (page 116).
False. According to page 118 NBNco are predicting ~36% of users will connect at 12/1Mbps by 2028 the rest ~64% will connect at 25mbps or higher. The 52% number you are talking about is for FY2012. But we covered this last time you tried to misrepresent the facts here: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/20/in-defence-of-turnbulls%E2%80%99-nbn-speed-claims/
False. According to page 118 NBNco are predicting ~36% of users will connect at 12/1Mbps by 2028 the rest ~64% will connect at 25mbps or higher. The 52% number you are talking about is for FY2012. But we covered this last time you tried to misrepresent the facts here: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/20/in-defence-of-turnbulls%E2%80%99-nbn-speed-claims/
I predict the NBN rollout faces what is known in the industry as ‘demand uncertainty’, at any speed at any timeline in the future you want to pull out of the air.
I know this because the NBN Co said so.
News at 11.
Have you assigned that phrase to the F5 key next to the F6 key that has ‘patchwork’ assigned to it?
Have you assigned that phrase to the F5 key next to F6 key that makes you whine every time the coalitions patchwork plan is mentioned?
According to you the NBNco business case is a bible and nothing can change not even the CVC charges… News at 11.
“According to you the NBNco business case is a bible and nothing can change not even the CVC charges..”
Where did I say that?
Oh I’m sorry I seem to be assuming stuff based on past events, besides I always get you lot mixed up, there is just no way to tell you apart from tosh etc, perhaps you could get yourself an avatar so I can distinguish yous better… anyway alian, since you either love or hate the NBNco business case and it doesn’t really matter anyway could you point out ONE erroneous detail with mathews post regarding said document, an unbiased opinion on this particular issue would certainly be enlightening.
So in all that diversionary waffle you are saying I didn’t say that, good glad we have that sorted.
So you cannot point out one erroneous detail with mathews post?
Matt mate,
Get a new record buddy, the current one is broken!!!
Regardless of what NBNco are predicting, Exetel are offering services starting at $34,50 per month including phone, with very competitive call rates.
I’m sure Dodo and possibly TPG will offer even cheaper entry level services, a Telstra that is not ‘held back’ by the ACCC can do some amazing things with their economies of scale and integration, if they so desire, also.
Good luck getting anywhere close to 25Mbps on Telstra wireless.
Can’t say I agree with that Marcus.
I’m currently on Bigpond Wireless Ultimate. I usually get around 22 Mbps off peak, but to be fair that is off peak and that is in regional SA. With 4G LTE (Advanced) 25mbps will be a breeze.
Oh joy, you get “25mbps” for $39 so no need to improve communications infrastructure, Lord Anderson has everything he needs…
Currently I am forced to use a copper due to the current monopoly. How do you propose we fix this? Also in the event that when my domicile does get a fibre connection do you recommend the copper connection stay if only to claim “no monopoly”
“Currently I am forced to use a copper due to the current monopoly. How do you propose we fix this?”
It doesn’t need fixing and perhaps Anderson doesn’t want to pay to have it fixed anyway just because you bleat waaa at your upload speed.
Are you even following this conversation? Anderson is basically saying that the NBN will be a “forced monopoly” monopoly = bad, so we have a monopoly now, how do we fix it? It has nothing to do with speeds, please pay attention.
HFC which Anderson is on is not a monopoly, he will be forced onto the NBN monopoly.
please pay attention.
The copper network which I and many others are on IS a monopoly. Please pay attention.
The HFC network is a monopoly. Telstra will not let anyone else use it. The same as the fibre that Telstra lays in new estates, only Telstra can use it.
Frank, thats not the definition of a monopoly, thats the definition of non open access, they are entirely completely different things
@Frank Grant
“The HFC network is a monopoly. Telstra will not let anyone else use it.”
Well neither does Optus let anyone use their HFC, that makes it two monopolies, hang on sec that’s not right is it Frank, mono means one.
@frank,
while you did mix up the meanings a bit there, you also brought up an interesting point, regarding hfc.
which is the better real world competition and therefore the better avenue for all aussie consumers?
according to one poster here, there’s currently two hfc networks that are not open access. they are also only available in a few major cities, which leaves those who can actually purchase hfc and wish to, only the choice of either telstra or optus, for their retail communications needs.
or the nbn, which is open access, will be available to everyone, also with the choice of telstra and optus, but also the choice of internode, iinet, exetel, dodo and perhaps many more, for all aussies, retail communications needs.
Which has nothing to whatever to do with what Frank said, he said HFC was monopoly it is not.
we already ascertained that frank erred, so that’s now just a cheap shot, alain.
but while you are here taking cheap shots, you might like to make yourself useful and answer, which scenario provides the consumer with more choice, options?
your 2 non open access networks, available to select areas, with the choice of just two retailing isps or one open access network, available to everyone, with many retailing rsp’s?
Back to your old banned ways I see RS, aka Rizz, aka R.S. aka Julia Abbott aka Pepe.
I knew the forced be nice facade wouldn’t last long, it never does.
that’s now about 4 times you haven’t answered a simple question and used rs as your excuse.
now which is the better choice for consumers?
Another question dodge. I thought this one was pretty simple to answer too…
lol.. so you are obviously on a 2gb limit cable plan.. so the most bog standard basic NBN service would be enough to cover you.. why would it be more expensive?
Anderson, you won’t have to pay anything like those prices for NBN access. Don’t believe the FUD the anti peddle.
Personally I love my home connection. After years of living over 5km from the exchange and getting no better than 3mb connection (on ADSL2+) with regular dropouts several times a day. I now live closer to an exchange and I now get in the order of 20mb, latency is excellent and haven’t had a dropout in 12 months.
I also have my iPhone 4 which I occasionally use on the Vodafone 3g network when I’m out and about. So I guess I would technically be classified as a wireless user too. Using this is great when I’m out shopping for something specific and I want to remind myself on say the tecnical specs of a similar product (like when I was recently shopping for a new TV). But I remember this simple google search on my phone took close to 5 minutes as the area that I was in was very congested (despite having full reception).
This experience might be due to the vodafone network or a number of causes but in busier areas where I want to check the internet personally find the whole experience sluggish at best. The wait for a simple google search to return results can often be painfully slow, let alone loading up the larger webpages that retail products often have. Sometimes pages simply time out and I have to refresh several times to load them.
But in my experience I don’t really see how wireless can compete directly with fixed line. If I had the troubles I have at home that I do with my wireless 3g connection I think I would go nuts. I don’t know exactly what the new wireless technologies will bring in the future, they may be everything they claim to be. They may also suffer from the same drawbacks current wireless solutions do (primarily congestion). I would love to be proven wrong with the new technologies, as having options is always great – but based on what we have infront of us right now i’m not sure if wireless can truly compete directly with fixed line.
To me, when work best in their own fields. Fixed line when you’re at home and have higher bandwidth usage, and wireless when you’re out and about when you need to keep in touch and do lighter internet browsing. Complimentary technologies.
i’m reminded of when i used to work in a small regional town some years back when ADSL was still in the early stages of rolling out to the regional towns.
i would advise customers (on dial up) that adsl was now available and that they might like to consider upgrading to it.
the majority of customers would tell me that they were quite happy staying on dial up.
it was all they needed for the email and browsing that they did.
6 months later when all of those customers had finally moved to adsl not a single one of them could explain to me why they thought dial up was sufficient for their needs.
after experiencing the speed of adsl they were all grateful for my advice to upgrade.
bottom line: you don’t know what you’re missing out on until you realise what you’re missing out on.
Tell me about it you dont know what you have got until you lose it :(
Went from a pretty poor ADSL connection about 3-4 Mbps to next g at my new house due to being on a RIM which is probably comparable to dial up and pings into the 8000 range on WOW possibly worse in the evenings due to congestion.
My guess is that the cost of the basic ADSL connection became equivalent to the a dialup connection. I’d be interested to know how many of these users moved up the speed tiers on to higher priced plans. I would exclude those customers who migrated to ADSL2+ for similar pricing.
Speed tiers on the NBN mean that 50% are predicted to choose the cheapest option and will never understand what higher speeds could provide.
well over the years, the situation repeated itself when trying to upgrade users from 256k adsl to 1.5m adsl.
people were happy to stick with 256k initially but once they made that changeover they were again unable to explain why they thought 256k was fast enough.
obviously cost plays a part, but the user being unaware of how the speed increase will improve their internet usage would have to be a bigger factor.
once they’re aware of that performance increase they’re incredibly reluctant to go back.
Fixed.
I think you may have been a little bit selective with your reference to Vodafone Renai. From the article @ http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47966&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10
“Vodafone says it’s costing a fortune in payments to Deutsche Telekom to maintain DSL in it’s multi-play package due to the unbundled coppper costs.”
Note that. DSL and a copper environment. And issue is the unbundling costs that Vodafone were paying.
In addition ….
“It’s a slightly strange strategy considering the rest of the mobile world seems to moving in the opposite direction. the last year or two has been characterized by carriers and vendors alike playing up the role of DSL as an off-load solution …. as the sheer number of data hungry smart phones continues to skyrocket.”
So most companies are off-loading traffic to fixed line where possible. Doesn’t really support the argument now, does it. I suspect that the reason the debate just keeps going is because it’s being driven by political and commercial interests and facilitated by journo’s with either their own agenda or hoping to give themselves something to write about next week.
I’m not being selective. My article states:
“The company cited the cost of using the copper network maintained in the country by incumbent telco Deutsche Telekom as a basis for its proposal.”
Ok, So if you aren’t being selective then you are citing an irrelevant reference. A privately owned dominant incumbent being able to charge excessive amounts for access to the unbundled copper loop, in a country in Europe, is relevant how exactly??
And I might add you ignored the second quote in my post – that Vodafone is going against the trend and that most companies are offloading mobile traffic onto fixed line infrastructure.
Which pretty much seems to me that fixed line is doing the grunt work because wireless can’t cope.
So economics don’t add up – go fixed line.
Add to that, potential dis-satisfaction with wireless (traffic demands, cost, and quota) and you have a no brainer.
Oh and I forgot to add in my earlier post –
“We just don’t know quite enough about how powerful the new generation of wireless technologies will be yet, and to what extent our bandwidth needs will continue to grow.”
Yerrrr right.
“most companies are offloading mobile traffic onto fixed line infrastructure.”
What companiesa er doing this?
“Which pretty much seems to me that fixed line is doing the grunt work because wireless can’t cope.”
Well that’s fine if you have supporting statistics to indicate customers are leaving 3G wireless in droves and going fixed line only because wireless cannot cope, where did you get this information from?
“So economics don’t add up – go fixed line.”
err yeah ok, so tell Telstra and Optus that the increasing revenue segment of mobiles and wireless BB is not going anywhere and to concentrate on fixed line revenue (which is falling relative to wireless), sounds like a good way to run down a business.
“Add to that, potential dis-satisfaction with wireless (traffic demands, cost, and quota) and you have a no brainer.”
That’s why Telstra had $2576 million mobile broadband SIO’s FY011- up 55% from FY10.
It’s a no brainer all right, but not in the way you say.
This article is now brought to by the Opposition, for the Media.
I can’t believe this is still being debated. Telstra’s CTO came out and said it would be a cold day in hell when wireless can compete with fibre… that should be end of discussion right there.
No that’s not what he said, he said wireless is complementary product to fibre not that it cannot ‘compete’ , wireless competes with fibre, HFC and ADSL today, no one has stated that it will totally replace fixed line in all situations.
He also acknowledged:
“a Morgan Stanley report which suggested that by 2014 more people would access the internet from mobile than from fixed devices,”
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/49380-cold-day-in-hell-for-nbn-challenger
No that’s not what he said, he said wireless is complementary product to fibre not that it cannot ‘compete’ , wireless competes with fibre, HFC and ADSL today, no one has stated that it will totally replace fixed line in all situations.
He also acknowledged:
“a Morgan Stanley report which suggested that by 2014 more people would access the internet from mobile than from fixed devices,”
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/49380-cold-day-in-hell-for-nbn-challenger
Population # > Premises #
Hmmm … then why is NBN Co concerned about the potential for Telstra to migrate customers onto Next G, and not onto its fibre?
Because people like you are saying wireless is a threat and nearly equivilant to fixed line services
“could it be possible that most users will eventually receive decent-enough services from LTE that they won’t see a fixed connection as necessary? It certainly could.”
Perhaps if you knew the real world limitations which you seem to avoid all the time maybe an article telling everyone the real situation with Wireless would be in order there are plenty of people willing to tell you the horrors of wireless after being dumped onto it
Well the NBN Co see wireless as a threat as well, it’s not the unique musings from Turnbull or Renai.
If people are give actual facts and figures from people actually using these services rather than saying they are equivilant then wireless will not be a threat.
If people keep pushing wireless as equivilant to ADSL when it is not even close to that quality then people will believe it.
Wireless is equivilant to basic ADSL if you are the only user on the network. But you are not.
In a new NBN suburb with low take up of NBN I can see it now slowly people migrate to wireless then wireless gets over saturated and they will be stuffed stuck with dial up speed unless they now pay to connect to the NBN.
People will choose wireless now because People in the media have influence over them. As far as I am concerned the media should pay for every one of those people who have to go back to NBN because of these deceptions.
That is the problem with todays media NO Accountability NO responsability AND always pushing THEIR political agenda
Because they have to pay Telstra for ducts and other infrastructure regardless of what happens to the customers, hence why Telstra are contractually obligated as part of their deal with NBN Co to move them to the NBN, and why they DON’T want the ACCC to knock down the deal on the basis that it might be construed as anti-competitive.
There is nothing stopping Telstra from promoting Next G as a mobility solution, just not as a FIXED wireless solution that replaces a Telstra customer’s existing ADSL, Cable, or Fibre connection.
The crux of it is that under normal circumstances it might be seen to be anti-competitive behaviour and thus the ACCC could strike it out and cost the NBN Co and taxpayers billions of dollars that goes straight to Telstra into Telstra’s bottom line.
I thought maybe it wasn’t clear in the ACCC submission but now I’ve read it, I’m like WTF, it’s plainly obvious it just reflects the original NBN/Telstra agreement. i.e. neither party believes wireless is a threat but they need the clause because Telstra could potentially give them a massive contractual headache if they changed tactic and pretended it can replace fibre.
As i mentioned the last time this was debated Renai.. simply stopping a direct marketing campaign using the migration list would be the obvious point.
Also.. have you ever heard of a wireless local loop product? Telstra provides them in areas where they can’t provide a copper connection.. they could start selling them as a commerical product on next g quite easily to replace a fixed line..
I don’t think any other wireless network providers are worrying NBN too much, do you?
So where are the 1TB wireless plans ?
and how much do they cost ?
Not to mention that my $20 prepaid Telstra Next G doesn’t last long (especially for when I use it for the web browsing), perhaps a day or two at most. Where as any fixed line for about $40-$50 (not including line rental) would last me at least half of a month, depending on speed, and amount of data i get, it seems I can stretch my data usage more than I can on Wireless.
Well keep both then, your point is what?
Is not the point, is it? People are comparing Apples vs Oranges, and in between that debate is with people with certain political points.
exactly, keep both.
isn’t that the crux of all of this, it isn’t one or the other.
from my perspective most aussies currently have both will continue to.
thanks for agreeing
exactly, keep both.
isn’t that the crux of all of this, it isn’t one or the other.
from my perspective most aussies currently have both will continue to.
thanks for agreeing
“from my perspective most aussies currently have both will continue to.”
The ongoing trend from statistics is for them them not having both, with wireless only residences on the increase, but never mind RS you know better.
repeat after me, your words, ‘keep both’, says it all.
I’ve got multiple wireless data options. 3g iPad, 3g iPhone & my wife’s 3g HTC android. They all tether with my laptop. They get plenty of use.
So I’m a threat to the NBN with my 3 x wireless connections?
I’ve also got a fixed line connection with 500GB quota. I also have friends who swear at the wireless gods because of their crappy wireless service because Telstra 3g is their only internet option besides satellite and dial up. They’d gladly be a wireless + fixed line customer if they could.
Not to mention that my $20 prepaid Telstra Next G doesn’t last long (especially for when I use it for the web browsing), perhaps a day or two at most. Where as any fixed line for about $40-$50 (not including line rental) would last me at least half of a month, depending on speed, and amount of data i get, it seems I can stretch my data usage more than I can on Wireless.
Why is it claimed that “wireless competes with fibre”, when the reverse is more likely to be the case? Because a lot (?most) of us will be already using faster and cheaper mobile connections by the time local NBN is available, the NBN will have to convince us that the cost of an additional, fixed connection can be justified.
Obviously, heavy porn and non-porn downloaders will be interested, as well as many businesses and institutions, but an awful lot of us who manage fine with current wireless offerings will be satisfied with our present connections, or the technical improvements on them that are already on the horizon. Our video entertainment is already largely satisfied with “video downloads” from free-to-air TV.
The FTTH decision by our interim government was a badly flawed one and will be viable only with some distortion of the market by coercion, so loved by left-wing governments.
NBNco genuinely believes Telstra wireless is a real threat:
“It is conceivable that wireless service speeds in particular areas may be comparable to the speed of NBN Co’s entry level services as the NBN rolls out.”
“Telstra’s ability to support a large number of customers on its wireless network is further enhanced through its ability to leverage recently remediated infrastructure (for the NBN Co roll-out) to deploy additional base stations and new wireless technologies such as LTE.”
Yeah, because Telstra NextG network is better than others.
But then again, their copper network is crap for most of their users.
And then we have those that think the NBN shouldn’t be built because wireless will save us all… Whats wrong? Is a fibre network too much competition for wireless providers to handle?
As the NBN rolls out. See even the dopes at Telstra know that 12mbps wont be entry level by the time the NBN is complete… and I wonder why they didn’t say comparable to the 100/40mbps plan lol.
Why should Conroy acknowledge much of anything that Turnbull raves on about???…..Turnbull’s position has been a very fluid way that has been constantly changing like the weather in his attempts to score cheap political points with a largely “in the dark” public consciousness…
Playing too much politics with what is undeniably a solid policy for Australia future…
And I gotta say one last thing….Renai, buddy, do you ever hang out with anyone but Turnbull of late? Have you tried really hard to get some input from our glorious leader in fibre Conroy??? Or perhaps even some copy from NBN…..would make for a nice change.
Just appears to be a lotta ‘muddying-the-waters’ Malcolm on here recently.
Just sayin…
Turnbull is just reiterating something that NBNCo said, so unless you are saying that Conroy should ignore NBNCo, this is just a pointless rant
Like most people these days I use wireless and fixed line services, presented with the choice I will always choose fixed line. Fixed link services allow me to keep my devices behind a security device. Fixed line service also offers in my experience far better upload speeds, download speeds, latency and reliable connection. Having said that, wireless lets me stay online when I am out and about, at least most of the time. I can’t fathom why anyone would consider these two services to be in competition.
It is also worth considering the pricing practices of the mobile providers such as
‘for $(moderate amount) you get $(much larger amount) worth of service at $xx per increment”
now, lets be honest here, this is rubbish. The $ per increment should be the (moderate amount) divided by the number of increments, not the theoretical (much larger amount). If (much larger amount) can be purchase for (moderate amount) surely its price is the smaller of the two numbers.
Are the LTE fan club offering to host transmitter towers in their backyards?
*However, could it be possible that most Australian Internet users don’t feel the same when it comes to their home connection?…. and to what extent our bandwidth needs will continue to grow.*
global average traffic per user is only 10-15GB/mth
5% of users account for 40% of network traffic
10% of users account for 60% of network traffic
with that kind of extremely skewed distribution of network usage, you can just imagine that there is a significant pool of subscribers out there who are accurately categorised as “light users”. this is why Vodafone Germany is able to migrate most of its customers over to LTE. the only subscribers they will lose will be the unprofitable leechers.
If I were to sit at the average of 10-15GB per month a reasonable performing wireless connection (12GB quota) costs me $90 per month (forget the budget carriers for wireless if you are talking fixed line competition).
So at the low global average, wireless costs me 2.5 times as much as a basic NBN plan at a similar performance (though sometimes much worse because of its wild variability) and about 45% less monthly quota.
How long do we have to wait for this mythical competition to the NBN to kick in?
10-15GB is the average. by definition, half of users will be below that average. also, wireless will continue to evolve and costs will continue to fall.
the very real wireless threat that NBNco identifies is the threat to its “light user” base (not its entire customers base). when you push fibre to 93%, you need every subscriber you can get to lower average costs. you can’t afford to lose too many subscribers even on the margin.
because NBNco is over-capitalised, it’s extremely vulnerable to economic and technological changes and competition. it only takes a few holes to sink the Titanic.
“10-15GB is the average”
With an average connection speed of 2.9 Mbps in Australia, that is hardly surprising or unexpected.
constant throughput of 2.9Mbps is 940GB which is between SIXTY to NINETY times the current monthly average traffic.
I hope you realise both of these things apply to fibre the big difference being even lower costs.
fixed networks will always be more expensive than wireless. with fixed networks, you have to trench copper or fibre to every premise. with wireless, you just construct base stations with limited fibre backhaul footprint.
You said “costs” not “cost to build” thus implying cost to end users. The word users was in the paragraph, so just to be clear costs will come down to build wireless networks but not necessarily for customers they will potentially be paying ever increasing prices for wireless due to these “evolutions”.
btw due to these “evolutionary” technological advances what wireless speeds are you predicting will happen over the build period of the NBN? Do you expect them to match (say 40mbps up) or exceed what NBN plans RSPs will be offering then, let’s just assume the highest they will offer in 2020 will be 100/40mbps.
*You said “costs” not “cost to build” thus implying cost to end users.*
“cost to build” = “cost to end user”
*costs will come down to build wireless networks but not necessarily for customers they will potentially be paying ever increasing prices for wireless due to these “evolutions”*
the historical trajectory is falling cost/rising performance.
*Do you expect them to match (say 40mbps up) or exceed what NBN plans RSPs will be offering then*
they don’t have to. wireless networks do not have to capture the entire market to survive. as for user requirements, trees do not grow to the skies.
as i’ve pointed out many times before, a lot of “digital economy” innovation occurs along dimensions other than “raw throughput down the pipes”. look at the success of Apple — their “App model” revolves around “slow” wireless access.
wireless networks only have to keep pace with the requirements of light users, not hardcore torrent-freaks. on the other hand, NBNco can’t survive without light users.
&HC256
“btw due to these “evolutionary” technological advances what wireless speeds are you predicting will happen over the build period of the NBN?”
It doesn’t matter that wireless will never match the speed of FTTH, nor that it provides equivalent value on a quota basis because the main driver for wireless uptake is the increasing avalanche of products that are being released based around the main feature of wireless, portability.
That combined with the ever increasing value in mobile capped voice calls is what is swamping the market and causing the accelerating trend to wireless only residences
Same with fibre…
So in other words no, wireless will not match fibre on any level in 2020.
Give examples.
So people are gravitating towards wireless for voice calls, I wonder why that is…
it amazes me those arguing that this means wirless is some real threat because of tech. it isnt.
what this is about is telstra migrating (joe public)customers for its own financial benefit on its own (wireless) network. now that may seem fine but not when you consider the deal with nbnco is for customers to be migrated to the nbn. if after that time they want to go nextg etc then that would be up to them.
basically that would be telstra wanting to have its cake and eat it too.
so those like malcom trying to spin this as meaning more than it does need to stop drinking the koolaid.
“10-15GB is the average. by definition, half of users will be below that average.’ That really is tosh (sorry). Half the users will be below the median (middle score) by definition.
“wireless will continue to evolve and costs will continue to fall” as they will for fibre, whose speed and capacity will increase and costs fall too.
Commentators, here and elsewhere, are very selective with their implicit assumptions. They imply or say some things, like demand or pricing, will stay the same and others won’t. But demand will increase (10-15GB now will become more every year), and per MB prices over fibre will fall each year.
We will demand higher speeds and greater capacity as we find new things to do on the internet. Power companies will offer to manage our household heating, cooling, ‘fridges in return for lower electricity costs; our aged population will live at home, monitored by various internet-enabled devices; we will send videos of the grandkids in real-time where we used to send photos; use of multiple mobile devices at home (via the home’s wireless base station) to access video content, games, video phone calls (like Skype), newspapers online; use of computers at home for education at all levels, stock market trading (requires high-speed, reliable connections); plus any number of things we have not even thought about yet.
100Mbits per second over fibre will become 1Gbps as systems are upgraded.
But it’s capacity where fibre to the premises beats wireless. Even WiMAX or the still-to-be-deployed LTE or the promised-but-not-delivered DIDO are limited in what they can deliver. The Shannon-Hartley Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem) applies to them just as it applies to fibre. Comparing fibre to wireless is like comparing a suburban street to a 12 lane autobahn.
It’s not just speed, it’s capacity too.
JD posted the following on this thread:
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/25/nbn-co-acknowledges-wireless-competition-threat/
quote:
“Some recent history for you – The dates listed denote mass uptake of those products/services. Those apps have each caused massive growth in network utilization:
2000 – Google
2003 – Skype
2006 – Youtube
2007 – Facebook
2009 – Netflix (network streaming)
2010 – Wireless devices needing backhaul
Clearly, these things haven’t been there since the “start” of the internet. New apps will evolve and equally strain the networks they traverse.”
have a close look at those listed applications — you could have accessed ALL those apps*, from Google Search, Gmail, Google Scholar, Google Earth, Skype, Youtube, Facebook to Netflix**, etc using a “slow” ADSL connection over the course of a decade, no problem whatsoever!
i don’t see anything in the historical trajectory (outlined above) that suggests that we need an immediate and massive re-dimensioning of the bandwidth capacity of the customer access network.
instead, most of the network congestion occurs outside the access network in the various network trunks. this is intuitive because of the nature of bandwidth leveraging where contention increases the further upstream data packets travels.
think about it: even in Japan which has extensive residential fibre builds, the average monthly IP traffic per user is only 10GB. that’s equivalent to 30kbps constant throughtput. this is why around half of Japanese households are still on ADSL even though fibre has been heavily-subsidised to encourage copper-to-fibre migration.
nothing in the historical trajectory of app development and real world bandwidth usage suggests that the average household is facing some kind of imminent “bandwidth shortage crisis”. the opposite is true. there’s still plenty of under-utilised capacity in local access networks for the average user.
and no — it’s not the Government’s job to design infrastructure to subsidise the tiny minority of hardcore internet geek torrenters — in the same way that people would scream “madness” if the Government proposed to build world-class autobahns all over Australia to cater to the tiny minority of the population who own Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s.
* “wireless backhaul” is obviously irrelevant
** ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix :
“According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix’s content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5 Mbit/s, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3 Mbit/s, and offers “better than DVD quality”. The highest tier requires 5 Mbit/s, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio.”
How many of those could you do on dial-up?
Did you see YouTube coming back in 1996?
No one would scream “madness” (at least not in the way you are thinking) a “world-class autobahn” can be used by people that own cars that are not Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s as well. Remind you of anything? On an autobahn you pretty much get to drive the speed you want and pick the car you want. With the NBN it’s the same, you get to pick the speed you want and what device you use… before autobahns there were no autobahns.
In other words too much for dial-up. Isn’t it funny how the current speeds we have are just the right amount for the apps that people use now.
Japan, a huge country of over 100mln people, has had residential fibre abundance for many years now.
what apps, which rely on superfast broadband, have emerged from there?
same with South Korea.
i’ll deal specifically with Maude’s suggestions:
i/ “Power companies will offer to manage our household heating, cooling, ‘fridges in return for lower electricity costs”
you can do that via dial-up or wireless — doesn’t require 100Mbit.
ii/ “our aged population will live at home, monitored by various internet-enabled devices”
how is “superfast broadband” going to help little old granny onto the urinal?
iii/ “we will send videos of the grandkids in real-time where we used to send photos”
ever occur to you that still photos are perfect for capturing special moments? grandpa has better things to do than sit in front of his monitor watching little Tom go “goo-goo-gah-gah” for a full 2 hours.
iv/ “use of multiple mobile devices at home (via the home’s wireless base station) to access video content, games, video phone calls (like Skype)”
multiple mobile devices? how many pairs of eyes do you have? even tycoons with five Rolls-Royces in the garage can only drive one car at a time.
v/ “newspapers online”
i’ve been reading online newspapers using my “slow” ADSL for over a decade.
vi/ “use of computers at home for education at all levels”
you don’t need superfast broadband to download course materials or perform online research. a single textbook in PDF format would only be 2Mb in size. ADSL can download webpages or scholarly research faster than you can read them.
vii/ “stock market trading (requires high-speed, reliable connections)”
E-trade, Charles Schwab, Commsec, Interactive Brokers, etc have been offering online trading platforms for over a decade and ADSL has never been a constraint.
see how hard Maude is trying to come up with examples of how we need superfast broadband and completely FAILS on every count.
News at 11.
Sorry but this one is valid, this is one of those “you can just” situations. You can just send a letter with photos in the post. You can just visit. You can do X, Y or Z. Now just because you prefer to do things one way (or the old fashion way) does not in anyway discount this type of thing. It’s people’s choice what they do with their connection and the bandwidth available to them… you in favour of Conroys censorship filter btw?
Please tell me you are joking. You are making this far too easy. More than one person can live in a household and you can apply this to a business situation too.
Is this really what you think the whole e-learing thing is about? PDF files and webpages?
Failed on some not all, sadly your attempt to debunk the relevant ones resulted in multiple failures of your own.
*More than one person can live in a household*
and what’s the avg household size in Aust? how many John Cleese/Irish Catholic/Monty Pythonesque familes are there in Aust?
ISPs provision capacity on the basis that not every subscriber in the same street is using internet at the same time in the same way.
at an even more micro level, why do you assume everyone in an household is sitting in front of the PC at the same time performing the same bandwidth-intensive acitivities?
ever occur to you a normal family is more like Dad is watering the garden, Mom is preparing dinner, little Sally is still at ballet class and little Jim is playing Xbox (instead of all sitting down watching Youtube 1080p simultaneously)?
the desperate and contrived lengths NBNco has to go to to justify 100Mbit for households in that silly marketing video of theirs is hilarious.
*and you can apply this to a business situation too.*
the NBN is 90% residential build — residential premises outnumber business premises, 10 to 1.
*Is this really what you think the whole e-learing thing is about?*
there are plenty of kids in developing countries who work their way up to universities using just books, pencil, notebook, calculator and compass. are our kids so dumb we can only comprehend “1 + 1 = 2” via “3D flash animation”?
of course not. kids already spend a large portion of their hours receiving interactive 3D surround sound education in a place called a “classroom”. (if Labor believes schools will be obsolete in the future, i’m sure they wouldn’t have squandered all those billions building those “school halls”.)
so, after hours spent receiving direct instruction from their many teachers at school, the last thing they need is to come home, turn on the monitor and have their teachers staring at them in the face for another few hours. the whole point of “homework” is quiet time at home working through problem sets by yourself.
also, you have still failed to provide me with a single example of how superfast broadband is essential for the average Australian household.
@toshp300
‘nbnco going to desperate and contrived lengths to justify 100Mbit’.
it’s understandable that they will sell the nbn, as they are employed to, no matter how hilarious ‘you’ find it.
what’s more interesting would be your motive for going to desperate and contrived lengths to denounce the current nbn, in toto, 24-7.
mom?
@toshP300
“also, you have still failed to provide me with a single example of how superfast broadband is essential for the average Australian household.”
Oh come on Tosh you are biased, you forgot the interactive dance mat and across state border choir singing, Australia is not going to be a leader in the digital age, we ignore those applications at our peril.
Perhaps that’s why the NBN Co said in their proposed SAU to the ACCC that FTTH faces ‘demand uncertainty’, they are not sure those two applications are going to catch on.
:)
So once again we are back to the “you can just” line of reasoning….
I’ve got a better idea you give a single example of one thing you think would justify a 93% FTTH build with 100/40mbps connections. You wont give one because according to you NOTHING qualifies. “You can just do blah blah blah”
@alain
i find it rather strange that you just went to lengths in your previously submitted comment – outlined above, to deny using nbnco information and the very next comment here, you do exactly that and use nbnco information?
anyway sorry for interrupting, i’ll leave you and toshp300 for now to regroup and again, continue saturating delimiter with your eternal cynicism ;)
Buck each way pepe ;-)
Ahh the double act mutual admiration society RS & HC is back in full swing, and the discussion is degraded, never let a Delimiter ban get in the way eh RS? – business as usual
alian you really are a paranoid one aren’t you? I dont know if pepe is RS and I dont really care, he said something I agreed with and I pointed out your usual behavior, nothing more, there is no grand conspiracy here.
sorry alain, but from my perspective, although i disagree with a few other vocal posters here, there is only one who continues to undermine delimiter’s etiquette and general decorum, with frivolous arguments directed at absolutely everyone whose opinion differs to his and that is not me.
I am still yet to here an answer to the question regarding what apps have emerged from countries like South Korea and Japan, and why a country such as Japan which has 55% fiber penetration only has each premise take up 10g
According to Turnbull South Korea is FTTN (remember) so it doesnt count lolz. As for Japan which you seem to think is the be all and end all for the development of “apps” perhaps you should research things better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country#Japan
FTTH first started with 10 Mbit/s… Currently, most people use 100 Mbit/s.
So deetgo, I give up what are Japanese people using 100mbps for if there are no “apps” that make use of such speeds??? Never mind I’ll answer for you:
Major application services on fibers are voice over IP, video-IP telephony, IPTV (IP television), IPv6 services and so on.
So any objections to those apps or is it a “you can just do blah blah blah” again???
oh and btw I dont know if these specific apps “emerged” from Japan but it makes no difference, they are using them and making use of the speed so you want to play the “taxpayers should not be paying for a video entertainment system” card now???
None of the applications you listed require fiber (or speeds of 100/40 which is the speeds that Japanese are offered over NTT’s fiber)
If you can’t list the applications, then clearly the fiber has been overkill (in terms of actual productivity) for the Japanese (or South Koreas)
Try again
@deteego, if that is the case, i can’t definitely tell you why the japanese go for 100mbps/10g any more than you probably can.
but at a guess, just to give you an answer, i’d say it seems patently obvious the japanese prefer quality to quantity.
That doesn’t answer my question
Again I am asking to provide real examples, of near national use of applications in residences that came as a consequence of having 55% fiber penetration
@deteego, ask the japanese. perhaps 70 million of them who use fibre know something, you do not?
or please, you tell us why 70 million japanese people have signed up to fibre and most to 100mbps?
also you did ask ‘why’, about 55% fibre penetration and 10g and you were answered with a very straight ahead answer.
alas, it seems a select few here are never happy unless they receive the bleak answer they wish for.
Oh I know why they signed up to fiber, there was an article on ZDNet, and none of the reasons were actually due to demand
So what are you saying deetgo that the Japanese are getting fibre whether they need it or not and whether they want it or not?
http://www.zdnet.com.au/54-fibre-and-counting-339307155.htm
As you’ll discover, it’s driven more by the suppliers, who are making considerable operational cost savings by laying fibre.
yep you are right deetgo, seems it is actually a good idea to replace the copper with fibre even if you dont take speed into consideration. lol.
@deteego, so why ask, if you claim to already know?
but 70 million japanese people use fibre even though there is no demand? imagine the take up when there is demand.
well if that is the case and there isn’t current demand, seems the japanese have foresight and can envisage the future befefits and – or they aren’t shackled and by political persuasions.
So I was right, you are going with the “you can just do blah blah blah” option again…
btw I am still yet to hear an answer to the question regarding what apps have emerged from countries like South Korea and Japan for their DSL networks.
I am still yet to here an answer to the question regarding what apps have emerged from countries like South Korea and Japan, and why a country such as Japan which has 55% fiber penetration only has each premise take up 10g
think the debate is provided because it is coming, the immediate future or the nearest current technology is intended for mobile laptop and everything so I asobraría you take that path in broadband.
The only people who think wireless is The Solution have never had to rely on it.
Comments are closed.