news US-based telco and entertainment provider Cox Communications has announced the launch of a gigabit Internet service for residential customers called “G1GABLASTSM”, that it claims offers speeds “100 times faster” than the average speed in the country.
Cox is initially deploying the gigabit speeds to new residential developments in Wichita and other locations across the US.
The new service is currently available in 12 states and the company said it plans to offer the product in all of its markets by the end of this year.
G1GABLAST offers broadband speeds “as fast as 1,000 megabits per second”, according to the firm, and comes with a high-speed Wi-Fi router, a terabyte of cloud storage, security tools and 10 email boxes each with 15 gigabytes of storage.
“Coupled with our 1,200 employees in Kansas and more than 24,000 nationwide, our latest investments and the deployment of the fastest speeds available are powering economic growth and development for businesses and residents of the communities we serve,” said Cox Communications President Pat Esser.
While gigabit broadband is not yet available across all the company’s markets, Cox said it will also increase its Ultimate package to 300 mbps and Premier package to 150 mbps later this year.
The telco added that it has “consistently increased Internet speeds” for all of its packages, including increasing its most popular package “more than 1000%” over the past 15 years.
“Cox has always had an evolving and dynamic plan to continue to advance our services to meet the growing demands of our customers,” said the firm’s Kansas Market Vice President, Coleen Jennison. “By bringing gigabit internet speeds to the market, Cox is once again ensuring our technology readiness long into the future.”
In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet, and home security and automation service to homes and businesses.
Cox said it will be demonstrating the new G1GABLAST service at community events throughout the region and at its retail stores.
Silly Muricans, dont you know that glorious chairman Mal said copper is the future and up to 25mbps is enough!
Cox Communications operates one of the largest HFC (copper) networks in the US; some 140k miles. This announcements builds on last years DOCSIS3.1 and Converged Cable Access Platforms (CCAPs) disclosures for their plans to deliver gigabit speeds to end users. Speaking at the prior DOCSIS3.1 announcements Jeff Finkelstein (Cox’s Executive Director of Strategic Architecture) had this to say:
“HFC not only has a long life, but a long, useful life, and DOCSIS 3.1 is proof of that”.
FTTP rollouts targeting new residential complexes and other high value markets. Private sector undertaking the same cherry-picking here.
Most Australians would today have such speeds but for Conroy’s intervention. Reusing existing infrastructure again demonstrating its cost and speed of deployment advantages whilst delivering customer demanded speeds.
Regarding the 25mbps claim, ACCC latest wholesale market indicators report shows provisioned TC-4 CVC across all techs increasing in FY16Q4 from 1.05mbps to 1.07mbps per customer (1.04 inc sat). Total provisioned (all TCs) CVC now 1.09mbps. Avg AVC continues to fall, today 30.74mbps for 34.9tbps of download capacity. 84.36% of customers choosing 25mbps or less. Arguing for higher speeds goes against real-world actuals trending in the opposite direction.
NBNCo has 30 (yes, thirty) gigabits customers.
Forecast speeds, underpinning NBNCo’s revenue forecast claiming they’ll reach break-even (laughably a positive IRR) is destroyed by actuals. The two are trending in opposite directions (all techs) as the following chart shows (green lines most significant):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/czgeacakaqb5ugr/speed-actuals-v-forecast-chart.pdf?dl=0
AR16 released in a week or so. ARPU likely to be stagnant @ $43/mth, the only reason it isn’t falling is CVC credits (as portion of revenue) declining as PoI becomes better utilised (faster rollout). We’ll return to this once AR16 released.
Background analysis:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/he6dtqmfci8fg1a/speed-actuals-v-forecast.pdf?dl=0
Bullshit.
Fuckhead, I’ve dealt with your shit 5 million times. I will put it in caps :
IF YOU GO TO THE TELSTRA BUSINESS CENTRE THEY WILL USE ALL MEANS FAIR OR FOUL TO GET YOU ON 25/5 FOR THEIR PROFIT. YOU ASK THEM ABOUT HIGHER SPEEDS AND IT IS LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL.
@ck Yet another eloquent contribution.
And yet you fail to consider his point. Try going to an ISP and getting onto a 1 Gbps connection. They just dont exist that I can see. It doesnt mean the NBN is incapable of those speeds though.
Its not NBN Co thats preventing people from getting onto those plans, its the ISP’s who dont provide them.
@GG, please provide where nbn advertise (not the singular press release from 2013) they offer the 1Gbps Tier. Genuinely curious.
@gg the vile post received the consideration it deserved. Why do you believe RSPs aren’t pushing gigabit connections? Wouldn’t be there’s little demand at the price required to cover costs;-)
Again look at the contention analysis above. Equivalent “Gigabit” sustained throughput would be better achieved at a lower AVC with lower contention (as Simon correctly posts below).
@richard – why are there 30 people on 1 Gbps plans? Why are there that many at all?
@gg I suspect they’re RSPs testing their product. I’d opine same for the 40 x 250/100 and 3 x 500/200 customers.
It is. But thats never how you present it. The implication of “NBNCo has 30 (yes, thirty) gigabits customers.” is that there is a retail product available. There isnt. They arent customers, they’re trial users, a big difference.
But thats not convenient to your anti NBN argument, so you present it as some sort of smoking gun.
The reality is, the CVC costs to the RSP are too high to service that sort of speed. Jxeeno did an article a while back, and figured it to be around $17,500 to service 100 customers.
Thats fine when 100 people are connecting at that speed, but as we ALL know, thats just not going to happen, so I get that the RSP’s dont want to offer it as a product.
But dont go around suggesting its an NBN issue because the RSP’s have made that decision. For something 10 times faster than the 100/40 speeds we’re capped at now, those costs arent so bad if they can be spread wide enough.
Right now, what would be a good price for a 1 Gbps connection, bearing in mind that a 100 Mbps connection costs around the $70 mark by itself, plus the bundled phone service.
Would $400 be a fair price for something 10 times faster? $300? $200?
@gg the numbers are from the wholesale indicators report (as noted). You’re reading too much into my post.
“The reality is, the CVC costs to the RSP are too high to service that sort of speed.” again as pointed out (above and many times previously (even before Jxeeno)). This is the reality of NBN, built into it’s revenue model from the beginning. It’s 100% an NBN issue (policy failure).
Using NBNCo’s pricelist a gigabit offering using typical 30:1 contention would cost wholesale 150 (AVC) + 585 (CVC) = $735/mth! Double that for retail. You can see why there’s no demand. There are many alternatives for anyone approaching that data requirement. If utilising the NBN such a user would be better off looking for sustained 30/30 with 1:1 contention (likely QoS) which could be delivered on a lower AVC tier. Gigabit peak speed is a farce.
Can you provide a link to that pricelist? I couldnt find one, would be handy to bookmark.
Look, nobody has ever disagreed that CVC is a big issue. Its always been one, and the 1 Gbps option was always shown as why. It got too expensive too fast once you moved past the 150 Mbps the ISP’s got for free (or whatever it is/was), and you couldnt spread the cost fast enough.
We get that. Its never been a point of contention. But where you could spread the cost, its not that expensive.
30:1 contention, for $1470/month is $49 for each as a wholesale cost. Add in the ISP markup, thats not a terrible price to pay for a 1 Gbps speed.
Its more than you cant spread that cost. Not yet, there IS no need TODAY to have those speeds, outside of a specific scenario or three. But in 10 years, different story.
And thats always been the core of the pro-FttP argument. Plan for the future, not the past.
@gg I believe this is their latest (Apr-2016)
http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-price-list_20160407.pdf
I suspect you misunderstand contention. The CVC quoted above is per connection, its already had the 30:1 contention ratio applied.
Anyway the discussion is moot; NBNCo transit and RSP backhaul couldn’t handle anywhere near that amount of end user capacity. This is why we build networks in stages, a massive waste of money to provision capacity today for demand in 10 years time when it can be increased meeting changes in customer demand.
“Jeff Finkelstein (Cox’s Executive Director of Strategic Architecture) had this to say”
And John A. Brouse, Jr., Director of Network Implementation at Charter Communications, Inc (who is equal in size with Cox) pointed this out 10 years ago
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile HFC $1,103.17
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile FTTP $85.11
http://tinyurl.com/hnhflvn
Is it more cost effective for these two large HFC companies to bandage up what they can (since they are so invested already)? In many cases it is…but note that NOBODY is doing the crazy infill of unserviced areas and purchase of old HFC that our Government is. It is insanity…
Please note that wherever new business is being installed, it is all FTTP…even a huge amount of the old HFC is now being replaced as doing both an upgrade and repairing the HFC that is damaged, in addition to the massive annual costs (almost 13 times more expensive than FTTP), puts the cost just over the line. Add to that the vastly greater durability of FTTP, and it is a pretty easy decision.
“NBNCo has 30 (yes, thirty) gigabits customers”
And zero (yes zero) 10Gb customers…what’s your point?
They also have only 3 people who have gone ahead with FoD over the last year and a half…
Is that important?
@ Richard – “Yet another eloquent contribution.”
@ GG – “And yet you fail to consider his point.”
Indeed GG, these are all pieces of the puzzle…
As I said previously, I think some responses to Richard have of late been rather harsh…
However, when someone replies on many occasions to the same claims from Richard, with valid reasons why his claims are possibly flawed, to not only be completely rejected, but pompously dismissed with the poster either referred to as a squealer, fibreatzi or basically told (inferred) your not worthy, I think it’s inevitable that such replies will made.
As I said when you started the bile with your pompous and egotistical, holier than thou comments always belittling others…. “you reap what you sow Richard.”
Apology accepted
@c USD1100 / mile p.a (10 years ago;-) equates to AUD20 / connection p.a!
It’s more like FTTN’s $100 / connection p.a, FTTH’s $50-100. Shallowness of understanding is easily exposed (on que comes another nothing post from Alex; didn’t read the analysis of course;-).
Richard’s tainted analysis, egotistical bile, the partial analysis, pompous bile, …Richard believes Richard is king and believe’s “Richard says”, is all that matters……
There’s your analysis analysed… you’re welcome.
You can’t add anything more than groundhog day partiality, procession of excuses and narcissistic chest beating?
I have read your previous analysis and found glowing holes. In fact so much so you even STFU and stopped using the CBA as part of your partial, unsuccessful attempted ego saving excuses for the plan you could have been commissioned to write. ROFL…
Remember? No I thought not…*sigh*
As such, anything you say now is treated with the contempt you and your crusade (you know the disproved cult) deserves.
So stop whining because you have been found out diddling the sums and whining when people treat you as you treat them..
You’re welcome
@Richard, please provide where nbn advertise (aside from the singular Labor-initiated press release from 2013) that they offer the 1Gbps Tier.
“I’d opine same for the 40 x 250/100”
You’d opine wrong. SkyMesh (possibly others) use that Tier to sell 100/100 plans.
https://www.skymesh.net.au/services/nbn/fibre/plans.php
“a massive waste of money to provision capacity today for demand in 10 years time when it can be increased meeting changes in customer demand.”
Sure, let’s spend $70.6b every 10 years to keep Australia behind international standard, instead of $48b once and enjoy the benefits immediately (and with lower maintenance costs the entire time).
@R – “USD1100 / mile p.a (10 years ago;-) equates to AUD20 / connection p.a”
I have no idea what you are babbling here…are you saying you think that $USD 1,100 converts to $AUD 20?
“It’s more like FTTN’s $100 / connection p.a, FTTH’s $50-100”
So some more bizarre numbers with no meaning that you just pull from the air? Obviously I have backed up my statements with proven and verifiable facts, and you have replied with some kind of numbers soup that you’ve invented. It’s a shame really, I was hoping for SOME kind of data to look at…
“Shallowness of understanding is easily exposed”
Don’t be so hard on yourself…I think of you as damaged, not shallow.
So again, as the most senior engineers in HFC today have stated,
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile HFC $1,103.17
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile FTTP $85.11
http://tinyurl.com/hnhflvn
@c of course you have no idea; goes without saying.
First figure per mile; second calculated using average frontage figures, public space and take-up.
“First figure per mile; second calculated using average frontage figures, public space and take-up”
At least now I see why I didn’t understand it…it makes no sense at all.
“of course you have no idea; goes without saying”
I guess so…why you would post such nonsense is a question for another day.
@c of course you didn’t understand it, and can’t see its relevance;-)
Shinning more light on the direct opex numbers:
https://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/asna/presentations/Session_2/asna_0604_s2_p4_jb.ppt
The analysis performed is a headend only cost comparisons for HFC v RF PON! Cut/damaged cable costs EXCLUDED (significant opex component). FTTH’s removal of all cable repair technician costs finally makes sense.
Even then the analysis shows a 12 yr breakeven, due to FTTH higher capex. And this comparison was for new installs. Given the HFC networks were gifted to NBNCo, the capex for upgrade pushes break even even further out. Using NBNCo CPP figures and calculated direct opex pushes it out further again, indefinite if non-zero discount rate.
@ Richard and the rest of the flat earther ignoramuses here…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/04/cox-rolling-gigabit-broadband-across-us-markets/
Tell us again about the wonder Aussie… $29.5B MTM – 25Mpbs for all by 2016 here – whoops I mean $70B (according to the former Treasurer now denounced by you flat earthers… lol) and not until 2020… *sigh*
Apologies accepted
“Even then the analysis shows a 12 yr breakeven, due to FTTH higher capex”
You have forgotten that the analysis was done 12 years ago when FTTH capex was many times more expensive than it is today…
“Given the HFC networks were gifted to NBNCo”
Nope…they were traded for the cost of the liabilities of the decades old network. Maintenance, power, upgrade, and eventually disposal costs have now become the responsibility of the Government…and that is MANY billions in cost (hardly a gift).
“Using NBNCo CPP figures” is an obvious mistake.
1. They do not list what costs they are estimating. The amount could include a FTTP network from scratch, there is no way to know.
2. Their figures are 2-5 times higher than any other release in the world, meaning that they are either being intentionally deceptive or are incredibly incompetent.
“Cut/damaged cable costs EXCLUDED (significant opex component)”
Cut or damaged cable for FTTH is far less expensive than for HFC or FTTN. The biggest expense for a cut cable is locating the position of the break…this can be done from anywhere and down to less than a metre for FTTH, but copper is nowhere near as accurate. Also, repairing the fibre takes only a minute these days as the repair systems for fusing are now automated.
” FTTH’s removal of all cable repair technician costs finally makes sense. ”
It does because the repairs are so minimal and do not require a full time team.
@c the numbers presented show capex isn’t many times NBNCo’s today.
You only show one side of the equation; ignoring revenue;-) NBNCo gifted the asset.
Dismissing NBNCo actuals for nothing? Where do you think the $20+b has been spent? Poor comparative performance called out many time (GBE) but it’s our reality. You don’t think FTTN also higher than international comparisons ($190k to place a $75k node)?
Repairing damaged fibre is far more expensive than copper. You clearly don’t know what your talking about. HFC cable issue detection has also markedly improved.
Direct opex FTTN 0-100% more the FTTH. HFC is the middle. Capex differential FTTN 1/2, HFC 1/3. The numbers speak very clearly; only fanboys deny the reality (no one in industry). Your $20 p.a higher connect headend cost is insignificant compared with $500 ARPU and $2100 capex saving.
And yet again (now about 10 times)… Richard, the man with all the answer’s just ask him…can’t answer WTF happened to MTM to blow out in $’s and time so hopelessly?
And again we wait…
GO
Your’re welcome
“the numbers presented show capex isn’t many times NBNCo’s today”
What numbers? In the US it is ~$800 CPP, and the highest I have found was New Zealand at ~$2300 CPP…do you have a link to anywhere that is even remotely as expensive as NBN Co is quoting?
Because that would be new and different…
“You only show one side of the equation; ignoring revenue”
No, I don’t…all I said is that it wasn’t a gift and came with a HUGE number of expenses that we are now responsible for, not to mention the Opex which limits net profits as well.
“NBNCo gifted the asset”
So who is only looking at one side of the balance sheet?
“Dismissing NBNCo actuals for nothing?”
I have no idea what your point is…please define what “actuals” you refer to.
“Where do you think the $20+b has been spent?”
On POIs, transitive network, design, FTTN cabinets, copper, and FTTP rollout.
“Repairing damaged fibre is far more expensive than copper”
I will bet you it is not…and if I win you will go away, OK?
I can show you the Columbia School of Business study that shows it…
“HFC cable issue detection has also markedly improved”
Yes it has…but it is not even in the same galaxy as optical location of faults. Bouncing a light beam is FAR, FAR more accurate than measuring a wave in copper…have you never taken physics?
“You clearly don’t know what your talking about”
Riiiiight…
“Direct opex FTTN 0-100% more the FTTH. HFC is the middle”
If that were in English and a complete sentence I would laugh quite loudly…now I just shake my head in sadness and pity.
BTW, I notice that (as usual), you make these (supposed) analytical claims with no facts to back them up…
@c the very numbers you too provided! Same thread, not complicated.
NBNCo is expensive; but it is what it is. Actuals published in financial reports; beyond question. Gregory always went other country’s figures; not useful here (except to point of comparative inefficiency).
You don’t include revenue (eg Foxtel contract). strange you demanded it below. Capex and opex are on the same side of the ledger.
Transit $~2.2n + Sat $~2. POIs comparative nothing. Dwarfed by last mile.
Let’s see the repair cost of fibre is less than copper then. It’s much higher skilled, comparative slow (1/10th number) and requires significant equipment. Have you ever installed either? Why do you think NBNCo had human resource issues with their ramp-up?
The physics means little; we’re talking practical, available solutions. Check out CMTS fault detection (or indeed FTTN/B). Some 200m users connected to HFC alone; in highly profitable markets.
BTW, I notice that (as usual), you make these (supposed) analytical claims with no facts to back them up… experience counts, analysis for thread posted in my original post.
“the very numbers you too provided! Same thread, not complicated”
Then you must have a reading comprehension problem. Absolutely nobody else gets the answers you do, and we are some pretty smart folks. I myself was granted a Distinguished Talent Visa for entry into Australia because I am one of the best in the world at what I do for technology.
“Actuals published in financial reports”
Which “financial reports”, and which publications? What do YOU call “actuals”, please define what they are to you…because nobody knows what you are talking about and I would like to give you a chance to explain rather than be totally dismissed as a nutter…
“Gregory always went other country’s figures; not useful here”
Why not? They are for deployment on the same equipment at the same distances…and in every case FTTP is cheaper than NBN Co are claiming in countries with even worse weather and longer runs, less density, and a smaller population. So under even greater pressure, the numbers NBN Co publish just don’t pass the smell test.
“You don’t include revenue (eg Foxtel contract)”
Because I wasn’t comparing profits or TCO, I was comparing Opex (and I was very explicit about that). But if you would rather compare net profit, I can happily accommodate you…that is an even worse case for HFC.
“It’s much higher skilled”
Nope…in fact the addition of power to HFC and FTTN make them require a certification in both power and communications. Fibre requires only fibre, and the machines today are automated.
“comparative slow”
Nope…because faults can be found so much faster down to pinpoint accuracy, the efficiency of repair is far superior to anything else. Optical fibre fault finders can find the fault to within a metre over a 250 km run and thats the cheap onwe
“Have you ever installed either?”
I have taught it…
“Why do you think NBNCo had human resource issues with their ramp-up?”
Because the contractors were signing contracts they were not prepared to complete. NBN Co had zero employees doing the rollout…
“The physics means little”
That line alone kinda sums it up…see ya.
@c no link to the copper v fibre figures then (rofl).
“…we are some pretty smart folks.”
Sure, that’s why exposing their shallow knowledge is so difficult;-)
Jeremy (alone) understood the impossible (posted his insights). He must be a genius.
“I have taught it…”
That line alone kinda sums it up! Bye.
Here’s Richard… speaking of shallow knowledge and shallowness all round…
As I have explained to you before, see what happens when you and your massive self inflated ego, when not knowing whom you are corresponding with, talks down to people?
Richard: “Have you ever installed either?”
Chas: “I have taught it…”
D’oh…
GOLD.
ChasRizz,
I myself was granted a Distinguished Talent Visa for entry into Australia because I am one of the best in the world at what I do for technology.
You should do stand up, hang on that is stand up, spitting out abuse and cooking figures doesn’t count as ‘what I do for technology’.
Don’t speak to Richard like that alain…
We all know he lies and fiddles the books ;)
And you know he can’t stand such abuse and bile (unless it his abuse and bile, then of course, that’s fine).
But speaking of stand up comedy…
Check out the contradictory moronically funny comments from world renown clown, alain, here…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
After that, I’m sure we can all agree… he is a clown.
You’re welcome
Thank fuck you’re here @cK
*Correction : The quote was about 2023, not 2026
@hc your only correction? Yet another eloquent contribution.
Further potential undermining of revenue:
“”All of the protection measures for NBN Co’s monopoly are exclusively restricted to fixed-line broadband connections. Mobile broadband and fixed wireless are not captured in this regulatory net — and probably never will be because of the growth of mobile broadband,” he [Gary McLaren, former NBNCo CTO] said.
“Significant investment is being placed into wireless technology that enable more spectrum and more fibre connected cell sites to be deployed for mobile and fixed-wireless broadband. The 5G technology road map is likely to mature around 2020. But even 4G with more cell sites can deliver more capacity before then.”
http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-under-competitive-threat-from-wireless-broadband-former-cto/
Private operators focusing their investment into less-regulated, high-growth potential markets (where taxpayer funded elephant not overbuilding) should come as no surprise to anyone. Technology continues it’s advance.
Heres a question for you. If mobile can deliver 1 Gbps, how is MTM going to allow that?
Mobiles need a mobile tower to connect to, which means its reliant on fixed line services. It kind of needs it…
Excluding the contention issues with the shared spectrum problem, its all well and good if 5G delivers 1 Gbps, but if the fixed line the tower connects to only offers 50 Mbps, thats all that area is going to get, 5G or not.
Fixed line needs to be advanced as much mobile, if not more so. Right now, 95% or so of all data is transmitted through fixed line. That isnt changing according to reports over the last decade, its staying pretty consistent.
Which means that while mobile data might be going up 50% a year, so is fixed line…
Cant you see that data use balance isnt changing, and that its the fixed line that provides the backbone of that? Are you really that stuck to your ideals that you have to ignore every fact that shows that, just to stick to some bizarre principal?
What is unique about MtM being the problem, which I assume you mean the FTTN and HFC components of MtM?
At present the mobile data service is provided by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, if their existing mobile backhaul capacity either their own or leased from others does not meet future demand they will build extra capacity and so will other commercial fibre companies and lease it back.
No good releasing 5G with all the associated marketing hype if it runs like 3G.
Except that’s exactly how 4G has ended up now that everyone is on it and no one (comparatively) is on 3G.
How do you know what the 4G vs 3G mix is by mobile carrier?
@ alain…
Instead of bleating, prove him wrong!
GO
You’re welcome
“Further potential undermining of revenue”
Undermining of FTTN (because of its lack of potential) possibly…but wireless is certainly not a competitor of FTTP.
This is a concern going forward as the Coalition has put us in a very precarious financial position…
Not as precarious as the last of the big spenders Labor would have done, blowing the most expensive CPP of $4,400 on a extra 2 million residences on FTTP.
“blowing the most expensive CPP of $4,400”
Fortunately that is a false number, so when sanity arrives, it will be fine.
Verizon is $800 CPP, and in New Zealand it’s $2300 CPP…so either Turnbull’s choice for NBN management are completely incompetent, or they are adding in things like the cost to roll out all new POIs, a whole new transit network, and starting everything from scratch.
The actual CPP should be near the $2400 mark just as in New Zealand…
“Not as precarious as the last of the big spenders Labor would have done”
You mean the leadership that saw us reach #1 in the OECD ratings and gave the country a AAA credit rating?
Here is the Labor CPP for rolling out FTTP to three small West Tassie rural towns.
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/04/27/fixing-hole-labor-pledges-fibre-tasmanian-west-coast/#comment-732843
I guess that’s wrong also “so when sanity arrives, it will be fine.”
ChasRizz, the one eyed book cooker sock puppet.
ROFL
So going by your own calulation for CPP the MTM CPP is really $5600 a cross the board.
“So going by your own calulation for CPP the MTM CPP is really $5600 a cross the board.”
Its numbers…he just doesn’t get it.
No comment on the Labor funding to rollout FTTP for three small towns in West Tassie.
Funny that, it makes the FTTP CPP in CP 16 look like a bargain.
There is no such thing as MtM CPP, each infrastructure type has it’s own CPP and is calculated as such, but then you know that, you decided to add a BS CPP because you are backed into a corner again.
Lol devoid what you fail to understand about your own calulation is that you add everything back haul, transit.
So using your calulation of averaging up to $56B for 10mil homes is $5600.
But if your claiming your CPP is BS “you decided to add a BS CPP because you are backed into a corner again.” since my figure is using your own calulation then that perfectly understandable. As your own calulation makes FTTP a bargain
ROFL
poor old Rizz, time for the nonsensical routine, make up your own CPP when it all gets too hard.
Total BS logic of course, you really do give a whole new meaning to the term loser, heading for 10 years for the award as loser of the decade, you should romp it in.
Just following your made up CPP when it gets too hard for you.
So let’s look at your total BS logic
1. Did you or did you not divide the $30M with the 3625 premises.
I will answer it for you with a YES. So going by your an BS logic of course the MTM CPP is $5600.
Don’t be so hard on your self devoid will all know your a loser you don’t need to tell us about it.
Seriously alain…
WTF are you on man?
Can I get some?
I’d love to be able to overlook reality (no pun intended) at times, as you do 24/7…
You’re welcome
“No comment on the Labor funding to rollout FTTP for three small towns in West Tassie”
Sure…please give me an itemized list of what that funding entails…
How many connections, how much backhaul, POI infrastructure, transit network, etc…
As soon as you understand what you are actually talking about, maybe you can have a conversation…
I didn’t calculate the funding figure Labor did, ask them how they got it, and no rolling dice is not allowed.
Yes you did calculate you divided the total cost to the amount of premises.
I am just using your same calculations with the MTM
“Yes you did calculate you divided the total cost to the amount of premises.”
Exactly…he has included the POIs, transit network, and other core infrastructure as part of the CPP figure. If you did that, the CPP for all forms of NBN connection (fixed wireless, FTTN, HFC, Sat, and FTTP) is $4666.
Alt does not quite understand the math…
You made that figure up, like all the figures you make up.
So devoid are you saying you made up that figure then and all other figures lol
“You made that figure up”
What are you talking about…I just used YOUR formula to determine the CPP. I never said it was correct.
In essence, you are saying that YOU made that number up (which of course you did…).
That number is the total cost divided by the total number of premises. That is how you calculated the CPP in Tas…
It IS idiotic, I was showing you why…
You didn’t show anything, Labor calculated the FTTP $29M figure for three small towns in West Tassie, it’s simple to get the population of those three small towns and work out a cost per person and a cost per premise.
It doesn’t matter now anyway, they are getting the much cheaper and faster to deploy FTTN, the Labor political pork barrel may have helped to win them a seat, but the most cost effective NBN solution for remote area towns like that prevailed in the end.
Lol devoid.
Yes the $29M cost it like the up to $56B cost for the MTM it’s simple to get the population of the country and work out cost per premise.
“but the most cost effective NBN solution for remote area towns like that prevailed in the end.”
But it’s not the most cost effective NBN solution was satellite.
Why Rizz, because you say so?
Why what Rizz didn’t respond to you devoid your not making any sense again.
@alain…
We know you guys will take a bullet for “Team Shtraya” just to divert from the complete and utter MTM shambles (see what I did there).
So…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/nbn-worth-27-billion-despite-56-billion-construction-cost-says-pwc-20160217-gmwbd5.html
Ouch
Oh look, it’s is cheaper…ROFL
You’re welcome
Oh it’s rabbit caught in the headlights time again, time to divert to something else that has nothing to do with the NBN choice for West Tassie, from the master sock puppet.
No devoid your the rabbit caught in the headlights lol lets look at all your comments from this thread
First
“Here is the Labor CPP for rolling out FTTP to three small West Tassie rural towns.”
With think to your claimed $8000 CPP
I use your own calulation in the MTM and get a $5600 CPP for it.
You reply with “you decided to add a BS CPP”. Even thought I used your own math. So really you called your own figures BS.
I ask you and answers for you on how you came up with your $8000 CPP claim.
You reply with “I didn’t calculate”
So all you did was make up the $8000 CPP claim was it.
I ask if you then made up the CPP
You reply with “it’s simple to get the population of those three small towns and work out a cost per person and a cost per premise.”
But apparently you didn’t calulate from your quote above.
I reword your comment for the MTM $5600 CPP again using your math that apparently didn’t use lol.
You reply with you now detour tatic “Why Rizz, because you say so?”. Because you been caught out lying through your arse.
I reply with “Why what Rizz didn’t respond to you devoid your not making any sense again.”
As Rizz only commented once in this thread and not to your latest comment.
You then reply with your latest comment Becuase again you have been caught out lying through your arse And still trying to divert from the $5600 MTM CPP using your math that you didn’t use lol.
I repeat there is no such NBN costing statistic as a MtM cost per premise, it is calculated by infrastructure type.
You might want to play Rizz games by making one up, but it is meaningless, which follows the theme of 99.99% of you and your sock puppet comments.
alain
…who has been running faster than Forrest from his own imbecilic contradictory comments (refer first link) and will intentionally avoid any topic which shows MTM to be the complete and utter retrograde POS we always said it would be (why just look at this very topic he diverts from, which shows our 25Mbps for all by 2016, even if such mediocrity, nay hopelessness, could have been achieved…LOL… is fucking ridiculous)… has the chutzpah to accuse others of diversion?
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
Spoon-feeding time for the cock puppet, who creates an issue and harps on about it, such as $29M (above for the umpteenth time) relating to FTTP… but (open wide) is ok with as much as $29B being wasted on shitty MTM (cost UP TO lol… $56B, but with a worth of a mere $27B)… See what I did there?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/nbn-worth-27-billion-despite-56-billion-construction-cost-says-pwc-20160217-gmwbd5.html
He’s also ok with $44.2m spent on new copper (estimated at $14m) in just a 6 month period Oct 2015- Apr 2016.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-clocks-up-more-than-au44m-in-new-copper/
But like two others here, one who talks 25/5 (used to be 50/12… d’oh) and another who presents his own partial brain-farts as being facts and then calls it analysis, let’s just talk about what the other government did or might have done if elected, with disdain and let’s not ever discuss the complete fuck up MTM which actually is?
Nice try… bad luck.
You’re welcome,
But devoid I am following your own calculations that again you didn’t claim you calculated. You didn’t calculate by infrastructure type. You calculated transit network too. So I was just using your method on the MTM thanks for that.
You might like to play games troll. But when we used your own methods to debunk you, you accusing us of making up numbers when really all your doing is showing that you made things up instead lol.
Thanks for the help you did a great job at proving your self wrong yet again.
“Most Australians would today have such speeds but for Conroy’s intervention. Reusing existing infrastructure again demonstrating its cost and speed of deployment advantages whilst delivering customer demanded speeds.”
AND YET in the last 3 years how many places did the NBN slap a sticker on existing HFC. Not bloody many.
Do you see the disconnect?
@m NBNCo launched the HFC product end of July. Telstra prior HFC upgrade plans threatened by Conroy. Never went ahead.
Disconnect is believing that private operators would not have moved to increase speeds in Oz (for profitable metro customers at least) when it has happened in all other developed markets.
NBNCo launched the HFC product end of July.
This is the point mate. HFC is not magical. Lead time. Ramp Up. That’s the reality of life. Yet you blame Conroy.
@md Conroy policy killed all private sector fixed line investment. No one was going to invest only to be overbuilt (a few years the claim at the time). His decision, and subsequent underperformance, continues to have significant consequences:
http://www.afr.com/technology/web/australians-left-stranded-without-broadband-as-telcos-wait-for-nbn-20160701-gpwgjj
Of course Conroy (and party) is to blame. Up until the change of govt who else?
Several years later the switch to MTM required DA renegotiation. Once complete contracts were awarded for HFC upgrades (original never designed to support the capacity required; 70% of premises passed expect to connect). It has taken longer than many expected, timeline questioned by myself before the 2013 election. None of this is magical.
Ahh look another lie from Richard
Consider the policy you could have writen those telco were told there would be 25Mbps aviable to all this year
Well boot them out at the election then, oh shit that didn’t happen, election 2019 then.
You keep trying to shut the gate after the MtM horse has well and truly bolted.
Well devoid Turnbull did that to FTTP and it went from $29B to $70B for the MTM.
But then the article your other ego provider saying they are still waiting for the NBN this year even though they where promised by the current PM that everyone would have access to 25Mbps by now. Yet your lying other ego blames Conroy for the delays of why it’s not complete yet.
Alex,
It’s not $70B, and the deadline was changed after SR 13.
So in 3 months after promising 25Mbps by 2016 they changed it would that count as a lie by ur current PM. The $70B are you claim our ex treasure hockey is lyning too?
Boot them out at the next election then, it’s only three years away.
Troll can you atlestvtry and stay on topic with your detours did or didn’t Turnbull lie about 25Mbps to all by this year.
Did or didnt Richard lie about Conroy when there was no private investment to being with.
” HFC is not magical. Lead time. Ramp Up. That’s the reality of life. Yet you blame Conroy”
Turnbull good, Conroy bad…mmmmkay?
I think that is the only answer you will get from those 2…
“elstra prior HFC upgrade plans threatened by Conroy. Never went ahead.”
After months of asking, [Citation Still Needed].
You are a liar. Who do you think you are fooling?
“Disconnect is believing that private operators would not have moved to increase speeds in Oz”
Blind fanboi bias would believe that private operators were moving to increase speeds in Aus, despite all evidence to the contrary for 15 solid years and thus causing the need for the NBN in the first place.
“launched the HFC product end of July.”
Yup and they’re set to host all cable connections by the end of the year as per their SR13, I presume?
“Conroy policy killed all private sector fixed line investment.”
So why was the policy necessary if Australian telecomms was flourishing before that?
“No one was going to invest only to be overbuilt”
You mean like Telstra and their existing network or any business that would be competing with Telstra?
“His decision, and subsequent underperformance, continues to have significant consequences:”
That article published in 2016 has nothing to do with Conroys plan originally due to be finished in 2021 and everything to do with the Liberals plan originally due to be finished in 2016.
“Up until the change of govt who else?”
Howard, for cementing Australias telecomms sector in quagmire for over 10 years. Who else?
Yup and they’re set to host all cable connections by the end of the year as per their SR13, I presume?
They never said that in the first place and since made redundant by CP 16.
everything to do with the Liberals plan originally due to be finished in 2016.
They never said it would be finished in 2016.
So they didn’t say 6 times in there 2013 policy that everyone would have 25Mbps by 2016
Amazing, Richard, more of your wonder analysis…? *sigh*
As such, your powers of partial stupidity are now unsurpassed…
From an article you posted, dated 4 July 2016, (some 3 years since “your MTM plan” was introduced)..of which the major pat took 2 years to even start trialling (according to your faithful lap dog…lol)
Telecommunications firms are being urged to increase investment in their infrastructure as hundreds of thousands of Australian households are being left without internet access long term, while the National Broadband Network rollout drags on.
Of course none of that wouldn’t relate to the topic you never address, “your MTM, now 4 years behind the promise and many $b’s blown”, as we told you it would
FFS…and you wish to be taken seriously with such fucking biased, blinded, nonsense?
You’re welcome
Apologies to all for not closing off the italics… but as previously mentioned, Delim isn’t loading properly and I no longer have an edit function :(
JasonK,
So they didn’t say 6 times in there 2013 policy that everyone would have 25Mbps by 2016
That’s not what you said :
…. due to be finished by 2016
You changed it when you got caught out, standard Rizz technique.
Pathetic routine, including of course your sock puppet Hotcakes spitting out abuse because you got caught playing stupid juvenile tricks and talking BS.
Lol reality finally called me by my name congratulations you have 3 names in your head instead of just Rizz and reality lol.
But you are getting me mixed up with someone else as I didn’t say that but then according to the 2013 policy after everyone has 25Mbps by 2016 they would work towards getting 90% on 50Mbps by 2019.
So according to that they would finish getting everyone on 25Mbps by 2016 and start getting 90% on 50Mbps at the end of 2016
@Reality,
Would love to know where you are quoting JasonK from;
Please link to the comment.
I ran a page seach on:
“due to be finished by 2016”
With & without, the “due” &/or “2016” and I still only found 1 phrase mention; YOURS!
BTW., the nbn @ 25Mb/s, for all Australians to be-able to be connected at, WAS due to be Finished/completed by the end of 2016 & network capable of 50Mb/s for fixed line people by around 2019,(from memory on 2019).
You’re showing those beads of sweat again.. getting desperate with your posts.
Later, RIPP.
@JasonK,
I coulda saved on some typing if i had noticed a new Delimiter post, via email notification, had snuck through, in between my typing out the above post… LOL :D
Oh-well, strength in numbers, as they say……….. Unless fudged numbers, by Coalition lovers,(lil’ stats humour) ..lol XD
Later, RIPP :)
“due to be finished by 2016”
“everyone would have 25Mbps by 2016”
Please detail what the difference is between those two statements…
Other than they are totally different you mean?
ROFL
“Other than they are totally different you mean?”
In what way? They both describe an end result and a time…how are they different?
One has 25 Mbps in it as a condition the other doesn’t.
The insinuation with the first one is that all the MtM rollout would be finished by 2016, when caught out you added 25 Mbps, standard Rizz rabbit caught in the headlights technique.
“One has 25 Mbps in it as a condition the other doesn’t.
The insinuation with the first one is that all the MtM rollout would be finished by 2016”
So you think there will be some other network that is at 25mbps as a peak minimum?
Which one is that?
So devoid they where no going to finish getting everyone on 25Mbps by 2016 even thought they claimed they would.
Thanks for that data @Richard, much appreciated. I don’t follow the issue closely enough to do that type of thing.
My takeaway:
1) 25/5 activations massively over-represented vs forecast, for both FTTN and FTTP.
2) When comparing to the old ’12-15 corporate plan, the expected number of 12/1 connections was never forecast to drop below ~40% (starting around 55%) so the increased activations above this tier is quite spectacular – between 20% (FTTP) & 30% (FTTN) greater than forecast. In the new CP the 25/5 FTTN connection rate is still much higher than forecast, at the expense of both highest and lowest tiers.
This could be from:
– marketing of 25/5 vs other connection speeds
– the lowest tier 12/1 not considered sufficient speed
– the highest tier 100/40 not considered as required, or not worth it due to inability to provision the actual speed (FTTN) or CVC (all products)
4) the 25/10 & 50/20 plans are under-represented, which I would attribute to lack of availability to procure.
5) having anyone on Gigabit is surprising, though there was an expectation that by ’16 the 250/100 tier would have a measurable take-up. With that available to only FTTP connections this does reduce possibility of activation.
cheers
J
Take Richards numbers with a grain of salt. Them and his conclusions are exceptionally biased to serve his views.
Those 30 people on 1 Gbps arent customers in the normal sense, they are trial users specific to one limited area.
Also consider that the change from FttP to MTM meant the rollout of FttP slowed to zero after 2013, as Abbott’s policies took effect. The result was a slowing down of that speed being available, rather than increasing as it inevitably would have even in a worst case FttP scenario.
The 100/40 plan is most definitely worth it. I was paying $75 to get a 6 Mbps connection – thats internet and cost of a phone line with Telstra.
I could be on the same setup, only with 100/40 speeds for $90 with the same ISP. $15 more for 15x the speed? Yes please.
As for required, it most definitely is. That $75 originally gave me a connection that had 1 device on it. Now, there are a dozen, so I often slowed to a crawl if more than a couple were connecting at the same time. Hell, my flatmate on Facebook could mean I was connecting at 50 kp/s rather than 500.
What that new connection has done is give enough speed to share across all the devices that even in the worst situation I still have the equivalent of a 20 Mbps connection just for my PC. And usually a lot more.
I no longer time out when the flatmate is playing zynga poker…
Yeah I don’t think Richard even realise that even webpages are bigger than what they where 10 years ago.
@j Take gg numbers with a grain of salt. Them and his conclusions are exceptionally biased to serve his views.
NBNCo’s actuals show serviceable fibre permises; brownfields (b) + greenfields (g):
08-Sep-13 142,183(b) + 54,783(g) = 196,966
28Jul-16 1,788,090(b) + 284,349(g) = 2,072,439
~91% have been made post the 2013 election. Doesn’t sound like a rollout slowing to zero. Brownfield performance has even been graphed:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fwadkqyvrz9kkb/brownfields-actuals.pdf?dl=0
GG,
I no longer time out when the flatmate is playing zynga poker…
Didn’t realise Zynga poker was such a heavy resource on internet bandwidth!
:)
@ GG
Take Richard’s numbers with a grain of salt. Them and his conclusions are exceptionally biased to serve his views.
Absolutely…
“NBNCo’s actuals show serviceable fibre permises; brownfields (b) + greenfields (g):”
Please Cite the FTTP rollout areas announced and commenced after Sep 2013.
Zero? Thought as much.
“Didn’t realise Zynga poker was such a heavy resource on internet bandwidth!”
There’s a lot you don’t realise.
What is it about this you don’t understand Rizz?
~91% have been made post the 2013 election.
So troll what your claiming is Turnbull NBN cancelled all FTTP contract made new FTTP contracts from day one. While it took 2 years for FTTN to start and HFC even longer.
So thank you for pointing out FTTP is faster to deploy than FTTN or HFC
“~91% have been made post the 2013 election.”
@Realichard, Please Cite the FTTP rollout areas announced and commenced after Sep 2013.
You do it HotRizz, or ask Snow Crash or Hubert Cumberland, they have been quiet lately.
Socks in the wash?
ROFL
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/04/cox-rolling-gigabit-broadband-across-us-markets/#comment-758601
Does anyone else understand what Alternate means when he starts mixing up names and talks about his socks? I can see that it amuses him, but I just don’t get it…
alain is dimply doing what clowns, jester’s and village idiots do Chas, they amuse those more intelligent, with their stupidity.
I for one find him deliciously humourous..
Especially all of those contradictions of his, he runs away from as fast as he can, with the red nose dangling, all the while tripping over those massive shoes …
It all just adds to the complete clown experience…
@j you’re welcome.
1. Certainly true, the clear trend is towards 25mbps plans for all techs. I’d expected some fall at the top tiers as the early adopters are overtaken in number by those facing CAN retirement.
2. Popularity of 25-tier is likely because of RSP promotion as you’ve postulated, or perhaps Australian customers find that price-point attractive 25 v 12mpbs certainly a positive from a revenue perspective. Unfortunately not enough to overcome falling average speeds across all techs.
4. perhaps, or highlights faster upload speeds doesn’t have the demand many predicted.
5. Also true, but given the demand is it worth the additional expense?
“the clear trend is towards 25mbps plans for all techs”
But that is just this week…since all of these networks take at least half a decade to upgrade, then we are in real trouble as demand changes.
Currently, anything less than 25Mbps sustained is not even allowed to be called “broadband” in many countries (most notably the US).
In addition, according to the best predictions there are (Deloitte), the majority of homes will be connected to a Gigabit capable connection by 2020…
http://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/tmt-pred16-telecomm-dawn-of-the-gigabit-internet-age.html#full-report
“we forecast about 600 million subscribers may be on networks that offer a Gigabit tariff as of 2020, representing the majority of connected homes in the world”
Given the choice, I think I will take Deloitte’s analysis over yours…
@c writes “But that is just this week…”
Either didn’t read the anaylsis, and/or didn’t understand it. A common thread here.
“Given the choice, I think I will take Deloitte’s analysis over yours…”
Then you don’t even understand what they’re predicting. Majority of users on gigabit capable network; like NBNCo HFC (38%) + FTTH (20%)!
“A common thread here”
Yes…you didn’t point out any issues, just whinged that you are misunderstood.
“Then you don’t even understand what they’re predicting”
What they are predicting is quite clear…
“At this stage between 50 and 100 million broadband connections may be Gbit/s, or marketed as such. This would be between 5 and 10 percent of all broadband connections. Of these about 90 percent would be residential, and the remainder for business.”
“Majority of users on gigabit capable network; like NBNCo HFC (38%) + FTTH (20%)”
Are you saying that NBN will have gigabit available for use by 2020??? I thought not…
You are not reading the white paper it appears, only parsing a few words and spinning and hoping.
If you keep reading, you will see that your hopes have been dashed…they said OFFER A GIGABIT TARIFF, not “gigabit capable”.
@c clearly needs to be spelt out; wasn’t “just this week”.
Then another; what is said (responding to your quote) is yes, the majority of NBNCo’s network will be gigabit capable network by 2020. Conroy’s LTE and sat not, Turnbull’s FTTN/B neither.
As the analysis of actuals you didn’t read (before jumping to Deloitte predictions) shows conclusively average customer speed continues to fall (inc FTTH; demanded speeds comfortably delivered using FTTN/B capturing majority of available revenue at a fraction of the cost & earlier) and CVC is pathetic 1.09mbps / customer. Why squeal gigabit?
ChasRizz,
Are you saying that NBN will have gigabit available for use by 2020??? I thought not…
No he didn’t, so your ‘ I thought not’ is irrelevant.
@r “clearly needs to be spelt out”
Yes…you see that is how communications works. Otherwise, everything you’re saying sounds like gibberish.
“Then another”
Another what?
“what is said (responding to your quote)”
Which quote?
” the majority of NBNCo’s network will be gigabit capable network by 2020″
Theoretically true…but why did you mention it?
I will reprint my quote…
“they said OFFER A GIGABIT TARIFF, not “gigabit capable”.”
Do you understand the difference, or should I help you out and explain it to you?
“As the analysis of actuals”
What analysis of what “actuals”? How many data points? What was the sample size? Please post your numbers and source…because this really just looks like smoke.
@Alt – “No he didn’t”
Kinda what I figured…so he didn’t really respond at all, did he?
Hi Jeremy :)
http://www.itwire.com/telecoms-and-nbn/74082-telstra-devours-biggest-share-of-nbn-services.html
Link above says Telstra have nbn marketshare of 48%, TPG 27% & Optus 14%.
On their respective nbn plan pages:
Telstra start on 25Mb/s & somewhere along the signup you can buy a boost,(I don’t think they offer 50Mb/s though).
TPG defaults to 25Mb/s,(visually offers 12, 25 & 100,[no 50Mb/s*])
Optus is messy, avoids the mention of actual speeds,(glanced the page only) & seems to default to 12Mb/s,(SPEED PACK; (1), 2, 3, 4)
*Some TPG owned companies, such as Internode, offer a 50Mb/s product; Many however don’t & TPG plans themselves have no 50Mb/s option.
Seeing the above marketshares it’s easy to see why 25Mb/s & below show up so high.
If speed upgrades were obvious, upfront & included a cheaper than 100Mb/s option; ie. 50Mb/s, then the number, as a percentage of users selecting 25Mb/s or higher, would increase noticeably.
Ps. A FTTN user that knows that they can’t get above 35-40Mb/s would probably stay on a 25Mb/s plan as opposed to buying a 100Mb/s plan, if no 50Mb/s plans were on offer.
Later, RIPP :)
@Self :)
It appears the numbers from my supplied link above, were not just consumer share, but wholesale buys from nbn, thus services via carriers,(Telstra, TPG, Optus) would also be going to businesses.
However, the number of business users, as a percentage of total sales, would be tiny & the carrier,(Telstra, TPG, Optus) rankings would likely not change much, with Telstra dominating the pack.
Hence the above post would still be correct in the conclusions, but the consumer percentages listed above would be a little different,(likely not much though).
Later, RIPP :)
Rizz,
then the number, as a percentage of users selecting 25Mb/s or higher, would increase noticeably.
Conjecture.
Ps. A FTTN user that knows that they can’t get above 35-40Mb/s would probably stay on a 25Mb/s plan as opposed to buying a 100Mb/s plan, if no 50Mb/s plans were on offer.
PS. more conjecture.
@Reality,
How many times are you going to show people that you are a deluded fool, with little understanding of how the world works & having some of the worst comprehension available, to anyone that’s not totally illiterate.
It’s RIPP; Rizz is only me in your delusional mind, because to have so many unique people think that you’re an idiotic coalition loving troll, is beyond your ability to comprehend.
“Conjecture” – You weak-minded fool.. that’s supposed to be your rebuttal? … LOL XD
BTW., If you wish to try to rebutt my posts, how about you try adding some logic & rational thought to your posts…
Maybe, PHONE A FRIEND! ;)
Now go; BUY A VOWEL & GET A CLUE!
Later, RIPP.
It’s still conjecture.
“Seeing the above marketshares it’s easy to see why 25Mb/s & below show up so high.”
Or RSPs are offering these plans because market is demanding them. They’re not in the business of turning away profits.
Fanboys predictions (download & upload speeds) destroyed by actuals, fanboys search anywhere for an answer, ignoring the obvious: their predictions were wrong (massive list, exposed for years).
Lol Richard
apparently your own fanboy predictions have failed everywhere else in the world. But then even the policy you could have written forecast 30% on 100Mbps for claimed by you we don’t need by 2020.
“Or RSPs are offering these plans because market is demanding them.”
And how does market share ‘demand’ them when they are not told there are alternatives?
How do you know what they have or have not been told?
How do you know what they have or have not been told… to prove him wrong?
So prove him wrong…
GO
You’re welcome
J – “the expected number of 12/1 connections was never forecast to drop below ~40% (starting around 55%) so the increased activations above this tier is quite spectacular”
I think that there was and is a great deal of conservative analysis going on. That would be fine, but unfortunately it is being used as an excuse to massively under-provision our telecom infrastructure.
Things to note…
1. In the US and several other countries, anything less than 25 Mbps SUSTAINED is not legally allowed to be called broadband as it is too slow. As our 25/5 plans are not measured sustained (they are only peak), they would not even qualify as broadband in the US.
2. The US now has an average of 50Mbps+ (compared to our 7Mbps).
3. The analysis from Deloitte a few months ago shows that over 600 million connected homes (the vast majority) around the world will be connected to a gigabit capable network by 2020. Of course, we will not be…
At the end of the day, the only reason to have an NBN in the first place is to reap the economic rewards that it gives. Unfortunately, the current designed MTM falls well short of this and sinks us MUCH farther back in the Global Economy.
lol Richard
“Most Australians would today have such speeds but for Conroy’s intervention. Reusing existing infrastructure again demonstrating its cost and speed of deployment advantages whilst delivering customer demanded speeds.”
Lie
“NBNCo launched the HFC product end of July. Telstra prior HFC upgrade plans threatened by Conroy. Never went ahead.”
Another lie
when will you stop your lies richard other wise provide your proof.
But then i can do one better we would all have fttp by now if it wasn’t for Howards intervention.
but then for some reason if not fast or cost any less now is it richard. still hasn’t beaten fttp rfs now has it Richard
@jk shh, the adults are talking…
Lol poor Richard can’t even back his own statements and resort to devoid’s tactics prove your statements as correct otherwise they are a lie. Becuase that’s all you can do if you can’t spin the numbers you lie instead isn’t it.
But I must have hit a nerve right because of your childish remark. But please keep lyning it shows you desperation
JasonRizz,
Becuase that’s all you can do if you can’t spin the numbers you lie instead isn’t it.
Explain in detail with proper well thought out counter argument based on linked figures.
Where is the lie?
BTW Spell checkers are free.
well troll I have already quoted your other ego’s lie he has failed to back them up and has to fallen to use your childish remarks.
oh how the mighty has fallen for someone like Richard to claim vile and abuse yet fail to see his own. Let alone to be come a second devoid in the process.
Btw Yes they are free might help you spell peoples names correctly.
So nothing then, other than rambling incoherent nonsense, jeez you have never used that before when backed into a corner, stay out of the deep end.
I have nothing to prove devoid unless you want to help try and prove Richard right and me wrong calling Richard a lair good luck with that.
So far Richard has done nothing except childish games much like you now.
I see alain is again compelled to mention me, always… ROFL. How delicious.
Talking about spin, you still haven’t tried to spin your way out of you obsequious lies …
TRY AGAIN (that’s undoubtedly, your cue to disappear “again”- and that’s delicious yet again)
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
Alt – “So nothing then, other than rambling incoherent nonsense”
True…now you can understand why so many posters are getting tired of it and lashing out at you and Richard.
You mean one poster Alex aka Rizz and his team of sock puppet names.
“You mean one poster”
I see…so you don’t think the whole world is out to get you, its actually one guy posing as a whole bunch of folks?
Hmmm…why are you fixated on socks?
*sigh* alain
Have you been so badly smacked, disproved and shown to be nothing but a poor, sorry, mindless political lackey and so humiliated by me re-posting your own idiotic contradictions and childish stupidity that this is now all you have…?
“You mean one poster Alex aka Rizz and his team of sock puppet names.”
I suppose you have a nice selection of tin foil hats too?
BUT… If you haven’t been smacked and humiliated finally answer these contradictory comments of yours…
GO
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/04/cox-rolling-gigabit-broadband-across-us-markets/#comment-758451
You’re welcome
HotRizz,
Oh yeah? How’s that $29.5B 25Mbps to all Australians in 2016 promise going?
Updated after SR 2013, it is no longer relevant just like the first CP 2010 from December 2010 is no longer relevant, it wasn’t then either but I digress, so please catch up, look at the calendar it is August 2016.
Yes devoid it’s a pitty they couldnt tell the truth in 2013 instead having to find out the real $70B price 2 years later.
Rizz fizz,
It’s not $70B, they are still using up the Government cap of $29.5B.
So you made that up.
No troll I didn’t make it up. Are you claiming the ex treasure hockey made it up?
Yeah he did he’s long gone and not even a MP anymore, get over it, everyone else has.
I don’t you can get over it as hockey could be telling to tire cost of the MTM so when it gets to the $70B are you going to claim it is revised?
Yeah whatever Rizz.
@Reality,
If supposedly your Coalitions’ promise of 29 Billion, not a penny more to supply all Australians with a minimum connection of 25 Mb/s before the end of 2016 is no longer relevent… Why the fuck, is anything Labor, Quigley & the prior REAL NBN,(93% FTTP) ever considered an exceptable talking point to seek to bash Labor & Quigley, as yourself, Richard & Mathew always seek to do?
Labor & Quigley were out of nbn in 2013.
Suck it up nupty, your beloved Coalition lied, LIED, to all Australians.
Between the Coalition & Yes-men, new nbnTM are failing so bad that they keep changing rollout dates & final costs of the network.
[Somehow this can be justified via new, updated Yes-men hired, reviews/reports]
That $29 Billion, not a penny more, is clearly bs. now.
NbnTM already admitted the money is running out.
No-one will invest in this joke mtm without kickbacks, tax breaks or under-the-table deals.
Which means the real cost would be over $29 Billion with a forensic audit,(Coalition like hiding details/money/DIRTY-DEALS).
The ROI is looking to be under 3% also; So good luck with loaning the money & paying it back without taking a loss… LOL XD
Ps. Buy a vowel, GET A CLUE!
Later, RIPP.
In the mean time in the real world the Coalition NBN MtM rolls on to completion in 2020 while you and your sock puppet name tags with great chips on their shoulders vainly try to keep the good ol’ days of 2013 alive, in total denial that they were never the good ol’ days in the first place.
What’s left for you for the next three years, primary school name calling and inventing new sock puppet names every day to spit out even more abuse with.
Really sad that’s all that fills your life.
@Reality,
A real man, with conviction & facts on their side, would simply answer peoples questions, such as mine… instead of being such a whiney, conversation diverting, goalpost moving, snivelling little bitch.
My questions obviously went unanswered as you neither have conviction, nor facts, on your side.
Man-up.. or shut-up;
Stop wasting everyones time.
Later, RIPP.
“Updated after SR 2013, it is no longer relevant just like the…”
rest of the predictions that the Coalition have made.
It’s not 2020 yet.
@ alain…
“It’s not 2020 yet”
Congrats, your very first factual post in some 10 years.
You’re welcome
@ RIPP…
If supposedly your Coalitions’ promise of 29 Billion, not a penny more to supply all Australians with a minimum connection of 25 Mb/s before the end of 2016 is no longer relevent… Why the fuck, is anything Labor, Quigley & the prior REAL NBN,(93% FTTP) ever considered an exceptable talking point to seek to bash Labor & Quigley, as yourself, Richard & Mathew always seek to do?
Kudos, excellent point.
Richard, you’re clearly either a nutter or just plain ignorant. If you did any research at all, you’d realise that since Cox launched G1GABLAST nearly a year ago, those who are achieving anything like gigabit speeds have been connected via FTTP, not HFC. Most Cox customers connecting via HFC are getting a maximum of 300Mbps downstream, and a maximum of 20 to 30 Mbps upstream. And these are the lucky few! Don’t believe me? Check out the forums on dslreports dot com and then come back and tell us all how much Americans love their HFC networks (spoiler alert – they don’t!)
Secondly, you proudly state that those few customers who are connected to the NBN are opting for the lower speed tiers, but fail to consider that the reason might be that there is no point for someone to pay a premium to be on a 100Mbps plan, when their FTTN connection is only capable of 20 or 30 Mbps. Consider also that the rollout of the NBN began largely in areas that had minimal to no broadband capability prior to the NBN. If you are going from a 56k dialup or ADSL1 speed connection to 25Mbps, you’re probably going to be over the moon. Considering the only likely thing country folk use the internet for is to renew their subscription to the CWA magazine, I’d say 25Mbps is plenty. If and when the NBN comes to us city folk, if it can actually deliver the speeds advertised, then I reckon you’re going to see a much higher uptake of the higher tier plans.
@d clearly, I wonder which (perhaps both)! I suggest you re-read my post, analysis linked to and the article (forwarding looking announcement). Last place I’d go is another forum.
As for the FTTN v FTTP relative tier performance both supplied. You didn’t read the links before jumping in did you.
FTTN capable of speeds much higher than you claim.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what those “city folk” choose;-)
“Last place I’d go is another forum”
Precisely! You’d believe whatever drivel the gov’t of the day or the media want you believe.
FTTN is technically capable of more, but real world experiences have shown that not to be the case.
You’re obviously one of those people who would read a technical document for DOCSIS 3.1 and wet your pants with excitement over the gigabit claims, and ignore the reality that the gigabit is shared between hundreds of users.
As to reading all the rest of your post, thanks, but I won’t bother, because you’ll believe whatever you want to believe. Have fun with your last century 25Mbps broadband ;)
“FTTN capable of speeds much higher than you claim.”
FTTN of course as capable of universally higher speeds as HFC is of universal Gigabit speeds.
David,
Secondly, you proudly state that those few customers who are connected to the NBN are opting for the lower speed tiers, but fail to consider that the reason might be that there is no point for someone to pay a premium to be on a 100Mbps plan, when their FTTN connection
The NBN stats indicate it is also the majority of FTTP residences that is 80% choosing 25/5 or less.
66% on FTTP choosing 25Mbps or higher.
But then we only have 7% (choosing/can get) 100Mbps on FTTN vs 15% choosing 100Mbps on FTTP.
Source of figures?
http://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/NBN%20SIO%20RKR%20-%20Disclosure%20Tables%20-%2030%20June%202016.xlsx.xlsx
The old Rizz trick, that link doesn’t show the percentages as you quoted, explain how you calculated your percentages from those figures.
First: work out the difference (increase) between the two numbers you are comparing. Then: divide the increase by the original number and multiply the answer by 100
You do it, show us how you got your percentage calculations from the figures in the ACCC link, here they are again in case you forgot what you said.
66% on FTTP choosing 25Mbps or higher.
But then we only have 7% (choosing/can get) 100Mbps on FTTN vs 15% choosing 100Mbps on FTTP.
Lol troll I am not doing your homework for you.
The figures are in the link.
I told you how to get a % figure
you work it out to prove me wrong good luck with that lol
So you made them up, just say so, but we got there in the end.
Lol devoid prove it
you have the “Source of figures?” You asked for if you can’t work out a year 6 math question you should be on here
“First: work out the difference”
Woops…that was a mistake. Alternate cannot do maths.
ROFL
Tap dancing backed into a corner, you made those percentages up, sock puppet support wheeled in as usual, where is Hotcakes, on long service leave or getting a new sock?
Speaking of – “Tap dancing backed into a corner…” alain…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
ROFL indeed …
You’re welcome
Lol devoid usual sock puppet routine when supplied all the infomation that he can’t understand he claims that the Accc has made it up lol
Last comment from me for a good while, I’m sick again of the two trolls here so avoiding the site for a few weeks.
Lets see if alain can understand basic math though.
From the ACCC link, there are two ways you can come up with the 66% figure. Actually, its a % or 2 higher, but thats minor. Its close enough to two thirds for that to be a simple summary.
First way is to just look at the FttP numbers.
856,072 connections in total, 284,999 on 12/1 connection. The remainder are on 25/5 or better, which gives a total of 580,073.
580,073 as a percentage of 856,072 is 67.7598% on 25/5 or better.
Or you can look at ALL connections across ALL options.
1,136,346 users in total, 366,620 on 12/1. The remainder are on 25/5 or better, which is 769,726. Thats a percentage of 67.7369% to 4 decimal points. Surprisingly similar percentage to FttP alone.
The 7% figure is from the FttN information, that shows 102,293 connections, 7,684 of which are in the 25-100 Mbps range. Thats 7.5117%
You could have done that yourself.
See you all later.
C’mon GG…
We all know the cherry-picked figure that best suits the flat earther narrative of less than 25/5 is the only one that counts…
Just like the other claimed analysis here…
An no other figures are even looked at…
And stay, the rest of us who actually have the hide to believe and even state to the clown element here that “the earth isn’t flat”, are still here too.
:)
So sock pocket, devoid, troll, idiot.
Since Gavgong was kind enough to do your home work for you. Are you going to be a man and apologise for claiming I made it up. Or are your going to run away and cry because you been caught out.
400 customers in Wellington, New Zealand, have gigabit from the government FTTP rollout.
In Australia we got a two-year pause to reconfigure for FTTN under Turnbull.
1.2 million Australian premises now have a “fixed line” NBN, but the detail is that most of these are FTTP and were planned under the pre-Coalition rollout.
It stinks that Maitland NSW was half rolled out with FTTP, but the remaining parts of the city are getting costly nodes, even though the ducts and pits are old and frequently flooded, compromising all the copper joins since they were built in the 1950s. If ever there was a town where you would continue with FTTP, it is Maitland.
It will be interesting to see the cost of the HFC refurbishment in the end. I suspect it will be similar to the cost of FTTP replacement that would have delivered lower operating costs than HFC, and therefore yielded a combination of higher revenue and/or lower end user prices.
You suspect the CPP of HFC will triple? Such an increase required to be similar to FTTP. We’ll watch with interest.
As the analysis provided (see chart) shows the forecast revenue profile of HFC & FTTP are very similar. Not surprising given 1) similar end-user speed capabilities and 2) HFC only in high-value areas.
Like FTTN/B v FTTH, the Higher direct opex for HFC isn’t close to offsetting the cost of additional capex. Hopefully more info in AR16.
“You suspect the CPP of HFC will triple?”
Numbers man not so good with words (this explains his diabolically corrupt numbers).
He said “in the end” and you say “CPP” – which is equal in this instance to “in the beginning”.
Pathetic.
“the Higher direct opex for HFC isn’t close to offsetting the cost of additional capex.”
Of course Chas and others have demolished this theory on multiple occasions, but you continue to be incapable of elementary comprehension, as demonstrated above.
“As the analysis provided (see chart) shows the forecast revenue profile of HFC & FTTP are very similar”
But the operating expenses of HFC are almost 13 times higher than FTTP…so the profits are lower.
Also, that revenue changes fairly quickly as FTTP converts to NGPON2.
Chas
Dick won’t release how he got his analysis. The reason why Murdoch was asking for it. As with out we have to take his word for it and ATM it isn’t worth anything.
The base figures for his analysis is based on 35% on 100Mbps for HFC and FTTP considering FTTP it at only 15% and they aren’t doing anymore major FTTP rollouts doubt they will even come close. Hopefully HFC can pickup the slack for apparently speeds we don’t need but NBN does lol.
FTTN on the other hand forecasted 22% on 100Mbps but only 7% currently on it or shall we say can actually get it.
“Dick won’t release how he got his analysis”
It is actually worse than that…he is only looking at half the balance sheet, the revenue. He is completely ignoring the costs…operating costs on FTTN and HFC are 13 times what they are on FTTP, so all things are not equal.
Jk the links provided to the chart data above. All sources acknowledged. Another that they either didn’t read or couldn’t comprehend.
Murdoch posted zero; exposed by half a dozen vacuous posts (analysis posted before he claimed it didn’t exist).
Only one other delim has attempted to contribute anything to this thread, look at the fiberartzi descend (with nothing).
Sadly Richard, you only appear to be able to read half the numbers.
This may explain why you are apparently only able to post in half thoughts.
Lol Richard
It’s funny how your latest graph does show that nice plateau anymore what happen to it
Perhaps “revised ala’ CP16 ” JK..?
Nothing to see here, move along…lol
ChasRizz,
“Dick
operating costs on FTTN and HFC are 13 times what they are on FTTP
Show us how you calculated the ’13 times’ on the OPEX, which requires you to link to the NBN FTTN and HFC OPEX costs in Australia?
@c if I read only half the numbers (you quote things you don’t even understand ) that’d be infinitely more than you / Alex / HC / jk. Exposing the shallowness of their understanding is easy (as here).
@ Richard…
Still smarting, humiliated… must mention Rizz/Alex, ego hurt – GOLD
Since you have all of the answers (LOL)…
Why do you always disappear when asked to explain (without a lame cherry-picked comparison to the previous FTTP plan/Quigley/Conroy) how “your” MTM plan which was ready to roll, fully costed and promised to all by 2016, could now be such a massive blown out complete and utter disaster…?
GO
You’re welcome
“Show us how you calculated the ’13 times’ on the OPEX”
Oh dear. Do you even understand the difference between OPEX and CAPEX, yet?
“if I read only half the numbers”
To be more precise, you COMPARE only half the numbers.
Obviously FTTP is far less expensive for the Total Cost of Ownership, but because it doesn’t fit your bizarre agenda you only look at whatever portion fits your argument and conveniently forget the rest…
“Exposing the shallowness…”
Riiiiiiight…it’s time to wake up now Dorothy…
“Murdoch posted zero; exposed by half a dozen vacuous posts (analysis posted before he claimed it didn’t exist).”
You need to refresh your memory Richard (not that it would help I suspect).
However, for those that don’t know what he’s talking about, here’s a link below. You can make up your own minds as to whether I posted “zero”:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/03/government-role-nbn-needs-re-evaluation-says-us-think-tank/#comment-757543
@m remembers a conversation, I thought we’d have to start again. Further analysis presented, I thought you’d be all over it (rofl). Sorry, it doesn’t exist either.
Welcome to the club Murdoch…
You have obviously broken through the seemingly impenetrable forcefield of ideological BS and spin which surrounds Richard/the largest ego in the universe (well at least in this galaxy).
By doing so, you have seriously embarrassed the self proclaimed knower of fucking everything to the point where he must now mention you regularly (as he does HC and myself – the original forcefield busters), even when you aren’t involved in any of the correspondences, so as to unsuccessfully try to claw back his completely lost cred or in fact claw back anything he can …ROFL…
He will (as he does me and HC) mention you at threads for years now Murdoch.
Because like us (but I’d suggest you even more so – kudos) tore him a new one (and him being one already that’s quite a feat), you completely smashed his massive ego, his BS partial analysis consisting of “because Richard says” and humiliated his blind, cultist stupidity.
Bravo…
I for one enjoyed your toying with the infirm immensely.
So again… welcome :)
Perhaps I’m being harsh.. nah.
Yes sure we get your point. But what about 5, 10, 20 years time when all the nodes need to be decommissioned and fibre rerun to the curb….. there is no way our $50 billion dollar investment will be paid off.
The analysis shows CVC / customer has plenty of growth potential before higher peak speeds even useful. Actuals also showing customer chosen AVC speeds falling!
I agree there’s no way this taxpayer “investment” will be recovered; the policy from its inception a folly. “Investing” more today will simply increase the losses.
“The analysis shows”
What analysis is that? Is it published somewhere, or is it the numbers you appear to be inventing or misinterpreting all jumbled together in your own head?
Please link to any serious and complete analysis done by any accredited sources…happy to listen and comment.
However, you posting your own fantasies as an “analysis” really is getting a bit old now.
Indeed Chas.
Richard hides behind his “magical analysis”…
Thing is, and as we all know (well most know)… analysis requires the “compilation/amassing of facts and figures, from all angles, analysing them all and then reaching a conclusion…”
That’s analysis.
What Richard does (which he disingenuously refers to as analysis) is… he already has his conclusion (the MTM plan he could have been commissioned to write, he claimed as his own, years ago) and then he desperately attempts to cherry-pick, omit and fudge the facts, to fit this pre-conceived outcome.
That is not analysis…that’s thin skinned desperation by the egotistical to (as would a testosterone filled adolescent, when told he’s FOS) lash out to defend the ego.
Unfortunately, as we have all clearly witnessed, Richard ruled by his immovable brainwashed cultist ideology, will as a consequence simply dismiss 1/2 of all information as lefty/anti-free market, instead of even considering it.
And the remaining 1/2, he will accept as gospel without question… and there’s his “analysis [sic].”
So, as one who claims to be the ultimate in intelligence… he proves how gullibly, simple minded he is by firstly being so brainwashed by BS to start with and then shows how dishonest he is to defend the cult simple-mindedness, by picking and choosing info for, and to omit from, his wonder “analysis [sic]”
But the icing on the cake, he asks for us to read his partial “analysis [sic] but with an ego bigger than a small planet, will never accept any criticisms and if anyone does questions him, the ego takes over and he blurts out some pomposity to attempt to belittle…
And then whine when he receives the same in kind.
But ask him to explain the blow outs in the promised MTM plan now totally fucked up, he used to link to his own partial comparison (LOL) but now just disappears.
PRICELESS
Lol Rizz talk about gullible. He couldn’t stop bringing up to counter factual as labor orignal FTTP.
Analysis provided start of thread. Fanboys a laugh; nothing but foul-mouthed abuse and bile.
“Analysis provided start of thread”
Nope…only some numbers you claim are correct. I could not find anything resembling an analysis.
“Fanboys a laugh”
Yes, you truly are…
@c classic, sources referenced. Can’t perform basic maths. Without knowledge or experience abuse and bile all they have left.
Lol Richard your own ref has completely change now doesn’t have that nice plateau anymore.
@ Richard…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/08/04/cox-rolling-gigabit-broadband-across-us-markets/#comment-758520
Still completely avoiding any mention of MTM blow outs…?
Amazingly unparalleled obsequiousness and associated biased stupidity, you possess and portray Richard.
You’re welcome
…and more
*crickets*
The extreme right, flat earther HQ (asylum) must have a cricket plague…lol
That’s all they have when questioned.
You’re “all” welcome
“NBNCo has 30 (yes, thirty) gigabits customers.”
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good ole’ Tosh, adding his special touch of nothingness again…
You’re welcome
“NBNCo has 30 (yes, thirty) gigabits customers”
And zero petabit or 10Gb customers…why, because it isn’t being offered at a reasonable price. The same is true for Fibre on Demand…the “offer” to upgrade has been there for a year and a half. What they don’t tell you is that it costs an average of $13,000 to get it, thereby assuring that nobody can afford it. That’s why only 3 customers have taken it so far…
How do you know how many have applied why they were rejected and how many were accepted at what price?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-tech-choice-program-delivers-just-three-fttp-connections-in-a-year/
10k for just 300m
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/02/24/nbn-co-estimates-up-to-10-5k-for-300m-of-fibre-in-newcastle-cbd/
Ask a question of Chas/Rizz and the Jason K/Rizz sock puppet answers, must be confusing which sock puppet name tag to use.
The old link trick, which doesn’t answer the questions I asked.
Just helping out troll it’s a pity it hurts when you get the infomation you asked for.
@ alain,
“Ask a question of Chas/Rizz and the Jason K/Rizz sock puppet answers, must be confusing which sock puppet name tag to use.”
Your repeated stupidity in regards to this does nothing but demonstrate your own devious mind and how desperate you are to conform to your narrative, being so sans facts.
“The old link trick, which doesn’t answer the questions I asked.”
Speaking of questions unanswered (and repeatedly so)…
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
Knock yourself out…
You’re welcome.
Well devoid the links do answer you question
The first link answered “How do you know how many have applied”
The second link answered “how many were accepted at what price?”
As only 300m cost 10k will know it would be around that price or even more.
“Ask a question of”
Basically because they are basic questions, the answers to which all of us have been familiar with for some time.
If maybe you did a little actual research before posting, you might be a little less left out of the mainstream knowledge…
You should do like the rest of us and go read the senate hearings transcripts. That was from questions on notice…
@Richard
Yes HFC has a longer and better bandwidth potential than UTP over long distances.
But it still has its limitations, and it is lower than using complete fibre.
The frequency on coaxial can only go up so far before it leaves copper and completely radiates.
Transmission techniques and frequency efficiency can prolong its usefulness, but that applies to all mediums.
Fibre’s currently used frequency spectrum has a much bigger bandwidth potential.
@d no one is denying the significant advantages of fibre; also not denied (by the knowledgeable few) is the cost and speed of construction advantages of infrastructure reuse. Such technologies are used today to deliver millions of internet connections despite their limitations. Technological advances extending their useful life for at least a decade, speeds unimaginable a decade prior.
The actuals are in, analysis provided; fanboys can squeal nothingness or gigabit as much as they like. The majority of customer demanded speeds (84% CHOOSING <=25mbps and rising) comfortably delivered by MTM, faster and for significantly less cost. CVC of 1.09mbps has plenty of scope before hitting even the lowest 12mbps speed-tier.
Richard,
no one is denying the significant advantages of fibre;
Perhaps not denying per se`(nice careful choice of words – kudos).. but I do know of one person (and one only) who has said more than once, that “fibre is not the end goal.”
Who was that?
You’re welcome
” the cost and speed of construction advantages of infrastructure reuse”
So how’s that $29.5b plan to provide 25Mbps to all Australians in 2016 going?
“comfortably delivered by MTM”
Except FTTN can’t guarantee more than 12Mbps, nothing comfortable about a paid-for 25Mbps connection there.
“significantly less cost”
Explain again how $70.6b is somehow less than $48b?
2″I’ve made 64,000usd so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about my friend HTt and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
Here’s what I’ve been doing…n…
CLICK HERE =====>> http://tiny.tw/3pdF
…..well, you have made more money than NBNco!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!
Comparing the Cox giga rollout to the MTM rollout makes me feel sick.
This is HFC (Cable) that if offering 1Gbps (“Cable” is part of the MTM), it’s possible now, the NBN have already tested this with DOCSIS 3.1 gear as it’s technology that already exists.
NBN FTTH can get 1Gbps now, it’s available as a wholesale option to retailers, the issue is the CVC pricing is $17,500 PM. The CVC pricing needs to come down or you’ll never see this offered at retail. I have a 100/100 NBN Fibre service (SkyMesh), I wouldn’t notice any difference between that and a 1Gbps connection for everything that goes on in my home (Netflix 4K, Stan, Freeview catch-up, 4 PC’s with general internet use). It keeps up very well and never get any lag or buffering.
“NBN FTTH can get 1Gbps now”
Not all FTTH connections are currently 1Gbps capable…there are quite a few that require a new NTD to be capable.
Should I spend time expounding just how stuffed the Aust telco, political, and regulatory environment is when in the US a private company can make a financial case to build FTTP in a monopoly, or worse, competitive infrastructure environment, and yet in Aust our Govt is building a Govt owned monopoly FTTN network based on 100 yr old copper, telling us we’ll get it soona, fasta, cheapa ?
No. It would be too depressing.
Cheap, fast, correct – and we picked none of them for NBN. :(
It’s 70 year old copper, it replaced the iron telecomms network and the exact same debate happened back then, too.
Except the majority of Australia was less stupid, so it went ahead for the good of all.
The irony in all of that is HC…
Those now completely sans foresight desperately clinging to copper, can tell us in hindsight, exactly why the iron needed to be and was replaced.
And even more ironic, had we done back then, what they say we should do now (keep what we have and don’t progress) they wouldn’t even have the very fucking copper, they now desperately cling to…
Unbelievable stupidity and/or subservience.
Same applies to electricity, gas, water and their favouritest ‘roads’.
Richard: I’m amaz balls. Fibre is still shit. I am smarter than all you fibrenazi fibre zealots.
Reality: you are so smart Richard! We should get married!
Richard: The LNP is better than that Labor scum. Um…oh….
Hi Comedy King :)
I think Reality may have taken to your idea & run with it, he’s going off his nut above, posting frantically, like an even madder than usual, mad man, desperately seeking to back up Richards posts with misdirection, goalpost moves & totals bs..
I’m looking forward to their honeymoon.. hopefully a few weeks in the country for them with glorious rain to flood the pits & noble any new node in the area of their bed & breakfast.
No posts for two weeks,(cabinet offline) & their new node honeymoon snapshot pictures having been photobombed by flash flooding.. Delicious :D
Later, RIPP :)
They’re idiots! Didn’t they listen to our “informed” pollies and disciples – no-one needs more than 25Mbps! They only speak the truth… they know about this stuff… Besides, what would some silly little telco in the US know?!
We don’t have to keep up with the Mexicans, lol!
(..but seriously, very-un-lolololololol!)
(..yes, I did say that out loud and you will be all so disappointed to see what Mexico has got these days considering how much natural wealth they were pilfered of!!)
No Greg it 15Mbps by 2023
Meanwhile Australia gets an ADSL upgrade with ADSL
You certainly can’t compare Australia to the US. The US has extensive infrastructure competition (something the I-diots of WP deny even exists) and less draconian access regulation which encourages risk-taking and infrastructure investment (unlike Australia which has gone backwards in time and renationalised the fixed-line infrastructure).
Really tosh so with a max of 3 infrastructure competition in the US is extensive
So Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TWC, Google, the Bell companies is three max is it?
That’s a bit like saying if iiNet stayed WA only and Internode SA only they would still be ‘competition’ for each other.
In the US there isn’t much infrastructure overlap, getting a choice of two is generally considered a high number of options!
“So Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TWC, Google, the Bell companies is three max is it?”
As Simon says (sorry for the pun), that infrastructure doesn’t compete much at all. Each company operates in its own area. The US did not go down the “Cable Wars” path that we did here in Oz when Telstra and Optus were forced to discontinue their rollout due to competing infrastructure.
Its well known that outside of major cities infrastructure competition in the US is lacking.
Hence the creation of quite a few municipal broadband companies, and the ensuing legislation from states to prevent the creation of municipal broadband companies.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/
Lol devoid can you tell how many of there infrastructure overlaps each other. Would like links to your claims page numbers would help to btw if there are any figures that need counting could you be so kind to do that too.
Own goal again, ‘max of 3’ LOL, time for some babble.
Ahh so nothing to provide to back up you claim oh well back under you bridge until you do
Here is some more.
AT&T
Cablevision Systems Corporation
CenturyLink
Charter Communications
Comcast
Cox Communications
Frontier Communications Company
Hughes Network Systems
Mediacom Communications Corporation
Time Warner Cable
Verizon
ViaSat
Windstream Communications
Max 3, ROFL
ROOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol devoid and tosh how many of those infrastructure overlaps each other.
Or are you claiming if I go to the US I can other form them all at a single house?
alain and Tosh…
ROFL indeed.
Reading your posts is like watching another sequel to Dumb & Dumber.
Add his pompousness to that and we have the trifecta, dumb, dumber & dumbest.
;)
Feel free to choose who is who…
You’re welcome
“ROFL indeed”
They really don’t understand how foolish they are making themselves look…
Reality
“Here is some more.
AT&T
Cablevision Systems Corporation
CenturyLink
Charter Communications
Comcast
Cox Communications
Frontier Communications Company
Hughes Network Systems
Mediacom Communications Corporation
Time Warner Cable
Verizon
ViaSat
Windstream Communications”
THIRTEEN? Is that all you’ve got moron. Hell! Even one of them no longer exists you are so out-of-touch.
Well I suppose your lame brain only runs at <10% like your list of U.S. ISPs
FFS! Fuck off back to the planet you came from!
Please look up where those companies operate and what they do before you put your foot in your mouth again…
Which really has nothing to do with your sock puppet Jason K original statement.
Really tosh so with a max of 3 infrastructure competition in the US is extensive
So having been caught out there are much more than three infrastructure competitors in the USA you decide it is all about overlap, which was not mentioned in the original statement, when caught move the goal posts, except once again it was a spectacular own goal.
You look up where those companies operate and why it is significant, and tell us all about the ‘overlap’ state by state.
Alex you and your stupid sock puppet name tags pretending you have the ‘numbers’ really need to stay out of the deep end.
Lol troll are you claiming one single house has 13 different connections going into it.
But but but, alain…
alain must say something, anything…regardless of how obviously ridiculously childish and moronic.
Amazing.
Speaking of the deep end… While you are so talkative and ready to respond… since you missed this the first dozen times…lol
TRY AGAIN
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/07/25/nbn-boost-hfc-broadband-docsis-3-1-2017/#comment-755983
Your welcome.
“You look up where those companies operate”
I don’t really have to…I lived there for 35 years.
There is no national carrier like Telstra…it was AT&T until 1982 when they were forced to become a whole bunch of smaller separate companies operating in their own little areas.
Unlike here, you cannot get cable from two different companies in the same block…it’s one or the other. The same is true for the wholesale phone line…there is no choice for the infrastructure.
The only choices you can make are who is going to be your retail provider…or if you prefer fibre or HFC.
BTW, with those 2 choices, HFC loses hands down every time…
@ alain
*crickets*
Again, still, as always… I thought so.
GOLD
Apology accepted
In the U.S. there are approximately 38 telcos deploying Fiber To The Home Networks with more than 70 ISPs providing FTTH plans. (2013 data)
(PowerPoint Presentations)
The Transformative Effects of FTTP
http://toolkit.ftthcouncil.org/d/do/29
The Impact of North American FTTH Deployments
http://toolkit.ftthcouncil.org/d/do/1498
I can now count the number of “cable companies” on one hand and they are not expanding HFC footprints any further. Some, including Cox & Comcast, are upgrading to DOCSIS3.1 in small select areas to extend it’s life for another 2-3 years while they deploy FTTH networks where it is required and more urgent.
Cox had been deploying high speed multi-gigabit broadband infrastructure for almost 10 years. Cox offers FTTP connections (1Gbps & 10Gbps) to business customers.
2014 Article
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/cox-plans-gigabit-internet-for-residential-customers-this-year/
Furthermore Cox was embroiled in a class action lawsuit last year regarding set top boxes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/30/jury-cox-illegally-forced-customers-into-renting-its-set-top-box/
As a result the FCC made a ruling regarding set top boxes and cable companies
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/cable-lobby-is-really-mad-about-fccs-set-top-box-competition-plan/
The fact is, just about everyone in the U.S. is dying to get rid of the set top box and eagerly jumps to Google Fiber or AT&T when it rocks past their door.
Unlike Australia, the U.S. lives up to it $350 billion “National Broadband Plan” and telcos take the FCC’s “Broadband Progress Report” seriously.
National Broadband Plan
https://www.fcc.gov/general/national-broadband-plan
2016 Broadband Progress Report
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report
The outdated telephone system is currently being laid to rest in the U.S. as it’s telecommunications network goes 100% optical fiber. (See FCC’s “IP TRANSITION”)
R.I.P cable companies
Rizz Crash,
I can now count the number of “cable companies” on one hand and they are not expanding HFC footprints any further.
The NBN is not expanding the HFC foot print here either.
Some, including Cox & Comcast, are upgrading to DOCSIS3.1 in small select areas
You mean it is starting out in small select areas, the aim is to make DOCSIS 3.1 available to all HFC areas.
to extend it’s life for another 2-3 years
Your biased guesstimate on the life extension.
Result:conjecture.
while they deploy FTTH networks where it is required and more urgent.
DOCSIS 3.1 is urgent also, especially for USA’s largest internet provider Comcast where the majority of their customer base is on HFC.
The fact is, just about everyone in the U.S. is dying to get rid of the set top box and eagerly jumps to Google Fiber or AT&T when it rocks past their door.
They are? where does this undeniable ‘fact’ come from?
R.I.P cable companies
Except those those deploying DOCSIS 3.1 or faster in the USA and across the world.
“You mean it is starting out in small select areas, the aim is to make DOCSIS 3.1 available to all HFC areas”
Please show us that quote…
It appears that the aim is to replace HFC with FTTP in all areas…Docsis 3.1 is a bandaid until they can. HFC is vastly more expensive to run, and has a much more limited lifespan. It would be really stupid to just keep adding bandaids…
“especially for USA’s largest internet provider Comcast where the majority of their customer base is on HFC.”
If your theory were true, then why aren’t they going Docsis 3.1 across the whole country today instead of just some tine test markets?
“You mean it is starting out in small select areas, the aim is to make DOCSIS 3.1 available to all HFC areas.”
BULLSHIT
“Your biased guesstimate on the life extension.
Result:conjecture.”
BULLSHIT.
Contrary to the FCC’s National Broadband Plan which you obviously have not read.
“DOCSIS 3.1 is urgent also, especially for USA’s largest internet provider Comcast where the majority of their customer base is on HFC.”
BULLSHIT.
Comcast is overbuilding the majority of their HFC network with 2 gigabit enabled Gigabit Pro within the next 2 years
Here’s that pesky link again Backwater Boy
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/comcast-2gbps-fiber-available-to-18m-homes-gigabit-cable-coming-soon/
The fact is, just about everyone in the U.S. is dying to get rid of the set top box and eagerly jumps to Google Fiber or AT&T when it rocks past their door.
“They are? where does this undeniable ‘fact’ come from?”
From Telcos take up data and the FCC.
Look what happened to Time Warner Cable! They no longer exist! LMAO
Unlike Australia, the U.S. authorities have the data and full interactive maps of all network infrastructure coast-2-coast
R.I.P cable companies
“Except those those deploying DOCSIS 3.1 or faster in the USA ”
BULLSHIT
The telephone network will be a thing of the past by end 2018. DOCSIS3.1 is a temporary measure.
But you do not even know what “temporary” or interim means moron!
We are thinking of filing a petition with the FCC to complain about Australians writing false and misleading bullshit about broadband in the U.S. just for a laugh.
Do the world a favor Reality, Richard or whatever you call yourself.
TROLL! Go and slash your wrists!
Rizz,
Getting caught out with too many awkward questions as usual, just type BULLSHIT in caps that will do, actual answers are too awkward.
Then spit out heaps of abuse.
Comcast is overbuilding the majority of their HFC network with 2 gigabit enabled Gigabit Pro within the next 2 years
That link doesn’t say that.
Look what happened to Time Warner Cable! They no longer exist! LMAO
That’s because they were bought out by Charter Communications in May this year, you forgot that bit.
From Telcos take up data and the FCC.
Links that proves, “The fact is, just about everyone in the U.S. is dying to get rid of the set top box and eagerly jumps to Google Fiber or AT&T when it rocks past their door.”
Meanwhile in the real world.
ABI Research Forecasts 9 Million Broadband Subscribers to Use DOCSIS 3.1 Equipment by 2017
Latest Findings Forecast the Future of Ultra-Broadband Technology as the Next Generation of Broadband Communications
https://www.abiresearch.com/press/abi-research-forecasts-9-million-broadband-subscri/
What is the new owner of Time Warner Cable intending to do re DOCSIS 3.1?
Charter’s management also stated that “we don’t have a specific plan to do that yet. But over the next 18 months, this platform is going to become available to the industry at commercially deployable pricing, and we expect that we will begin the transition in the new company over that timeframe.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/charter-communications-deploy-docsis-3-110705537.html
Please keep up ‘Mr USA’ IT expert.
ROFL
“ABI Research Forecasts 9 Million Broadband Subscribers to Use DOCSIS 3.1 Equipment by 2017”
Wow…9 million out of 3.4 Billion users? That’s real impressive…
“That’s because they were bought out by Charter Communications in May this year”
And why do you suppose they were forced to sell so cheaply? $55 Billion for 18.5 million subscribers and all of their other assets is pretty much bargain basement.
You didn’t read it through…Comcast is deploying fibre at 2Gbps. That is double what DOCSIS 3.1 will be deployed at. Sure they are deploying the cheap HFC bandaid for a couple of years, but if they rely on that to sustain them, they will go under in less than 5 years.
It is also worth noting that they made that announcement 9 months ago, and very little progress has happened so far. They have only 9 more months in their timeframe.
You continually miss the obvious…HFC was deployed for Cable TV. Broadband did come later, but
1. It wasn’t designed for broadband
2. Most customers don’t associate it with broadband, they think of fibre optics.
What happened to Snow Crash Rizz? you have to be careful with the time zone changes so Chas sock puppet called into action.
but if they rely on that to sustain them, they will go under in less than 5 years.
Unsubstantiated BS.
1. It wasn’t designed for broadband
So?, copper wasn’t originally designed for broadband, wireless wasn’t originally designed for broadband, your point is what?
2. Most customers don’t associate it with broadband, they think of fibre optics.
Yes they do, cable broadband is well established terminology here and overseas, Telstra and Optus have been selling it in Australia for many years, it has been around longer than FTTP, your statement is rubbish.
“Unsubstantiated BS”
Yes, but I am trying hard to forgive you for it…
“copper wasn’t originally designed for broadband, wireless wasn’t originally designed for broadband”
Exactly…that is why they are so much less efficient and scalable.
For example, you could do state to state deliveries with a ute, and as they get larger and larger, you ccould add a trailer and a bigger bed to the ute…but they would be bandaid solutions compared to a Road Train. So if you ever needed to expand shipping, you would be stuck with a modified ute and shut down until you could get a new road train. As we know, those orders take many years…
“cable broadband is well established terminology here and overseas”
Over here, yes…but not overseas. They were only sold as an afterthought…even when they were run by a company called America On-Line. It was the reason that Time Warner took over the brand, and why Time Warner was forced to sell to Cox.
Folks know of it intellectually, but it isn’t what they think of when they look for an internet provider…its what they think of when they look for TV.
Gotta love poor old alain (the cock puppet) and his desperation to appease his masters…
Here he is talking up DOCSIS 3.1…
When he told us a few years back that ADSL speeds were and would be good enough into the future to bag his opponents FTTP plan.
He also said HFC had failed and that he had it “across the road from his place and it was only good for possums to run up and birds to perch upon”
But again he now talks up DOCSIS 3.1 for HFC.
Of course too, the “virtual inventor of the internet and his team of mates” suggested (iirc) 15Mbps is all we’d need by 2023.
SO Why TF are my taxes being wasted on this unneeded white elephant … see what I did there?
Apology accepted
Reality = MISTER BULLSHIT
The fact is, just about everyone in the U.S. is dying to get rid of the set top box and eagerly jumps to Google Fiber or AT&T when it rocks past their door.
“They are? where does this undeniable ‘fact’ come from?”
Where in the hell do you think Google Fiber get all of their customers from.
Do you think they just appear out of thin air?
“What is the new owner of Time Warner Cable intending to do re DOCSIS 3.1?”
Charter Communications have a sizable chunk of the FTTH market. They are currently deploying & overbuilding with FTTH
They are dumping TMW’s Manhatten headquarters as well as their name.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/27/charter-plans-to-leave-time-warner-center/
Keep humping your dead pig.
You don’t even know anything about the Australian broadband network let alone in the U.S.
Crawl back under your rock knuckle drager.
Chas
As of June 2013, Comcast Cable had 19.986 million high-speed internet customers
http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=781496
Comcast’s cable television customers peaked in 2007 with 24.8 million customers. Every year since 2007 Comcast has lost customers and end of 2013 had shrunk to 21.7 million
http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=821438
It is perfectly clear in the article I provided (scroll up) that Comcast are initially deploying 2 gigabit Fiber To The Home to 18 million customers, with future plans to cover the small remaining portion of their footprint once completed.
This way they have the FCC’s blessing and remain in business. It’s as simple as that.
However it seems some around here lack sufficient education and intelligence to be able to read and comprehend a one page article and doesn’t comprehend the forces of competition and the U.S. National Broadband Plan.
“Getting caught out with too many awkward questions as usual, just type BULLSHIT in caps that will do, actual answers are too awkward.
Then spit out heaps of abuse.”
BULLSHEEEEEEEEEEET!
Comments are closed.