NBN Pricing

[cheap]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I just can't believe they're still charging for speed/data usage it defeats the purpose of networking on a scale such as this. Never made any sense with ADSL (the speed did due to their ****** servers) no other country charges for data usage. I could download 1 TB quite easily with my current ADSL 2 plan. National progression of society only to be destroyed by 8 or so CEO's Mr Telstra, Mr netspace, Mr Optus, inhibitng lifeforms, such a burden to society.

The NBN will be able to be utilized as much as a porsche been confined to a driveway it's entire life.

They do this to manage the capacity and performance of the current system which would otherwise die from every tom, dick and harry on the net doing vast amounts of "productive" work.

NBN will have to be throttled in exactly the same way - trust me - I've been involved systems capacity and perform management and have seen countless capacity upgrades consumed by users who are given open slather.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by cheap

what are you and your household doing to consume so much of the 100mbps capacity?

we have four people connected to the internet, with 9 devices including phones and laptops/netbooks. One person games a lot, one uses a lot of youtube, i stream radio stations, do lots of HD Youtube (which will max ~14.5MB/s as the HD servers are unlimited) etc. My point is it can all be done at the same time with minimal interference with one another.

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Not expensive but it's a sheer rip off. Why are ISP's profiting off technology that has been funded by the tax payers???

if you'd done any research on it you'd know that the idea is for any company to be able to re-sell the NBN. Anyone who can buy the rights/usage can resell it. You might find NDN packages from the Reject Store in theory. Therefore, this is hardly doing any favours to the ISP's, it's actually going to take profits away from them.

Mind you that may have changed once it was all signed off.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by cheap

Just so I understand:

We're talking about rural Australia, the place where systematic government policies (from both sides of politics) have reduced services and many people have left the bush, countless small towns are struggling/closed. Have I got the right picture?

The same place where farmers, graziers and their employees, these people struggle to make ends meet, they don't have normal 9-5 jobs. But according to NBN fantasy, these same people will have countess spare hours available to "do stuff" on the internet thanks to NBN?

Do you think a farmer knows or cares if he's currently on a digital phone line or using the marvellous VOIP. I've got a couple of friends who are farmers and they just want a phone that works, better still a phone that works 40km's away from nowhere. Will NBN fix their crummy NextG/3G coverage - if so how?

Then again, NBN might allow these same people will be make many inexpensive overseas phone calls, perhaps that the benefit?

So how many people are we actually talking about that fit the "NBN rural" picture, 1 million, 5 million, how many? Whats the take up rate of NBN?

Have a read (yes from the evil Murdock empire), but heck it might just let the penny drop for some people:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225876225571

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/art...test-news.html

The NBN rural strategy doesn't make sense to me?

Blanket NBN coverage to the rural countryside is just not a good return on investment. Targeting specific rural business centres might be as problematic. For example, exactly what rural business activity requires 100mbps? Also people in the bush don't normally have the same disposable income as the city dwellers.

You will find most Queensland government rural offices/agencies/hospitals already have a corporate network presence (usually on GWIP) which is adequate for their current needs and can have bandwidth increased with just a phone call to Telstra. Lets get this straight and dispel another NBN myth, eHealth does not require NBN.

The only place where NBN might be appropriate is in the big cities, significant populations in small concentrations, where lots of people work mundane 9-5 jobs and have plenty of spare time and cash available (like you and me) who can use it.

Im no farmer, and theres no fast BB available in the regional centre i live in. Rural? Maybe not, but I can walk out the back and if I try really hard, I might be able to spit on a chicken or cow.

Oh yeah, Im also stuck with a monopoly of sorts, I can choose any ISP that onsells Telstra, or Telstra itself. Yeah great choice, a private monopoly, one that I have no power to influence, or a state monopoly, one where at least I along with everyone else get to vote for them, and vote them out.

Take up rate of the NBN will be 100% of people who want non-wireless internet and a landline phone. There WILL BE NO COPPER NETWORK, its being decommissioned. Ergo, everyone will have too, or go without and make do with mobiles and wireless.

As for the rest of your disregard for 'rural' Aus, Ill just dismiss it as it hardly warrants any serious consideration for merit, while it warrants much for abuse, which is frowned on.

[mondo_broady]

i every time i read in here... NBN infrastructure is about future-proofing. current technology is already struggling to cope unless you live in certain areas within a capital city.

[EgoFG]

I am prolly in a Stage 2 release area, and at the moment cannot get any info on when, let alone how much.

[TheSneakiness]

Any advancement in technology is a plus for me.

Am looking at moving soon so will weigh up technological options re: internet. Currently using Vodafail 3G wireless broadband and unless you live in a city centre forget any sort of coverage.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im no farmer, and theres no fast BB available in the regional centre i live in. Rural? Maybe not, but I can walk out the back and if I try really hard, I might be able to spit on a chicken or cow.

Oh yeah, Im also stuck with a monopoly of sorts, I can choose any ISP that onsells Telstra, or Telstra itself. Yeah great choice, a private monopoly, one that I have no power to influence, or a state monopoly, one where at least I along with everyone else get to vote for them, and vote them out.

Take up rate of the NBN will be 100% of people who want non-wireless internet and a landline phone. There WILL BE NO COPPER NETWORK, its being decommissioned. Ergo, everyone will have too, or go without and make do with mobiles and wireless.

As for the rest of your disregard for 'rural' Aus, Ill just dismiss it as it hardly warrants any serious consideration for merit, while it warrants much for abuse, which is frowned on.

Settle down and try not to get you undies any more knotted, I have great regard for the rural areas and work with rural sites all the time. Suggest you re-read my post, work out who your many issues are with (because I can assure your issues aren't with me) have a think about it and come back with some reasonable counter points.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by cheap

Settle down and try not to get you undies any more knotted, I have great regard for the rural areas and work with rural sites all the time. Suggest you re-read my post, work out who your many issues are with (because I can assure your issues aren't with me) have a think about it and come back with some reasonable counter points.

Tell ya what, you read your posts first. Because what you claim in this one, is not the same as you stated before.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Tell ya what, you read your posts first. Because what you claim in this one, is not the same as you stated before.

So which specifc point do you have an issue with and clearly state why?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

Will NBN fix their crummy NextG/3G coverage - if so how?

all mobile coverage goes threw copper/cable fixed line..

Whats the take up rate of NBN?
.

telstra/optus have a 99% take up rate over adsl2+ if the house is wired for it..
simply because it's cheaper to have cable/voip rather than phone + internet bundle.

[superyob]

I don't care about the so called benefits of being able to twit space at the speed of light, but thanks to Julia's magnificent benevolence, I can sleep easier at night knowing that she has provided me with the means to do so, should I ever feel the need. I'm sure it was money well spent, because after all, politicians are always looking out for the best interests of the public aren't they?

[naddis01]

Genuine question - If all of the copper lines are being decommissioned, what will happen to people that live on a farm where they are the only ones on the line for say atleast 5 - 10km? I could think of quite a few people I know in this situation. Surely the cost of running fibre to each of these properties is prohibitive?

[Polyal]

99% take up? Where did you get that figure from. Family in TAS have it past their place already and wont touch it simply because they dont need to, current service is plenty.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Polyal

99% take up? Where did you get that figure from. Family in TAS have it past their place already and wont touch it simply because they dont need to, current service is plenty.

There is a massive hole in that theory. For what youre saying to hold true in 8 yrs time, the copper lines would need to stay, in most cases current services WILL BE GONE. Unless they are already on some alternative to ADSL style infrastructure.

Im not sure how you use something that is no longer physically there. Imagination perhaps.

Originally Posted by naddis01

Genuine question - If all of the copper lines are being decommissioned, what will happen to people that live on a farm where they are the only ones on the line for say atleast 5 - 10km? I could think of quite a few people I know in this situation. Surely the cost of running fibre to each of these properties is prohibitive?

As far as I understand it, some will be using wireless towers that are mounted on optic fiber. Wireless isnt bad, its great in limited use (how limited? well Ill let tech gurus fight that out), but it is limited in its scalability to handle increased use. So in remote situations wireless will be very good as there are not so may people straining its capabilities. In cities where thousands or tens of thousands will place strain on wireless systems it would fail to deliver decent speeds.

Originally Posted by cheap

So which specifc point do you have an issue with and clearly state why?

Already have.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by fmc351

As far as I understand it, some will be using wireless towers that are mounted on optic fiber. Wireless isnt bad, its great in limited use (how limited? well Ill let tech gurus fight that out), but it is limited in its scalability to handle increased use. So in remote situations wireless will be very good as there are not so may people straining its capabilities. In cities where thousands or tens of thousands will place strain on wireless systems it would fail to deliver decent speeds.

Some? What happens to the rest?

What sort of speeds are we talking? What happens to the home phone?

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by fmc351

As far as I understand it, some will be using wireless towers that are mounted on optic fiber. Wireless isnt bad, its great in limited use (how limited? well Ill let tech gurus fight that out), but it is limited in its scalability to handle increased use. So in remote situations wireless will be very good as there are not so may people straining its capabilities. In cities where thousands or tens of thousands will place strain on wireless systems it would fail to deliver decent speeds.
Already have.

it won't be wireless as in 3g it will be more like a hi tech wifi system using microwaves with a big directional antenna at both ends you won't get fibre speeds but you will get good high speed data you wont get spectrum saturation as it will be directional and there will only be a few of them

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Some? What happens to the rest?

What sort of speeds are we talking? What happens to the home phone?

Well I say some, as most people will be directly linked to fibre, so only a small portion population wise will be linked via wireless, thus 'some'. Another example of the 'some' is those in more remote places might have other arrangements already in place such as satellite. For some family living in the middle of nowhere on a property the size of a small nation with no houses for 100 miles, they might be using satellite so no copper to pull up anyway. But they might also get access to a wireless setup of some kind. I cant answer that but it is going to effect less than 1% of Australias population, currently far more than 1% is disadvantaged by the current system. As far as I know, most living in sparsely populated areas, but its impossible to cover every last home, will get wireless to fibre, with the vast majority in regional centres getting direct fibre with wireless also likely for those on the outer edges of those regional centres, so like I dont know, 30km out of Ballarat. I say likely as they might be direct on the fibre, if not, wireless will be the solution.

The home phone will run via the same fibre. Or in the case of remote rural, via wireless on a node connected into the fibre.

As it is now, your home phone runs through the same copper network as ADSL. So the new fibre will still deliver both services, just much faster and with better future proofing which provides opportunities not currently available. I mean what we have now, is a dinosaur.


All this talk about phones being less reliable or unavailable is nonsense. If anything they will be more reliable and more readily available. The current setup is prone to weather and disaster, and the new one wont be any worse in that regard. The idea that wireless like mobiles solves that is also nonsense, it relies on a physical connection too, currently copper or fibre, and soon to be just fibre. The repeater your mobile phone links too when you make or receive a call isnt just an aerial, its a link into the physical network, hardwired. They are just changing the material it links with to something from this century, or more realistically, this millenia.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

it won't be wireless as in 3g it will be more like a hi tech wifi system using microwaves with a big directional antenna at both ends you won't get fibre speeds but you will get good high speed data you wont get spectrum saturation as it will be directional and there will only be a few of them

I knew it wasnt mobile phone tech, but wasnt sure exactly what it is. Unfortunately all the talk about wireless has been 3g and 4g.

Cheers.

[Jason[98.EL]]

thats the map of what areas are getting it sooner rather than later cant believe that they are skipping so many areas ie doing melbourne but not doing geelong hell we are only 75ks from melb cbd

[flappist]

Those are the POIs, actual deployment is a completely different story.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Those are the POIs, actual deployment is a completely different story.

Im fairly certain I saw them laying the fibre on the Sunshine Coast a year or so ago. Could have been something else but Im led to believe it was fibre. It was blue if that helps.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im fairly certain I saw them laying the fibre on the Sunshine Coast a year or so ago. Could have been something else but Im led to believe it was fibre. It was blue if that helps.

Absolutely.

There is a POA in Maroochydore, another in Caloundra, one out at Chancellor Park and several others scattered around the coast.

Your POI is the same as mine, Brisbane North.

NBN will use any existing fibre as long as it complies.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im fairly certain I saw them laying the fibre on the Sunshine Coast a year or so ago. Could have been something else but Im led to believe it was fibre. It was blue if that helps.

Google "Regional Broadband Blackspot Program"

http://www.nextgennetworks.com.au/RBBP_progress.htm

As for the wireless, it'll probably be a WiMax installation. They generally offer up to 12Mb/s up to 30kms away from the tower, line of sight.
Internode have a few installations set up in regional SA already. More information can be found here: http://www.internode.on.net/resident.../wireless_dsl/

[fmc351]

I notice Exetel have released NBN prices, $39.50 (20 gig, at 12/1) to $99.50 (200 gig at 100/40) both with VoIP and free uploads. Exetel change plans like the wind so who knows what it will be next week. And apparently they will shape if you exceed quota.

Probably worth noting too that the NBN will make prices uniform for locations. I pay $10 more for the same plan as someone on it in a Zone 1 exchange. Mines Zone 2, and some Zone 3 cant get it at all.

Originally Posted by flappist

Your POI is the same as mine, Brisbane North.

Im not that good a shot. If you can hit it from Harvey Bay I want to know what your loading with.


Going by those destinations, and the link above on black spots, then I dont know if I saw fibre being laid. It was Petrie Ck Rd, where the bridge was replaced near the Matilda servo, on the western side.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

we have four people connected to the internet, with 9 devices including phones and laptops/netbooks. One person games a lot, one uses a lot of youtube, i stream radio stations, do lots of HD Youtube (which will max ~14.5MB/s as the HD servers are unlimited) etc. My point is it can all be done at the same time with minimal interference with one another.


if you'd done any research on it you'd know that the idea is for any company to be able to re-sell the NBN. Anyone who can buy the rights/usage can resell it. You might find NDN packages from the Reject Store in theory. Therefore, this is hardly doing any favours to the ISP's, it's actually going to take profits away from them.

Mind you that may have changed once it was all signed off.

I'm well aware of how a fibre network operates, but the NBN itself (which is the same network) I haven't studied, so I wouldn't know of the political ideas/plans behind it (besides the obvious plan for business growth), what I am aware of is it's potential/hardware capabilities, which are being inhibited for the profit of the few. This isn't a backbone network, it's node to node and that's crap (referring to cheaps post), the only reason it throttles our networks is because they're hardware is incompetant, the rest of the western world doesn't even have data limits not to mention 10 times the population and they all seem to receive very stable high speed connections.

And reselling the network is kind've my issue, it should be government operated since it was funded by the government, or at least sold privately with restrictions to control these tycoons. We sell something like this privately and we're inviting corporate scum to charge us wtf they want, kind've what happened a decade ago with the utilities, never seen such low quality control in my life ever since they went private, exponential rates and more power failures than I can ever remember. Privitisation is the dumbest concept around, I fail to see the benefits???

Not only that, labour has made a lot of committments to this network, which they probably knew they couldn't keep. Pwning it off to the private sector takes away the pressure and responsibility off the government which isn't a good thing. When this network is revealed as a disappointment to the general public, labour need to be directly responsible otherwise there's no consequences for their actions (they'll get voted out but there's no definite sector to blame here if things get more severe) someone needs to be directly responsible and it should be labour, finish what they started.

We have no control over what the private sector does, they run wild, they can charge us what they want, have as low quality control as they want and there's nothing we can do about it, terms and conditions are getting to the point where you could get away with murder if it was on a contract.

ACCC don't make me laugh, you could report a worker losing an arm and they'd laugh at you.

I didn't really word this well but meh im in a rush lol

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

... the rest of the western world doesn't even have data limits not to mention 10 times the population and they all seem to receive very stable high speed connections.
If we had 10 times the population, this project, albeit adhoc as it would be duplicated by various companies, would already be done. Its because we are a small population that government must build it, or we have to wait 100 yrs until the market, as in business, think theres enough profit in it to warrant their investment. And from talking with people in the US for example, some are able to access superfast internet, while others are on basically ADSL speeds. Again, its those who live away from the heavily populated areas that private enterprise 'neglect' as its not profitable and they can cherry pick locations.

And reselling the network is kind've my issue, it should be government operated since it was funded by the government, or at least sold privately with restrictions to control these tycoons. We sell something like this privately and we're inviting corporate scum to charge us wtf they want, kind've what happened a decade ago with the utilities, never seen such low quality control in my life ever since they went private, exponential rates and more power failures than I can ever remember. Privitisation is the dumbest concept around, I fail to see the benefits???
...

We have no control over what the private sector does, they run wild, they can charge us what they want, have as low quality control as they want and there's nothing we can do about it, terms and conditions are getting to the point where you could get away with murder if it was on a contract.
Except they dont own the network. For instance, Exetel owns no copper or fibre, so the product it sells is either Optus, Telstra or AAPT. And with the NBN the govt will own the network. Private enterprise will lease access, and then sell that access to consumers. The physical infrastructure will be owned by taxpayers. I think the exception is DSLAMS (well actually whatever the NBN equivalent is) will be paid for by the ISPs.

ACCC don't make me laugh, you could report a worker losing an arm and they'd laugh at you.
Probably because they arent WorkCover. Their job as their name implies, is consumers and competition.

I didn't really word this well but meh im in a rush lol

I think you missed the point in selling the NBN. He isnt saying sell the infrastructure, he is saying NBN Co will sell access to whoever wants to buy it (ie: Internode, Exetel, or any other ISP you can think of, or in the post, the Reject Shop), and those people will onsell the rights to consumers. Thus, competitive pricing, less the standard amount for access by NBN Co.

Right now, all ISP pay someone who grants them access to their network. Most ISP's dont have copper let alone fibre running around the nation. For the most part its Telstra they pay. I think, might have changed, even Optus have to have an arrangement with Telstra.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I think you missed the point in selling the NBN. He isnt saying sell the infrastructure, he is saying NBN Co will sell access to whoever wants to buy it (ie: Internode, Exetel, or any other ISP you can think of, or in the post, the Reject Shop), and those people will onsell the rights to consumers. Thus, competitive pricing, less the standard amount for access by NBN Co.

Right now, all ISP pay someone who grants them access to their network. Most ISP's dont have copper let alone fibre running around the nation. For the most part its Telstra they pay. I think, might have changed, even Optus have to have an arrangement with Telstra.

Ah I see I was way off lol. I think Telstra internode and maybe iinet are the only providers that have their own lines? What confuses me is Telstra own the lines, are privately owned like the others yet their plans are significantally more expensive than Optus/netspace despite those same companies having to pay Telstra royalties? If fair competition was true then shouldn't Telstra be cheaper than the average rather than be one of the most expensive providers around?? I mean there's probably far more to it, for example they'd have far higher maintanance but things such as that would be covered in royalties from the other providers?? I fail to see why they're more expensive when they own all the hardware? Logic tells me they should be cheaper than the average provider.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Ah I see I was way off lol. I think Telstra internode and maybe iinet are the only providers that have their own lines? What confuses me is Telstra own the lines, are privately owned like the others yet their plans are significantally more expensive than Optus/netspace despite those same companies having to pay Telstra royalties? If fair competition was true then shouldn't Telstra be cheaper than the average rather than be one of the most expensive providers around?? I mean there's probably far more to it, for example they'd have far higher maintanance but things such as that would be covered in royalties from the other providers?? I fail to see why they're more expensive when they own all the hardware? Logic tells me they should be cheaper than the average provider.

My phone is Telstra. My internet is not. But my ISP supplies to me a Telstra based internet plan (its all I can get at my exchange), with ADSL2+ speeds, 200 gig with no off peak nonsense, and no uploads are counted, and they supply it to me for less than I can get it direct from Telstra.

I cant say if Internode and iinet have lines (I dont think they do), but Im fairly certain Optus and AAPT have lines. Even Telstra pays someone for the access offshore, I cant recall the name of the owner of the undersea optic links. But IIRC, theres more than one of them too. Then again, maybe Telstra is a part owner or its some arm of it anyway.

One of the things Telstra cash in on, is the reliability of their network speeds. Im sure their overheads are higher too. Whether they truly are more reliable is less important when selling complex products to uninformed consumers. Its the perception. I have friends who have been on Big Puddle, and a couple that still are, and I honestly cant see how they have any more reliability than I do. Theirs slows at peak times, so does mine but not a lot. Maybe there are some differences with pings etc, I dont know as I dont do gaming and dont really care anyway. Ive not had a dropout, or a loss of connection for any period of time with my current ISP. My last one, thats a different story.

Apparently better customer service is a selling point, but one friend who is no longer using Big Puddle wouldnt agree.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by fmc351

My phone is Telstra. My internet is not. But my ISP supplies to me a Telstra based internet plan (its all I can get at my exchange), with ADSL2+ speeds, 200 gig with no off peak nonsense, and no uploads are counted, and they supply it to me for less than I can get it direct from Telstra.

I cant say if Internode and iinet have lines (I dont think they do), but Im fairly certain Optus and AAPT have lines. Even Telstra pays someone for the access offshore, I cant recall the name of the owner of the undersea optic links. But IIRC, theres more than one of them too. Then again, maybe Telstra is a part owner or its some arm of it anyway.

One of the things Telstra cash in on, is the reliability of their network speeds. Im sure their overheads are higher too. Whether they truly are more reliable is less important when selling complex products to uninformed consumers. Its the perception. I have friends who have been on Big Puddle, and a couple that still are, and I honestly cant see how they have any more reliability than I do. Theirs slows at peak times, so does mine but not a lot. Maybe there are some differences with pings etc, I dont know as I dont do gaming and dont really care anyway. Ive not had a dropout, or a loss of connection for any period of time with my current ISP. My last one, thats a different story.

Apparently better customer service is a selling point, but one friend who is no longer using Big Puddle wouldnt agree.

I've tried quite a few ISPs over the years and although I can't say Telstra are even close to perfect they are by far the best of a bad lot. When it comes to ADSL tech support they have the advantage of owning all the equipment so they don't need to pass on tech issues. I have had some problems but they have been resolved reasonably well where as with Optus or dodo I don't recommend holding your breath waiting to get anything fixed

[snappy]

http://www.rearden.com/DIDO/DIDO_White_Paper_110727.pdf

It would seem in a press conference 3 days ago , That this inventer steve pearlman has made a wirless network that would outdate the nbn.

In a nutshell so far he has made a mukti user wireless system that has the ability to travel at the speed of light