The revenue for business services was never, ever going to be there � and without business revenue, the costs to a consumer for raw consumption are simply, far beyond the costs they can pay.
Do you honestly believe that? Why?
I work for a small business that would be all over FTTP services, we would probably have two services at work and I would end up with a second service at home for work purposes. I don't think we are unique.
We are never going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for fibre, but we will use FTTP for the right price. NBN Co hadn't introduced the enterprise grade services yet, if that is competently delivered and promoted I think there will be real revenue from business.
I concede that enterprise might be a different story, but small and medium businesses sure. I don't see how they couldn't increase ARPU.
[edit] grammar
GPON is shared, and like shared phone systems like Party-Lines, they are not suitable for even a basic business need. A basic business need is what drives some people to still use FAX and PSTN.
Surely nbn could give uncontested 1:1 line offerings like other countries do?
Do you honestly believe that? Why?
With the current model of the CVC, carriers will do what they can to avoid it.
I concede that if the CVC model changes, then yes, general business use (SOHO) (low latency, 1:1 contention, and 1 day fault restore) is viable.
The reliability of the FTTP service, for the cost to deliver it, for small business use � a site that has 5-20 employees is simply not there, and you are often better off building multiple Point-to-Point wireless connections.
We are never going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for fibre, but we will use FTTP
You don't have to � the $10k I suggested assumed a total upfront cost. Most minor builds can be absorbed by carriers over 3 year terms � even that $100k one I pointed out earlier....
I concede that enterprise might be a different story, but small and medium businesses I don't see how they couldn't increase ARPU.
How much FTTP has actually been rolled out into business areas, for one? If the network mostly exists in residential areas, then SOHO use is going to be mostly it. The businesses I see in Mandurah, for example, have all been sold by Telstra, phone services rather than reasonable internet services, and the experience has not been good. I'm sure Telstra increased their ARPU, with $150/pm phone offerings, but the businesses are not generating more revenue because of it.
A small business offering that requires upgrades to the line speed, and costs substantially more when you actually start using it � is not driving innovation � is it a bad joke to these people who have just done "the upgrade"....
Jason
Its not the same service � what I order can be upgraded to 10GE if I wanted, and its the same speed both ways. I can order point to point services from my site to another fibred site and it will travel via the actual network path, not into some CVC/NNI construct.
P2P fibre was and is on the product roadmap, I suspect they were waiting until the transit network and permanent FANs and POIs were constructed.
I wonder if we will ever see what was planned come to fruition?
Got some pics?
They already have fibre there. So they don't need buy overpriced CVC.
They don't need to purchase fibre backhaul... but they (and all other ISPs) must purchase the virtual circuit capacity that is CVC.... it connects the customer (on the NBN) to the POI where the ISP has access..... so if you want traffic to flow to or from the NBN then you must purchase CVC capacity.
preferred FTTN/MTM is what made it viable for TPG to bother doing FTTB.
Preferred pfff. You obviously don't read my posts well and just assume that someone who is not of the FTTP at any cost brigade prefers FTTN.
I suspect TPG would have cherry picked away with city apartments under Labors model anyway. 3yrs earlier and $20 cheaper will get you lots of clients and 100/40 is 100/40 no matter what the delivery method
I suspect TPG would have cherry picked away with city apartments under Labors model anyway
Who do you think did many NBN FTTB installations? Hint: Building Access notices in Melbourne give it away.
Preferred pfff. You obviously don't read my posts well and just assume that someone who is not of the FTTP at any cost brigade prefers FTTN.
I suspect TPG would have cherry picked away with city apartments under Labors model anyway. 3yrs earlier and $20 cheaper will get you lots of clients and 100/40 is 100/40 no matter what the delivery method
Labor plan could easy of remove 12 and 25 mbps speed tier and compete in price with TPG, but MTM can't. It'll look bad if people pay for 100mbps and only getting 25mbps. Under MTM you'll be paying same amount for 25mbps for the next 10 years.
You obviously don't read my posts well and just assume that someone who is not of the FTTP at any cost brigade prefers FTTN.
On the contrary, it is posts like /forum-replies.cfm?t=2518480#r6 that make it clear that you believe the lies told by the Coalition and endorse their "alternative".
I suspect TPG would have cherry picked away with city apartments under Labors model anyway.
Your suspicion is unwarranted, not least because they didn't bother doing so until after the election.
3yrs earlier
Really?
100/40 is 100/40 no matter what the delivery method
Wrong, the delivery method has a massive impact on latency, reliability, upgradability, useful life, etc.
On the contrary, it is posts like /forum-replies.cfm?t=2518480#r6 that make it clear that you believe the lies told by the Coalition and endorse their "alternative".
Ignoring the last 8 words which are clearly anti Coalition policy and FTTN. As I said in my previous post...
Your suspicion is unwarranted, not least because they didn't bother doing so until after the election.
Doesn't prove much given there was barely an NBN at that point � and TPG needed no new legislation to do what they did. We would still be nowhere near a completed rollout � so plenty of opportunity for cherry pickers
Ignoring the last 8 words which are clearly anti Coalition policy and FTTN.
No, just recognising your repetition of baseless claims used in favour of MTM.
Doesn't prove much given there was barely an NBN at that point
Huh? If the aim of TPG was to cherry pick high value locations before the NBN arrived, why would they wait until the NBN rollout was halted in favour of MTM some time in the future?
No one in the business space even considers that NBN is a solution to them
Funny, I work with at least 40 businesses that completely disagree with you. If you mean enterprise business, then you are correct. Bit for small and medium business, NBN FTTP is a Godsend...
BTW, don't forget that FTTP to consumers is also the other end of the pipe for enterprise business, and that allows a whole area of development that we haven't even begun to tap yet.
why would they wait until the NBN rollout was halted in favour of MTM some time in the future?
Federal Election was 7 September 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org
TPG Announces FTTB � Late September 2013
http://www.itnews.com.au
TPG Acquired AAPT � December 2013
http://www.zdnet.com/article
Complaint to the ACCC April 2014
https://www.accc.gov.au/
the ACCC received a complaint that TPG�s plans would breach the level playing field provisions. The principal concern expressed in the complaint was that TPG�s pre-existing fibre networks were not capable of supplying superfast carriage services to residential or small business customers as at 1 January 2011, and that TPG was, by proceeding with its current plan, or in combination with other investments made after 1 January 2011, seeking to make those networks capable of supplying superfast carriage services to those customers without complying with the level playing field provisions.
I think that these could perhaps be related, and while TPG could have rolled it out at any time, they were likely well aware of their need to comply with level playing field provisions.
Jason
If they want FTTP they will pay for FOD
You are forgetting that costs for goods are now an international marketplace. If we must spend many thousands of dollars on connections that the rest of the world are able to get for less than a hundred, then our cost of doing business increases dramatically (again) and we lose revenue. How do you compete in a Global Market when your own government will not give you the ability to compete on an equal basis?
That made me laugh. However there are just so many narrow minded people about the nbn. I've just been arguing with that Steve shark tank bloke on Twitter who is part owner of pipe networks so wrote about cvc and avc charges being the real constraint of the nbn yet when I said fair call. Let's open the network, no speed charges, how will fttn fare against fttp the old ad hominem debate came up, off site back up at 1500pm under telstra at 50 50 vs 100 for 100/40 on the nbn, why should I subsidise you? Because if you are going to spend 56 billion plus on a network it should be fibre. Simple
Funny, I work with at least 40 businesses that completely disagree with you. If you mean enterprise business, then you are correct. Bit for small and medium business, NBN FTTP is a Godsend...
For "Internet Access" which is a 2010 product, then yes, FTTP is more than suitable.
I would not have a range of NBN plans on our website that were "Designed for Small Business" if I did not think that it was suitable :)
For the "Digital Economy" ie: businesses that demand internet to be as reliable as the lights or the water, as it stands today, it is less of a solution, and more of "if you cannot get something else". The lack of being able to even claim 1:1 contention on the end-access (and therefore in contract) is a real deal breaker for many.
Jason
Steve shark tank bloke on Twitter who is part owner of pipe networks
TPG Telecom purchased PIPE Networks in March 2010.
Steve helped BUILD Pipe Networks, which the market saw as a truly remarkable company � so much so, they paid $373 Million for it.
I don't think Steve really cares about the money in this � I think he wants to ensure that the industry is not destroyed by thoughtless politicians � because it is the telecommunications networks that connects our IT and Innovation Industries.
Jason
I think that these could perhaps be related, and while TPG could have rolled it out at any time, they were likely well aware of their need to comply with level playing field provisions.
Many thanks for the history.. I assume essentially you are saying TPG needed the AAPT network (and resultant reach) to comply
Many thanks for the history.. I assume essentially you are saying TPG needed the AAPT network (and resultant reach) to comply
No idea � but I don't think a company that has been as successful as TPG would not consider what has happened in the past, and not plan for it. They seem to be exceptional on the strategic front.
That is to say, it was clear to anyone since 2010 that if you invested in a very big network, and became a monopoly, you would have many obligations. In fact, given that is what many others were asking for with the ACCC and Telstra, it would be hard to deny such things to a new monopoly. And as time indicated, there was a new carrier licence condition imposed.
Jason
The lack of being able to even claim 1:1 contention on the end-access (and therefore in contract) is a real deal breaker for many
Not for the small and medium businesses I have been working with. I'm talking doctors, dentists, pool supply companies, engineers, HVAC companies, and even some media specialists...
They all require the bandwidth, but even a 20:1+ contention on 100/40 is fine for now. Keep in mind that they are all used to far worse, but none of them can afford the leap to a $10k install with huge (relatively) monthly fees.
While the contention is certainly a problem at the moment, it is fairly quick and easy to fix over time as we see how it plays out...in fact it's already easing up for many. Those small businesses who require 1:1 (in my experience) are rare indeed...
I don't think Steve really cares about the money in this � I think he wants to ensure that the industry is not destroyed by thoughtless politicians � because it is the telecommunications networks that connects our IT and Innovation Industries
And Thank God for him...that is true leadership BTW.
Jason Clare for Labor and Josh Frydenberg for Libs. It was a non-event with the ongoing politicisation of the NBN that almost literally ended with hosts rolling their eyes and not impressed.
I have to disagree. Yes the hosts rolled their eyes but I'd suggest that was at the ineptness of Frydenberg's responses. The questioner knew the right answer and his specific question got fluff from Frydenberg and Clare called Fry a liar and said why. Clare appeared in control IMO.
This is just the beginning. LNP will not get away with trivialising.
Waleed's project slot was by far the best to date
Yep � no pollies involved in discussion....
Continues here: /forum-replies.cfm?t=2519390
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét