If we were getting ftth though, I'd be lining up to sign up day one at the highest speed tier available.
So would I!
Neither is it cheap.
Indeed, its the crux of it paying a hefty monthly fee for mundane internet access.
Its amazing how some people think this is acceptable when it really isn't. Like buying cheap tools that break all the time and wasting money on buying more cheap tools that will break again.
FTTN is not quality internet its just a massive con.
Here's something inspiring;
Tired of Waiting for Corporate High-Speed Internet, Minnesota Farm Towns Build Their Own
so they rolled out fibre in low density areas including farms,
the investors are getting healthy returns, AND there is no debt associated with the business, it pays for itself .. ??
I expect its because everyone chooses lower speeds
investors are getting healthy returns
Yeah, but, it'll never work here, Australia is different /s
Yeah, but, it'll never work here, Australia is different /s
Yes, we are "special".
what like the kids in the 'special' class ?
Hmmmm so people seemed to be buying faster speeds on the NBN under Labor and now significantly slower speeds on the MTM under the Coalition.....
We're talking about the percentage of subscribers within the NBN fibre footprint ordering a 100/40 service. It shouldn't make a difference if Labor or the Coalition are in government. No-one should be confident that the demand for high speed fibre will appear as expected.
We're talking about the percentage of subscribers within the NBN fibre footprint ordering a 100/40 service. It shouldn't make a difference if Labor or the Coalition are in government. No-one should be confident that the demand for high speed fibre will appear as expected
But the change of direction has had a huge impact on customer confidence. Also the fact that pretty much as soon as fttn became the norm, the biggest RSPs stopped advertising 'speeds' at all. Changing their marketing to show only quotas ( auto conenctinig people at 25/5 ) you only got faster speeds by choosing a 'speed boost'
Tjhis was clearly an exercise in delivering only on the promise of 25/5 and avoiding any costly complaints about people paying for 100/40 plans when their fttn can only achieve say half of that.
So yes its totally relevant had a 93% FTTP rollout continued, advertising speeds would be a clear differentiator between providers and plans, we would probably be seeing 200/80 plans advertised already .
But alas you cannot blame labor for policy changes pushed out by the coalition. unfortunately you have to wear that one yourself. Especially so with the nbn as Malcom has been very clear how he saved and turned around a totally failed project .....
We're talking about the percentage of subscribers within the NBN fibre footprint ordering a 100/40 service. It shouldn't make a difference if Labor or the Coalition are in government.
Of course it makes a massive difference, when the Coalition have slowed down the rollout (reducing economies of scale), introduced technologies that cannot achieve the headline speeds (making it impossible for RSPs to promote high speed services without further highlighting the shocking disparity between FTTP and FTTN for the same price) and spent years talking down the value of higher speeds.
No-one should be confident that the demand for high speed fibre will appear as expected.
It is inevitable � the only thing that the Coalition's screwing around will achieve is to mask it and add massive cost and inconvenience to everyone.
But .....
And the effect on CVC and performance.
With all Fibre deployed businesses were going/meant/expected and a lot of them likely, to take high speed plans like 100/100, 250/100, 500/200 and 1000/400. They wouldn't be cheap but still much cheaper than getting the same from a private company now so even a small business could afford a high speed if they need/wanted it.
RSPs would need to provision more CVC to be able to support all those high speed connections, and they could afford to considering the increased income they get from those connections. The majority of businesses would close in the evening so then the residential customers have access to a much larger amount of CVC in the evening/night than they would without those businesses purchasing high speed plans.
That leaves a greater chances that residents will get 100Mbps when they want it so more likely they will purchase that speed (since you wouldn't purchase it if you couldn't get it).
The increased income from all the higher speed services and associated CVC then allows NBN to lower the cost of CVC which when they do the RSP can then purchase even more CVC again to further improve performance during peak hours (assuming a premium RSP and not a flightless bird or something that wouldn't care) again increasing the chances residents will actually get 100Mbps so increasing the chances they will purchase it.
With the change of policy though that can't happen. You have all those businesses that now can't physically get those higher speeds so obviously they don't/can't purchase them. So you don't have the RSP getting the associated CVC for the higher speed services or the additional income from those services. NBN also doesn't get the increased income so they don't lower the CVC cost so the premium RSPs then also don't buy that additional CVC.
So now we have Fibre area's where customers can get poor speeds at peak time due to the significantly lower CVC the RSPs have leading to lower chances of residents getting 100Mbps at peak time and if they can't get it then they won't purchase it.
Edit: wrong thread
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét