Latest numbers as at April 2016 thanks to ZDnet report of official response to Senate Estimates question:
http://www.zdnet.co
Summary:
A fifth to a third choose the slowest speed available on FttN, FttP, and FttB, 12Mb/s. A half to two thirds choose the next lowest speed, 25Mb/s. Almost no-one chooses the intermediate speeds. And the remaining few, only 1 in 14 on FttN and about 1 in 7 on FttP and FttB, choose the highest speed, 100 Mb/s.
Conclusion:
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
about 1 in 7 on FttP and FttB, choose the highest speed, 100 Mb/s.
So can I choose to be one of the 1 in 7 on FttP or am I obliged to choose a lower speed because most "choose" lower speeds or because I will be stuck on FttN?
Conclusion:
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
Flawed conclusion based on flawed logic.
My conclusion for me is I want fast and reliable broadband.
100/40 would of been the lowest speed tier I would apply for and then (if ever) go faster when it's available.
Although 100/100 speeds would be even nicer.
And beyond.
Except we don't really know the real numbers
(b) The categories '8Mbps to less than 24Mbps' and '24Mbps or greater' have been combined in order to make estimates available for publication where possible.
Yeah.. good reason..
A fifth to a third choose the slowest speed available on FttN, FttP, and FttB, 12Mb/s.
A fifth to a third can barely find the power switch to turn on their computers. They may rarely use the internet to get emails and see photos of their grandkids. 12Mb/s is more than enough for them.
But since when have we designed anything for the least use? We don't do it with roads, we don't do it with hospitals, we don't do it with the phone service, we don't do it with TV or Radio.
1 in 7 *NEED* the fastest service and take it up without blinking, these people include businesses and power users who help drive the economy.
What about the millennium generation? They're only a few years away from paying for their own internet, they've grown up with technology and they are not going to want the sort of crap their grandparents (the one-in-five) are happy with.
Build for the future, not the present.
And, FWIW, I had intended to take up two 100/40 plans if we ever got fibre
The Scarlet Pimpernel writes...
What about the millennium generation? They're only a few years away from paying for their own internet
If they aren't voting in this election, the government won't care... yet.
Just look at Telstra's offerings to understand why. They believe there is a market for nbn services that don't advertise the connection speed.
the reason almost noone chooses the intermediate speeds has to be because almost no ISP's actually have intermediate speeds!!
its damn hard to find a plan that isnt 12/1, 25/5 or 100/40. there is nothing in between.
A fifth to a third choose the slowest speed available on FttN, FttP, and FttB, 12Mb/s.
This says to me that there is no urgency to roll-out "faster, sooner" and we may as well take our time and do it properly with FTTP
only 1 in 14 on FttN and about 1 in 7 on FttP and FttB, choose the highest speed, 100 Mb/s
This also proves less return on FTTN, when users are only half as likely to opt for higher speeds and consequently spend more money.
Most of the FTTN plans are just "25Mbps" or "whatever you can get above 25Mbps". There's no point promising high speeds when the technology will likely give them the minimum allowable.
Conclusion:
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband
I'm a long way from the nearest pillar (approx 700m).When FTTN (hopefully not) comes to my neighbourhood I would love high speed broadband, but why would I pay for a 100Mb connection when I know there's no chance of getting anywhere near it?
I would either have to find one of the few ISPs offering a 50Mb plan, or opt for 25Mb.
why would I pay for a 100Mb connection when I know there's no chance of getting anywhere near it?
QFT. The tier selection for FTTN is completely irrelevant and only the tier selection for FTTP remains valid.
Many in our area (Fixed Wireless only) were simply not told about faster speeds being available. When helping them I ask what they have and when I tell then that there are faster speeds available they tell me that they were not given that information. These include well known RSP's (mostly) like iiNet, Internode and Dodo. Telstra customers to my surprise were always on the faster speed of 25/5 and were advised about the optional faster 50/20.
Reports like these skew accurate data as they do not take into account that many do not understand or know about faster speed options.
The Scarlet Pimpernel writes...
What about the millennium generation?
The millennium generation wants Internet in their pocket and are prepared to trade GBs for lifestyle.
in 7 *NEED* the fastest service and take it up without blinking, these people include businesses and power users who help drive the economy.
Businesses that need fibre don't sit around waiting for NBN to arrive.
i get the feeling that most are not "choosing" the lower speed, more so that the 25/5 is the most typical, base speed offered/advertised by most providers, and the majority of people signing on to NBN would sign up as advertised
the reason almost noone chooses the intermediate speeds has to be because almost no ISP's actually have intermediate speeds!!
I don't think it would make any difference. For a consumer to choose a 50Mbps service (for example) over a 25Mbps one, the extra cost has to be a token amount, or he has to believe that the 50Mbps service it will significantly improve his experience. 25Mbps is about double the average ADSL speed, which consumers think is a reasonable entry point. Many consumers are happy with their ADSL Internet and see no immediate need to buy anything more than 12Mbps.
Phone only counted as 12/1 connection.
The poor (me) only willing to spend $40-$50 a month.
when I can get 100GB at 25/5 for $50, I'm in. I'd prefer 100/40 but can't justify the extra $30... yet.
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
Telstra only offer 25/5 by default, and there is no option on their NBN page to select a higher speed.
1 telstra is obscuring the speeds
2 why the hell would anyone on fttn that can only get <50 mbit opt for 50 or 100 mbit.
I wouldn't pay the little bit more to get 100mbit if I was only ever going to get 38. Hell, iy's precisely that reason I'm putting it off.
No statistics based on the take up rate of fttn are valid, ever.
Businesses that need fibre don't sit around waiting for NBN to arrive.
I take it this is your uninformed opinion? I know of many businesses that either can't get fibre despite the need because they run from home and companies are unwilling to roll fibre out to them, and business in business parks that are told it will cost them $750k-1m to roll fibre to their business, which will then cost them $2000/month for 10/10, or that they can stay with their RIM serviced ADSL 8/0.384 and be done with it.
The millennium generation wants Internet in their pocket and are prepared to trade GBs for lifestyle.
I take it you don't spend much time around the millennium generation then ;) I can tell you now, year 12s that I teach in school spend a great amount of their down time sitting in front of Netflix, sucking down a crap load of data rather than trading GBs for lifestyle, we aren't talking Gen Y/Millennials here, we are talking about the current crop of teenagers who have known nothing but the internet their entire lives.
we aren't talking Gen Y/Millennials here, we are talking about the current crop of teenagers who have known nothing but the internet their entire lives.
My 2 youngest sisters are like this, one 19 the other 17, both watch streaming video, etc... for as long as they possibly can, we've had dialup since 1997 and ADSL/ADSL2+ since 2004, they've never known a life prior to the internet.
It's similar for a lot of other families that I know who have teens of a similar age.
$750k-1m
Where are you getting quotes for $1million ?
Business needs to create economic value from their internet usage like everyone else.
The usage of electricity in an Aluminium plant is directly related to its output � to the extent you can modify the power prices and the plant makes more money.
Professionals who create digital artwork or do CAD design, etc � if they are working on projects like new fighter jets, given the economic cost of the item they are producing, there should be justification to spend more than basic residential internet on it.
Jason
Um this articles cwap, my teir two speeds are ultra fast now kupo.
Things awesome about a teir 3 and 4 plan and up
1 Hosting never felt better
2 Upload speeds make the journey smooth
3 Streaming a twitch channel over another twitch channels cool
4 4k optional
5 Vpn use over fttp or b so enjoyable
6 Plethour amount of isp to choose from
7 Telstra employees dislike you even more
8 Its so dam fast
9 Looks at nbnco modem ohhh <(*-*)> come here you mwaah.
Oh yeah so embarassed (.<>_<>)\\
I think the "conclusion" is silly as a lot of people opt for the cheapest providers who have their "super fast NBN" plans set to the lowest tier. Some people may not even realise that is what they are opting for.
As for myself i have just signed to NBN 100/40 and wont be looking backwards.....
I take it this is your uninformed opinion?
It's informed opinion based on observation. If a business has a justifiable need it will get done, one way or another. That may mean choosing where to rent office/factory space.
I take it you don't spend much time around the millennium generation then ;) I can tell you now, year 12s that I teach in school spend a great amount of their down time sitting in front of Netflix
They're not paying for their own Internet then. When it's time to decide between a cellphone or fixed line it will be the cellphone and they will accept the trade-offs.
Telstra only offer 25/5 by default, and there is no option on their NBN page to select a higher speed.
For most people ordering a service there is no mention of speed tiers. It's not until they start to question why their high speed BB is no faster than their previous connection that they are made aware of the higher tiers, and then it's not offered by speed but by speed booster packs and the like.
It sounds like another BS bit of mud to slush around the already muddy waters of the NBN dismantling..
Telstra only offer 25/5 by default, and there is no option on their NBN page to select a higher speed.
You can ask for speed boost to 100/40 for $20 more.
I guess im one of those 1 in 14 that choose the upto 100Mb/s on FTTN and gets 93-95Mb/s down so i wont be looking back either
12/1Mbps would still be 2-3 times faster than what I already have, a significant increase.
Well, it should be. There's no shortage of people complaining about congestion. If you're paying for 12 and only getting 6, paying for 100 won't necessarily be an improvement and certainly won't be better value.
Conclusion:
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
"Broadband" isn't by any definition today: an UPTO unguaranteed 25Mbps service! as currently being delivered over the "MTM" iaw the LNP's statement of expectations in which the network throughput and capacity ability; is engineered and designed to provision a throttled and congested cheap as chips 2nd rate noodle network unable to go anywhere!
One but has to look over at Singapore 10gbps, Hong Kong 10Gbps, Verizon in America 10Gbps, and stunningly Portugal who are implementing a "National" 80Gbps network!
And why are they doing this Aaalf?
Because things like
a) WebRTC
b) Telepresence
c) Windows 10
d) Cloud Services
e) Virtualisation
f) 4K Streaming
g) 360 Video
h) I.O.T.
etc and so forth and very much part of reality today and these "now" generation services require a network whose throughput capacity that can actually handle the demands placed on it unlike the mess the LNP are deploying whose costs will only continue to rise whilst performance drops dramatically which is but part and parcel of the obsolete copper that the current government have been so intent on deploying eg:-
In short, FTTN technology will cement Australia�s place as an internet backwater. Our world ranking could fall as low as 100th by 2020.
In many forward-looking nations, fibre-to-the-node technology has never been entertained as an option. In some countries where it has been installed, network operators are planning to move away from FTTN in favour of more advanced broadband technologies like FTTP. In doing the opposite, Australia is moving backwards.
In conclusion!
As the majority of Australians come to recognise the fraud that has been perpetrated against they by the current government with a 2nd rate network that can't function to scale nor deliver "now" generations applications functionality,!!!!
Is it any wonder they are not pissing their hard earned down the gurgler buying higher priced plans that simply will never be delivered over obsolete copper!
Cheers
Many consumers are happy with their ADSL Internet and see no immediate need to buy anything more than 12Mbps.
This is probably right, so why spend so many billions rushing out an interim solution that is barely an upgrade for most people. Take the extra time, roll out the final solution now.
You can ask for speed boost to 100/40 for $20 more
I've never seen a business make it so you have to ask for a product when takeup rate is greater than a few %
It does not make sense.
If it was less than 1% of customers and a special service, then I'd understand.
Take the extra time, roll out the final solution now.
There is no 'final solution'. All you can do is buy something that's available now and fits your budget � same as when you upgrade a PC.
For most people ordering a service there is no mention of speed tiers.
The ordering system will probably improve in time � how much time is anybody's guess.
and then it's not offered by speed but by speed booster packs and the like
What's the problem with that?
Take the extra time, roll out the final solution now
There is no "Final Solution" unless you believe we are at the "end of history".
Strategic thinking about these types of issues forces you to recognise the fact that the network will only exist for as long as it is relevant. Its hard for many here to conceive that much of this will fade into irrelevnce, and often sooner than one would hope! Its part of the investment risk of building a new utility � many have failed before :)
Jason
There is no "Final Solution" unless you believe we are at the "end of history".
Strategic thinking about these types of issues forces you to recognise the fact that the network will only exist for as long as it is relevant.
The Libs own stacked reviews found FTTP would need to be rolled out a mere 5 years after FTTN is completed. FTTP is the final solution, because it will only be out of date when 1Petabyte is too slow for home use (on todays technology � chances are this will only get faster)
ok lets say i get fttn, i check my downlaod and im getting something ridiculous like 24/5
why the hell would i buy the 100/40 plan knowing fttn cant deliver it and pay al that extra...
b.) im a pensioner who's been using dial up, so even a 12mb connection will seem infinetly better than the 56k modem.
this whole thing about people selecting the slowest speed is a complete crock. NBN wireless just became available in my area and most of my clients that have upgraded have told the ISP "I want to play less then I am now, I was told the NBN was cheaper"
I do not even get told about speed they just get it on price. I have had a few come in to my store complaining that the NBN is slow and when they get told about speed tiers they go and call the ISP and upgrade...
everyone will move up in speed but it may take a few years.
its damn hard to find a plan that isnt 12/1, 25/5 or 100/40. there is nothing in between.
50/20 internode
Apparently some ISP's will let you have gigabit speeds, but at some rediculous pricing. I'm not sure why a ridiculous price should be applied to that if it's just a simple software modification, or is there more to it than that ie � hardware modification at the cabinet,etc??
They can't afford to pay NBN for the CVC bandwidth.
Even a small number of 100Mbps customers can soak up all of an ISPs bandwidth. The retail price difference between a basic NBN service and a 100Mbps service is set at a level to deter customers from buying the higher speed plan, it does not reflect the cost of provisioning enough bandwidth.
So someone invented new codecs and then hundreds of millions around the world were able to see video clips with their news stories � on dialup.
I don't know about you, but I have video clips disabled on news.com.au � it makes the pages take forever to load and when they do, the video is crap
Um how does them having good internet help you? what racket are you running? <(*~*)
Data and database management for a very well funded industry. (Well, funds are short right now, but we'll work the cycle out.)
Yup, currently on 25/5.. Would pay more for 50/20 but not an option anymore. (it was previously with iiNet).
I believe that once the ISPs started to rationalise their plans with the introduction of FTTN, they realised that the intermediate 50/20 plans were going to cost them a great deal of money. Why would anyone want to purchase a 100Mb/s plan when it is almost guaranteed that you will never, ever get that speed on FTTN? So, savvy customers would have bought a 50Mb/s plan, with a more realistic expectation of getting something close to it for a few of them. But, of course, the 50 plans were cheaper! So now we have the ridiculous situation that ISPs are offering something that they can never supply. And the public aren't fools � they know that buying a 100Mb/s plan is just a joke (unless you have FTTP), and they are voting with their wallets. As I would, and as I have advised my myriad friends and contacts to do. So what if it f**ks up NBN finances? It's already f***ed anyway!
Im pretty sure this shows a failure of the MTM NBN...
So � 7% of users on 25-100Mbps. In the early days, FTTP had ~40% of users on 100Mbps alone.
And thats gotta hurt the financials � which pushes up port and cvc costs, which makes it all worse again.
I wish Labor's FTTP was allowed to finish, even with change of govt. Hopefully when they get back in, they'll rip out all the FTTN and everything else, and resume the FTTP rollout and lock it in so that it cannot be changed by any change of govt or anyone else..
FTTP has to happen, it's the only way forward. Damn the cost and damn how long it takes to get done.. it just has to be done.
The local pizza shop doesn't need fibre to take orders for pizza
For multiple simultaneous online orders with real time back up to their cloud server and even video link software, etc...
Of course their alarm and security and streaming video security cameras...I could go on, but suffice to say that you don't appear to know what you are talking about.
The large pizza chains will have their online ordering systems in reliable data centres that are adequately served by high speed internet connections.
So only large chains should be able to do online ordering???
The Scarlet Pimpernel writes...
and when they do, the video is crap
Do you think that is going to change with faster broadband? :)
I too usually disable video, but not because I cannot stream it, because I want to choose what I watch :)
Jason
Lack of Bandwidth should not prevent anyone from making something happen
Sorry, but that is just untrue...
That video clip example for instance...sure you got a video clip, but the definition was so poor that it was exceedingly difficult to actually glean anything from the video. Quality actually does matter...
It's true that adversity does help us innovate, but to choose adversity is a ridiculous goal...that's like wishing for a global epidemic in order to help medical science.
Most Australians didn't want (high priced) high speed broadband, they just wanted broadband.
now, sure. in 5-10 years watch them bitch and moan that they cant get what they want
Genetic Modified Zealot writes...
a likely good reason why so many are opting for lower speeds
Not at all...the most likely reason is that the ISPs and NBN have not sorted out the problem of backhaul, so folks don't want to pay for bandwidth they aren't receiving. This is also almost assuredly a similar case as to when ADSL was first released...dial up kept the vast majority for 2 years or so, and then everyone changed over to the higher broadband en masse.
It's true that adversity does help us innovate, but to choose adversity is a ridiculous goal
When you make that choice, which you see as ridiculous, then you will understand how it builds innovation.
I choose adversity over ease, almost every single time.
The point of the video clip, was that many believed there was commercial value in streaming video, and did not wait for the advent of broadband networks to make this happen. There was economic value (massive) in WAP on Mobile before the "Smartphone" � these things all come in time.
Btw, I am not suggesting that fibre should not be rolled out, or is a bad choice, I am simply putting an individual and a business case into prospective. Farmers and country people build things without easy access to resources a modern home take for granted, including things like electricity. My point is that no one should put off their dream because of a lack of NBN � they need to be innovative because there will always be cases, even with mass-market services where people may not even choose to connect.
Jason
When you make that choice, which you see as ridiculous, then you will understand how it builds innovation.
I have done so and that is true...but to do so for a country is a very dangerous model.
Farmers and country people build things without easy access to resources a modern home take for granted, including things like electricity
Most farmers I know (and I do know several) are far more reliant on the internet that any city folks I know...and it is much more difficult to come by. While they do "get by", it often costs them generations worth of effort to do so.
The Scarlet Pimpernel writes...
You'd only order what you could get, surely?
But you don't know until you get it, unlike FTTP (where there is no guessing), FTTN is just like lotto. Also you have RSPs that only sell 12/1, 25/5 and 100/40 but very little have 50/12.
Once the NBN FTTN is online, I'll most likely have to move from ADSL2+ to FTTN VDSL2 due to interference. When that time comes, I'm not going to fork out for a 100/40 connection that I can't get, I would risk it for 50/12 and hope to get close to it but none of the RSPs I would pick from have that, so that leaves me with 25/5 (which will help the LNP's stupid NBN policy and figures).
I want more bandwidth too
This isn't an argument for FTTP, then I don't know what is.
You guys argueing against it just don't understand, if you give people as much bandwidth as they want they will pay for it. Give them what they need and all you'll do is strangle demand.
Once the NBN FTTN is online, I'll most likely have to move from ADSL2+ to FTTN VDSL2 due to interference
Well, you have 18 months, but yeah.
Talking of which why would any FTTN user pay for more than 12Mbps while FTTN is in 'compatibility' or low power mode and throttled to 12Mbps?
The Scarlet Pimpernel writes...
Talking of which why would any FTTN user pay for more than 12Mbps while FTTN is in 'compatibility' or low power mode and throttled to 12Mbps?
In the transition phase it won't be throttled to 12/1, but that's all they will guarantee (once in a 24-hour period ...).
If I could go from 5Mbps to 20Mbps upload by getting a 100/40 plan it would be worth it to me, even if I only got ~40Mbps download. But of course to find out I would have to go onto the higher plan, then fall back to 25/5 if I can't get high enough speed. And my blood will be boiling the whole time thinking about how if the Coalition hadn't got in I would have been on FTTP.
So only large chains should be able to do online ordering???
The local pizza shop can do online ordering now � it doesn't need fibre to do it. What it does need is money to waste on ridiculous systems that you think a local pizza shop needs to do business. Go try and sell all the nonsense you're espousing to the local pizza shop owner and report back.
The local pizza shop can do online ordering now � it doesn't need fibre to do it
But it does need fibre to grow and compete...this is a very important part of owning a business (as I'm sure most of us here could tell you).
But I'm sure you would know what is best for all business owners...not...:)
BTW, I have now set up 3 local pizza shops...
now, sure. in 5-10 years watch them bitch and moan that they cant get what they want
5-10 years is a long time to be predicting technology futures.
Current data allotments don't exclude the current speed tiers past 4/1 adsl 1 connection, you would have to upgrade quota if plan to go above this connection rate..
Larger quota services exist you know. Go buy one.
This is such a pointless, LNP-shill thread title.
For a start, a lot of people are not "opting" but are tricked/limited to the lower speeds.
Plus it's not about today, it's about the next 50 years or more, and what makes most fiscal sense for the long term.
We don't want to build a Sydney Harbour Bridge that's one lane each way.
And we don't want something e.g. which costs 75% of the alternative up front, but which has 2x to 3x the running costs, and then will cost 300% to do the right way in the future, and meanwhile have lost/cost us billions in revenue/overseas investment/job opportunities/health expenditure/road and other transport expenditure, etc etc.
For a start, a lot of people are not "opting" but are tricked/limited to the lower speeds.
I would say they are opting for lower speeds, because of price. The fast plans are too expensive for most people's needs.
Plus it's not about today, it's about the next 50 years or more, and what makes most fiscal sense for the long term.
Sure. But that has nothing to do with the reality of ppl opting for cheaper plans.
The fast plans are too expensive for most people's needs.
And this I have to agree on. The missus and I, if we were in this place on our own, we'd drop back to 25/5. But since daughter & her partner live here too, and put in for costs of things (like internet), we stick with the higher speed.
I would say they are opting for lower speeds, because of price. The fast plans are too expensive for most people's needs.
Your right there, also getting higher speed plans does not guarantee higher speed. Theres the problem.
Guarantee the speed and not this "up-to" business, you may get more people opting for higher tiers. Also CVC backhaul congestion needs to be resolved before users will subscribe to higher tier plans.
They are going to hard pressed to beat my current TPG plan.
Unlimited ADSL2+ (Syncing at 21/1) $60, plus $6 vpn costs and $5 wtfast gaming vpn costs.
They will need to beat $71 for unlimited access and a premium service (superior routes to select locations) before I'd consider moving. No to mention, I am able to get 10mbit � 15mbit during peak hours (anytime of the day really). More late night.
I don't think NBN will be able to cut it, if I am forced to cut over to NBN when the area is active (after 18 months). I would consider paying $200 a month and get a 10/10 symmetrical service as a business.
Unlimited ADSL2+ (Syncing at 21/1) $60, plus $6 vpn costs and $5 wtfast gaming vpn costs.
You are exceedingly lucky to get such a fast sync. How would you feel about paying the same or more for only 3 or 4 Mbit speeds though?
I would say they are opting for lower speeds, because of price. The fast plans are too expensive for most people's needs.
Maybe, but there's not enough data in the article linked in the OP to make that determination. All you can do is express your opinion.
the reality of ppl opting for cheaper plans
Don't you mean lower speeds, it's your opinion people are opting for cheaper plans.
The media is bias towards LNP who do u think owns it.
I would say they are opting for lower speeds, because of price. The fast plans are too expensive for most people's needs.
Do you realise how many RSP's only have the *one* price (advertised/offered/contracted) ?
So that doesn't even come into this.
Do you realise how many RSP's only have the *one* price (advertised/offered/contracted) ?
How many? Tell us. And who.
Don't you mean lower speeds, it's your opinion people are opting for cheaper plans.
People would be choosing only 12 or 25 rather than 100, due to price considerations. Surely. If it was the same price, why would anyone be choosing the lower speed?
why would anyone be choosing the lower speed?
Maybe they don't have a choice, or maybe they don't know there's a choice. I know a lot of people who will take up a Telstra plan without even considering any other providers. Telstra aren't known for their cost effective internet plans.
Maybe they don't have a choice,
How? Isn't the data based on FTTP connections? edit: OK, i re-read the OP. Fair enough. I still think 50 and 100 megabit is a rip off, even if it WAS available. I'd have a hard time justifying paying for it, with my needs.
In my case, I get 12/1 on ADSL2+ and 200 gig data. When my area switches to NBN, about the cheapest plan I can get with comparable data with the same ISP, on 12/1, is $10 MORE than my ADSL connection. Paying more for the same damn thing. Ridiculous. This rubbish speed should not even be offered on the NBN, it's embarrassing. Surely the point of the NBN is not only to allow higher speed to exist, but to make that speed a new baseline for everyone to afford!
or maybe they don't know there's a choice
Well lack of consumer education on what they're actually buying, is a different topic altogether. That would be present no matter what technology was in place.
The whole speed tiering thing pisses me off. it shouldnt exist.
Maybe they don't have a choice, or maybe they don't know there's a choice.
This. Most people just call a big ISP and ask for NBN. They're then often surprised it's not that fast, and when you ask what speed tier they're on, they have no idea (it's usually 25/5).
I remember there was some journalist or TV personality a year or two ago who tweeted about how he was excited his 100Mb/s Internet with Belong was being installed at his house, and then was surprised to hear that all belong plans are actually 25Mbps...
is $10 MORE than my ADSL connection
From my limited research on the subject, most NBN plans are at a similar price or lower than ADSL plans from the same RSP. I'd ask for more detail but it would be of topic.
That would be present no matter what technology was in place.
Agreed, but using that ignorance as proof consumers are buying higher speed plans is disingenuous. I have no proof to back that up, but there is an awful lot of anecdotal evidence in favor.
The whole speed tiering thing pisses me off
Especially considering it costs providers nothing extra to supply the top speed to everyone.
Especially considering it costs providers nothing extra to supply the top speed to everyone.
If users want higher speed then that will require more CVC capacity or the speed will be limited by severe congestion....
And CVC costs the ISP $17.50 per Megabit (with some almost insignificant bulk discounts being proposed). So if end users want to operate at 100Mbps rather than say 25mbps the ISP will need to purchase four times the CVC capacity.....
It costs nothing extra to say you can sync at 100Mbps � but it costs a lot more if they are TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE 100Mbps!! And I doubt many customers want the bragging rights to the higher sync speed without an increase in actual throughput.
It is NBNCo charging which forces ISPs to work within a speed tier structure � if NBNCo removed CVC charging based on bandwidth then tiers could be a thing of the past (but they won't as that's how they are raising the revenue to pay for the network as demanded by the Government.
It costs nothing extra to say you can sync at 100Mbps
Exactly.
higher sync speed without an increase in actual throughput.
There are other benefits to a higher sync speed then being able to download more. I personally would be more interested in the increased responsiveness of the higher sync speed.
users want higher speed then that will require more CVC capacity
Then make the user pay for the data not the sync speed.
There are other benefits to a higher sync speed then being able to download more.
The problem is that most mum and dad users (the vast majority of the user base) will expect that if they can sync at 100Mbps that they can download at the same speed (24/7 if they so choose) � after all they are paying for a 100Mbps service. Just imagine the complaints when they find that they can only download at 20Mbps.
Just have a look on Whirlpool at the number of complaints from relatively technically literate users � "I'm paying for 100/40 and speedtest indicates I can only get X Mbps at peak..... wah..wah... cry, yell, scream"
I personally would be more interested in the increased responsiveness of the higher sync speed.
That can be a furphy � if you are hitting congestion then there are lots of repeats and that reduces responsiveness. As I've often said to people on ADSL trying to squeeze out the last bit of speed.... error free transmission is far more important than raw speed � and congestion on the NBN causes retransmissions as does low SNR in the case of ADSL.
High sync speed without congestion is great but that is a dream at the moment � no-one gets transmission speeds equal to sync speeds at peak � the contention ratios used will prevent that. And when there is congestion sync speed becomes largely irrelevant other than it allowing you to create more collisions more quickly!
Then make the user pay for the data not the sync speed
Most users don't use all their data � they are more concerned about getting what they are paying for with speed.... A 1TB quota doesn't require 100Mbps download to well and truly exceed it. However when someone notices a lack of responsiveness, runs a speed test and discovers that they are only getting 10% of their tier speed.... they will jump up and down big time.
The way to increase responsiveness is not to increase speed in a willy nilly way � but to design the network to eliminate or at least minimise congestion. Increasing speed will do the reverse :(
design the network to eliminate or at least minimise congestion
Agreed, I believe NBN Mk I was doing that with great success, MTM not so much.
MTM not so much.
MTM not at all � congestion on the backhaul from the node is a built in feature! Not an optional extra at the discretion of the ISP involved as with the original NBN.
So what has Malcolm done to increase affordability of the internet for those low earners in the last 3 years?
Well he did try to make it more expensive when the ACCC slammed Telstra for their copper pricing...
Oh wait sorry no you said affordability, never mind!
:)
Why the hell would you opt for a slower speed on NBN. Streaming is crap & i'm on an ADSL2+. Far out I'm skeptical of NBN at its fastest speed that's coming to my area.
Why the hell would you opt for a slower speed on NBN.
How slow can you go, when ADSL2/2+ is synced at 5mbit ?, 25/5 will be like putting Sky Muster in to orbit. Granted it is nowhere near the 120/2mbps Telstra cable I had :(, I know its shared, but I always got top speed, (You may be gone but never forgotten).
I am about 100m from the node that is being built.., I might try 50/10 for a while, I dont know.
How slow can you go, when ADSL2/2+ is synced at 5mbit ?,
The rain Perth had on the weekend I dropped below 1mbps a few hours after the rain had stopped... I don't think that's even classed as internet anymore.
The rain Perth had on the weekend I dropped below 1mbps a few hours after the rain had stopped... I don't think that's even classed as internet anymore.
Yeah well we all know how waterproof telstra's PSTN pits are. [/sarcasm]
its people fault , they should ask for top speed
Yea pay for 100 get 32
On the short term it's fine. But once the whole HFC build is done for an area *everyone* will have to use the HFC and congestion will be rearing it's ugly head again
Agreed, except that;
a, The move to DOCSIS 3.1, if/when it happens, *should* take care of this
b, The latest school of thought on Whirlpool is that the HFC infill may be replaced with FTTN
Those willing to buy 100 Mbps will most likely live in more affluent areas.
This is the same bizarre philosophy that folks like Senator Richard Alston have...the internet is important for things other than watching porn and playing games.
100Mbps allows remote viewing, remote jobs, remote education, sharing internet with many roommates on a single connection. 100Mbps makes more sense for people with less money and its far more useful to them.
Spending more on broadband is related to income
Says who? Spending more on broadband is related to need.
a, The move to DOCSIS 3.1, if/when it happens, *should* take care of this
and have you seen teh latest figures on DOCSIS 3.1 apparently they are having problems integrating into the DOCSIS 3.0 builds and it is starting to get much more expensive than they thought, it seems it is not the "simple upgrade" that cable labs was inferring it would be
not the "simple upgrade" that cable labs was inferring it would be
Never is with wireless based infrastructure.
In a simplistic way, if you doing something takes 20 seconds, and via an increase in net speed it takes 10, if you do this thing enough times, you will find you do MORE of these things
Right, so you do MORE of 'these things'. Meaning you've changed your browsing habit to consume the faster link.
You've got to consciously make the decision to do that thing more often, the increased speed doesn't force you.
Not to mention, faster speeds allows higher quality content, which needs more data. Faster speeds mean you can DO more (i.e VC, game streaming, content on demand) meaning more downloads.
Even still, you have changed browsing habits to consume the higher quality content. You can quite easily still consume the same content at the same quality levels. Having a faster link doesn't mean that lower quality content disappears from the internet.
Faster speeds mean you can do more, true, but they don't force you to do more. You have to change your browsing habits to do more with those faster speeds.
If you encoded it and uploaded it to Youtube as 1080p30 then the next quality down is 720p30,
Whatever.
There are a few videos I've see that were in 1080p60 and the quality could be adjusted down to 1080p30, 720p60, 720p30 and whatever the rest are.
I wish I could get 1080p60 on my 24/1 connection, the best I can get is 720p60 from Youtube.
Eh?
You can get some (very limited) 4k content on a 24/1 connection, depending on compression and bitrate used.
You can easily get 1080p60. If you can't then there is something else gone foul.
I just streamed a 4k YouTube clip on a 25/5 service; no buffering what-so-ever.
https://www.you
There are a few videos I've see that were in 1080p60 and the quality could be adjusted down to 1080p30, 720p60, 720p30 and whatever the rest are.
And what videos are these? Because it isn't a normal thing for Youtube to do, it'll take the video you made, and re-encode it to all the lower qualities but it doesn't usually alter the framerate like that at all, unless the video uploaders themselves deliberately uploaded a 60 and 30 encode.
You can easily get 1080p60. If you can't then there is something else gone foul.
Sync speed is 24/1, doesn't mean my overall connection to the net ends up being that, sync speed is only what I sync to based on the copper from the first point to the ADSL2+ RIM that i'm connected to, that RIM could be seeing backhaul congestion or anything.
During the day though I get pretty much perfect connection (according to speedtest) and 90% of the time I can't really get to 1080p60 without buffering occurring, though i've had a few videos that will occasionally manage it, most won't, and I watch a hell of a lot of YT :)
You can get some (very limited) 4k content on a 24/1 connection, depending on compression and bitrate used.
What absolute tosh!
My 30mbs cable connection cannot do 4k.
You need 50mbs if not 100 for 4k to work properly.
My 30mbs cable connection stutters with 720/420p at times � thanks to congestion.
If I could get a faster connection I would � if only there was a technology that was guaranteed to give me 100mbs or more � hmmmm.
Whatever.
You said it!
What absolute tosh!
Better tell YouTube to start buffering 4k content on my connection then.
As I've already said, had you bothered to read, it depends on the compression, bitrate, and codec of the 4k content being consumed, among other factors.
There is no reason a 25/1 connection can't do it. Indeed my 30/5 does and did earlier today when it was running at 25/5. No buffering.
You can call 'tosh' all you like, but you'll be wrong.
Netflix even say a 25/1 connection is OK for their 4k content. Let me guess, Netflix is wrong too?
My 30mbs cable connection stutters with 720/420p at times � thanks to congestion.
And that's down to congestion. That's not the fault of your baseline speed. Previous to where I am now, 1080p was very very easily watched from youtube on a 20/1 DSL connection. The difference being? No congestion.
And that's down to congestion. That's not the fault of your baseline speed.
Don't bring common sense into a good bashing discussion!
If I could get a faster connection I would � if only there was a technology that was guaranteed to give me 100mbs or more � hmmmm.
SHDSL, Fixed Wireless, EoF, and Fiber will all do 100Mbps guaranteed speed, if you want to pay for it.
If you don't want congestion you need a 1:1 contention, so you need business class services.
If you pay for 100 MB/s and only get 12 MB/s, then you might as well save
your money and switch to a lower speed plan.
Very few people on here seem to get the speed they pay for..
if you want to pay for it.
If you want roads, rail, power, air, water etc etc pay for them!
See how that works.
Why is fast internet such an issue � telegraph wasn't, tv wasn't, copper wasn't � so why are some people against a network that will pay for itself?
Of course if they don't need that speed then that's okay � lets go live in a cave/leeches are okay!
If you want roads, rail, power, air, water etc etc pay for them!
We do through taxes and other state levied payments.
You stated you want a 100Mbps guaranteed connection, you implied it doesn't exist, yet it does...
You said you would get it if you could, you can, so go get one.
If I could get a faster connection I would � if only there was a technology that was guaranteed to give me 100mbs or more � hmmmm.
so why are some people against a network that will pay for itself?
Lolwut?
Nowhere have I said I was against FTTP...
Have you actually read my posts and what you are replying to? Or is that to much effort?
Why is fast internet such an issue � telegraph wasn't, tv wasn't, copper wasn't � so why are some people against a network that will pay for itself?
Also, a little bit of history for you.
TV wasn't a huge issue because it was first launched by a commercial (Read: Private) entity (TCN), it wasn't government backed at the time; it also used the existing radio broadcast equipment. People don't care what private entities do � other than shareholders.
The CAN was an issue, it was a political football just like NBN is today.
It started by a take over (by the Commonwealth) of the colonel networks after federation and slowly expanded. It utilized existing infrastructure.
FTTP is more of an issue because it's not using existing infrastructure, its overbuilding everything with an aim to replace the infrastructure. Australia hasn't had such an ambitions project before.
all online
So what type of connection does a stock standard suburban pizza franchise currently use?
I'm guessing for most it would be an ADSL connection, perhaps they fork out a bit extra for a business grade SLA?
ADSL for the majority. The store i worked at had the head office upstairs, and they made do with a single ADSL2+ connection.
They need reliability more than speed, but even for a small franchise a surprising amount of what we did required internet access, even without online ordering or a website.
VOIP would have killed the business, with all the dramas we had keeping a working ADSL line.
What technology (available now, under development, or in the early theoretical stages) do you imagine will replace fibre?
I remember reading a while ago that a professor from Austria, was able to transfer data through the quantum field, with instantaneous speed, from cpu to cpu.... They were going to have a town hall meeting where people were invited to bring their laptops and have data transferred from his laptop to theirs, with no radio, wires, etc required...
So what type of connection does a stock standard suburban pizza franchise currently use?
They use what's currently on offer, ADSL2+. As I posted earlier, if all they want to do is get by for now and not grow, then FTTN will be acceptable (until they are put out of business by one of the monsters). But you really need to grow a business these days...standing still is death. For growth, much faster broadband is required...
This is a fact for most businesses.
a professor from Austria, was able to transfer data through the quantum field
The what?
They were going to have a town hall meeting where people were invited to bring their laptops and have data transferred from his laptop to theirs, with no radio, wires, etc required...
the problem with quantum physics comes when takes into account the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
add to that is the "observer effect" which maintains that the mere observing of the event actually alter the outcome (once upon a time called the "watched pot never boils effect")
both of these mean that even though the data may have been sent, there is no guarantee that it will be where you want it, it could end up on any laptop present in the town hall
To think, Tony, Malcolm and the Liberals have achieved a similar thing with all their promises and MTM, who knew that they were dealing at the quantum level
the problem with quantum physics comes when takes into account the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
True...but it should also be noted that quantum computing is not quantum networking. I have no idea what the latter is...
True...but it should also be noted that quantum computing is not quantum networking. I have no idea what the latter is...
maybe he was using subspace chanels
So what type of connection does a stock standard suburban pizza franchise currently use?
It depends on the store, we used EFM because the owners wanted to be able to access the security feed from their home, and had the surveillance system upload the footage to their home every few hours, but this probably isn't the usual scenario, they were however convinced that someone was stealing from the store (nobody was, but they were underpaying the staff, the footage soon disappeared when fair work questioned them over unpaid overtime) so they were a little paranoid.
To think, Tony, Malcolm and the Liberals have achieved a similar thing with all their promises and MTM, who knew that they were dealing at the quantum level
And I thought they were doing something else.
They put nbn in a node full of TA's directive...
Turnbull insists it is still alive. Others insist it is dead. Both are correct until we open the node.
We will see the contents after the election.
I have no idea what the latter is...
Without getting into heavy quantum mechanics but it basically uses quantum linked trapped atoms along with polarised light between the 2, the polarity of the source is then known based off the quantum state of the atoms. The kicker is that it is mostly used to secure the transport rather than as the carrier, but even when it isn't the carrier, the photonic polarity is still an important piece of the puzzle, which makes free air quantum networks extremely range limited. They need... you guessed it, fibre between the nodes for the best results.
So what type of connection does a stock standard suburban pizza franchise currently use?
I'm guessing for most it would be an ADSL connection, perhaps they fork out a bit extra for a business grade SLA?
I did some work for a bakery a while ago.
Setup was some local PCs that ran a RDP session to their hosted provider. Host then backed up data to the LOCAL PC.
This was put in as the PCs in some areas were subject to environmental issues. NUC sized pcs in 'dust proof' cabinets were used to host a session. The main office PC had the backup, for when the internet dropped.
They had previously tried to use cloud backup, but the upload on ADSL was too low. This way it utilised RDP (low bandwidth both ways) and a download for backup.
Yes, business grade ADSL, 3G backup. Lots spent to get around the bandwidth limitations.
quantum networks extremely range limited. They need... you guessed it, fibre between the nodes for the best results
So the tech that will replace FTTP re-uses fibre? We will be stuck with this stuff for another 100 yrs!
the polarity of the source is then known based off the quantum state of the atoms
Makes sense...nice explanation (thanks).
They need... you guessed it, fibre between the nodes for the best result
That was predictable...:)
We will be stuck with this stuff for another 100 yrs!
And the rest...
I have not checked in for some time, so it is disappointing to find the place still full of outrageous claims and spurious bullshit. Come on guys, "quantum networks" get real. What is shown as theoretically possible is decades from reality for our purposes.
And of the comment about needing fibre between the nodes, guess what, that is what connects the nodes. With an election coming I guess we will have all the usual rubbish trotted out by posters here.
And of the comment about needing fibre between the nodes, guess what, that is what connects the nodes.
Ummmm...maybe you should read more and comment less. The comment was about quantum nodes.
Come on guys, "quantum networks" get real
Clearly you missed the part where it was all down to further advances in technology that are potentially decades away still uses fibre. The point is that fibre will go the distance into the future despite what people seem to be spouting about us not knowing what the future holds.
What is shown as theoretically possible is decades from reality for our purposes.
Which again is exactly the point.
And of the comment about needing fibre between the nodes, guess what, that is what connects the nodes. With an election coming I guess we will have all the usual rubbish trotted out by posters here.
wow, sorry what? are you suggesting that in the several decades for quantum networking to even be potentially viable that the node 1.5km away from your home is still going to be the closest connection point for fibre?
Based on the recent release of Windows 10, more and more folks will be moving to higher speed tiers. More and more software developers are opting for internet distribution of their products over selling physical disks. It does stand to reason, disks and their packaging cost more money than setting up (or renting space on) a server farm and push content out to your customers.
Yes you can, as an individual, run your updates over a low speed connection, but if Microsoft is in anyway an example (and they're usually industry leaders) you don't get a choice in when you download that update. A higher bandwidth affords you the luxury of being able to download that update and continue to use the network as you see fit.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét