Nope.... fibre has to go back to the FAN (or multiport if there is one) not to the node.... that could even be all the way back to the exchange. A node doesn't support customer side fibre � only copper.
Yeah, I'm aware of that; perhaps I was unclear.
I meant to (very roughly) equate running fiber from an FDH to a new premises in an established FTTP area, vs running copper from a node to the new premises in an established FTTN area.
My thoughts were in the context of future builds, once the network was complete (for any given definition of "complete",) following on from Dr John's comment about future brownfield reconstruction, or section divisions. Thinking ahead for future expansion was part of the FTTP NBN design process, from my reading. FTTN appears to have... less forethought.
FTTN appears to have... less forethought.
Fixed that for you..... less thought all round I'm afraid.
This is a bit like the politicians equivalent to diplomacy which is the ability to be able to say "Good dog" while reaching for a beat-down stick. And the great unwashed Australian population swallowed the bate that was offered :(
how many homes today will still be standing in another 20 years from now?
As the house I live in was built in the 1960s and I have owned it since 1985, having no intention of leaving until I am unable to manage staying here. The house will be here much longer than 20 more years and technology will be there to enable my stay.
If you refer to e-health I can't say I blame the silent majority.
E-health as in the government exercise? Is your view of the future really that limited?
http://www.bbc.com/future/st
My ADSL is still faster than my next door neighbors FTTN NBN, and a whole lot more stable, I was over there yesterday for maybe 30 minutes and the modem lost sync twice.
Sure they went for the lowest speed tier, why pay more if you're not getting more?
Sure they went for the lowest speed tier, why pay more if you're not getting more?
Well many of us are getting more and paying less ($55pm less!) than we did for ADSL. I've gone from around 10Mbps ADSL2 to 65-70Mbps on FTTN at all hours of the day and night.
As one who switched to FTTN last week, my speed is 6-7 times faster (9-12 to 70) than it was on ADSL2 and $54pm cheaper ($159 now $105).
I am with TPG on adsl2 and I pay $59.95 a month unlimited.
I am with TPG on adsl2 and I pay $59.95 a month unlimited.
Congratulations. I'm on NBN fibre and on Optus's $60 unlimited plan too.
I / we must assume that backhaul ethernet is already sufficiently dimensioned by the wireless operators, otherwise the "4G" experience wouldn't exist.
The "4G experience" that we have right now is great because of a few caveats.... first is that not every place has "4G" enabled second our usual lower consumer caps for a majority of wireless plans have small to pitiful limits. This means that not only is "4G" going to have less users at the moment the full network itself would be woefully under utilised due to the download restrictions placed on users. So you will rarely at any time hit that peak "heavy use" that fixed line and previous mobile wireless has had at this current point in time.
ie. It's easy to say the 4G experience works if your not even getting close to what would be considered "normal peak traffic" in your network
I see you only ever drive your bicycle at less than 80km/h, so no need for you to get a new high performance car.
Even if in upcoming races everyone else will be driving such high performance cars.
LOL.... yeah pretty much my point =P
My ADSL is still faster than my next door neighbors FTTN NBN, and a whole lot more stable
Well many of us are getting more and paying less ($55pm less!) than we did for ADSL.
The point, which should not be lost here, is that to achieve this outcome (some better, some worse), it is costing many, many billions of dollars. Almost as much upfront as giving everyone the Fibre experience. And more in the long term.
Also what should not be lost here is that we, the taxpayers, OWN this asset. And so when someone says "NBN users increasingly opting for LOWER speeds" it means that we the taxpayers, as the business owners, should be worried about what this says about our offering. And should be worried about what it means for the potential value of this asset in the future, should we ever decide to sell it.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3026170
Down to the 'The fixed telecoms market:' area.
A sobering look at the last few years in Australia's fixed telecoms market.
Edit: Oops probably should have put that in the Federal NBN thread.
ie. It's easy to say the 4G experience works if your not even getting close to what would be considered "normal peak traffic" in your network
The "4G experience" that we have right now is great because of a few caveats.... first is that not every place has "4G" enabled second our usual lower consumer caps for a majority of wireless plans have small to pitiful limits. This means that not only is "4G" going to have less users at the moment the full network itself would be woefully under utilised due to the download restrictions placed on users. So you will rarely at any time hit that peak "heavy use" that fixed line and previous mobile wireless has had at this current point in time.
You need to get out more because there are plans available for all levels of usage. Take a ride on a suburban train sometime and see the number of people streaming movies and music or playing interactive games on their smart phones. I doubt they're on plans with pitiful limits.
From my pov, 4G is working remarkably well in city areas, and regardless of time of day or location I'm able to get high speed broadband on demand. In fact I know lots of people who have dumped their home phones and home broadband in favour of exclusive 4G wireless, and it's a growing trend.
So no, the 4G experience isn't great for those reasons you mention, it's great because the technology makes far more efficient use of the radio spectrum, and specifically, by using the short delay multipaths to create parallel radio links. This works particularly well at higher UHF frequencies in a high density urban environment.
From my pov, 4G is working remarkably well in city areas
I think his point was that the more you rely on 4G to be a PRIMARY connection, the more it will be degraded. Using any form of wireless as the primary source for everyone is far less efficient and must (according to simple physics) be far more limited than FTTP as well as far more expensive.
Edit: I think you will find that most 4G connections are slower today than when they were first released...
is that to achieve this outcome (some better, some worse), it is costing many, many billions of dollars.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
That's the problem with modern governments, they're unable to plan infrastructure for the future.
Take a ride on a suburban train sometime and see the number of people streaming movies and music or playing interactive games on their smart phones.
And I think this is the point. People in transit is incidental usage. You don't need a 500GB or 1TB limit to be able to watch movies on your phone during transit. When sitting at your desk or at your home, most people are linked via cable or ADSL (or possibly better options, if at work). Sure, a few are via wireless still. But not the vast majority.
If you pick up all these primary methods of linkage and put them over 4G, the 4G network would get crushed.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
No doubt it would have been. And it would be quite relevant to notice that the Sydney Harbour Bridge had WAAAY more capacity when it was built than would have been required at the time.
We (and I say we, because collectively "we" voted for it, and we the taxpayers own it) are presently building a three-lane FTTN/HFC Harbour Bridge because we presently have about two and a half lanes worth of traffic. And the "upgrade path" is to build a completely new bridge. Fibre is like building a hundred lane bridge now, for the cost of a four lane bridge.
I'm sure the same was said about gas, water and electricity to most homes, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Snowy Mountains scheme.
Those things did what they were supposed to and lasted for decades � the same is definitely not true for FTTN.
That's the problem with modern governments, they're unable to plan infrastructure for the future.
Correct � if they did, FTTN would never have gotten a look in.
You need to get out more because there are plans available for all levels of usage.
LOL, good one Alex. Please point me to the 4G plan that can replace my "unlimited" ADSL (which was a 250Gb plan when I switched to it, then upgraded to a 1000Gb plan for the same price before having the quota removed altogether).
LOL, good one Alex. Please point me to the 4G plan that can replace my "unlimited" ADSL (which was a 250Gb plan when I switched to it, then upgraded to a 1000Gb plan for the same price before having the quota removed altogether).
Vividwireless offers if but very limited area availability.
Yup 4G does not provide all for everyone.
Must be fun when its all chocked up with users though. :0<
Vividwireless offers if but very limited area availability.
They also apply onerous conditions on usage:
Restricting your heavy use
If, in our opinion, your use is so heavy at any time that it will adversely affect the quality of the service received by other customers, we may de-prioritise your access to the network.
Peer to peer file sharing falls into this category. You should be aware that we de-prioritise peer to peer traffic so that it does not adversely affect interactive traffic, such as phone and general browsing services. We recommend that if you are using the network for lawful peer-to-peer activity you schedule downloading to outside peak usage hours, for example midnight to 5am.
A note about ordinary domestic use
Our wireless broadband services are intended for ordinary domestic use. If you use our service to operate a business (and you are not on a small business plan) or connect more than five devices to one service (except for broadband & phone bundle plans and the Unlimited and pre-paid plans which have a limit of one device), we may shape or slow your access to the network or suspend or terminate your service.
We reserve the right to prevent you using our services for commercial emailing purposes.
http://www.vividwi
A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Care to share what bands they would be and provide a link to the information around that.
A quick google search and I could only find this:
http://www.analysysmaso
and this
http://www.4gamericas.or
Terabytes downloaded in the 3 months up to December 2015
1,673,123 from Fixed line
132,450 from wireless sources
There is even more info in those results.
98% of downloads are fixed line.
Fixed line growth is growing faster than mobile data. (although Pokemon Go may even this out for a month or two)
Total data growth is growing much faster than the Vertigan report (which said if the data growth was faster, FTTP was a better option than MTM!)
This indicates that the two services are complementaty, with only a small overlap in services.
Of course if Optus were to offer an account with a dozen SIMs, all using the same account at a reasonable charge, they could make inroads into the lower end fixed line services. That is not the area they are targeting. Telcos are charging for the advantage of mobility.
Telstra's Air is a more interesting model, which if it becomes wide spread enough could enable them to dominat the market up to and including 5G arrivals. Of course Air would work better if there was more FTTP around. Imagine connecting to Air at your bus stop, only to find that it is you and 6 others connected to someone's struggling FTTN connection.
A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Over what range, and in what conditions? More than 30bits/Hz is going to need a very clean signal.
Added: if my sums are right, a power SNR of about 90dB.
Actually, mobile networks aim for a very conservative QOS (quality of service) for data services, and 50% limiting or higher is quite typical in busy areas. Backhaul is expensive, so that's usually the limiting resource, even on Telstra's gold standard 4G network.
Soo.. basically what you're saying is most networks at this point are really not utilising "peak/full" usage of the network because..
a) It's being limited
b) It's expensive
Or did I misread that? Because that's pretty much the point I was making as to why the "4g is great" excuse works right now. It's usage is being artificially limited either physically or via the market which results in "less strain" in laymans term of the network because you are arbitrarily forcing low usage.
Streaming 4k video for entertainment is best done at home on fixed broadband, sure, but for everything else 4G is just fine, and mobility is what empowers productive members of Australia's workforce.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection. Or am I under the assumption that your saying folks who need the higher speeds or work in fields which require the better bandwidth are not productive members of society as well?
Streaming 4k video for entertainment is best done at home on fixed broadband, sure, but for everything else 4G is just fine, and mobility is what empowers productive members of Australia's workforce.
4G is not fine. As a freqent VPN user and user of applications that maintain a connection state/SQL connection, 4G is problematic. Even low bandwidth fixed line maintains a steady connection better than 4G.
There are a lot of other advantages of fixed line also. Reliability, (with some)QoS, total bandwidth, price are just some.
These two techs only overlap in a small part of the consumer space. The majority of the use case for each is complementary.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection.
Tried that once I couldn't even hold a decent connection and it made updating any OS a painful and slow and very annoying experience.
Small data allowance and drop outs hardly fun at all its like having a stroppy toddler to handle your data.
Soo.. basically what you're saying is most networks at this point are really not utilising "peak/full" usage of the network because..
a) It's being limited
b) It's expensive
No, it's actually the opposite.
In a cellular network, user throughput is limited by: radio link resource, number of users, EC/I0, backhaul capacity, etc.
The network planning / design engineer will attempt to maintain a minimum set of KPI's set by the network management team. KPI's include call drops, radio resource congestion and data throughput.
So it really depends on the network provider, and it's a case of getting what you're prepared to pay for.
Let me know the next time some poor sap has to update all of the companies computers or replace equipment with just a 4G connection. Or am I under the assumption that your saying folks who need the higher speeds or work in fields which require the better bandwidth are not productive members of society as well?
OK, so you're arguing for argument's sake.
My point is, that for many, wireless 4G / LTE, and beyond will be more than adequate for their broadband requirements, and it's a matter of fact that not everyone will desire to use high speed fixed broadband.
I don't think anyone disputes the advantages of FTTP into business parks, industrial estates, and residential towers. There does however remain a real and legitimate debate over how best to service residential areas.
In a cellular network, user throughput is limited by: radio link resource, number of users, EC/I0, ...
Indeed. Hence my question about the range and conditions for getting > 30 bits/Hz. For QAM, that's an amplitude and phase discrimination of better than 1/32000 each (for a square constellation).
Dr Shannon, Dr Hartley; meet Dr John.
Dr Shannon, Dr Hartley; meet Dr John.
There's no need for any such meeting because what I describe has already been practically field tested. And fwiw, Shannon's limit is still well beyond the speed horizon.
Oxford definitions are irrelevant in a technical discussion.
Since when is a definition of spectrum auction technical? The division of the spectrum may be technical, but the actual reason for the auction isn't.
It's the reuse (cell density) that's important
Agreed, but there is still a limit on the number of actual connections that can be made, otherwise people would still be able to use their phones in an area involved in a crisis situation:
Sometimes mobile networks can experience temporary outages during natural disasters or emergency situations or they may simply be handling a lot of traffic.
Agreed, but there is still a limit on the number of actual connections that can be made, otherwise people would still be able to use their phones in an area involved in a crisis situation:
And that's a very different and specific situation. Voice traffic bandwidth is insignificantly small in the scheme of things, and it's usually congestion of the access channel, and the resulting noise- rise that creates a call blocking (congestion) condition. Bandwidth and radio resource are often not factors.
There's no need for any such meeting because what I describe has already been practically field tested.
A link to that would be nice. It might even answer the question that you haven't answered: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
And fwiw, Shannon's limit is still well beyond the speed horizon.
I'm not sure what you mean there, but it's true that practical communications systems will perform worse than the Shannon-Hartley limit. Which means that for 30 bits/Hz, it will need more than 90dB power SNR.
A link to that would be nice. It might even answer the question that you haven't answered: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit, so in practice you'll need more bandwidth. See the link attached in an earlier post.
And, also bear in mind that 4G LTE as we know it is already an obsolete technology.
In mind that NBN is not currently in any rollout plan for my municipality in northern Sydney, by the time NBN in any current or eventual future iteration arrives at my doorstep we may well be one or two LTE generations further advanced, so whether it's copper or fibre may well be a moot point for a great many currently prospective NBN customers.
The great advantage of wireless is that its evolution is not hamstrung by the need to replace expensive or long-life external infrastructure, and since everyone replaces their mobile device every year or two, the process of evolution is seamless.
And that's a very different and specific situation.
It's also the one time you want and need to use your phone... limited.
what I describe has already been practically field tested
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit
So which is it? And if it's the latter, what were the assumed conditions? Even if you do an ideal-case Shannon-Hartley limit, you still have to plug in the SNR. How was that derived?
It's still the same unanswered question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
See the link attached in an earlier post.
I can only find one link you posted in the last few days (the article from theconverstion.com), and it doesn't mention anything more than the so-called �gig economy�. Nothing there that I could see about any actual or predicted 5G speeds.
It's also the one time you want and need to use your phone..
The one time in 20 years perhaps. LOL.
The only time I've ever had problems was during New Year's Eve, on Sydney harbour, when everyone attempted to establish a voice call or sms on the stroke of midnight. This wasn't exactly unexpected.
I don't pretend to know what everyone else is doing but I've certainly chosen a slower nbn speed, but only because my RSP simply isn't providing anywhere near the speed I pay for during peak times. There's no point in paying Rolls pricing if you end up with a Daihatsu. If I jump ship, looking increasingly likely, to an RSP that does provide what it claims to sell I will no doubt put the speed back up.
It's still the same unanswered question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
Obviously, a range and condition that allowed it.
I'm unable to fathom why the actual detail matters. Obviously, such a RR establishment would require freedom from RF interference and a low path loss radio link. That's a given.
If someone feels the need they're welcome to calculate the thermal noise floor and reverse engineer the radio link. Noise power is derived from T= temperature, K = Boltzman's constant, and B = bandwidth.
I'm unable to fathom why the actual detail matters.
That explains a lot of this discussion. A link that only works at > 30 bits/sec/Hz down the length of a lab bench in a Faraday cage isn't going to be of a lot of use as a general replacement for fixed infrastructure.
If someone feels the need they're welcome to calculate the thermal noise floor and reverse engineer the radio link.
Right. In practical communications, the only noise we need to worry about is thermal noise?
Anyway, Johnson�Nyquist noise only gives you half the SNR and then only if you ignore all the other possible sources of noise.
So we still have the question: "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
The one time in 20 years perhaps. LOL.
The only time I've ever had problems was during New Year's Eve, on Sydney harbour, when everyone attempted to establish a voice call or sms on the stroke of midnight. This wasn't exactly unexpected.
really, well mine has been unusable many more times than once at new years.
but its interesting that just the people on Sydney harbour bridge all trying to send an sms managed to foul up the network so badly. imagine if everyone used this instead of fixed line broadband as you are promoting ? this situation will e an everyday occurrence. probably several times a day.
Look we all agree that 4g is useful and its great to have mobile access anywhere, but most people are 'somewhere' more often than they are 'anywhere' and in somewhere they without exception, tether to a fixed line service rather than use their 4g
http://52.64.243.5/nbnmtm.html
MrMac recently added my town Margaret River for estimated fftn download speeds and yeah there quite a few areas are pale orange because of copper cable lengths in some cases are over 1000 metres to pillar servicing in some of the DA's !
Wouldn't be surpised if Micronodes would be deployed to lift speeds up ?
That explains a lot of this discussion. A link that only works at > 30 bits/sec/Hz down the length of a lab bench in a Faraday cage isn't going to be of a lot of use as a general replacement for fixed infrastructure.
So why is is so important that the radio link supports 30pbs/Hz?
It was me who raised that as a practical limit, based on available power, frequency, bandwidth, and proximity to a cell base.
If you're unable to think from an engineering perspective, it's going to be a very pointless discussion.
So why is is so important that the radio link supports 30pbs/Hz?
Because you claimed that A '5G' 1Gbps experience may require as little as 30MHz of physical bandwidth.
Yeah, and, so what?
So you made a claim and have been unable to substantiate it, as per usual.
I'm still waiting for links to 4G plans that can replace my ADSL Alex...
It's a factual statement.
If it was factual then you'd be able to substantiate it, as well as being able to answer the questions "Over what range, and in what conditions?"
what so you make a claim insinuating that 5g is a viable alternative to fixed line FTTP. When your claim is fleshed out its a theoretical possibility under perfect conditions. When called out you tell them that they are arguing for no reason ?
it seems to me that there is a valid reason,
You can get 1 Gbps over copper too, in an internal network. hell you can go faster than that in a lab with copper, only its not practical to do that in any situation due to the distance limits and the size of copper required makes the cost exercise pointless. much like arguing 5g is a suitable replacement for fttp
It's a factual statement.
It's an ideal case and a calculated limit, so in practice you'll need more bandwidth
So which is it?
what so you make a claim insinuating that 5g is a viable alternative to fixed line FTTP. When your claim is fleshed out its a theoretical possibility under perfect conditions. When called out you tell them that they are arguing for no reason ?
it seems to me that there is a valid reason,
It's a fully spurious reason. If you do the math you'll find that the condition requires a relatively close and LOS proximity to the base station, as expected.
It's spurious because the condition itself is not relevant to the greater question of whether LTE mobile networks will threaten the viability of NBN fixed broadband.
The answer to that question is dependent on knowing what percentage of people will be satisfied with 4G /5G LTE as a fixed broadband product. For high end games or video streamers it may not be suitable based on cost, even if it meets performance requirements, but if it's suitable for a reasonable percentage, which is a not unreasonable assertion, it could potentially be a significant threat to NBN viability.
As I recall, a figure of 70% take-up was assumed desirable for FTTP viability.
This may also be of interest.
ou'll find that the condition requires a relatively close and LOS proximity to the base station
So how many 5G radio installs are required to make it viable?
It's spurious because the condition itself is not relevant to the greater question of whether LTE mobile networks will threaten the viability of NBN fixed broadband
Certainly not in the rest of the world, but here where the connections to the internet are so crippled through legislation and politics, it might be possible for awhile. It won't really matter that much as the looming recession will destroy any chance to fix it for several decades...which is ironic as a proper form of communications on par with the rest of the world is something that might have helped us avoid the majority of the pain we are about to feel.
So how many 5G radio installs are required to make it viable?
You're asking the wrong question.
It's not a question of whether wireless can or ever will replace the proposed NBN. The right question is whether or not wireless networks will erode the projected NBN market share sufficiently to undermine the financial model.
Unless NBN can reach specific targets for take-up and usage, it may not be viable.
.which is ironic as a proper form of communications on par with the rest of the world is something that might have helped us avoid the majority of the pain we are about to feel.
We may share some common ground after all.
I've long been of the view that a national broadband build should have commenced sometime before 2006.
Unless NBN can reach specific targets for take-up and usage, it may not be viable.
Which is why private investors would not touch it and the government created a GBE to do it. May not be viable in the short term but will work out okay in the longer run. I also hear that public transport has never really been viable :)
Which is why private investors would not touch it and the government created a GBE to do it. May not be viable in the short term but will work out okay in the longer run.
Not exactly.
Telstra did have a workable FTTN plan but they couldn't negotiate what they wanted from ACCC.
Personally, it's my belief that with government subsidy for rural areas, it would have been possible to negotiate a PPP deal with Telstra or Optus, or perhaps both, and that would have largely avoided the inevitable and very destructive politicisation.
However, and importantly, Conroy also refused to accept that future wireless would be anything other than very ancillary to fixed national broadband, so right from the very outset, the viability of NBN contains that assumption, and as I recall, from day 1 of the NBNco announcement, Telstra was prohibited via legislation from advertising it's mobile network as a fixed wireless solution.
You can read into that what you will.
I also hear that public transport has never really been viable :)
It isn't which is why trains don't run any faster now than they did 50 years ago.
I think there's probably a message in there somewhere.
As I recall, a figure of 70% take-up was assumed desirable for FTTP viability.
Shame that so few are getting FTTP
This may also be of interest.
not a lot of interest considering that they are talking about 10 GB plans being the price of 100 GB plans are now, and that in 2020, those plans might be 100 GB, by which time you probably get unlimited on nbn for that price.
Mobile broadband just doesn't have the same capability and has much higher OpEx to make it economical as the only broadband network people connect to, or even to eat into a fixed line network to any significant numbers. Your average family of 4 might easily have 4 � 8 mobile connections and only 1 fixed line, BUT when they are near their fixed line they wont be using their mobile, it is JUST for when they are mobile on the whole and that's how comes it actually works, if it was for all the time then it would not be viable unless heavy investment in the infrastructure were completed to support the greater numbers using greater bandwidth. I mean if it was viable why was fibre even brought into the nbn at all ?
It isn't which is why trains don't run any faster now than they did 50 years ago.
I think there's probably a message in there somewhere.
the message should be that the MTM train network ( i.e. cant even agree on a gauge ffs ) turned out to be non viable.
they make great use of trains elsewhere in the world, and lots of them go much faster than they did 50 years ago
You're asking the wrong question.
Just because you're unable to answer it doesn't make it the wrong question.
Telstra did have a workable FTTN plan but they couldn't negotiate what they wanted from ACCC.
Wrong, they had a remonopolisation plan using their existing assets and technologies � that is not in any way comparable to the NBN (or even the MTM).
Personally, it's my belief that with government subsidy for rural areas, it would have been possible to negotiate a PPP deal with Telstra or Optus, or perhaps both, and that would have largely avoided the inevitable and very destructive politicisation.
You could have that belief by ignoring the telecommunications industry in the decade before the NBN began.
You can read into that what you will.
There is only one conclusion � you have been drinking the same Koolaid as Andrew Colley.
and as jxeeno blogged awhiles back -
http://blog.jxeeno.com/giga
FTTP gives the user the option to swap from 25mbps one month to 100mbps the next if required.
It would take me no less than 12 hours to transfer a 500GB raster dataset over a 100Mbps connection to my remote server. With a 1Gbps connection, this would reduce to just over an hour.
In this example � I don�t necessarily need the 1Gbps at all time. Perhaps on average, I need no more than a 25Mbps connection. But the productivity gains in having a burstable connection that can reach gigabit speeds when I need it to can be enormous
They do? I guess I mustn't be 'everyone' then, please don't generalise, I usually hold onto my mobile phones for quite a few years, as do a lot of the people I know.
I still have my Galaxy S4 and have no real desire to upgrade yet. Unless it breaks, gets lost or stolen.
Only thing is different about it is the higher capacity battery.
Most of the money goes towards the car or the computers or other gizmo's.
I really shouldn't call the house a gizmo and especially the trouble n strife. :0>
I'm still waiting for someone to show me recent stats that show users are all choosing lower speeds ?
These are the official stats.
http://www.accc.gov.au
To make it eaasy for you DC, refer to Table 1, AVC class 4. Data current as at 30 June 2016.
10% of FTTN users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
16% of FTTB users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
20% of FTTP users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
As the number of FTTN users increases relative to the number of FTTP users, mathematically there will be an increasing number (both in quantity, as as a percentage) of users selecting lower speeds.
Thus, the statement "NBN users increasingly opting for LOWER speeds" remains 100% correct.
(plot this on a graph and it will looks like a good correlation between "% over 25/5" and the amount of copper left in your internet connection)
Worth noting that right now there are approximately 8 times as many users of FTTP as there are users of FTTN, so based on the trajectory set by the current government, this ratio will drastically alter sometime soon.
(also strangely the cell for 250/100 Mbps, 500/200 Mbps, and 1000/400 Mbps under FTTN is blank � doesn't even have a zero in it like a few other cells)
If you look at AVC class 1 (effectively phone systems) you can see 27% of FTTP users are off the basic single channel, compared to 15% of FTTN users. Which would tend to suggest multi-line phone links, probably businesses. So looks like FTTP is "good for business", which is a mantra of one party or the other, can't remember which...
So basically you would have preferred Telstra to make a private NBN which would have benefited the shareholders, and particularly yourself, so this is your selfish reasons?
Makes no sense. What's a private NBN?
The only way it could benefit shareholders is if people actually used their FTTN product, and that's not possible unless the product is deemed desirable and good value for money.
During the early days of FTTN proposals, there was a paper about the cost upgrading the existing 3G/4G infrastrucure to the capacity to replace existing ADSL. It highlighted that the cost to Telstra alone was over a Trillion dollars.
That figure seems very unreasonable, and I've personally seen a costing from 2012 of less than $6b, but it obviously depends on minimum target DL throughput. The relationship between speed and cost is far from linear.
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b, because the hardware is getting cheaper by the day, It's possible to commission a cell for about $100k that serves a 300m radius, so it's definitely viable and would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
ADSL2+ costs a lot less than MTM and offers pretty much the same guaranteed level of performance.
"Up to 24/2 Mbps guaranteed"
vs
"Up to 25/5 Mbps guaranteed"
Would you pay $50-$60 billion for the difference between those 2 statements?
These are the official stats
thanks
10% of FTTN users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
16% of FTTB users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
20% of FTTP users have gone with speeds over 25/5.
thanks to you also, for some reason I just couldn't locate these stats.
So from these figures the thing I take from it at first was that I seem to recall there being a target created by the then labor government rolling out 93% FTTP of about 15% choosing the top tier
Now maths was never my strong suit but it seems that
125713 / 865072 * 100 = about 14.5%
seems pretty close, so hows FTTN doing ?
7684 / 102293 * 100 about 7.5% .... hmmm same price for both 100/40 conenctions right ? and we know that not everyone on fttn signed up to 100/40 actually gets that .. so we can assume that several of those will change tier to a lower tier that they can achieve. ( this is from the evidence of tens of whirlpool posters who have signed up to 100/40, been disappointed and then dropped to a more achievable plan )
seems like one technology is more profitable than the other .. add to that the OpEx for FTTN and things start looking very bleak .. so yeah I guess NBN users as a whole will be choosing lower speed tiers because higher ones are not achievable.
ok I stand corrected, evidence given, they are choosing lower speed tiers, but the thread titel is a bit misleading I guess, it doesn't tell the whole story.
its not like this thread title proves Malcom Turnbull right in his assumption that Aussies don't want faster than 25/5. its just that's all he is giving them.
Would you pay $50-$60 billion for the difference between those 2 statements?
It highlights the term fraud in fraudband.
ADSL2+ costs a lot less than MTM and offers pretty much the same guaranteed level of performance.
Well, many including myself will disagree, because I barely get 2Mbps on my ADSL2.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2.
well good luck with FTTN then, and at least there is a minimum speed. you have the consumer right ot complain about not achieving that speed.
with your fttn as long as you hit 25Mbps once a day then everything is dandy.
That ok with you ?
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b
Really?
1. To make sure that there was enough bandwidth, they would need several towers on each block
2. Each tower requires a fibre connection
3. The aggregate power costs would be huge
4. Repair/Replacement over time would also be incredibly expensive (maybe 50 times that of fibre?)
5. During technology crossover (going from 4G to 5G for example), they would need to have both transmitters available for coverage.
I think $10 Billion/year would be more accurate...
Well, many including myself will disagree, because I barely get 2Mbps on my ADSL2.
And you are in some way happy that the same copper that provides you with this less-than-stellar performance will be used to provide you with FTTN?
Keep in mind it is not just distance to the node. It's also the quality of every aging component in between.
The radio infrastructure would probably now cost less than $10b
That's about the same level of analysis that was done before selecting HFC/FTTN as the dead-end future for 2/3 of our country.
well good luck with FTTN then, and at least there is a minimum speed. you have the consumer right ot complain about not achieving that speed.
I live at the suburb extremity, so I'm a long way from the exchange. Complaining will achieve nothing, so I don't. Instead, I use a 4G modem for when the need arises, but surprisingly I manage fairly well with 2Mbps. Spotify works fine and I can stream low res video without too many problems.
with your fttn as long as you hit 25Mbps once a day then everything is dandy.
Probably sometime after 2020, and maybe as late as 2025. That's the downside of living in a safe federal electorate.
I don't ever anticipate using NBN because evolution of wireless will have made it redundant by the time it's delivered.
Keep in mind it is not just distance to the node. It's also the quality of every aging component in between.
Indeed the last mile copper that counts. My last property on ADSL2+ the line quality was atrocious.
It ended up with no internet connection in the end.
Quality of the CAN is piss poor to say the least.
That's about the same level of analysis that was done before selecting HFC/FTTN as the dead-end future for 2/3 of our country.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2
Sorry? The average is 6Mbps...and the minimum (according to what Telstra tells me) is 256 Kbps.
Remember that the minimum is a tricky thing...if FTTN hits 12Mbps for a microsecond once per 48 hours and stays at 1Mbps for the rest of the time, it has fulfilled its "minimum requirements".
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope
Only in the imagination of the Coalition spin machine...
FTTP was designed by engineers and presented to the politicians...if they chose to copy the numbers onto a napkin, does it really matter?
Really?
1. To make sure that there was enough bandwidth, they would need several towers on each block
2. Each tower requires a fibre connection
3. The aggregate power costs would be huge
4. Repair/Replacement over time would also be incredibly expensive (maybe 50 times that of fibre?)
5. During technology crossover (going from 4G to 5G for example), they would need to have both transmitters available for coverage.
None of that is close to true,
Firstly, a single existing street pole is capable of supporting antennas required for the coverage footprint.
Secondly, see my previous post quoting cost per installation.
Thirdly, 4G and 5G hardware is the same hardware, apart from additional antennas to provide beam steering.
Sorry? The average is 6Mbps...and the minimum (according to what Telstra tells me) is 256 Kbps.
No need to apologise.
However, you may be interested to know that Telstra policy requires an absolute minimum of 880kbps for an ADSL2 service provision.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope
What nonsense! Next, you'll be saying the internet is nothing more than an overrated video entertainment system.
G plans are expensive and very little data allowances
Yes he seems to forget that 4G plans have tiny amounts of quotas compared to fixed line plans, with fixed line plans many want more than 100-200GB's that 4G plans will never match for a reason.
I still have my Galaxy S4 and have no real desire to upgrade yet.
Only reason I upgraded my LG G3 was because somehow I managed to fracture the screen and destroy the digitiser behind it, that's the first time I have ever broken a screen on a device, prior to that I had my Samsung Google Galaxy Nexus from 2012 to 2015, the G3 from 2015 to 2016 and now the G4 which I do not plan on replacing for several years.
I just don't see the need to upgrade phones every year, only reason I had to go from my Nokia phone (got it in 2004/2005) with the Galaxy Nexus (i9250) was because of a bug in the Symbian OS which meant that every time I got near Perth and my phone discovered more than a couple of towers it would bug out and shutdown, the only way to update the phone was via USB and the USB port on the phone was stuffed.
So from these figures the thing I take from it at first was that I seem to recall there being a target created by the then labor government rolling out 93% FTTP of about 15% choosing the top tier
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
As you just calculated, for June, only 14.5% are ordering the service . For reference, in March 15.7% were on FTTP 100/40.
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
why did you link to the Mike Quigley speech ? deoes it say that somewhere in the speech ? and 2015 was long after the NBN was change to the MTM any targets set then are not in question right this minute !
As I said previously, the target for 100/40 FTTP was 24% by end of July. (Question on Notice 118, Budget Estimates for Communications, May 2015)
As you just calculated, for June, only 14.5% are ordering the service . For reference, in March 15.7% were on FTTP 100/40.
So Turnbull, Fifield, Morrow, et al have failed yet again � why do you sound proud of that fact, and why do you keep supporting them?
and 2015 was long after the NBN was change to the MTM any targets set then are not in question right this minute !
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016. (2012-15 Corporate Plan, reading off the graph exhibit 8-4, pg 64)
100/40 FTTP consumer demand forecasts for this year � made under Labor and the Coalition � are set to be optimistic.
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016. (2012-15 Corporate Plan, reading off the graph exhibit 8-4, pg 64)
ok gotcha, would have been interesting to see what the figures we would have if labors plan had kept going because it was right on target up until then
25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016
It's not that far off, but we'll never know if that target would have ever been reached, will we?
100/40 FTTP consumer demand forecasts for this year � made under Labor and the Coalition � are set to be optimistic.
Forecasts made under Labor are irrelevant when they haven't been in power since September 2013 and the company has been doing everything in their power to not rollout FTTP (and talk down FTTP) since then.
What's a private NBN?
It's an oxymoron, hence your suggestion that Telstra FTTN was a private sector version of the NBN was false.
The only way it could benefit shareholders is if people actually used their FTTN product, and that's not possible unless the product is deemed desirable and good value for money.
Wrong, what you seem to be missing (deliberately or not) is that the Telstra FTTN involved disconnecting all other providers equipment from the copper and forcing anyone who wanted ADSL onto their FTTN (at exorbitant prices).
It's possible to commission a cell for about $100k that serves a 300m radius, so it's definitely viable and would probably cost a lot less than MTM for the same level of performance.
LOL, sure it is.
Fwiw, the gazetted minimum is 8Mbps for ADSL2.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? It's definitely not true in any way.
Funny isn't it, to think that FTTP was also calculated on the back of an envelope.
If you believe that you'll believe anything.
Demand is a definable quantity.
Let me guess this straight � you're saying that demand can be specified by the designer of the network?
5G is capable of 30Gbps.
To hundreds of users on a tower simultaneously? Do you have a source to support that assertion, or is it like your "1Gb may only need 30MHz" claim from yesterday?
If you look at the last official Corporate Plan when Labor were in power, about 25% were expected to be on FTTP 100/40 by July 2016
But these things are not done in a vacuum...if the rollout had continued, that might very likely have been true.
You seem to be under the same delusion that our old buddy Matthew was, that these temporary figure are actually important somehow...
the bottom line is that if there was the same number of fttn csutomers as fttp that fttp would be providing double the revenue , and that's discounting the operational costs of fttn. Fact is there aren't even nearly the numbers on fttn yet after 3 years of government
So one technology costs a lot to run and generates half the income, the other cost comparatively little to run and generates twice the income ...... have I got that about right ?
you believe that you'll believe anything.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Funny how it was mentioned as expenditure in the Budget Papers.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Funny how it was mentioned as expenditure in the Budget Papers.
what are you talking about ?
The NBN had a very detailed plan actually the initial idea would have started in someones head before it made it to a napkin, before it made it to an executive summary, before it made it to a 50 page policy ... what is your point ?
I'm not sure who claimed that it was going to cost $0 to roll out FTTP
My goodness Robboj... You can't be real?
I'm not sure who claimed that it was going to cost $0 to roll out FTTP
This is probably a [potentially deliberate] misunderstanding of the concept of an 'off budget' organisation that just needs to borrow funds to get off the ground before eventually returning a profit to the taxpayer. And being a valuable asset that we could sell in the future.
Of course, the new NBN will be back 'on budget' soon enough (probably should be there already), and then it really will be a taxpayer liability, with real costs, as opposed to just being a temporary investment loan.
Actually Conroy and Rudd dreamt up their plan on the back of a beer coaster / napkin or what ever.
If you repeat apocrypha as fact then you are either attempting to delude others or simply deluding yourself.
Typical ALP due diligence ie zero
You are confused � the ALP plan went through many, many reviews and audits and escaped unscathed, while the MTM doubled in cost and time.
About as good as the claim that FTTP would cost Australia $0.
Is there a Liberal party newsletter that prints these fantasies for you to repeat?
In fact I don't think I'll move away from my 3G Vodafone Mobile Broadband PrePaid Plan.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Once again just like Dr. John, judging others and the greater needs for the future by their own bias, political and selfish interests.
There are many like this, that's why we are in this situation...
http://www.zdnet.com/article
Looks like 25mbps or less in 79.4% of cases on FTTP and 89.1% for FTTN.
(15.1% are choosing 100/40 on FTTP and 7.4% are choosing 25-100/5-40 on FTTN...)
Of course, the new NBN will be back 'on budget' soon enough
I'm not sure this is the case.
The first years have been setting up the transit network, the organisation, etc, but from now on the majority of the investment will be actual access network rollout, and the end user numbers will increase accordingly.
Of course, it will be still an accounting game to make sure the figures add up. The NBN, once the construction stage is over, will then have to more focus on revenue and OPEX, and being a new player on the block (the leapfrog effect), these should be low enough. NBN will always have the advantage of regulation and size to help them out, at least in the foreseeable future.
One would hope that with their economies of scale, inefficient parts would be addressed with a bit more cash injection, and I can't see that coming from the government in any great hurry unless the next few elections are close calls.
But as has been reported recently and historically, things like wireless network competition will alway be a real risk in regards to uptake and revenue loss for the NBN.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Still true as evidenced by this thread now being more than 60 pages.
The cheapest plan will be adequate for most users.
Most users (by a huge margin) choose the next level up from the cheapest...
But of course that doesn't matter at all. What is important is the ability of the network to advance and change as demand does. So when that speed is no longer sufficient, users can move upwards easily to accommodate their needs.
At the end of the day, those needs will increase exponentially over time, while the infrastructure takes a decade to fix.
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.....
Because the fastest speeds available are often lower. I would have got a 100meg speed plan on a FTTH connection as soon as I could, but now at 570 meters and a FTTN planned for next year, I'll be lucky to get more than 50meg. I'll initially sign up for 100, but likely downgrade if I don't get a lot more than 50. I know a lot of other people have done the same thing and it seems logical � I might be one of the lucky ones who gets close to 100, but when I get a boring 4meg ADSL connection I doubt it, and to be honest anything is likely to be faster lol
It seems to be a story which is becoming a part of NBN's history, yet hardly cracking a mention on mainstream media.
Ironically enough it actually *did* start out from the MSM. It was one of the very many smear campaign "exposes" that is now largely forgotten by most folks unless its trotted out as a supposed reason to say the NBN wasn't thoroughly planned, blah blah blah...
Once again just like Dr. John, judging others and the greater needs for the future by their own bias, political and selfish interests.
It's actually amusing seeing this...
I find a majority of folks who say "we don't need this" are usually the folks who either have low/casual use hence lower end plans are perfect for them OR they are the lucky few on a well provided area and everything is hunky dory.
Meanwhile as someone who's been constantly on the short end of the stick my opinion is the complete polar opposite since I've been forced on that glass ceiling so many times before and am loving the new freedom to "upgrade" on FTTP. It's the fact were all aiming for such low glass ceilings that really gets to me at times..
Well it will be a very "interesting" 10-20 years to see how much this MTM will get us before people start whining about the glass ceilings of network speeds again (of course assuming we aren't again programmed to accept low quality connections as has been the norm for ages now =P)
there's a difference between want and need, and the former often gets adjusted smartly when it comes times to paying for it.
there's a difference between want and need, and the former often gets adjusted smartly when it comes times to paying for it.
Why would any rational business care about such a difference? Surely all they care about is whether people will buy what is being sold, whether the consumer "needs" or "wants" it. Why would any business choose a technology that cannot deliver what people are willing to pay for when the same cost could get them technology that can deliver it (and much more, and for decades to come)?
there's a difference between want and need
The need for the economy is to drastically increase broadband speeds so that we can match the rest of the folks on the planet. This is necessary if we don't want to continue having our economy slip...
Why would any rational business care about such a difference?
it's not the business, it's the consumer. they are ones who have to pay for it.
when the same cost could get them technology that can deliver it
since that's not the case it's rather a theoretical only question, but the other consideration is rollout speed. everyone wants it yesterday too, not in 10 years.
don't bother with the same tired old false claims about either not being the case. not interested.
The need for the economy is to drastically increase broadband speeds so that we can match the rest of the folks on the planet.
Especially with such a global future industry, not to mention our declining mining stocks.
We are only at the dawn of the future technology era...Australia will miss the boat.
everyone wants it yesterday too, not in 10 years.
The solution of waiting twice (vs once) lacks logic.
it's not the business, it's the consumer. they are ones who have to pay for it.
But they are not the ones who determine the price...
since that's not the case
At the end of the day, almost every country but us is proving able to deliver gigabit internet at very low prices.
I think any argument that it "won't work here" needs a hell of a lot more proof than just that tired old protestation...
So far I have seen absolutely no evidence that it won't work here.
it's not the business, it's the consumer
You better tell Apple and Samsung that... talk about missing the point entirely.
The solution of waiting twice (vs once) lacks logic.
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean.
But they are not the ones who determine the price...
they are the ones who determine the government of the day which makes those decisions on their behalf.
we had that choice a few weeks ago.
I think any argument that it "won't work here" needs a hell of a lot more proof than just that tired old protestation...
So far I have seen absolutely no evidence that it won't work here
the only tired protestation is among the people that cannot accept reality when they see it.
not everything is in the public domain, and since the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant.
since the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant
So, we as the public cannot protest any decision the government makes, because they are the government?
that's how it works. yes.
unless you wish to lead a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leadership of the country over your internet connection.
wish to lead a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leadership
There are other less violent ways to sway a governments decision...
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean
it IS taking 10 years, people WILL have been waiting 10 years and NOT get full fibre by the time its rolled out..
would you prefer to wait 10 years for any option? that's what a full fibre rollout would mean.
10 years waiting for fibre is preferable to waiting effectively 10 years for FTTN plus another 10 years for fibre. Logic. Try some.
the government of the day has made their choice, further discussion is irrelevant.
Pure garbage. So long as speed requirements grow beyond what FTTN is capable of (a given) the discussions will continue until it the network is fixed (that means fibre). Get used to it or exit the discussion.
There are other less violent ways to sway a governments decision..
we had one a few weeks ago, and we'll get another one in three years. for the meantime, the decision is made.
it IS taking 10 years, people WILL have been waiting 10 years and NOT get full fibre by the time its rolled out..
sorry, but the FTTN rollout will be largely complete in 3-4 years. only minor infill will be required beyond that.
10 years waiting for fibre is preferable to waiting effectively 10 years for FTTN plus another 10 years for fibre. Logic. Try some.
deal with it. the decision has been made.
Pure garbage. So long as speed requirements grow beyond what FTTN is capable of (a given) the discussions will continue until it the network is fixed (that means fibre). Get used to it or exit the discussion.
I have no doubt the futile discussion of the same tired old points will continue for some time.
what won't change is what happens.
you need to deal with this and move on.
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