I know this has probably been discussed before but still wanted to throw a quick little rant, yes I know Internet is not my human "right" etc. etc. but:
I pay the same as someone who can get 120 Mbps cable or NBN speeds.
The only option in my street/suburb is ADSL/2/2+ � But I'm one of these suckers who live over 5KM's from the exchange. My suburb is officially considered part of metropolitan Melbourne, albeit over 30 KM's east of CBD. They start to really spread out the phone exchanges in the outta subs..
I can't get Cable, Foxtel or NBN in my area, and NBN isn't even on any radar remotely close to me.. Instead they are rolling out fibre to areas that would already have a >12Mbps Adsl2+ average + options like 120 Mbit Cable!!...
All I can get is a very dodgy old scrap of 5+ KM's copper that spazzes out at the slightest weather condition (rain, wind etc.)
By default, my modem syncs at about 1.8-2.5Mbps, but I force a higher noise tollerance (snr) to squeeze out 3Mbps (thanks to having a broadcom chipset!)
Is it resonable that I'm paying $80 for this sub-par service? Yes, I'm aware the min specification is 1.5Mbps, but thats an ancient benchmark from pre 720p days, and should be corrected. I can't subscribe to Netflix, Stan, Foxtel etc. because it's a complete bufffering mess, I can barely watch youtube in anything higher than 480p and only one user at a time in my household!
Some stats below, all paying the same, but a 24Mbit connection is pulling 8 times more potential download capacity + has the luxury to subscribe to the on-demand video services, same price for them:
988.2 GB per month @ 3Mbps running 24/7
3 TB per month @ 9Mbps running 24/7
8 TB per month @ 24Mbps running 24/7
I'm thinking I've got the worst internet in the entire country including the desert areas and I live in Metro Melbourne ffs.
/rant :)
Is it resonable that I'm paying $80 for this sub-par service?
You're paying based on what it costs your ISP to provider that connection to you. A port on a DSLAM doesn't get cheaper the further you are from it, and a copper line certainly doesn't get cheaper to maintain the longer it is.
Basically, your choices are take it or leave it, or find someone else who can give you something for less money, or with more speed. If no-one can, that tells you something.
Is it what we as a society should be aspiring to? Not really. That's why so many of us were ecstatic to hear about the original FTTP NBN. Gauranteed speeds at the same prices for all Australians? Awesome.
Anyway, stock answer is to wait for the NBN.
I've got two 3Mbit ADSL lines going into a load-balancing router at home, so believe me when I say I feel your pain. =)
I'm thinking I've got the worst internet in the entire country including the desert areas and I live in Metro Melbourne
Be careful what you wish for. Your speed of 3Mbps is a lot better than what many people have, and don't forget about those that get 0Mbps (and in Melbourne too).
I can't get Foxtel
Satellite?
I'm thinking I've got the worst internet in the entire country including the desert areas and I live in Metro Melbourne ffs.
There are around 10,000 homes in Melbourne that only have access to 3G/4G for their internet connection, so think yourself lucky.
Depending where in Melbourne you are located, you may have access to one of the fixed wireless services.
Satellite?
I think he is referring to no cable availability so no broadband from it.
Is it resonable that I'm paying $80 for this sub-par service?
You should also note that internet plans are sold by data allowance and not speeds, here in Australia.
Also as what Beriktnight has stated, you are also paying based on the cost of what the isp has to pay to keep your connection going per month (port costs, data transit, datqa backhaul etc..), these are fixed costs and no isp is likley to lower them for you because of slow speeds.
When I was on a ADSL2+ service I was over 4.6Km from the exchange and could onle get pretty much the same speeds as you, but I managed to stream netflix ok, however couldn't stream Stan or Presto as the connection was too slow for them.
Yes, I'm aware the min specification is 1.5Mbps, but thats an ancient benchmark from pre 720p days, and should be corrected.
Actually there is no minimum speed specification for DSL based services. The 1.5Mbps is a benchmark where most ISP's will raise/investigate a speed issue if your speed falls below that on a regular basis.
Although I work for Telstra any opinion or view I publish does not reflect the view of my employer, any assistance I offer is on my behalf and is not a representation of my employer.
Yes, thanks all. I'm fully aware the charge is data allowance etc. And that in very rare circumstances some people are just as bad off or even worse than me.
But no one directly addressed my main issues, being that when it all boils down to services that an ISP (Internet connection) can directly or indirectly provide, the bottom line is I pay the same money for many less service options than most.
I guess everyone just excepts this as the way the cookie crumbles...
Also, I thought they are charging based on speed, or are you telling me optus and Telstra charge the same for 30Mb cable vs 120Mb cable?
But no one directly addressed my main issues, being that when it all boils down to services that an ISP (Internet connection) can directly or indirectly provide, the bottom line is I pay the same money for many less service options than most.
I guess everyone just excepts this as the way the cookie crumbles...
We recognise the reality. If there were a way of guaranteeing every ADSL2 connection could get 24Mbit, then the ISPs would do it. But there's not a technology that can do this. The other option is to simply lock all ADSL services down to 1.5Mbit, like Telstra used to back in the day. That would mean everyone pays the same for the same speed, but it wouldn't be better. As it is, you pay based on what it costs to provide you with that service, not on how fast it is. That seems like the fairest option, even if it doesn't mean you and I get the same speeds as people closer to the exchange.
A standard Australia Post stamp will get my letter from Canberra to Sydney in a day or two, for a fixed price. That same stamp at that same price will get the same letter to a town 8 hours north of Alice Springs, but it won't get it there in a day.
I'm fully aware the charge is data allowance etc.
That's true. There's two ways of looking at this. You're paying for xGB and you're getting xGB, just like someone on a 12MBit line. So you're getting what you pay for.
or
You're paying for yMbit and only getting 3Mbit. If you care about the speed and not so much the GB, then there are other options with more speed and less GB available to you.
http://www.optus.com.au/
But only if you don't care about the GB. If GB is more important to you than Mbits, stick with what you're on.
I'll also note that I have streamed Netflix just fine while syncing at 2Mbit, so it can be done.
All ADSL services are sold as UP TO 24Mbps.
You could always us 4G to get better speeds, but will probably have a lower download limit.
I live in a fairly new subdivision in Tasmania (~2 years old)
I was lucky to get a phone line and ADSL port 2 years ago.
NONE of my neighbors can get ADSL due to there not being enough non-pair gain lines coming from the exchange 4 KMs away.
[the bottom line is I pay the same money for many less service options than most."]
As stated above it costs the ISP the same amount of money to service your connection as it does to service an ADSL connection to the person living next door to the exchange.
So while from your perspective you're getting lower service, from the ISP's perspective, you're getting the same service, if not more service cause your longer line is more prone to faults and therefore more demanding of technical support.
So while from your perspective you're getting lower service, from the ISP's perspective, you're getting the same service, if not more service cause your longer line is more prone to faults and therefore more demanding of technical support.
Good way to see it :)
But having said that, if we are charged by data rather than by speed, wouldn't this indicate the service usage/bandwidth also costs the ISP something?
So, the guy hitting up 20+ Mbps 24/7 is not only "possibly" (correct if wrong) contributing to shared infra/hw/network resource saturation, but he can also easily consume his precious data allowance.... he pays the same or proabbly less than me though...
(the reason I say he probably pays less is the fact that I don't really have the option to go with Naked DSL due to the flaky line requiring some sort of "massaging" by keeping a phone active on it.., so I'm also having to pay for a land line $30pm that no one ever uses or wants).
I can't do either: I can't contribute to any possible shared infrastructure/network strain, nor can I even download the data allowance that I am apparently paying for!
Lucky me huh ;)
So, the guy hitting up 20+ Mbps 24/7 is not only "possibly" (correct if wrong) contributing to shared infra/hw/network resource saturation, but he can also easily consume his precious data allowance.... he pays the same or proabbly less than me though...
Downloading at 20+Mbit he burns thru his data allocation in a day or two, and so places no real load on the network the rest of the month. You downloading at 3Mbit all day place a constant low-level load. It all balances out. 10 people using 20Mbit for two days each or 10 people using 2-3Mbit constantly, it's the same 20-30-ish Mbit of load across the network over the month.
I can't do either: I can't contribute to any possible shared infrastructure/network strain, nor can I even download the data allowance that I am apparently paying for!
Then switch down to a plan with less included data, pay less. Not rocket science.
Downloading at 20+Mbit he burns thru his data allocation in a day or two, and so places no real load on the network the rest of the month. You downloading at 3Mbit all day place a constant low-level load. It all balances out.
I Disagree, my load on the system even at 24/7 would be negligible. What about TPG customers running 24Mbps 24/07 on their unlimited plans (which incidently still costs less than what I have to pay for my lucky 3Mbps).
Then switch down to a plan with less included data, pay less. Not rocket science.
I think i'm already on the lowest plan though and I can't change ISP's or go for naked dsl in fear that my 62db+ down attenuation will cause the ISP to reject my application :)...
I can't believe no one seems to agree that the pricing model does not seem fair, it's pick and choose ie. in some cases they charge higher rates for faster speeds, but in other cases they charge for higher data quotas. In both cases, people in my category lose either way, we pay same or more and get a lot lot less.
I Disagree, my load on the system even at 24/7 would be negligible.
It adds up and evens out was my point. 100 users going 24x7 at 3Mbit will tie up 300Mbit of backhaul 24x7.
What about TPG customers running 24Mbps 24/07 on their unlimited plans
There's a reason TPG have a reputation for congestion =)
I can't believe no one seems to agree that the pricing model does not seem fair
It's cost based charging. What could be fairer?
If you go back deep enough into the whirlpool archives you'll hit the days before Naked or 3rd party DSLAMs when Telstra was the only provider of ADSL ports. The same port on the same phone line was sold as either 256/64k, 512/128k, 512/512k or 1500/256k, with different monthly costs. Didn't matter how far you were from the exchange, if you could get ADSL then your 512/128k plan was no faster or slower than anyone else's. If your line couldn't deliver 1500/256 then you got no ADSL at all.
Is that fairer? What the port and line cost had no bearing on what Telstra charged, they just charged what they thought the market would bear, using artificial speed limits on the cheap plans to make the more expensive plans more attractive.
The general consensus on whirlpool at the time was that this sucked, and that Telstra should unlimit the lines and let each one run as fast as it could. After years of competition from people like Internode who got into the market offering FULL SPEED ADSL off their own DSLAMs, Telstra finally did that. That's what we have now. You pay for a port and a line and a certain amount of downloads and they run as fast as they're technically capable of.
I think this is why you're not getting the sympathy you expect. What we have now is *good*. What we had before was bad, and this is way better. It may not seem fair to you, but it's the fairest system we've had yet, or that anyone has been able to come up with yet.
EDIT:
In both cases, people in my category lose either way, we pay same or more and get a lot lot less.
I'm just going to point out again that I'm in this category too. I just recognise that until we get a national fibre network, this is going to be the way it works. There's simply no other way to do it.
I'm just going to point out again that I'm in this category too. I just recognise that until we get a national fibre network, this is going to be the way it works. There's simply no other way to do it.
Fair enough.
I know im harping on, but even though every point you made is 100% correct, I still think theres room for even more improvement, mostly to subsidise people in our category just a little. ISP's have full access to their client connectivity speed rates and they could easily provide some form of discounting for the <5Mbps customers, and IMO should. But yes, they don't have to.
And the waiting for fibre thing.. Well as I mentioned before, my area despite having no alternatives other than ridiculous Telstra 4G options, still has nothing on the fibre rollout map... But suburbs with a plethora of existing options and exchanges spread out about 2KM's apart so everyone gets atleast 10Mbps are getting fibre already in some cases.
I still think theres room for even more improvement, mostly to subsidise people in our category just a little. ISP's have full access to their client connectivity speed rates and they could easily provide some form of discounting for the <5Mbps customers, and IMO should. But yes, they don't have to.
The problem is that it's a free market. Any ISP who offers 10% less than base cost for people under 10Mbit and charges 10% more than standard for people over 10Mbit will very quickly find all their 10Mbit+ customers leave for an ISP that doesn't charge them more. Then they'll get flooded by customers from other ISPs who are getting less than 10Mbit and want the discount. Within 6 months the majority of their customers are the ones on slow DSL connections that they're loosing money on because those services don't actually cost any less to provide or support. So they go under.
That sort of cross-subsidy *has* to happen on a national level to work, and has to apply to all providers. That's why the NBN can do it, but ADSL providers just can't.
I can't get Cable, Foxtel or NBN in my area
mmmmm the eastern suburbs are pretty well covered by both Optus and Telstra cable. I believe you when you say it's not available to you but there must be a reason. MDU? Battleaxe block? Rear unit? Newer estate?
That sort of cross-subsidy *has* to happen on a national level to work, and has to apply to all providers. That's why the NBN can do it, but ADSL providers just can't.
Precisely, it would need to be governed at at least state level I would imagine, but better if national.
mmmmm the eastern suburbs are pretty well covered by both Optus and Telstra cable. I believe you when you say it's not available to you but there must be a reason. MDU? Battleaxe block? Rear unit? Newer estate?
Far outer eastern subs ie. bordering the hills :) but still considered metro! Def not newer estate, my house is like 1000 years old, and so is the phone line... hmm now theres a thought...
Precisely, it would need to be governed at at least state level I would imagine, but better if national.
And in theory it has to be legislated and managed by the government. Otherwise what's to stop me opening a new cable ISP that only offers 100Mbit connections. I wouldn't have to cross subsidise within my ISP, in theory the people on slower connections that I'd have to subsidise would be on different ISPs, so I'd have to pay some of my money to those ISPs in order to make their slower, more expensive connections cheaper for their customers to buy...
That really doesn't seem all that workable.
It works with the NBN because all the infrastructure, fibre, fixed wireless and satellite, was provided by the one entity. They could cross subsidise the bush connections by slightly raising the price of the city connections above cost. And it only worked because there were legal "anti cherry picking" provisions to stop other people from starting their own city-only FTTP networks that they could sell for slightly less. Mister Turnbull gutted those provisions, so god knows where this will all end up.
Either way, trying to retroactively apply this to DSL connections provided by different companies on different wholesale DSLAM networks owned by different people would be crazy.
Either way, trying to retroactively apply this to DSL connections provided by different companies on different wholesale DSLAM networks owned by different people would be crazy
I don't think it would be as complex as your suggesting, pricing models per ISP change all the time, from adsl1/2/2+ , not sure if ISDN is still around and heck even dialup.
It's a quick little filter placed on the billing system:
If <5mb then bill = bill � $10; � ;)
And I would guess the wholesaling model is more of a "pooling" arrangement rather than literal point to point pay per customer thing, like shared resource allocations possibly with static rental costs.
Edit: actually make that bill = bill -$10 and print "we're sorry you can't do much other than browse theage.com with your expensive internet connection, here's 10 bux"
ADSL2+ is singled out and is only charged by quota.
That is due to the nature of DSL technology. ISP's cannot guarantee speeds for it as it subject to change depending on your distance from the exchange, condition of the lines themselves and a multitude of other factors that can affect the service.
Gee.
My work gets 1kbps download 3.8 kilometers from the exchange and 9 kilometers from Perth CBD. Can I swap downloads with the OP? Seriously? 6kbps would be awesome!
NBN? What's that? /sarcasm
My work gets 1kbps download 3.8 kilometers from the exchange and 9 kilometers from Perth CBD. Can I swap downloads with the OP? Seriously? 6kbps would be awesome!
Wow, thats way slower than even dialup, 1kbps = 0.001Mbps I don't think this is even possible :)
I don't get 6kbps... I get about 300KBps which roughy equates to 3Mbps. About 3000 times faster than your internet, lol.
That is due to the nature of DSL technology. ISP's cannot guarantee speeds for it
They can't guarantee speeds for NBN or Cable or any other internet either, yet they still charge based on the speed plan the customer chooses ie:
NBN customers can choose things like 100/40 or 50/20 or 12/1 etc.. but this does not mean you will get those speeds and in a lot of cases far far from it too (especially with FTTN, because that will use the crappy old copper and distance from node to house).
Cable is shared bandwidth, so whilst you might pay more to get a max speed of 100Mbps, the reality is you will get very inconsistent speeds based on time of day and how many other users there are on the same node.
In fact, it's possible that ISPs actually have a clearer, more consistant way to determine approximate ADSL2+ speeds per customer vs NBN/Cable because they have access to the number one speed determination factor: line length. So yeah, they know damn well if your in the 15+ club or the <5 club. Yet, they offer speed based plans for NBN/Cable but not ADSL2+ :)
In fact, it's possible that ISPs actually have a clearer, more consistant way to determine approximate ADSL2+ speeds per customer vs NBN/Cable because they have access to the number one speed determination factor: line length.
Actually most IPS's don't. Only Tesltra really has access to that information and their database is often wrong. Plus the number of joints, gauge of the copper wire, type of cable insulation, and some other factors can also affect possible speeds, not just the distance from the exchange.
Although I work for Telstra any opinion or view I publish does not reflect the view of my employer, any assistance I offer is on my behalf and is not a representation of my employer.
not just the distance from the exchange.
Yes, but isn't: "the number one speed determination factor: line length." as I said...?
Actually most IPS's don't. Only Tesltra really has access to that information
Oh, so ISP's can't access that information by requesting it from Telstra? I'm sure I've heard of people that have managed to obtain that information from non-Telstra ISP's but I could be mistaken.
their database is often wrong.
Oh, well that sucks :)
Sounds like it would be easier to just base it from line attenuation and SNR stats that everyone including the customers have access to then.
Oh, so ISP's can't access that information by requesting it from Telstra?
The ISP's can request the information from Telstra, but are often charged for the info, so most don't bother.
Although I work for Telstra any opinion or view I publish does not reflect the view of my employer, any assistance I offer is on my behalf and is not a representation of my employer.
Sounds like it would be easier to just base it from line attenuation and SNR stats that everyone including the customers have access to then
No we don't have that information. What your modem reports is not the true situation. The modem reports what is can based on the signal it gets, corrupt or not.
The telstra Techs who have the training and the gear can get your true Line Attenuation and Down Sync at the MDF which is the real data; not what you get inside your house.
It is not as simple as you'd really like it to be.
Your original post declares that;
I'm aware the min specification is 1.5Mbps, but thats an ancient benchmark from pre 720p days, and should be corrected.
Good luck with your quest. I would have thought that by now, with the experts who work within the system, and who do know how it works, pointing out the realities you might have reassessed your position.
Still it's your quest. Good luck with it.
Wow, thats way slower than even dialup, 1kbps = 0.001Mbps I don't think this is even possible :)
There's that slight slip in terminology for you. Should have been 1mbps, not 1kbps. My bad. It does vary a lot, probably due to DML which I can't get removed. It varies between 52kbps and sometimes gets as high as 1900kbps, but usually it's 800-1100kbps.
Currently 1118kbps atm, it's below the min spec of 1500 isn't it? Haven't been able to get my ISP to do anything about it except ignore my calls.
Currently 1118kbps atm, it's below the min spec of 1500 isn't it? Haven't been able to get my ISP to do anything about it except ignore my calls.
There is no actual minimum spec/speed guaranteed for ADSL2+, however if your speed drops below 1.5Mbps, most IPS's will investigate the issue for you.
I would try calling your service provider again and insist on them logging a speed fault for you.
Although I work for Telstra any opinion or view I publish does not reflect the view of my employer, any assistance I offer is on my behalf and is not a representation of my employer.
Currently 1118kbps atm, it's below the min spec of 1500 isn't it? Haven't been able to get my ISP to do anything about it except ignore my calls.
Yeah that would possibly be in the no service range for some isps, not sure if they still do it but they used to only provision services for people with a less that something like 58-62db attenuation.
Either your even more unlucky than me, or there's something messing up your line, have you tried isolation tests and phone line dialtone quality tests?
not sure if they still do it but they used to only provision services for people with a less that something like 58-62db attenuation.
Correct; memory serves me that it's 56 ,measured on their equipment, not what your modem reads.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét