Well, we even have an ISP called "Super cheap telco".....
I am seriously considering their nbn internet plans......
Cheap internet is good for everyone's pockets.....
I suspect they will severly underbuy capacity in their network, in order to reach that super cheap price point. That should relegate your connection down to dial up speeds. Super cheap doesn't equal super quality.
I strongly recommend starting with the month to month plan until you are comfortable with what sort of speeds they are actually providing you in real throughput.
Super cheap doesn't equal super quality.
Well 12/1 and 25/5 is no better than ADSL2+. If one was living very close to an ADSL2+ telephone exchange one could potentially get those speeds just with an ADSL2+ modem. Now dodo was offering a $29.95 unlimited data ADSL2+ congestion free experience for those on iprimus dslam. I am with iprimus but negotiated dodo pricing for unlimited ADSL2+
So why should VDSL2 plans with those speeds cost more? In fact they do cost more and we are paying for crappy node infrastructure. An unlimited 12/1 VDSL2 plan costs $59.95 from dodo. Something seriously wrong here. Price gouging?????
Maybe supercheap telco are more honest? They are 10 dollars cheaper for the unlimited 12/1 FTTN plan. More reasonable pricing � since 12/1 is lower than the max speed (25Mbps) of ADSL2+
I'm pretty sure anyone would agree that 100/40mbit 'residential' is better than 128k 'business grade' ISDN
Buying a 100/40 NBN based residential service is buying a pig in a poke. At the prices they charge, ISPs cannot afford to buy the required cvc bandwidth to service significant numbers of high speed services. Customers, regardless of the notional speed of their service, get to squabble over whatever puny cvc bandwidth the ISP has purchased. This is not 'commercial grade'.
OTOH, you can buy even a basic 10/10 uncontended service from one of several companies and get a consistent, what-you-paid-for service.
Well 12/1 and 25/5 is no better than ADSL2+. If one was living very close to an ADSL2+ telephone exchange one could potentially get those speeds just with an ADSL2+ modem. Now dodo was offering a $29.95 unlimited data ADSL2+ congestion free experience for those on iprimus dslam. I am with iprimus but negotiated dodo pricing for unlimited ADSL2+
So why should VDSL2 plans with those speeds cost more?
12/1 and 25/5 nbn plans are indeed far better than ADSL2+ plans. IIRC the average ADSL2+ speed is 5Mbit/sec, on so called 'up to 20' plans as the physical service speed can be far below the single speed tier. A 12/1 or 25/5 nbn service, will deliver that full speed (fttn migration period not withstanding etc). RSP pricing has to take that change in potential speeds attainable into consideration.
This is not saying Dodo isn't having a go, but it does go towards explaining why nbn plans should be more expensive than ADSL2+ plans. Labor set the original nbn pricing with a view to allowing RSPs to sell basic nbn services with comparable pricing, not identical pricing.
There's far more to it than that too, such as 'on-net' cross subsidising 'off-net' (Hackett once said that Internode's own native ADSL services effectively were carrying the Telstra Wholesale services at the retail prices Internode was then offering).
Then there is the general change in the way people use the internet that would, IMO, have resulted in the re-thinking of ADSL pricing had nbn not come along. Streaming and on demand video push the average monthly download figure (even if quota free content) up. That has to be accounted for too.
Offering massively increased quotas and 'unlimited' for only a few dollars more might seem like a good idea, but something somewhere has to give to accommodate that. Pricing, performance, service � spin the wheel and find out.
12/1 and 25/5 nbn plans are indeed far better than ADSL2+ plans
Not forgetting that nobody gets 5Mbps upload on ADSL. And looking at the government broadband survey data I don't think more than a few hundred can actually get 25Mbps download anyway.
I would instantly switch to fftp 100/40 if I could like my sister has but nope im stuck in a fttn building zone due to libs and already know I lost the nod lotto game.
I would be saving around $30 a month if I had fttp here.
I'm in no rush to buy a new shitty fttn modem and a little gain in speed which I picture most people feel.
So why should VDSL2 plans with those speeds cost more? In fact they do cost more and we are paying for crappy node infrastructure. An unlimited 12/1 VDSL2 plan costs $59.95 from dodo. Something seriously wrong here. Price gouging?????
Capacity is bought by the RSP per 1Mbps.
Just the CVC cost from NBN is up to $17 per 1Mbps. So the provider buys a certain amount of CVC for their customers at that POI to share. This is "contention ratio". They might buy 1Gbps capacity for 1-300 customers to share.
To get a dedicated 12Mbps for a single connection, costs in CVC alone $204 per month. $1700 if a dedicated 100Mbps was required. Then there are costs for routing they pay to other companies. So the cheaper providers share the finite capacity over more and more users to get to the right price point.
Different providers aim to offer a very different quality of service. Cheap is fine if you dont care about poor speed throughput sometimes. Email and light internet browsing should be largely ok. Anything more taxing will likely hit slowdowns, especially in peak hours.
To get a dedicated 12Mbps for a single connection, costs in CVC alone $204 per month
Are these the costs the Turnbull NBN model has imposed?
Marie Antoinette throwings food crumbs to us beggars from her wealthy table and saying to us "Let them eat cake"?
Time for a French type people's revolution.
Do you hear the people sing?
Are these the costs the Turnbull NBN model has imposed?
I think the Libs reduced it (or atleast changed the model slightly). But both parties have had a fairly high CVC cost.
It isn't cheap for providers to supply NBN with these costs. Most of the industry doesn't like the CVC pricing, but some providers are better at making it work for their customers.
NBNco are obviously trying to recoup build costs sometime in the next couple decades, so they have basically priced access to it accordingly.
At the prices they charge, ISPs cannot afford to buy the required cvc bandwidth to service significant numbers of high speed services. Customers, regardless of the notional speed of their service, get to squabble over whatever puny cvc bandwidth the ISP has purchased. This is not 'commercial grade'.
I understand what you are saying, but you are making it out as if a 100/40 service is quite likely to plummet to 1mbit and that 10/10mbit service for several hundred bucks a month is the bees knees. When in reality with any decent carrier you will typically be getting close to peak speeds most of the time. It's extremely unlikely for it to dip so low that a commercial service ever returns a better value in its speed
And if you buy as many residential services as would have cost a single commercial connection, you're laughing
So the defenders of NBN's ridiculously expensive ISP charges and woeful download speeds are citing the cost of rolling out infrastructure costs.
Why is it then TPG was able to lay it's own new FTTB network infrastructure without needing a bedroom cupboard full of boxes and I'm paying only $59.99 for 100/40 & Unlimited Data + Calls vs. $99.99 via NBN ??? A friend of mine is getting ~2-5Mbps on SpeedTest with her NBN 25/5 connection while I get ~95Mbps on my TPG/WC FTTB.
NBN is an absolute overpriced technically inferior joke. The nation is being gouged because the moronic masses know no better and just accept 'fast' because most are getting a bit more than their old ADSL connections for a bit more cost � when they should be getting a *LOT LOT* more.
So sad that in 3 years I'l be moving into a brand new apartment building and basically paying twice as much to get almost what I have now. Talk about going backwards not forwards.
Time for a French type people's revolution.
I wonder if we end up going down this path eventually over the NBN issue. That would certainly get some heads turning. Just the threat of it would get a full FTTP going I'll wager.
Are these the costs the Turnbull NBN model has imposed?
It's been obvious since Conroy was in charge that the high cost of CVC bandwidth was going to screw consumers.
Why is it then TPG was able to lay it's own new FTTB network infrastructure without needing a bedroom cupboard full of boxes
Its because TPG already has an extensive fibre backbone service in place when they bought out Pipe networks, so they only had to make small extensions off that network for their FTTB placements.
If they had continued with fttp then then it could of been cheaper but the idiots of Australia decided communications isn't important.
I doubt the cvc price will ever drop to decent chargers since the fttp part of the network can't recover enough and the fttn destroy any chance of the network paying for itself.
Funny watching libs take credit for fttp premises.
Why is it then TPG was able to lay it's own new FTTB network infrastructure without needing a bedroom cupboard full of boxes and I'm paying only $59.99 for 100/40 & Unlimited Data
Because TPG can just cherry pick the easy cheap places to connect and are under no obligation to deliver a service to everyone. Once its full they can turn people away if it doesn't suit them to invest more.
There may be many things wrong with the commercial structure of the NBN wholesale products but comparisons with TPG-FTTB are not relevant.
Why is it then TPG was able to lay it's own new FTTB network infrastructure without needing a bedroom cupboard full of boxes
Because it is basically the same tech as FTTN. NBN FTTB/FTTN doesn't need a "cupboard full of boxes" either.
and I'm paying only $59.99 for 100/40 & Unlimited Data + Calls
Because TPG simply ran very short fibre extensions to apartment blocks that they cherry picked due to their proximity to their existing fibre (and only blocks who were big enough for TPG to make enough money from). Not every apartment block in the country can get TPG FTTB option. Just the blocks lucky enough to already be near enough to their own TPG fibre, so they could do a cheap install.
A friend of mine is getting ~2-5Mbps on SpeedTest with her NBN 25/5 connection while I get ~95Mbps on my TPG/WC FTTB.
Your friend sounds like they are with a cheap/crappy NBN RSP. NBN simply provides the access. The RSP has to buy enough capacity for their network to actually perform. A good provider provides good speeds on NBN also.
NBN is an absolute overpriced technically inferior joke
NBN FTTN/FTTB is basically the same technology as TPG FTTB. Same limitations and the same copper for the final connection.
When compared to FTTP, the tech for FTTN/FTTB overall is inferior. That includes both NBN and TPG.
So sad that in 3 years I'l be moving into a brand new apartment building
It won't be so sad if that building is wired up for FTTP. It is the better technology. And if you were ever going to see 1Gbps+ plans, it will be on FTTP at least.
TPG isn't paying for a satellite or thousands of fixed wireless towers
TPG isn't paying for a satellite or thousands of fixed wireless towers
TPG did good things as far as I can see. They did better than NBNCo.
Why does one need wireless towers for FTTN or FTTP?
It is not relevant to the discussion.
TPG did good things as far as I can see. They did better than NBNCo.
Why does one need wireless towers for FTTN or FTTP?
It is not relevant to the discussion.
Yes it bloody well is, the total cost of the network is divided evenly by connection.
Yes it bloody well is, the total cost of the network is divided evenly by connection.
That is the problem. It should not be divided evenly. If some sections are cheaper to construct and maintain why inflate or mix their costs with the total costs of the entire network?
That is the problem. It should not be divided evenly. If some sections are cheaper to construct and maintain why inflate or mix their costs with the total costs of the entire network?
Because that is the point.
Some sections of our electricity networks are far (far) cheaper to construct and maintain than others. Everyone using the network still pays exactly the same.
Everyone using the network still pays exactly the same.
No its not the same with internet. Some get charged much more and get inferior quality networks for no fault of their own. Why should some get FTTP and others not?
With the Labor model all were being treated equal and getting FTTP. Only then was I willing to pay exactly the same.
Its not at all like the electricity supply networks where everyone gets the same quality of electricity 240 volt, 50Hz.
With the Labor model all were being treated equal and getting FTTP.
Wrong, yet again. FTTP would only have gone to larger population centres.
Wrong, yet again. FTTP would only have gone to larger population centres.
Well at least that was the correct model.
Because business mostly operates from the larger population centres. Also science, education and technology is concentrated in the larger population centres which are the driving forces for economic growth.
Because business mostly operates from the larger population centres
Wrong, yet again.
I don't think more than a few hundred can actually get 25Mbps download anyway.
My previous location was less than 200 metres from the exchange and my sync speed was 22Mbit which is close to as good as ADSL2+ gets.
There was a thread years ago with ADSL sync speeds and of the hundreds that posted only a few were faster than mine. Oddly enough people faster than me whilst closer to the exchange (say up to within 100 metres) there were a few people who were literally next door to one and they had issues and slower real life speeds (too strong a signal perhaps?).
Never the less you're correct, only a small portion of ADSL2+ see sync speeds of over 20Mbit let at 25Mbit.
With the Labor model all were being treated equal and getting FTTP. Only then was I willing to pay exactly the same.
Whilst I would have gotten FTTP and now I'm getting FTTN I have to disagree with your statement.
Not all of us were being treated the same under the Labor system, there were still people who were getting wireless (with slower maximum speed) and satellite (with slower speed, higher cost and limited quotas).
Well at least that was the correct model.
If it was left to the likes of TPG to provide Internet connectivity, most of the country would have no Internet � ever.
Ok, present your argument. I will listen.
Business tends to operate from either industrial estates/suburbs or from CBD areas both of which tend to be low population density compared to residential areas/suburbs.
both of which tend to be low population density compared to residential areas/suburbs
You're thinking is too local. Compare these areas to the 99% of the land mass that is rural, regional or remote. I think this is what the original comment was relating to.
Ok, present your argument
Agribusiness......
I think this is what the original comment was relating to.
Yes... but I was 'technically correct, the best kind of correct' :)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét