NBN Rollout Scrapped

[sptrawler]

Remember that that's average revenue per customer. It's an average of home and business customers, plus multicast (ie IPTV).

To achieve their forecast of $65 per customer by 2025, they are banking on a gradual move up the speed tiers. I don't see why that's unlikely when you consider the constant speed increases we have demanded for the last 15 years. Their projections are based on industry-standard forecasts of bandwidth growth, which have always proved to be accurate or even conservative. IPTV is set to explode, and that alone adds $5/month from every user per 20Mbps (say per 4x HD channels). The $65 also includes inflation, so would be closer to $40 in todays dollars.

Like I said it doesn't really matter because the government is the owner, it will have a monopoly.
It will put up the prices if it so wishes, no different to putting up electricity.
They just say "unfortunately we are losing too much money and have to put up prices".
Game over, ACCC butt out and mind your own business and by the way we castrated Telstra so you needn't think you can go there for alternative service.
It is so predictable it is sickening and when they have jacked up prices so N.B.N is profitable, they float it to Dad and Mum investors and make a killing.
Then, you guessed it they sic the ACCC on them and screw them over, heard it all before.

 

[bellenuit]

To achieve their forecast of $65 per customer by 2025, they are banking on a gradual move up the speed tiers. I don't see why that's unlikely when you consider the constant speed increases we have demanded for the last 15 years.

Yes, I am one of those who have gradually moved up the speed tiers in the last 15 years. I started at 9.6Kbps, I think, and today get about 20 to 30Mbps on a good day. My download quotas have increased in a similar manner.

The only thing is...... I have being paying LESS at each upgrade due to competition forcing prices downwards.

I don't know if consumers will be happy to pay more and more over time just keeping up with the increased demands of the evolving internet

 

[NBNMyths]

Like I said it doesn't really matter because the government is the owner, it will have a monopoly.
It will put up the prices if it so wishes, no different to putting up electricity.
They just say "unfortunately we are losing too much money and have to put up prices".
Game over, ACCC butt out and mind your own business and by the way we castrated Telstra so you needn't think you can go there for alternative service.
It is so predictable it is sickening and when they have jacked up prices so N.B.N is profitable, they float it to Dad and Mum investors and make a killing.
Then, you guessed it they sic the ACCC on them and screw them over, heard it all before.

That's the whole point of the SAU with the ACCC. They can't "just jack up the prices".

Yes, I am one of those who have gradually moved up the speed tiers in the last 15 years. I started at 9.6Kbps, I think, and today get about 20 to 30Mbps on a good day. My download quotas have increased in a similar manner.

The only thing is...... I have being paying LESS at each upgrade due to competition forcing prices downwards.

I don't know if consumers will be happy to pay more and more over time just keeping up with the increased demands of the evolving internet

Yes, I agree that prices for speed have been falling. And if you look at the NBN business case, they also forecast to lower their prices over time. However, they expect that the move up the speed tiers will be faster than the fall in their pricing.

I should also repeat, that while download limits have been increasing, total prices haven't really been falling over time:

In 1998 line rental was $11.65. It's about to hit $34. That's a 300% increase in 13 years. While line rental isn't broadband per se, it is a cost that most people have to pay in order to get broadband, and therefore is part of the Average Revenue Per User that the telco makes.

Look back at a few points in history:

In 1998 we were paying $11.65 line rental plus ~$20 for 56k dialup internet. That's a total of say $32 per user in 1998.

In 2001, Telstra charged $15 for line rental plus $29.95 for 256k ADSL1. A total per user of $45 per month. More speed, more data and more cost.

Currently, Telstra charge a minimum of $89 per month for a phone/ADSL2 bundle. Again, more speed, more data and more cost. There are cheaper providers out there for sure. But Telstra have 45-50% of the market, and the cheap providers are not available in very many exchanges (~400 of ~5000).

So while speeds and data allowances have indeed improved (ie, there is better value), the total price most people are paying has not actually gone down. Since ADSL2 appeared and ULL competition has been added to some exchanges, prices have fallen somewhat in those areas and download allowances have drastically increased. But speeds haven't improved. Once you're on ADSL2+, that's it and without the NBN (or something like it) there's no sign of that improving.

 

[sptrawler]

Nbnmyths, you can say what you like the SAU is something they put in place now but if it doesn't suit them later they can and will change it.
The ACCC forced Telstra to allow "cherry picking" by the other mutinationals which stripped shareholder value.
Yet when the government want to get involved again they legislate to stop "cherry picking" or directly competing, because they say they can't make money if competitors cherry pick or supply competing services.
Then you have the audacity to say Telstra didn't spend shareholder money to upgrade the infrastructure for the multinationals to cherry pick on.

 

[NBNMyths]

Nbnmyths, you can say what you like the SAU is something they put in place now but if it doesn't suit them later they can and will change it.
The ACCC forced Telstra to allow "cherry picking" by the other mutinationals which stripped shareholder value.
Yet when the government want to get involved again they legislate to stop "cherry picking" or directly competing, because they say they can't make money if competitors cherry pick or supply competing services.
Then you have the audacity to say Telstra didn't spend shareholder money to upgrade the infrastructure for the multinationals to cherry pick on.

Any change to the SAU will have to be approved by the ACCC. It will be a binding document.

The problems between the ACCC and Telstra are long and complex, but have a lot to do with the vertical monopoly situation of Telstra. In the past, it didn't just come down to areas, but also the conflict Telstra have between their wholesale and retail divisions.

 

[NBNMyths]

The NBN have today signed fibre construction contracts for Victoria and Western Australia, adding to those already signed for NSW, ACT and QLD:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/nbn-co-inks-vic-wa-construction-deals-339321784.htm

Getting more expensive every day for the coalition to cancel it.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes nbnmyths, today I told my daughter, who is completely wireless, if it goes by your house and it's free get it pulled in, your tax is paying for it.
I did the same with foxtel 20yrs ago $19.00 free connection 1 months subsciption. Haven't had it since the month finished, but the connections good.
I wonder if it will end up the same for her, 20years later superceded.
Actually my other daughter is deaf, doesn't use a phone, I have told her the same.
So the connection rate should be great, service take up rate?

 

[NBNMyths]

Yes nbnmyths, today I told my daughter, who is completely wireless, if it goes by your house and it's free get it pulled in, your tax is paying for it.
I did the same with foxtel 20yrs ago $19.00 free connection 1 months subsciption. Haven't had it since the month finished, but the connections good.
I wonder if it will end up the same for her, 20years later superceded.
Actually my other daughter is deaf, doesn't use a phone, I have told her the same.
So the connection rate should be great, service take up rate?

Ignoring for a moment the fact that telcos, Governments and physicists/electrical engineers have made it blatantly clear that wireless does not have the capability to replace a fixed network in urban areas...

I don't deny that some households will opt for wireless-only connections, and the NBN assume 16% of households will take that option (up from 8% today).

NBN Co have made assumptions on what is known now, historic trends and future predictions about internet usage. And when you look at those, it's hard not to accept what NBN have to say. There's not really anyone in the industry that disputes them.

Let me summarise and comment on some known facts:

According to the ABS, the average monthly download is now 18GB. This has been growing at about 50% per year (compounded) since statistics began.

The largest download offered by Telstra over wireless broadband is 12GB/month.

The biggest wireless broadband carrier in Australia doesn't even offer a plan that copes with anywhere near the average current download.​

Also according to the ABS, for 2010 the number of ADSL connections grew by 300,000 but in the same period, the number of new dwellings only grew by 160,000.

There is no decline in the number of fixed connections. In fact, despite an almost saturated market, they are growing faster than new premises.​

Telstra's 12GB wireless broadband plan costs a staggering $90/month, and will provide typical speeds of maybe 10Mbps once upgraded to LTE.

Exetel's entry level NBN plan provides 20GB of data, at 12Mbps speeds for $34.50 per month.

Wireless is slower, offers about half the data volume and is three times more expensive than the NBN. That's a lot of money to pay for mobility.​

Now let me comment on the mobility argument. As I wrote, I agree that for some people, wireless will be a suitable solution. But they are a small minority for a few reasons.

Many young singles are heavily into video, music etc. These types of uses are unsuitable for wireless broadband. Download 2 movies from iTunes, and you've used almost all of Telstra's biggest plan.

For families, why on earth would you go wireless? The idea of mobility is gone, because as soon as Dad takes the broadband dongle to work with him, it leaves the household with no internet at all. You would have to be mad to spend $90/month for 12GB just to leave it at home, when you could get massively better value by just connecting to the NBN.

Same for businesses. Why on earth would any premises-based business have a wireless connection instead of a fixed one? What would they gain, apart from a much bigger bill?

Then there's the coverage problem. I live relatively close to Sydney, but even Telstra's NextG can only deliver me less than 1Mbps at home because of poor coverage. It only takes a hill to destroy the signal, and there are millions of people in similar situations.

 

[Knobby22]

I also would add to NBN scenario, the upcoming internet/TVs.

You will be downloading movies, games etc. through a central TV in your house.
People will pay for this as they pay for Foxtel (which is far inferior in my view and a waste of money), I would pay for it if I could get it with a local phone for $120 a month.

Wireless broadband will become the domain for phones and tablets in my view.

 

[demiser]

Now let me comment on the mobility argument. As I wrote, I agree that for some people, wireless will be a suitable solution. But they are a small minority for a few reasons.

Wrong. Mobility comes up a lot, but are people talking about travelling with work, travel etc, or in their own home ? The problem is both.

While I semi agree that the the market for real mobility is somewhat more select, there is definitely a growing niche for mobile communications (smart phones / laptops / and tablets). Yes, this market is generally exclusive to the NBN target audience.

BUT, and it's a BIG BUT. What about the inclusive argument ? and by this, I mean the people / families / business who want mobile internet within their premises ? These are the people that want a broadband connection, but also want the mobility within their house. They want to be able to use wifi on their laptops, use wifi on their phones when in the home, move the wifi printers around the house, and generally be able to connect different devices without the burden of cables.

Although the NBN can be used to compliment the above, the wifi router is still a bottle neck, and would someone on ADSL now using a wifi router really see any advantage with the NBN ?

Sure, technology improves, which means new home wifi routers may increase the speed and allow for faster wireless connections at home, but wouldn't this also allow for the possibility that with improved technology, wireless in general wouldn't also improve ?

 

[medicowallet]

I also would add to NBN scenario, the upcoming internet/TVs.

You will be downloading movies, games etc. through a central TV in your house.
People will pay for this as they pay for Foxtel (which is far inferior in my view and a waste of money), I would pay for it if I could get it with a local phone for $120 a month.

Wireless broadband will become the domain for phones and tablets in my view.

And, as its intention is no doubt, you become a consumption slave to a $45 billion government owned monopoly.

There is no way, that this $45 billion investment, AND the cash it sucks out of consumers will ever be offset by any miniscule increase in exports it will provide.

It is a purely consumption initiative. ADSL2 is sufficient for homes, businesses have fast internet already.

A joke of a government with a joke of a policy.

 

[NBNMyths]

Although the NBN can be used to compliment the above, the wifi router is still a bottle neck, and would someone on ADSL now using a wifi router really see any advantage with the NBN ?

Sure, technology improves, which means new home wifi routers may increase the speed and allow for faster wireless connections at home, but wouldn't this also allow for the possibility that with improved technology, wireless in general wouldn't also improve ?

It is ADSL that's the bottleneck, not the WiFi router. The current top speed for WiFi is about 300Mbps, with 54Mbps having been around for several years now. So yes, people using WiFi will most certainly notice the speed difference.

 

[NBNMyths]

businesses have fast internet already.

Possibly the most factually inaccurate statement I have ever read on this topic.

Seriously, you really believe that? If so, you should get out more.

 

[medicowallet]

It is ADSL that's the bottleneck, not the WiFi router. The current top speed for WiFi is about 300Mbps, with 54Mbps having been around for several years now. So yes, people using WiFi will most certainly notice the speed difference.

How many billions will it cost Australians to upgrade every wifi router in every house, wiring, and every single wifi device to get to 300Mbps

Consumption at its finest.

MW

PS

What productive endeavours will people at home be able to achieve with this new found consumption device?

 

[Knobby22]

And, as its intention is no doubt, you become a consumption slave to a $45 billion government owned monopoly.

I don't have a problem with that. Someone will own the infrastructure. The government owned the phone lines for many years. Electricity used to be run by the SECV in Victoria and it ws pretty much the cheapest worldwide. Now we have Singaporte and HongKong basewd consortiums running them. Power is now expensive and reduction in maintenance has caused a bushfire in Horsham, the court case presently going on.

There is no way, that this $45 billion investment, AND the cash it sucks out of consumers will ever be offset by any miniscule increase in exports it will provide. .

True. But everything isn't measured by how much export income it brings. It will help.

It is a purely consumption initiative. ADSL2 is sufficient for homes, businesses have fast internet already.

A joke of a government with a joke of a policy.

The policy isn't perfect but it is hardly a joke. It will be a real boon to country towns and give the opportunity for businesses (including small biusinesses) to operate out of the major cities.

 

[demiser]

Possibly the most factually inaccurate statement I have ever read on this topic.

Seriously, you really believe that? If so, you should get out more.

How is this inaccurate ? Buisnesses that are within metro regions and want to have a 1gig connection only need to sign up to get it.

 

[demiser]

It is ADSL that's the bottleneck, not the WiFi router. The current top speed for WiFi is about 300Mbps, with 54Mbps having been around for several years now. So yes, people using WiFi will most certainly notice the speed difference.

How many of your devices are running at 300mbps ? At what about the average joe on the steet ?

My point was that if the NBN was to install fibre to a house today, how much 'extra' would the average person get out of it ?

Sure as time progresses, various house hold items will be churned, but considering the life time of some devices it ain't going to be over night, and by the time it does happen, the NBN will still be as useless as it is today.

 

[NBNMyths]

How many billions will it cost Australians to upgrade every wifi router in every house, wiring, and every single wifi device to get to 300Mbps

Consumption at its finest.

Why do you need to upgrade any wiring?

My guess is that people will upgrade their WiFi routers as required. I have one from 2009 that already does 150Mbps. The vast majority of NBN customers are forecast to be on 12, 25 and 50Mbps plans for quite some time, so the standard 54Mbps WiFi will do them easily without need for replacement. The vast majority of people are already using either 54 (2003) or 100-300 (2009) WiFi. This includes routers and devices, so there's no need to upgrade them to get the speeds the NBN will provide.

BTW, what's the problem with consumption? Without it, we wouldn't have an economy.

Apart from the obvious parts like the retail sector, the mining industry depends on consumption. If people weren't buying cars, houses, TVs, phones, WiFi routers etc etc etc, then there wouldn't be a market for our raw materials.

Sorry to burst your reality, but consumption makes the World go around.

 

[sptrawler]

Yep, the pensioners will be able to put the router next to their set top box. LOL

 

[NBNMyths]

How is this inaccurate ? Buisnesses that are within metro regions and want to have a 1gig connection only need to sign up to get it.

For starters, because not all businesses are in metro regions. The vast, vast majority of businesses have access to nothing more than ADSL2+, unless they are willing to pay the incredible prices for a private connection.

Only enormous businesses can afford a "1 gig" connection currently. I haven't checked recently, but when I last checked in 2007 I was quoted $18,000 for a fibre connection to my SOHO business (3km from an exchange, in a city 2hrs from Sydney CBD), plus ~$3,000 per month for a 30/30Mbps service. I shudder to think what they'd charge for a 1Gbps connection.

How many small and medium businesses can justify $4k per month for internet? Especially when you consider that the NBN would provide that for zero installation cost, plus about $80 per month for a 50/20 connection.

$80 v $3,000. Hmmm. That's a toughie.