http://www.nbnco.com.au/learn-about-the-nbn/three-year-const…
If you are not on the list i guess your after sep 2018.
Still sucks there rolling out this half arsed NBN instead of the one before.
NBN's New Rollout Plan up Untill Sep 2018 Click Link and Check Yourself
Axelstrife on 16/10/2015 - 17:13
Related Stores
Comments
And that is only when they commence construction. Not sure you will actually get FTTN. :)
A bit confusing. my suburb is in 2 lines, one FTTN starting Q3/2016, the other HFC H1/2018. Anyone know what the difference is betwen Coalition FTTN and HFC?
FTTN vs HFC => http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/284556,fibre-vs-hfc-un…
Basically, FTTN is planned to end with a direct VDSL2 connection to each house. You get a dedicated VDSL2 line to the node, and then the fibre connection is shared.
HFC uses coax cable from node to house. But the bandwidth (e.g. "up to 100Mbps") on the coax is shared - so peak time congestion absolutely kills bandwidth. Shared fibre isn't too bad, plenty of bandwidth to share, but shared coax is terrible. See some of America's issues with oversubscribed HFC where peak speeds are lucky to reach 1Mbps at times.
Shared coax is not necessarily terrible. I have Telstra cable now and get the full 100 Mbps during weekdays. It does generally slow down in the evenings and weekends, but still around 30-40 Mbps. The existing HFC is scheduled to be used for NBN in my area, so it may get worse with extra users.
That's the problem. It sorta-kinda works now, but it's hardly next-gen, and this will just reduce incentive for future upgrades. Video streaming is becoming more popular. Netflix launched in Australia. "Cloud" applications and backup is becoming more popular, and will be more feasible with reasonable upload speeds.
Your Telstra connection? It's 100Mbps, sure, but that's down. From what I can tell (they try hard to hide the numbers, hmmmm), upload is something like 2.4Mbps. <3Mbps, anyway. That's terrible. And increasing it to, say, 100/40 or even 100/100 as some current NBN locations offer? Combine that with higher upload utilisation and that's gonna kill the limited bandwidth.
As current tech, coax is alright. For future planning, it's terrible. For something that's supposed to start construction in 2018 and probably won't be upgraded for decades? No. Just no.
Yes, I get all that, but for the way I want to use the Internet, it's fine (I want fast downloads, mostly not during peak periods anyway, but I'm not interested in streaming, and I don't need faster upload speeds). Sure people have different needs, but when I think back to my early days in computing, when we had communication speeds of 110 and 300 bps, I reckon HFC will keep me happy for the rest of my life (or until the government decides we need another upgrade).
@gwong:
Interesting article. I hadn't seen it before. As an existing HFC user, I hope the plans come to fruition.
@gwong: Great article, thank you for that. It puts some of my worries to rest, but I hope it does turn out like he says. Simon has done a lot for this industry.
Remember they are upgrading to 3.1, which has 100x the bandwidth of 3.0 (10gb downloads and 1gb uploads) and they are going to reduce the amount of users per hub, so the upgraded system wont be anything like the current HFC system.
You will also get choice of providers, rather then 1-2 like you do now (optus/Telstra)
I'm glad it will keep you happy for the rest of your life. because thats what infrastructure building is about, keeping one guy happy with absolutely no regard to possible changes in usage
Wow, talk about overreaction. All I was trying to say is that HFC isn't necessarily terrible. I never suggested that my views had anything to do with infrastructure building for the rest of the population.
@emibel19: As a previous HFC ('cable internet') user, I also hope this will work out as he said. After having to dig my own trench (this was a few years ago) have experienced unusable speeds especially during peak, much slower than adsl2+. Hopefully there will be less people to share the load, as stated in the article, but am skeptical.
Less people per hub, and more bandwidth per hub (Docisis 3.0 to 3.1 gives 10gb (10,000mb's) Downloads and 1gb uploads (1000mb's)
@Copie: Like I said I hope that is true, but right now it is only 100mbps which is shared. How many households will be grouped together, how much will be allocated to each household. E.g peak usage at 100Mbps and 5 households are shared, with even allocation theoretically we'll get 20Mbps, which is fine but unlikely.
How many people are on your street. If done on a street by street basis that's at least ~10 houses with varying degrees of internet usage, though it will grow.
Maybe I am just a cynical person, but having had HFC before which peaked at ~20Mbps (very nice but rare, and inconvenient times) but also dropped to <1Mbps (peak, with avg being 6-7Mbps) on the same connection. A 4 time increase is nice (24 to 100MBps Max or 10 time for 3.1 when it gets introduced)I'm still skeptical and until I try it out sometime post H1-2017, this is just guessing.NBN review article "DOCSIS 3.1 as only supporting up to 250 megabit services on HFC…These upgrade paths start to become possible once DOCSIS 3.1 equipment hits the market in the next 3-5 years."
Source: the simonhackett articleHFC: 100Mbps currently; the DOCSIS 3.0 specification supports speeds up to (and beyond) 300Mbps and even the NBN corporate plan acknowledges that 240Mbps is possible on the current network with HFC node-splitting. Shared.
(Source: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/284556,fibre-vs-hfc-un…)TL;DR I'm very cynical and don't like sharing, it will all depend how many people are sharing. Story about my shit HFC experience. DOCSIS 3.1 conservative estimate for NBN is upgraded to 240Mbps from DOCSIS 3.0 100Mbps in 3-5 years
@skazclaw:
I guess you already have NBN?I'm all for long term thinking in general, but I'd love a short term solution for me in the meantime:)
Limited in what way? once NBN HFC is live you will have access to all RSP's that service your POI (Point of Interconnect, similar to an exchange)
I was replying to @SlickMick in regards to @emibel19 comment.
I meant that I'm happy with cable as of right now (at least compared to what I had before), but in 4 years time I would be so disappointed if I was still on 100/2 Mbps, especially if the speed still fluctuated based on how many people were using it at once in the neighborhood.
@emibel19: You hit it right on the head. Different people have different needs.
But you're only looking at your usage scenario at present. Just like @elusive mentioned, with the rise of all those online services you're going to be left behind.
I'll use myself as an example, I hardly ever stream and don't download much at all. EXCEPT buying digital games. I resigned myself to multi day downloads and didn't really feel bad about it at all, UNTIL I got the FTTH NBN. Boy it was a world of difference! And it was then that I discovered the joys of 40Mbit uploads! Now backing up files and uploading photos is a reality. Activities that I now find completely indispensable that prior to my fiber connection, I didn't even consider!
So in my case, my usage habits changed completely when I had the capability. Basically, all I was looking forward to were the faster downloads until I discovered there were ALL SORTS of really good stuff I could do with a large pipe connection!
It depends on how many people they put on a node. Optus is pretty bad with how many people they put on it while Telstra is good.
HFC is far superior even with all it's faults to FTTN though.
2 years for a botched NBN. Turnbull claims to be for new technology yet he has really botched the NBN.
It is over budget, behind schedule and will not deliver anywhere near the same benefits the Labor vision was meant to.
Hopefully Rupert Mudoch and Foxtel are happy as this has really set us back.
Really? Seems to me FTTH was being implemented just fine. Sure it was taking longer than expected, but massive national infrastructure projects ALWAYS take longer than expected, I challenge you to find a single one that was completed anywhere near on time lol
Exactly - the Labor version would have set Australia up for decades. The outdated technology Turnbull has introduced is not only expensive - it will need to be replaced far sooner than the original NBN.
Turnbull continues to shift blame. Whether he has made this decision due to Liberal policy or not, he says one thing and does another. I hope some of his wealthy big business party backers are happy.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/broadband-network…
'challenge you to find a single one that was completed anywhere near on time lol'
How about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, completed several months ahead of schedule (January 2004 instead of April 2004)?
…though perhaps they started 100 years late!
There is a country in the world, the one with the largest population, where the government has paid for an extensive very-fast-train network in a government monopoly, but has left the provision of fixed-line Internet services to the competitive market (an oligopoly, though like just about every major company in that country, they are all state-owned, and perhaps not quite as competitive as truly private companies).
Which makes sense, because people will just about sell their kidney for a faster Internet connection to their personal iPhone, but smaller companies and individuals won't invest in, say, a few kilometres of the very-fast railway line between Xi'an and Zhengzhou.
Hahahahaha you got to be kidding me.
The telstra and the private sector is the entire reason why our internet speeds were some of the worst in the developed world. 10 years of absolutely no investment at all, if you really think rolling out ADSL2 on their absolutely woefully maintained copper network counts you have to be out of your mind.
Labor had a plan to bring our decayed, abused and completely shit telecommunication network into the 21st century, and god knows we needed it.
The simple fact is the private sector is ill suited to invest in infrastructure in our country, all it ends up is the profitable parts getting cherry picked (which you can clearly see with how Cable has been rolled out by optus/tesltra) and the rest of the country being completely screwed.
I won't comment on my sanity in the way that you have, nor will I comment on yours. Nor will I refer to excrement or such in figurative terms, since I deal with the real thing in my healthcare work. I believe in God, but I don't think God is choosing sides on this non-moral issue.
I'll assume that you are speaking rationally.
If Telstra and the rest of the private sector (perhaps many prefer the days when Telecom was the government monopoly) did "10 years of no investment", why did Internet access improve, in the six to seven years prior to the NBN legislation, from typically 56k modem speeds to ADSL2+ speeds (or cable).
ADSL2 is a substantial, actually phenomenal, improvement over what existed ten years previously.
But I realize that people have very short memories.Are you blaming Telstra and the private sector for the six years of stagnation during the Labor government?
When it was the nationalization of the Internet (the NBN and associated anti-competitive legislation) which essentially prohibits Telstra and the rest of the private sector from putting down new infrastructure. And made it nonsensical for them to maintain their existing infrastructure, because it was all to be sold to the NBN at an already agreed price.The decaying copper network is because Telstra had already promised to decommission the copper network, for a fee to the Labor NBN, so why would they bother to maintain it?
There are other similarly large countries in the world with extensive and often good Internet infrastructure established by competing companies (Canada, USA and China).
Of those countries, Canada's population is the closest to Australia (and is less urbanized than Australia), and the Canadian private sector provides both FTTN and FTTH.
Maybe the worst of the three is probably China (but still good enough for people to watch almost all their television on the Internet), perhaps the fact that all their competing companies are still essentially government-owned and not really competitive has something to do with it.When private companies are competing for customers, they generally race each other to be first. I too thought the duplicated cable network by Optus and Telstra was wasteful, but now I see the lack of competition is worse.
If the private sector 'cherry-picks' the most profitable 70%, of the country, that is still 70% of the country which the taxpayer does not pay for. Leaving the government to plan the infrastructure rollout and spend the money for the remaining 30%. Will a central government agency (and a monopoly, with people who want to keep their job, forever) really be faster and more efficient at planning and providing infrastructure to 100% of the population, rather than just 30%?
"The decaying copper network is because Telstra had already promised to decommission the copper network, for a fee(techradar.com) to the Labor NBN, so why would they bother to maintain it?"
That is complete nonsense, the copper network has been decaying for the last 20 years.
"ADSL2 is a substantial, actually phenomenal, improvement over what existed ten years previously."
Adsl required nothing more than upgrading exchanges, and even then it still took a very long time for adsl to be upgraded to adsl2. An old technology that simply uses 50-100 year old copper wires.
"Are you blaming Telstra and the private sector for the six years of stagnation during the Labor government?"
The stagnation occurred way before that. During the 6 years of labor the only stagnation that occured was hundreds of thousands of people being able to get 100/100 internet, and had the LNP not decided to go ahead with their Fraudband, the country would have had a profitable asset that would have paid for its self over the next 50 to 100 years.
Your reasoning is beyond bizarre.
Thanks Pacify.
I actually agree with most of your comments, even when they apparently contradict each other.
10 years of absolutely no investment [by private companies] at all.
True, because the NBN legislation tried to prevent competition forming against the NBN, did so by buying out competitor's assets, thereby removing the incentive for the 'current' Internet providers to improve or maintain their network whilst waiting for the completion of the NBN roll-out, which for many will be years away.
I didn't realize you could describe the above as 'complete nonsense', it is just business sense not to spend much time or money maintaining an asset you have already sold or plan to decommission, but I do agree with your following reason:
the copper network has been decaying for the last 20 years.
I would go further, and say that the copper network has been decaying ever since it has been installed, in many cases decades ago. That is why it requires maintenance. The older copper networks needed a lot of maintenance. Which is why the anti-competitive and monopolistic NBN legislation which completely remove the incentive for the current providers to maintain, let alone improve, their current networks over a period extending over more than a decade has been damaging to Australia's Internet access speeds.
During the 6 years of the Labor the only stagnation that occurred was hundreds of thousands of people being able to get 100/100 [FTTH]
Well, I think you had previously agreed that the copper networks which helped provide Internet access to the other 19,000,000 people in Australia had been stagnating during the past nine years. At least in the ten years prior to the NBN legislation, private companies had some interest in maintaining the copper network they were selling services on, and enabled the use of better technology on that network.
Nevertheless, it is great that since 2007 (when Labor came into office), and as of 2015 October, just more than a million premises have been 'passed' by the NBN, of which just more than half have been connected, after a period of eight years.
But is this really such a great achievement compared to what could have happened?
In the past ten years, we have seen three major telecommunication companies establish first 3G, and then 4G mobile telephony networks. (Telstra started NextG in October 2006)
This was not done with government money. In fact, the government 'auctioned' off the temporary rights to operate these networks.
The telcos did not do it out of their goodness of their hearts. They did it because they were competing for market-share, and thought consumers were willing to pay (the telcos in this case were right).More directly relevant to fixed-line networks, the hybrid fibre co-axial network passes 2.7 million premises, in some cases providing duplicate services. I think the HFC networks were developed over about seven years (1995-2002), at a total combined cost for the two companies - essentially Telstra and Optus and their affiliates- of about $6 billion combined, including some costs for the purchase of television content, and without taxpayer expense.
2.7 million premises in about seven years at $6 billion
VS
1.1 million premises in about eight years at $13 billion
(I am prepared to be corrected on the current $13 billion figure. Sure it is an 'investment'. Just like the private companies are 'investing' when they build infrastructure. But if private companies are willing to undertake the inherent risk of any investment, as opposed to risking taxpayer money, then I prefer the former.)
So should the government have created a monopolistic and anti-competitive regime responsible for delivering broadband services to 100% of the Australian population, in a project lasting from 2007 to at earliest 2020? Or should it just have concentrated its $34 billion on the parts of the country which the private providers would not deploy to quickly, relatively cheaply and without government expense.
the country would have a profitable asset that would have paid for itself over the next 50 to 100 years
I suspect that the accounting books at NBN Co assume depreciation of the underlying asset, over a much shorter time period.
Some people would think this is "investing in the grandchildren's future."
But since we anticipate enjoying these assets in the near future, are we really just thinking of how much benefit this will provide to the great-grandchildren?In summary
- It is great that the government has been building FTTN and FTTH Internet infrastructure
- Historically, in Australia, private companies also developed fixed-line data network infrastructure
- Overseas, in other countries, private companies are now building FTTN and FTTH
- Over the past ten years, the Australian telecom companies have competed in building mobile broadband infrastructure (3G/4G), and plan to continue doing so.
- Right now, even relatively small Australian telecom companies want to build upgraded fixed-line Internet infrastructure, but have to fight NBN Co at the courts to do so.
- The way the NBN legislation and plan has been developed has suppressed the use of private money (in the form of Telstra, Optus, TPG etc.) to develop infrastructure which people are quite keen to pay for, thereby slowing down a widespread deployment of improved network infrastructures.
I must admit, it is a mild surprise to see that in a forum dedicated to finding the best prices and products from a wide range of suppliers, when it comes to fixed-line networks, the forum community seems inclined to want a more anti-competitive regime than exists in Communist China.
There is a huge amount of misunderstanding in your post.
Firstly Labor didn't slow down your parents speed. More than likely the copper deteriorated leading to slower speeds. Labors plan was to replace the aging copper network with brand new fibre. This is what the Liberals are planning to use and if you are getting FTTN that is going to make things even slower for you unless you are within 500 metres of the node and most people aren't.
Second the speed improvements that your parents received had absolutely nothing to do with competition between carriers. Telstra has a monopoly on the network and artificially kept the internet back for years. After dialup there was ADSL which allowed for up to 8mbps and Telstra decided to put artificial limits to maximize profits of 512k and 1.5 megabits. For years Telstra charged other ISPs a fortune until ADSL 2 was invented which broke all those artificial ADSL 1 limits. Improvements in technology lead to the faster speeds and well all the research now is going towards fibre not copper. Copper has a huge limitation of distance and quality which is why pretty much every country is replacing it with fibre.
As for the ADSL 2 speed being fixed by competition are you kidding? Telstra owns the copper, what competition are you talking about? Unless Telstra decides to fix the copper out of the goodness of their heart nothing will happen to it, considering the state they let the network get into that has zero chance of happening (yes it was shit house before Labors plan also) Telstra only has to supply a dialtone and well if you internet connection drops out you are shit out of luck as long as you can get a dialtone. Last time anyone tried to role out a significant infrastructure upgrade Telstra decided to kill their business plan and lose millions in the process to protect their monopoly, so you can forget about competition actually coming to the rescue for infrastructure.
Whenever the current NBN is completed, and the simpler and sooner the better, I can only hope the legislation allows real competition in technology deployment to occur.
The current NBN plan is a joke. The only thing they are doing right is upgrading the HFC network which is what Labor really should have done. The FTTN is going to leave more people worse off than their current speeds and not only that they couldn't even get the trials working well in suburbs which were cherry picked because of their use of unusually large gauge copper which none of the rest of the country uses. Even in ideal scenarios they couldn't get the trials to look like a success and had to replace a lot of copper.
They should have just cancelled the whole thing. The Liberals plan is going to cost us more and achieve virtually nothing except for those in the HFC footprint and well they didn't exactly need an upgrade.
Woooo 156 billion down the drain (That is the complete cost of the liberals plan btw as they decided to not include maintenance on the copper network)
There is a huge amount of misunderstanding in your post … Labor didn't slow down your parents speed. More than likely the copper deteriorated leading to slower speeds.
I agree, the copper deteriorated. Telstra had no interest in maintaining the copper network, they had already received money from NBN Co to decommission the network, and was understandably reluctant to maintain a 'sold' asset. They also had no interest in laying down fibre or HFC themselves, NBN legislation prohibited them from doing so.
Optus had already laid HFC alongside two borders of my parent's house (approximately year 1999, I think) and connected HFC to multiple premises on that street. For years, Optus had no interest in selling HFC to my parents either, because they did not want to invest further in an HFC (potentially FTTN) network, because they too were also to be forced to shut down their HFC network (at a price that NBN paid) at a later date.
So the NBN policy did slow down Internet speeds to my parents' premises (and so far, also delayed improvement to the 18 million or so of Australia's population which is not yet connected to FTTP), because it stopped maintenance of the existing (Telstra/Optus) networks, and reduced incentive for the competitors (e.g. Optus, TPG) to improve/develop networks and connect it to my parents' house.
[the network] was shit house before Labor plans also
Without being emotive about the issue, and speaking just from personal experience, the ADSL2+ speeds at my current residence are what I expect, about 15 Mbps download. When ADSL 2+ was first installed at my parents' residence, it was also at the expected speed of 15-20 Mbps downstream, and only later deteriorated.
the speed improvements that your parents received had absolutely nothing to do with competition between carriers. Telstra has a monopoly [with ADSL 1] … until ADSL2 was invented
Agreed, technology changes. I understand that there are several providers of ADSL2+ at many of the exchanges, each with their own equipment. Isn't that competition? Because if one provider provides ADSL2+, and the rest only provided ADSL1, then that is a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage which I, and many others on this forum I think, have already been willing to pay for.
As for the ADSL 2 speed being fixed by competition are you kidding? Telstra own the copper…
I'm not sure where I said or intended 'ADSL 2 speed [will be] fixed by competition', but I do agree that Telstra own(ed) the copper. So there were several approaches to this problem. Some Internet providers fought to access the copper, but used their own equipment at the exchanges. Others set up their own infrastructure, like the Optus-built HFC cable, with its consortium's own money, some fifteen years ago. Not only Optus, but other private companies around the world, have built infrastructure using private (company) money.
ADSL 2 speed, at my parents' residence, has already been fixed by competition (no kidding). In the past year, Optus has allowed them to connect to their HFC network (developed during a period of competition), with a good improvement in both download and upload speeds.
Optus and their affiliates did lose money, ultimately the business plan turned out to be faulty, since relatively few people wanted to pay monthly fees for more television in a 'walled garden' environment fifteen years ago. Since then, watching television-on-demand has become substantially more popular, including paid services. Perhaps, and I am only guessing, paid and unpaid television streaming services is what is driving the privately-funded improvement in Internet infrastructure in countries such as USA, China and Canada.
Despite Optus's less than satisfactory financial experience with building HFC, TPG has recently tried to establish its own broadband network infrastructure. It wasn't Telstra that tried to stop TPG at the courthouse, it was the NBN Co.
Nevertheless, I agree that the duplication of HFC cable (which was apparently leading technology at the time) by both Optus and Telstra seemed quite wasteful, although it now provides an 'already-built' opportunity for better Internet access than what most Australian consumers are currently enjoying. A technology built before its time, at private (not public) expense.
If such an opportunity arises again for private-enterprise to try and 'cherry-pick' profitable areas for the implementation of new technologies, perhaps the government can do what it did for the 3G/4G spectrum, and 'auction' area permits to the providers, at minimal cost to the government. And similar (but not identical) to the 3G/4G spectrum auctions, the privilege of being first-in-the-area with a new technology can be time-limited, with competitors later able to supply the new technology as well if they think the customer-base would buy an alternative.
Is private money the only possible solution for improving Australia's Internet infrastructure? No.
Is public money in a government-owned and protected (anti-competitive) monopoly the only and best way to improve Australia's Internet infrastructure? I don't think so
- or if you think yes, perhaps there should also be only be one government-owned mobile phone carrier, as well. I'm not sure if there are many major advanced economies in the world with this model. Not Communist China, at least, in either their mobile or fixed-line networks.Is a combination of both publicly-built and privately-funded networks really so outlandish?
- Instead of 1 million premises with dramatically improved FTTP Internet access, and the other approx 8 million with deteriorating access, perhaps the government-funded NBN could have developed 500,000+ premises, companies like TPG supplied another 500,000 premises (without fighting NBN at the courts), Optus and Telstra may have (in response to increasing demand) upgraded the HFC at their current 2,200,000 premises and perhaps Telstra and Optus may have provided fibre/HFC to another 500,000 more premises in the past ten years.
I think many of the complaints of the current NBN situation are partly as a result of relatively flexible and responsive private enterprises not being permitted to try to fulfil the rapidly changing wants and needs of consumers.
Telstra network as described by Telstra in 2003 long before the NBN was even conceived as "5 minutes to midnight". They were also being questioned by senate about the complete lack of maintenance and how the network got so bad but because they were meeting the USO they couldn't do anything. The NBN did nothing to their lack of maintenance, it has been a shit show ever since it was privatized because it is more profitable for them to patch up the occasional catastrophic failures than it is to run a superior network.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674351979.h…
Optus had already laid HFC alongside two borders of my parent's house (approximately year 1999, I think) and connected HFC to multiple premises on that street. For years, Optus had no interest in selling HFC to my parents either, because they did not want to invest further in an HFC (potentially FTTN) network, because they too were also to be forced to shut down their HFC network (at a price that NBN paid) at a later date.
This makes no sense. Firstly Optus pretty much stopped building their HFC network in 97 because of Telstras overbuild which they both lost around a billion dollars with. If you weren't on the map with HFC in 97 you weren't getting it. Also Optus couldn't create a FTTN network, even if it wanted too. Please educate yourself with these matters before you start lecturing people on things.
So the NBN policy did slow down Internet speeds to my parents' premises (and so far, also delayed improvement to the 18 million or so of Australia's population which is not yet connected to FTTP), because it stopped maintenance of the existing (Telstra/Optus) networks, and reduced incentive for the competitors (e.g. Optus, TPG) to improve/develop networks and connect it to my parents' house.
Actually you can thank Telstra deciding to eat a billion dollar loss to protect it's monopoly for that.
http://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Optus%20Appendix%20I%20-…
That's why no company will invest in Australia's infrastructure because they will lose billions like Optus did. That's why your parents house was left out not because of the NBN but because Optus cancelled their rollout due to Telstra's actions so if you weren't on their map you weren't going to get added. NBN had zero influence on that as Optus will happily add people to this day to their HFC network if you are one of their zones.
Agreed, technology changes. I understand that there are several providers of ADSL2+ at many of the exchanges, each with their own equipment. Isn't that competition? Because if one provider provides ADSL2+, and the rest only provided ADSL1, then that is a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage which I, and many others on this forum I think, have already been willing to pay for.
Ok you really don't understand how this all works. Telstra has a monopoly on the copper network which both ADSL 1 and ADSL 2 and the FTTN will run off. Yes ISP's can put in their equipment in but they are at the mercy of Telstra who own the copper network. They can't upgrade the network, they can't improve it, but they all have to pay Telstra for using the copper and Telstra has zero incentive for improving things.
ADSL 2 speed, at my parents' residence, has already been fixed by competition (no kidding). In the past year, Optus has allowed them to connect to their HFC network (developed during a period of competition), with a good improvement in both download and upload speeds.
What are you on about? one minute your parents couldn't connect to the network and all of a sudden they can. I think your telling porkies to suit what you are saying. Also nothing has changed yet so what are you suggesting has changed which allowed for this to happen?
Optus and their affiliates did lose money, ultimately the business plan turned out to be faulty, since relatively few people wanted to pay monthly fees for more television in a 'walled garden' environment fifteen years ago. Since then, watching television-on-demand has become substantially more popular, including paid services. Perhaps, and I am only guessing, paid and unpaid television streaming services is what is driving the privately-funded improvement in Internet infrastructure in countries such as USA, China and Canada.
No complete BS. Optus wasn't expecting Telstra to lose a billion dollars to mess up their business plan.
Despite Optus's less than satisfactory financial experience with building HFC, TPG has recently tried to establish its own broadband network infrastructure. It wasn't Telstra that tried to stop TPG at the courthouse, it was the NBN Co.
Sigh, TPG only has their Fibre footprint in the capital cities. They aren't expanding it as it isn't profitable enough and only have plans to hook up high density apartments. Also the reason for the blocking is below.
Is a combination of both publicly-built and privately-funded networks really so outlandish?
The problem is the cities are the only places in Australia where it is profitable to deploy infrastructure. So unless you want to privatize the profits and make the loses public NBNCO has to deploy in both areas.
Seriously Labors version was vastly superior to this dogs breakfast the liberals are giving us. Also you seem to not understand one thing, NBN Co is basically going to replace the role Telstra has with the current ISP's.
[me] Optus had already laid HFC alongside two borders of my parent's house (approximately year 1999, I think)
[kasp] This makes no sense. Firstly Optus pretty much stopped building their HFC network in 97My sincere apologies, kasp, that's why I qualified the date with uncertainty. I wasn't living in Melbourne for several years at that time, and just visited every few months or so, and I knew my memory was inexact, that was why I said 'approximately'. Thanks for letting me know, I guess the Optus/Telstra HFC rollout past 2 million premises was completed faster than I expected.
you really don't understand how this all works. Telstra has a monopoly on the copper network which both ADSL 1 and ADSL 2 and the FTTN will run off. Yes ISP's can put in their equipment in but they are at the mercy of Telstra who own the copper network.
Actually, I do understand how that works. I agree that network performance is limited by the copper network, but it is still influenced and changed by the equipment at the exchange as well. If one company installs ADSL2+, and others have ADSL1, then that is a competitive advantage to the company which installed ADSL2+, at least for some customers. In general, the other companies will try to 'catch up', if their is customer demand. Just like realized Internet performance is also influenced, to some extent or another, by your router, your location's cabling/wireless networks, and even the capability of individual computers and mobile devices. Others may have had a bad experience, but my personal experience of the upgrade from ADSL1 to ADSL2+ was worthwhile.
I certainly don't want to give up my current ADSL2+ router for an ADSL1, or sign up to use Telstra's ADSL1 port at the local exchange (if one still exists).
one minute your parents couldn't connect to the network and all of a sudden they can. I think your telling porkies to suit what you are saying
My apologies, I obviously am not describing the events clearly, made worse by my inaccurate recollection of the year as conceded earlier. The fault lies with me. I beg your pardon.
Yes, there is a HFC cable alongside two frontages of the home.
No, for some time (for about a year or before a contract was signed in late 2013) they couldn't get a connection, Optus kept refusing.
From memory, at the time there were multiple posts in places like Whirlpool along the lines of 'Optus cable is outside my house, they are connected to other houses in the street, but Optus refuses to connect!'In the 'Opinion/Analysis' section of this delimiter article (also written in 2013), they describe the situation where neither Optus nor Telstra were willing to connect HFC cable even when it was available in that area.
That article mentions HFC connections had more start-up cost compared to ADSL (of course, the technicians had to come to my parents' house with ladders), and ongoing maintenance requirements as well. Speculation on my part, but with the knowledge at the time that the HFC cable was already 'sold' to be decommissioned, perhaps both Optus and Telstra just lost interest in selling new HFC connections, as there appeared to be a finite end-date of continuing service and potential return on any further expenditure.
It is hard to know the 'real reason' why they refused to connect, whether they simply felt they had too many connections and didn't want to deteriorate network performance (and had no incentive to increase capacity in that area, after all, the infrastructure was to be decommissioned in favour of the NBN at an already agreed price), or whether Optus was so disinterested in selling Cable HFC Internet at the time, they couldn't update their location maps properly.
But for whatever reason, after hours of phone calls and some persuasion (in part thanks to an Optus rep on ozBargain, actually) and coinciding with large 'bundled Internet package' campaign in late 2013 by Optus, Optus eventually agreed to install. And performance is quite good, particularly for my parents' purposes (I keep daily data-backup services there as well).
Optus couldn't create a FTTN network, even if it wanted too. Please educate yourself…
Well, it seems Optus was once having a passing interest in creating an FTTN network, and some of the terms used in the media suggest HFC can be 'upgraded' with FTTN, but I will concede an error, it sounds like the formal definition of FTTN refers to fibre-to-the-node which then connects to copper. Thinking rather literally, I thought HFC could also be considered a copper cable, but I am happy to concede.
As for 'educating myself', thanks for the advice, I've learnt that the term FTTN might exclude certain types of copper cable beyond the node itself.
[me] Optus and their affiliates did lose money…since relatively few people wanted to pay monthly fees for more television in a 'walled garden' environment … I am [guessing that] paid and unpaid television streaming services is what is driving the [current] privately-funded improvement in Internet infrastructure in countries such as USA, China and Canada.
[you] No complete BS. Optus wasn't expecting Telstra to lose a billion dollars to mess up their business plan.
I'm not sure which part of my statement is referred to as 'BS', but we both agree the business plan didn't work as Optus expected. It did provide a still useful asset with private money. I was suggesting that the business plan might work better now, since more people seem keen to watch television on the Internet, since the 'content' (different choices of television channels and series) and current cost is now to the public's liking. I am aware that what happened in the 1990s does represent a market failure, and that is why if such a new technology roll-out was to occur by private companies again, I suggested that the Government could 'auction' the rights, or otherwise control/manage/regulate private rollouts.
the cities are the only places in Australia where it is profitable to deploy infrastructure. So unless you want to privatize the profits and make the loses public NBNCO has to deploy in both areas.
Much as I like to think I can just put on an Akubra and ride into the sunset, Australia does have one of the highest rates of urbanization in the world; higher than the USA, Canada or China. And the past decade or so has seen particular population density increases very close to the city (I admit, I live in Melbourne, so I have a biased outlook).
With NBN providing services to 'non-profitable' areas, the losses are still being made 'public'.
With NBN providing services to 'profitable' areas (slowly), their is a public loss from delayed improvement in service, and eventually delay in the 'non-profitable' areas having another cycle of improvement.you can thank Telstra deciding to eat a billion dollar loss to protect it's monopoly for [impeding progress in internet services]
Telstra has a monopoly on the copper network… [other] ISP's can put in their equipment in but they are at the mercy of Telstra … Telstra has zero incentive for improving things.also you seem to not understand one thing, NBN Co is basically going to replace the role Telstra has with the current ISP's.
I agree, despite various legislation trying to pry open Telstra's dominant market position, Telstra often resisted and impeded change.
I do understand NBN Co is a protected monopoly, similar to the role Telstra/Telecom had and tried to maintain.
If a person was not happy with the monopolistic role Telstra tried to maintain with the current ISPs, why would they be happy with way NBN Co has been structured and protected?Actually, I do understand how that works. I agree that network performance is limited by the copper network, but it is still influenced and changed by the equipment at the exchange as well. If one company installs ADSL2+, and others have ADSL1, then that is a competitive advantage to the company which installed ADSL2+, at least for some customers.
No company except Telstra can upgrade the copper. The limiting factor is Telstra and the fact they have a monopoly on the ducts and copper network.
In general, the other companies will try to 'catch up', if their is customer demand. Just like realized Internet performance is also influenced, to some extent or another, by your router, your location's cabling/wireless networks, and even the capability of individual computers and mobile devices. Others may have had a bad experience, but my personal experience of the upgrade from ADSL1 to ADSL2+ was worthwhile.
OK firstly delivering ADSL 1 is more expensive than ADSL 2 and the huge part of that is because Telstra charges ISP's more for ADSL 1. Also the upgrade and how good it is is dictated by how close to the exchange you are.
In the 'Opinion/Analysis' section of this delimiter article(delimiter.com.au) (also written in 2013), they describe the situation where neither Optus nor Telstra were willing to connect HFC cable even when it was available in that area.
You don't understand why that is. They aren't willing to deal with body corporates as it takes them too much dicking around and then they get rejected anyway usually as not all the owners can agree. If you are connecting up a apartment complex you need body corporate permission and not the owners.
Well, it seems Optus was once having a passing interest in creating an FTTN network(zdnet.com), and some of the terms used in the media suggest HFC can be 'upgraded' with FTTN(delimiter.com.au), but I will concede an error, it sounds like the formal definition of FTTN refers to fibre-to-the-node which then connects to copper. Thinking rather literally, I thought HFC could also be considered a copper cable, but I am happy to concede.
No they had a passing interest in submitting a tender to do the work for NBN Co with the FTTN network. Not building one themselves. HFC is not FTTN at all, completely different technologies and you wouldn't be upgrading HFC to FTTN you would be downgrading.
I'm not sure which part of my statement is referred to as 'BS', but we both agree the business plan didn't work as Optus expected. It did provide a still useful asset with private money. I was suggesting that the business plan might work better now, since more people seem keen to watch television on the Internet, since the 'content' (different choices of television channels and series) and current cost is now to the public's liking. I am aware that what happened in the 1990s does represent a market failure, and that is why if such a new technology roll-out was to occur by private companies again, I suggested that the Government could 'auction' the rights, or otherwise control/manage/regulate private rollouts.
No it didn't provide to be a useful asset. It lost them 1.5 billion dollars there is no way they have got that back. What company in their right mind would deploy their own infrastructure after seeing how Telstra reacted to optus? They burned through 1 billion dollars to (profanity) optus over.
Much as I like to think I can just put on an Akubra and ride into the sunset, Australia does have one of the highest rates of urbanization in the world; higher than the USA, Canada or China. And the past decade or so has seen particular population density increases very close to the city (I admit, I live in Melbourne, so I have a biased outlook).
Thats the problem, when dealing with the rest of the country which isn't in the major cities it is no longer profitable and way too expensive to service unless you are subsidizing with the profitable areas.
If a person was not happy with the monopolistic role Telstra tried to maintain with the current ISPs, why would they be happy with way NBN Co has been structured and protected?
These things are natural monopolies though, the government owning it gives all the carriers a fair playing ground while the current situation is Telstra has a huge advantage and no incentive to upgrade.
I'm not saying its definitely the same case, but cost and schedule blow outs are quite often the result of poor planning.
Right, cause it wasn't like the Labour plan was already behind schedule, horribly over budget or anything of the sort…
http://giphy.com/gifs/drinking-kermit-the-frog-ToMjGpKRpvezP…
H1-2018 with HFC. What absolute bullshit. Shared carriers are just crap, and with Netflix expanding peak time congestion is going to be atrocious. Might be worse than ADSL2+… guess we'll see how things go.
HFC will commence H2 2016 for me
I'll wait to see what my neighbours experience otherwise I'm happy on my 13mbit ADSL 2 for now..It'll probably be excellent starting out. As people get used to the higher speeds and potentially start using more ('cloud' backups, streaming video, p2p file sharing and even p2p offloading e.g. by Windows Update, etc.) - that's when you could see speeds drop.
I just don't like the idea of my connection speed depending entirely on whether my neighbours like watching movies or happen to use bittorrent a lot.
Hmm very true, or everyone quits from the terrible NBN signup experience
I know 2 mates that have quit.. waiting like 2 months going back and forth
HFC H1-2018. How fast would HFC go?
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/284556,fibre-vs-hfc-un…
old article but explains HFC
Hybrid fibre/coaxial (“cable Internet”): 100Mbps currently; the DOCSIS 3.0 specification supports speeds up to (and beyond) 300Mbps and even the NBN corporate plan acknowledges that 240Mbps is possible on the current network with HFC node-splitting. Shared.
Read more: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/284556,fibre-vs-hfc-un…
HFC is far more sensitive to peak and off-peak times, since one coax cable is shared by multiple people. It's basically the wired version of a shared wireless connection.
Max speeds? 100Mbps probably, with 240Mbps possible with the new standard - but, again, it's shared so depending on how many people per node and your neighbours' usage your average could be anywhere from <1Mbps to nearly 100Mbps.
I am already on cable (Telstra) so NBN on HFC has no major advantage for me, other than having more providers to choose from. Speed wise it has been quite consistent (fast) probably due to most my neighbours aren't on Internet (mostly disabled pensions in housing commission).
I guess it might end up being cheaper and you might see better upload speeds. Apart from that, yea, probably not much change for those on cable.
Just typical. Five years ago it was nice FTTP, then FTTN + VDSL2, now all the way back to HFC. Next year they'll announce 56k.
It's probably because Telstra are more expensive than Optus and offer less data for the price when it comes to their HFC pricing, so Optus are more reluctant to split HFC nodes when things start getting congested than Telstra are to maintain network quality.
I used to get 120mbits on Telstra. Nowadays, I get around 5-6 mbits during peak time (4pm - midnight).
So True my friend in-house in Redcliffe had some fast HFC now has old people move out and new family move in speed we are have dropped. 4 to 11pm is wosted time off day.
Our current HFC connection gets around 115Mbps, which roughly translates to an average Steam Download of 10 - 12.5MB/s.
That sounds absolutely delicious. I avg/cap at about 1.7 mb/s on Steam :(
Ouch. :(
I'm with Telstra, and they provide three free tops-ups a month. Last month I activated one of them about a week and a half to top up our data, which brought our total usage allowance up to 2TB. I managed to burn through 90% of the total 2TB, with most of it in that final week.
I'm with TPG so I'm on unlimited. By cap I didn't mean I'm quota-shaped, haha. How can you use so much data a month? I use at most 260~ GB!
Don't you mean three free top-ups a year? I have that deal, but I haven't yet had occasion to use more than my 1TB per month.
Games man. Games. All those uninstalled, unplayed games aren't just going to sit there uninstalled and unused, no sir, they're going to sit there installed and unused! :p
@kaneissik: According to Steam, you have me beat by about 38 games. :(
http://steamcommunity.com/id/AnOverburdenedWarrior/@OverburdenedWarrior: Better add 67 to the list then :P http://steamcommunity.com/id/infek/games/?tab=all - so much wasted money.
@kaneissik: I hope you at least brought some of those on sale. :p
The hardest part now is finding motivation, I keep going back to titles I play all the time, rather than start something new.Pretty much. As soon as you stop playing for a few months the game is a complete blank. I was playing The Last of Us for a little bit and am probably about 3 hrs from completion but I stopped playing it. I've only just purchased the Nathan Drake Collection and I don't even want to keep playing it! Games are the WORST
@kaneissik: I've been trying to hit up the new Deus Ex Mod - Revision, but I'm swamped with end of year assignments for uni at the moment. I'm planning to get some game time in come November though. (Fallout 4!)
Haha, as much as I'm looking forward to this year's last quarter of games. I very much doubt I'll complete one of them.
@kaneissik: I can't remember the last time I completed a game. I had to actively push myself to go for my two completed Steam games. Same with my only 100%'d Xbox game, Godfather 2.
How are you with modding? I find I spend heaps of time modding a game (or attempting to, I tend to add far too many.) just to either not complete the modding to start the game, or lose interest quick when starting it up again.
I think the last game I completed was Dying Light which was decently alright. I'm pretty bad with consoles as well, my only completed PS4 game is Guacamelee.
I spent a few hours finding mods for Fallout 3 and was happy with it until I started exploring and realised how bad guns are. They just aren't very fun to shoot? Suffice to say, I didn't finish FO3 either…
@kaneissik: I remember starting Dying Light when it came out, I enjoyed it, but only got about half way through it. This was back when it was plagued with performance issues. (The "leave chrome running in the background" trick did help though.)
I know what you mean, I much prefer New Vegas, but FO3 can be fixed with enough mods. I started nodding New Vegas, but compatibility is becoming an issue already.
Damn, I remember starting Mad Max when it came out.. I was having a ball. Now I'll have to start again. :p
I never really had an issue with Dying Light, the only time I really had issues was with the distance scaling which seemed to not work anyway.
I really should finish FO3 and I've never even played NV! I'm a terrible gamer haha.
I want to play Mad Max but because I'm comparing it to Assassin's Creed I want to see if this year's is better than Unity so I can put tons of hours in it for collectibles. I do love open-world games but I'm starting to feel it's the -thing- to do now which I don't think I like.
@kaneissik: Mine wasn't too bad as long as I left chrome in the background. Without it, the game would chug. It's probably a placebo, but it's not the first game that it's worked for.
Really? You've got your next two games to finish then. :p
It was pretty good, and I need to get around to playing through the Assassin Creed games, I had a ball on the first few, but every time I try and play the series in order, I stop half way through the first..
@emibel19:
Yeh since a while back when telstra buffed everyones data cap to double minimum i havent either. Back when it was 200gb id use it all the time.Yeah, I really liked Black Flag but I became too interested in finding all the treasure and exploring so I neglected the entire story and then got really burned by doing all the side stuff. That's the issue with AC/FarCry when it's filled with a ton of collectibles that aren't even rewarding!
@kaneissik: I'm finding that with every game. I'm exploring and exploring, trying not to miss anything. It becomes frustrating, so I end up burnt out and back playing CS:GO or something off the usual list of games I always play.
My go-to has been DotA for a while but 40~ minutes per game is a lot to ask when you lack motivation to play the game in the first place…
I hope JC3 is good because I feel that game will be easier to play when the story isn't the selling point and the pick-up-and-play style is suited to huge casuals like me.
@kaneissik: I've been meaning to get into DotA. I've sampled the original here and there, and a few other games like it.
I'm holding out for Fallout 4 to break this gaming rut. I kept at modding Fallout NV today, but I'm running into a few compatibility issues that are going to take some work..
What other sorts of games are you playing lately?
There are a whole range of successive upgrades that can be done with HFC.
Full DOCSIS 3.0 could be done now.
Node splitting will require the equiv of FTTN planning rollout, with Optical nodes in place of VDSL nodes.
Once complete, DOCSIS 3.1 may be able to be rolled out, but is a forklift upgrade in many cases, so NBN would need to budget for another rollout.There is even the possibility of NBN buying spectrum so that more channels could be implemented.
After all these upgrades over the next 10 yrs, a HFC user could get a connection almost the equal of a single FTTP connection.
I just arranged fixed wireless NBN for a relative, previously on adsl
The NBN bureaucracy is a big drawback but the fixed-wireless network is good. They get 25M down and that is good enough for windows update, iview and so on.
Had to choose between 1-10 plans from 90 different resellers. All are roughly the same except with different loopholes around speed, quota, land lines, overage charges.
NBN called to confirm the installation address. It was wrong (its a rural area and street numbers aren't exact) so NBN cancelled the install completely.
Referred to the Retailer to try again.
NBN brought in a different contractor to the do the install. They unplugged the existing DSL and don't do modems (that's the retailer)
The Retailer posted a modem (AusPost takes a week in rural areas now) with instructions way too complicated for 90% of customers.
Discovered a week later, my relatives were still on Telstra ADSL because their local IT guy reconnected them to their Telstra wifi and not the NBN
They can't use the VOIP line because they've got no clue how to configure it.
The NBN fired wireless equipment is flaky. It goes off line and has to be rebooted to reconnect. It takes about 10 minutes to start up.It's the same BS they did with electricity: every provider gets it at the same price then goes about trying to be as confusing as possible to the consumer in order to skew their sense of values so the consumer gets ripped off.
So many places receiving FTTN. My concern is, would the copper from nodes be able to handle so much high speed bandwidth if many houses in a street that are using lots of bandwith are connected to one node. Also, never knew my suburb had HFC, or does it mean that they will be installing HFC (my understanding is that HFC is coaxial cables lead on from fibre points)?
That's a potential issue with HFC where all houses share the same coax cable. With FTTN + VDSL2, each house gets its own independent line (PSTN phone pair) to the node.
Then node backhaul is shared back to the POI or exchange.
All mediums share bandwidth in some form or another, even FTTP.
That's not the biggest problem.
The biggest problem they have is FTTN speeds are worse than ADSL 2 after 500 metres and an awful lot of places aren't going to be within 500 metres so it will actually make peoples speeds worse or at best have no impact at all for most people. They couldn't even get their politically cherry picked trial suburbs to work properly so imagine how it is going to go for the rest of the country? At least with labors trials they were actually interested in the results as when they started it wasn't a political issue.
HFC is a big upgrade from FTTN. With dosics 3 and the plan to reduce the amount of people on the nodes it should be a nice network indeed which should last another decade or so. Just hope they don't skimp on the nodes.
wow 2018 for my area. this is just despicable.
what im personally wondering is what Ping will be like for FTTN while it wont directly affect me having FTTP right now im still curious.
I just moved form ADSL2+ (20ms 18/0.8mbps ) to VDSL2 (40ms 30/1mbps) with iiNet… and yes I'm paying for "80/20mbps".
wow thats a huge difference in on 3 ping.
So FTTN / VDSL2 sucks for ping sensitive services then.
My address is not even scheduled. :(
Same. So sick of this BS
I was scheduled for FTTP by the Labor's version of NBN in the Q4 of 2014. I live in Adelaide and my ADSL's speeds are more often than not similar to dial up. Now my address is not even on the list. So sick of this crap.
so was I, NBn were even around checking/roping conduits and then it all disappeared.
I can't believe I'm getting moved from the have-nots to the haves!
My news gets even better I think. I didn't realise the link also indicates what technology, so I went back to check. It looks like the north of the suburb is getting HFC in 2018, but we should be getting FTTN in Q3 2016!
I guess I should start practicing looking down my nose at you people our government has forgotten :)
I noticed only 17 areas are getting FTTP. I'd have asked is that where politician's mates live, but they'd already have it??
FTTN is worse than HFC. Also they didn't even release the results of the cherry picked trials they did on a bigger and newer gauge copper cables so I really think their are going to be a lot of unhappy FTTN people.
Also if you are outside of 500 metres from a node like most people are your speeds will be worse not better, so you should lookup the distance if you can.
Either FTTN or HFC for me in 2018, pretty annoying. Also, what's the H2-2018 mean? Second-half of the year in 2018?
I assume so. Mine is H2-2016. Actually earlier than I expected.
Lucky! I don't mind waiting too much. My internet isn't terrible, I would just prefer a better upload rate!
yes, it also means that its the date they hope to start to do the construction, so I am guessing at least a year after that.
I am 15m away from fixed wireless zone
HAHA LOL
which means I'll get satellite
Ooh FTTN H2/2017 lol only 2 years to go!