"What's wrong with the NBN?" (ABC 4-Corners summary)

Link to video: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/whats-wrong-with-the-nbn/9077…


From the start, Australia's National Broadband Network was billed as a game changer that would future proof the nation by delivering super fast internet services.

Almost a decade on from those promises, there's a growing number of angry residential customers and small businesses who are bitterly disappointed with the NBN.

"I am a very, very frustrated NBN customer… What I've got is a trench running halfway up the driveway and a piece of PVC pipe with a rope running through it - and that's all." Customer

On Monday night, as the NBN reaches a milestone, passing the half-way point in its rollout, Four Corners investigates the problems fuelling this dissatisfaction.

"Nobody knows what anybody else is doing. The retail service providers don't know what NBN Co is doing, I don't know what either of them are doing, and NBN Co don't seem to know what they themselves have done." Software developer

For many Australians, the NBN has turned out to be a lottery. Not all customers are receiving the same connections. And in some regional areas there is a stark digital divide, between those with high-speed fibre to the premises, and neighbours stuck with old copper connections who worry they're becoming digital second class citizens.

"On the left hand side as we're driving down this street, those houses can have access to fibre to the node. On the right hand side, they're fibre to the premises, so this is the digital divide." Former Mayor

We examine what's driving the decision making about the rollout, and investigate
why some customers are being short-changed on expensive data plans that fail to deliver what they promise."

"We definitely feel like we're being ripped off." Customer

As critics warn that Australia will soon be a decade behind its near neighbour New Zealand in the digital transformation, reporter Geoff Thompson visits New Zealand's 'Gigatown', Dunedin, to look at how superfast broadband is transforming the way they do business. Back in Australia, the government insists the NBN is going to plan and will be steadily upgraded.

"The NBN will be fit for purpose. It will support the needs that Australians have. But no network, no technology, is ever set in stone. There are always upgrades." Communications Minister

In interviews with the Communications Minister and the current and former heads of NBN Co. we examine whether a decade of politicking has compromised the ability of the NBN to deliver for all Australians.

"I just feel incredibly disappointed that an opportunity to build a first class network that would set Australia up for the future was squandered, and squandered for the wrong reasons." Former NBN executive

Comments

  • +184

    Whats wrong is labor had a vision, then the liberals got in power, and to make a point screwed the labor plans, and said they would deliver the same performance only cheaper, 10 years on those changes they made to the original plan have led to terrible speeds and has become much more expensive than the original plan would have been and a much better average transfers.

    The liberals put all the wrong people in charge who had absolutely no idea what they were doing or how the nbn even worked.

    • +77

      It feels very much like the Telstra privatisation all over again.

      I'm more inclined to disagree with the "absolutely no idea what they're doing" comment.
      They are absolutely certain they know what they're doing and it's certainly got nothing to do with our best interest.

      • +10

        It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.

        Franz Kafka, The Trial:

      • Makes me wonder if some forward Thinking Telstra execs had predicted the rise of the internet. I imagine that if gov owned Telstra today, they wouldn't sell it

        • +6

          Well, what did the government earn from selling Telstra?

          They sold 33.3% of Telstra shares (T1) at a price of $3.30 in 1998.
          They sold 16.6% of Telstra shares (T2) at a price of $7.40 in 2000.
          They sold the last 50.1% of Telstra shares (T3) at a price of $3.60 in 2008.

          Telstra average sale price : $4.07
          Telstra current market price : $3.53

          But the comparison becomes worse when you consider that the government sold the first
          tranche (T1) for $3.30 in '1998' dollars, which is worth more than '2017' dollars due
          to inflation.

          Using the Reserve Bank of Australia calculator:
          $1000 in 1998 is worth about $1620 in 2016
          $1000 in 2000 is worth about $1520 in 2016
          $1000 in 2008 is worth about $1190 in 2016

          Adjusted sale price of Telstra in '2016' dollars = $5.71

          As a purchaser of Telstra shares in all of T1, T2 and T3 it gives me no personal joy
          or pride to share this information with you.

          But I can say that I was (at the time) happily involved in a transfer of wealth from
          a person with disposable income and access to debt, to the Commonwealth of Australia;
          for the Australian government to pay for health, higher education and transport initiatives.

          And isn't that socialism at its finest?

          Okay, but I am happy with Telstra dividends.
          Current historical dividend yield 8.5%. With 100% franking at company tax rate of 30%, gross dividend yield 12.1%
          But the government is not completely bereft of the Telstra dividend because I pay taxes!
          The rate of income tax paid by Telstra shareholders would vary wildly, from superannuation funds at 15% tax rate
          to disposable-income types who might be paying up to 50% marginal tax rate.

          In addition, the government at the time of the Telstra sale did not spend all the money on ice-cream and
          monument building.

          A large proportion of the final T3 tranche went into establishing the Future Fund to pay for the (then)
          unfunded liability of defined-benefit pensions (perhaps including some former Telecom Australia/Telstra associated workers)
          The Future Fund is now worth $134.5 billion and has averaged 7.7% annual return since inception.
          Even if the purpose of the fund seems disagreeable to you or me, if that fund had not been created
          to pay for those liabilities, it would mean $130 billion less for healthcare, schools and public infrastructure.

          (As an aside, the relatively benign rate of inflation since 2008 is almost shocking to someone like myself who lived through the 1970s and 1980s. I suppose we paid for it with the inflation of house prices…)

        • +20

          Comparing historical info and pretending it's comparable to a current situation is more than a bit disingenous… that's like comparing the cost and quality of a PC from 25 years ago to one from today (and somehow suggest that that is all the result of the rise of Linux).

        • +7

          Spot on. Infrastructure was so much more expensive then, the government took a smaller cut then despite the higher costs. Comparing them is worse than useless, it's misinformed and misleading

        • +3

          @tassietigermaniac:

          My apologies, I was being facetious, and commenting that it is possible that we might have a rosy-eyed view about the pre-existing government (near-)monopoly in telecommunications.

          In many other circumstances of life, such as the provision of essential food/groceries, people often complain even when the competitors became close to becoming a duopoly (Woolworths & Coles). Similarly, we used to worry if there were limited numbers
          newsprint providers (Fairfax vs News Limited), or even if there is too little competition between a few big banks (four of them!).

          And this website is, in general, a celebration of the price-competition between multiple providers, the providers rarely being a government-owned monopoly.

          But then, perhaps joking around is very insensitive of me.

          Particularly when what is at stake is the video quality of Netflix when every member of the family is watching two channels at the same time.

        • +1

          @ArjaytheGuy:

          Thanks! How did you guess that I am Linux user?
          Or that in the mid-1990s I used an operating system which had pre-emptive multi-tasking?

          You are quite right, only some advances in consumer computing technology is attributable to competition from providers other than Microsoft and Apple. Still, I think it's wonderful that there were and are competing operating systems such as Linux which gave rise to the LAMP stack (and its descendants) and partly moderated the domination of Microsoft over standards such as HTML5, and so contributed to the wonderful web technologies we have today.

        • +2

          @DavidFong:

          I might have over reacted myself, but I've seen so much bad information recently. I work directly with many of the major players in the sector so I get a bit annoyed at flippant remarks. Sorry for the over reaction.

          Your core point stands, the only reason privatization of Telstra went so badly is they left all of the protecting laws on place, and allowed Telstra to create their own retail arm that got to work with the wholesale arm, who happened to have the only government backed infrastructure in Australia. It just wasn't fair :P

        • +3

          @tassietigermaniac:

          Thanks! Much as I, and many superannuation funds, have benefited from the 'rivers of gold' Telstra dividend streams, I have to agree that the lack of structural separation in Telstra and impediments to competition in the telco sector has been to the detriment of Australian Internet connectivity as a whole.

          I thought I'd better exchange courtesies before my less-than-enthusiastic take on dreamy-eyed enthusiasm for taxpayer-funded government monopolies gets 'negged' out of the public speaking space.

        • +3

          @DavidFong:

          We always need a devil's advocate, the more uncomfortable they make you feel the closer to the truth they've hit normally

    • +57

      to make a point screwed the labor plans, and said they would deliver the same performance only cheaper

      Malcom Turnbull, as Communications Minister and Prime Minister, did NOT do this to make a point. He did it to enrich Telstra because Telstra paid him, as evidenced by his behaviour.

      From specifically requesting the ACCC to not lower Telstra's wholesale prices (twice) to buying Telstra's junk copper network for 9 billion dollars and then immediately awarding Telstra the "maintenance" contract - hilariously, as NBN put it, because they have no idea about copper networks. His behaviour is damning.

      The question is how brain dead are the Australian population going to be when it comes to voting. Past evidence says they'll continue to vote for him since wse've already voted war criminals back in along with the same charlatans that screwed Australia for electricity.

      (profanity) wake up Australia. DO NOT vote Labour or Liberal because that is a vote for further corporate control at YOUR expense.

      • +1

        If I recollect properly it was good Old Tony's vision that Malcom had to follow to tow the party line. After that it was just a case of too many commitments and not enough guts to accept a mistake had been made.

      • (profanity) wake up Australia. DO NOT vote Labour or Liberal because that is a vote for further corporate control at YOUR expense.

        Then who would you want people to vote for?

        • +3

          vote for me, i will give you candy this halloween

        • +3

          @ameno: Just no.

        • -1

          @theophilusthistler:
          Reasons why?

        • do what i do look around for a good independent and vote for them
          we need more people in the senate who aren't pawns for the major parties and will veto their dumb ideas

        • +1

          @ameno: shut up

        • +1

          @ameno:

          In 1996 she joined the Liberal Party of Australia

          Hanson is extremist Liberal Party and has voted for their policies majority of the time. Also constantly cutting funding for ABC/SBS and calling for restrictions on them.

          If you want to vote for someone that gives a shit about the country, you couldn't be more wrong with Hanson's ON (unless you voted Liberals)

        • @dan0909:

          And here we see the tolerant leftist in his natural habitat, where he can sling abuse at people through the safety of anonymity.

      • Excellent summary.

        It's criminal.

    • +14

      What went wrong started with the the way in which the Liberals sold off Telstra. There were a small number of people quite rightly pointing out that Telstra should have been broken up into 2 companies, the infrastructure owner and the service provider.

      Ironically Malcolm Turnbull now concedes that this business model is a key reason for NZ's success.

      • There were a small number of people quite rightly pointing out that Telstra should have been broken up into 2 companies, the infrastructure owner

        Keep the infrastructure, sell off the provider.

        But nope, doing logical things is way too hard for the Libs

    • +24

      Bill Morrow (CEO of NBN Co) made a very salient point in the interview. "We are rolling out the network the current government has directed us to." He knows it's not going to work but he's made it perfectly clear - he's doing what he's paid $3m/yr plus bonuses to do.

      • Why on earth do something that you know isn't going to work.
        Where does the responsibility lie….where a CEO of a company is continuing to do the wrong thing.

        Frankly when you hear it's going to cost 70k to hook up remote houses…you wonder where our priorities are where someone that decides to live almost off grid, is taking a huge chunk of money for a decision they made. It's like people who buy a house near a pub then complain about the noise.

        Stuff fast broadband…just get decent affordable broadband to most areas. let business and corporates sort out their own fast system if they need it.

        • Why on earth do something that you know isn't going to work.

          I can think of $3m reasons per year…

          cost 70k to hook up remote houses

          Outliers exist in any rollout. These are balanced out by high density areas where it costs much much less to rollout. They didn't show the opposite end of the spectrum - for example the MDUs that cost less than $1000 per apartment to connect to fibre.

          It shits me to tears however that NBN co won't extend the FTTN fixed line footprint 200m for my brother in law, and instead have put his house (and his 3 neighbours) onto a Satellite service that simply doesn't work. That location would be perfect for a micronode to service the 6 houses in Emerald, Victoria which are getting shafted.

        • @playswithfire: I thought the Yarra Ranges Council area were all getting fibre to the curb (kerb)

        • @yoyomablue:

          Yarra Ranges is a massive area. Some parts are getting FTTN, some parts FTTC and some parts are getting fixed wireless - and then there's a few areas that are getting satellite.

          It's like the poster child for the digital divide.

        • @playswithfire:

          It's like the poster child for the digital divide.

          Yep, fair point

        • @playswithfire: I looked into it further. Effectively the unsealed segment of Basin-Olinda Road is on satellite & The Basin is not even on the absolute fringe of Melbourne.

        • @yoyomablue: yep, and it's not an isolated incident in the suburb either - and the shire of yarra ranges don't seem to care. Parts of Emerald and Menzies Creek are getting FTTN, other parts are getting satellite.

    • garetz… summed up 100% perfectly. Well done. 100 plus votes.

    • -3

      i.e. the government should have never undertaken the job in the first place.

      This should have always been a job for the private sector.

      People argue that the private sector would have never built the network in the bush. You could have easily made this happen though, with licensing or tax incentives…

      The government has no business attempting a project like this, Labor or Coalition… They're just not set up to handle it.

      • +3

        And then we would be paying $200pm!

        This is National Infrastructure. No business of incompetent Telstra and its ilk.

        • +1

          Not even the Chinese Communist government leaves the task of Internet connectivity to a single (government-controlled) telecommunications company.
          They let several government-controlled telecommunication companies compete to build the underlying infrastructure.

          The same situation in Japan and, in the situation most closely resembling Australia, also in Canada.

          Government-controlled 'non-profit' services have their role, and the government does need to step
          in to provide or regulate services in areas which the private sector will not find profitable.

          Government services have their problems too.
          Inflexibility, inbuilt inefficiency, unusual focus on non-customer related agendas
          and lack of responsiveness to changing situations being typical.

          Paradoxically, the more willing people are to pay for a service, the less the government needs to intervene to provide the service.

          People will pay a lot of money to buy their own car, but don't want to pay money to ride a million dollar bus.
          People will pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to have eye surgery, but don't want pay a few dozens of dollars for a
          general practitioner to treat their diabetes to prevent blindness.

          In the case of the Internet, I think a lot of inner/middle/outer city people are more than willing to pay
          for their recreation/business communication requirements. After all, some (not all) spend what seems to me
          an outrageous monthly sum to pay for an expensive mobile phone and very gigabyte-limited data plan.

      • +2

        Infrastructure is what the government is supposed to excel at. How was the internet for the bush before the inception of the current rotten NBN? You'd be stuck with satellite, dialup or other forms of wireless internet for most parts, and that's with Telstra being paid an incentive to build out.

        A private business won't think "Hey we can transfer some of the profits from urban centers so we can make a few pennies in the bush instead". This is EXACTLY the government needs to do this, to prevent the gulf of difference between urban and rural areas. Same with roads, hospitals etc.

    • That's exactly how corruption works

    • +1

      The liberals put all the wrong people in charge who had absolutely no idea what they were doing or how the nbn even worked

      They knew what they were doing. Telstra gets to sell their old shitty copper network for 9 billion dollars, secure the maintenance contract - and in turn the shady politicians responsible for this lick their fingers and line their pockets.

    • If the Coalition had admitted that the NBN was good policy then they never would have gotten elected, it would have changed public perception just enough to keep labor in power I think.

    • They had a great vision by all means…but underestimated the time and costs for delivery. I don't agree with the Bandaid resolution that liberals set out to (and mostly have) implemented. But there is only so much polishing of a dog turd one party can do given labour were already billions over budget and years late for completion. We 'needed' labour strategic members to work out a more detailed plan and tactical KPIs throughout implementation all those years ago and a fairer methods put in place for the govt to see some sort of ROI over the course… rather than the mess we find ourselves in today, well behind half of the digital world

  • +6
    • +4

      good God I don't think this will be good for my blood pressure

    • +46

      lols. My son visited parliament house last year for a school excursion. It's VERY rare that he will SMS me anything but he sent one from question time. "No wonder everything is screwed up, it's like kindergarten in here."

      • +3

        Q time in parliament has been like that for decades. what is the new news there?

        • +21

          The news was that he could see first hand what I've been telling him. Now he knows that dad is not totally fos…at least not on that point. :) It's good for the youngsters to get personal confirmation of things.

        • +7

          @EightImmortals:
          The message he needs to get is to stop voting for political machines.
          What he witnessed is a system that is out of date and sadly broken but is much to the advantage ot those that have the means to correct it…
          The kids only saw the tip of the iceberg… the real source of the rot are the voting donkeys that support the 3 major parties.

        • +1

          @xywolap: Not to worry, he is WELL aware of all that too. :)

        • +3

          @xywolap:

          Alright, I'll bite. We legally need to vote, and we only really get coverage of two major parties, occasionally we hear about a 3rd. So, who do we vote for?

        • @tassietigermaniac: At this point 'anyone'. As others have pointed out, the minor parties or independents will never be able to form government but if we get enough of them elected to upset the balance of power then the major parties will have to negotiate instead of dictate. Still not a perfect situation but it's better than what we have where the term 'representative democracy' is both a joke and an oxymoron. :)

          Or just elect me King of Australia and I'll sort the lot of 'em out.. :)

        • +1

          @EightImmortals:

          We need a pirate party. Or, you know, I'm down to switching to a monarchy at the moment. Seems as good a choice as any!

        • +2
        • @EightImmortals
          Interesting. I'll have a read, thanks!!!

        • The US stopped voting for political machines, and look what they got.

      • +1

        Hahaha
        I think kindergarten is more oraganised then the Parliament House:)

  • +16

    The real question is why are the NBN paying their CEO and excecs multi-million dollar bonuses for this shambles of a system?

    • +27

      Because that is what companies do. They pay the execs big bucks and then outsource the remote service delivery jobs overseas and get rid of the people who might be able to deliver a decent product. When the midden hits the windmill those execs have merry-go-rounded to somewhere else and the value is quietly written down. In the meantime customer service is the last thing they consider.

    • -1

      Pretty late to the party and hijacking your comment but I've met people in NBN engineering who were mostly from Ericson and such vendors. These vendors are known for their old practices, high prices and what not and this is exactly what I've been seeing in discussions. The PMs are still following water-fall models for delivery of services where so many things can be improved and same goes for the planning … I don't see NBN being an efficient company in short or even long run - they would've to be privatized one way or the other and bring external non-political visionary leadership who can disrupt the organization and start delivering for a Digital Australia.

  • +51

    But no network, no technology, is ever set in stone.

    It is if it's fiber, nothing's faster than the speed of light.
    Once fiber cables are layered down they won't need upgrading, just the nodes exchanges to support faster pulses of light to give faster speeds, the nodes exchanges where already going to support 10gbs that's as fast as having a ssd connected right to your PC, this would of been future proof.

    Fibre cables will last longer than copper cables and is cheaper too.

    • +18

      Not to mention that the insane amount of copper had to be dug up from not only Australia but also Brazil and Turkey.

      http://www.zdnet.com/article/nbn-purchases-15000km-of-copper…

      • +11

        Speechless………

        • +17

          What the? In case anyone doesn't click the link, they are buying new copper to connect new premises with FttN rather than just put fibre straight through! Absolute madness

        • +4

          @Jackson:
          Some one should find out if the copper miners/retailers are linked to any political party and shame them big time.

        • +5

          @sn809: shaming is not enough, a prison sentence is more adequate

        • +2

          @Jackson:

          If ever a 'bang your head against a keyboard' gif was needed THIS IS IT.

    • +5

      (pedant warning)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor
      Both optical fibre and coax(copper) have similar propagation velocities, approx 60-80% speed of light, the issue is bandwidth.

      • +6

        The metric he gave his measurement in was bandwidth. You're right about pure speed, but there is another huge factor that I haven't seen mentioned. Distance. Fibre can be run for huge distances without much loss of performance. It also has a much higher bandwidth limit. His argument about the speed of light is relevant because in theory it can have unlimited bandwidth as well due to the speed of the light pulses, it's just the speed of our equipment at the exchange that will need upgrading for FTTP properties. Cheaper long term, more reliable, future proof as that's the tech that most companies are researching… And we go back to copper

    • -1

      "faster pulses of light"

      WTF?
      How does that work?

      Thought light travelled at fixed speed only.

      • +2

        Textbooks do say that is the case, but I believe that physicists are looking to categorize it in the same bag as sound (being variable).

        • +1

          Wow xravisher, looks like my tiredness goof up post may of had some credibility, whispers thank you for saving my skin's, I love you :)

        • +1

          @Wystri Warrick: lol you're welcome buddy :) <3

      • +10

        I would assume the poster means higher frequencies of pulses. So not quite the speed of the light photons themselves.
        Maybe shorter would have been the better word to use there

        • Spot on theya, in really really tired :)

      • +6

        The correct term would be "shorter pulses of light".
        The shorter the pulses are, the more you can fit into a second and the more data you can transfer.

        Other than that, Wystri is right. The strength of fibre is that you can upgrade the whole system without the need to upgrade the cables.
        Just need better devices on both ends of the line.

        • Yeah that's what I meant MrTweek :), in not much of an expert in telecommunications type IT, especially I'm really tired :(

          I'm going to reframe from posting anything for the next few days, until I catch up on some sleep :)

      • +1

        Haha :), I was very tired…… still am tired.

        I'm going to reframe from posting anything till I catch up on sleep fwdcelica :)

        • Think you mean a faster bit rate or speed in Mb/s

      • +1
      • +1

        Faster pusles for example, 1 is ON 0 is OFF

        10111010101 at 1 second, faster pulse is that same string 10111010101 at less than 1 second.

      • +2

        Light travels at different speeds depending on medium. In vacuum it's 299,792,458 m/s. In fibre optic it's roughly 200,000,000 m/s (slightly varies depending on type of glass).

        But "faster pulses of light" probably refers to shorter lengths of time per pulse, meaning more can be sent over the fibre in the same amount of time.

      • Also I believe you can send it over different wavelengths too.

        So when you have your tin can phone with wire between it.. instead of just one person talking through it, you can have 2, 3 or 4. So while the tin can phone is limited, you can increase the throughput.

    • Fiber doesn't go in a straight line though, so low orbit satellite networks like the one spacex is planning will probably have better speed and lower latency.

    • +7

      I'll be interested to see if 5G will deliver the amount of monthly data at a similar price. Apart from NBN Wireless, other wireless products are still way more expensive.

      • -2

        With time, and demand, yes it will. Don't forget that the NBN service is being hideously subsidised (i.e. you still pay, just the government gets to decide how you spend your money instead of you). When these subsidies are added back, you will find the price differential narrows markedly.

    • +19

      There is no way 5g could replace fixed line services without a fibre backbone that would look remarkably similar to the NBN. It doesn't have the range, penetration or bandwidth to supplant even our current usage with its current footprint.

      • -3

        Obviously. But that is in essence a "FTTN" solution, just without the hideous costs of connecting to individual premises. This is the part that's the problem. It's too expensive, doesn't deliver more than competing technologies (i.e. 5G and beyond) and doesn't support a mobile population/workforce.

        • +8

          FTTN doesn't have hideous costs of connecting to houses…
          The $2200 figure is mainly in running the fibre backhaul to streets, much like you would need to do to put a transmitter on every power pole that national 5g fixed line replacement would need. 5g+ is not some magic bullet, no more than 3g, or 4g was when they were touted as the fixed line killers.

          A properly rolled out FTTP would have supported a "mobile population" by virtue of cheap widely available wifi, supported by our current mobile networks.

      • what about spending that $40b nbn budget on building 4G towers all over australia.

        • +2

          It doesn't work like that.

          We already have 4g coverage over significant amounts of australia. As you go up in spectrum density (4g>5g>+…) the signal is less efficient at getting through walls or obstacles. Then, as you add more users doing more on the network, you need to up the bandwidth to compensate. That means more cells/towers and an incredibly dense ratio. We are talking literally almost on every street if you wanted to get the usage that we now have but over 4g/5g.

          Those towers connect to a fibre backbone. There is no other way for them to connect. Not only would you need buy access and build all those towers and cells, you would have to run a fibre backbone that looks pretty damn similar to what we are currently building to support it. At the end of the day, you will have a wireless network that would cost at LEAST as much as FTTN, it would perform significantly worse under load (congestion, interference, physics limitations of radio waves vs fibre), while charging customers significantly more.

          It's just not a realistic proposition. Every single credible tech expert says the same thing; Strong fibre network, providing solid WiFi base, with mobile data for genuine "roaming" usage.

    • +8

      How well does 5G hold up when you've got thousands of apartments streaming 4k movies off the same tower?

      If "the market" is so good at providing these services, why didn't they beat NBN to the punch?

    • +9

      " it should have been wireless. 5G wireless is just over the horizon and will practically be here by the time the NBN is complete."

      Common misconception but simply not true. The problem with wireless is congestion and bandwidth. And this isn't a matter of technology. This is a matter of the laws of physics. 5G or wireless signals must always connect to a wired fibre connection point. Wireless/5G is just like having 100 people all connect to your home internet fixed line. It gets congested when everyone uses it.

      Fibre to the premises is literally how the entire world is going. Australia is about the only country in the world so retarded that we decided to go against things.

      • Just like they waited to roll out coax all those years ago, unlike plastic notes when it comes to telecommunications tech we would rather be laggards rather than pioneers who can then potentially sell their tech to others

    • +5

      This should have been left to the market

      Do you mean the same market that has been in charge for decades and failed to deliver fast and affordable internet for the whole time?
      The market that told me I can't get more than 6 mbit/s in Melbourne CBD in 2014, while in many other first world countries 100 mbit was quite common?
      I don't know mate, that market seems to suck at broadband.

      • 6Mb, at least you can watch 4k Netflix if no one else is in, I spent half this year on 2Mb when Telstra upgraded the line in my street and I am 300m from an exchange

        • +1

          No idea where you're getting your misinformation from, if they want to stream 4k, also known as Ultra HD or UHD, Netflix states it requires a 25 megabit connection OR HIGHER, that's more than 4 times what their current connection is. The Netflix site explicitly states this.

          They also state that 5 mbit is recommended for HD, they have 6mbit.

          That means that they can only watch regular HD Netflix if no one else is in.

          Information obtained from here and here

          I have a 6 megabit connection as well, and there is no way in hell my internet can handle 4K, there's just absolutely no chance.

        • +1

          @BradleyDS2: i haven't streamed 4k myself, however I have streamed 1080p from Netflix with the aforementioned 1.5-2Mb connection, which according to Netflix is also not recommended, but it only occasionally went pear shaped. Working up from there I got to the value of 6-8Mb which I thought you may actually be able to stream 4k,but I could be wrong. Have you tried? My guess is that the the actual bit rate required is different for different scenes, after all a black screen in compressed 4k can be transmitted with bugger all data, so if you are watching yes minister it could play, but if you are watching a battle in transformers it has no chance. My guess is that the guidelines and speeds are largely oversimplified and worst case scenario minimum requirements for reliable streams.

Login or Join to leave a comment