This was posted 4 years 6 months 24 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Business nbn Plans 500/200Mbps $319/Month, 1000/400Mbps $429/Month (Was $699) at Aussie Broadband

1061
Business nbn Plans 500/200Mbps $319/Month, 1000/400Mbps $429/Month (Was $699) at Aussie Broadband
Go to Deal
Cashback
checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 20:38 aussiebroadband.com.au (3438 clicks)
Last edited 02/05/2020 - 07:09 by 2 other users

Aussie broadband has new, incredible, no amazing! NBN plans for the low, low price of 8-10x the average cost of a NZ FTTP 4000/4000Mbps plans at $179NZD. https://myrepublic.net/nz/hyperfibre/.

I mean for only $429AUD for 1000/400Mbps, bargain!

This is a deal because “They were over $699 a month so it’s a saving of $200+“

Must have FTTP connection. Static line included.

“ Actual speeds on FTTN/B technology type to be confirmed upon connection. For more information on nbn™ speeds see here.
Plans above 250/100Mbps have a 250Mbps download shaping profile applied from 6pm to 12am AEST Plans above 100/40 Mbps only available on FTTP Fibre build cost may apply pending site qualification check.”

https://techau.com.au/aussie-broadband-selling-1gps-400mbps-…

Referral Links

Referral: random (296)

$50 each for referrer & referee apply afterwards.

Internet Broadband nbn

Related Stores

Aussie Broadband
Aussie Broadband

closed Comments

      • congo on 01/05/2020 - 20:53
        +2

        :-(
        Most houses are FTTC.
        I thought the whole point of NBN was to get better speeds than 100/40.

        • RaihaX on 01/05/2020 - 20:54
          +35

          Welcome to NBN

        • serideth on 01/05/2020 - 20:57
          +93

          It was. Then people voted the Liberal Party into office, now you get this.

          • klaw81 on 01/05/2020 - 21:48
            +41

            @serideth: This is the truth. NBN was a good idea until the Coalition started messing with it. Now we've paid for a world class network and actually built a 3rd world network.

            Classic Liberals - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

            • bikebot on 02/05/2020 - 08:39
              +1

              @klaw81: "Classic Liberals - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing."

              Oh man you have just summed up the heart of Aussie politics so eloquently!

        • PainToad on 01/05/2020 - 21:04
          +27

          Most houses are FTTC

          FTTC is not that common. Can’t be bothered looking up the numbers, but would say FTTN and HFC would make up the most non-FTTP numbers.

          • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:14
            +6

            @PainToad: Negged for telling the truth. lol.

            58% or so are FTTN and HFC. FTTP is 17%….. so factor in wireless and FTTC isn't that high.

            The original aim of the NBN was just to get 12/1 or 25/5…..

            • Tuba on 01/05/2020 - 22:44
              +32

              @scuderiarmani: No, the original idea was to have a world class first rate network, that was capable of keeping up with faster speed demands over time and as required by increasing data requirements due to ever expanding demands of technology (upscalable, as futureproof as a thing can be). Being optic fibre its as fast as light, because it is light, but moreover the pressing need was to use the forward spending on replacing the 1930s copper network to prevent recession. It was part of the cure for the GFC, and it worked.

              Its capable of being the fastest internet possible. Nothing is faster than light.

              All those that think wireless is quicker, NBN was meant to be all light FFS, nothing is faster than light. By the way wireless, between wireless points is via the NBN anyway. Its only wireless from you to the tower. Seems this wireless thing that is meant to be faster than NBN, uses the thing its meant to be faster than.

              NBN is only slow because, LNP opposition for the sake of opposition.

              • CacheHunter on 01/05/2020 - 23:06
                +1

                @Tuba:

                All those that think wireless is quicker, NBN was meant to be all light FFS, nothing is faster than light.

                WiFi uses radio waves, which are just another form of electromagnetic and also travel at the speed of light.
                FFS, nothing travels faster than radio waves.

                • Tuba on 01/05/2020 - 23:09
                  +1

                  @CacheHunter: That was never the argument though, wireless was touted to be faster than NBN could ever be. That physical connections are old, SLOWEER and dated. And that at some time in the future (NBN was touted as being future proof), wireless would be faster somehow (thats the faster than light reference). The Liberals even had artists impressions of 100 foot cartoon future magnet looking things on mountains to show how good it would be. Never mind that if it needs to be that big to reach homes, the one on the home needs to be equally big or its one way comms.

                  The allegation was NBN was already outdated, too slow, blah blah. FFS. And numpties fell for it.

                  A physical connection is always more reliable than wireless.

            • No ONE on 02/05/2020 - 00:16
              +11

              @scuderiarmani:

              The original aim of the NBN was just to get 12/1 or 25/5…..

              False. The original (labour) plan was FTTP, then coalition pissed all over the NBN and made it political game. Blame Tony and especially Malcom Turnbull the ""internet Inventor" for all the mess.

        • Nousernamehere on 01/05/2020 - 21:28
          +11

          As PainToad said, FTTC is a tiny amount of connections comparatively.

          To date the NBN™ rollout has seen:

          Over 248,800 premises ready to connect on FTTB
          Over 376,600 premises ready to connect on FTTC
          Over 1,048,300 premises ready to connect on FTTN
          Over 281,500 premises ready to connect on FTTP
          Over 924,200 premises ready to connect on HFC
          Over 290,841 premises ready to connect on Satellite
          Over 249,700 premises ready to connect on Fixed Wireless

          https://blog.iinet.net.au/nbn-wrapup-2019/

          First link I could be bothered finding on google with the 2019 numbers - the numbers would be different now of course.

        • tessel on 01/05/2020 - 21:49
          +3

          I think most are fttn, no? Which is bloody worse.

          • congo on 01/05/2020 - 22:18

            @tessel: Isn't FTTN better than FTTC?
            Why can't they keep these acronym simple.
            Like 10/100/1000

            • Twix on 01/05/2020 - 22:23
              +3

              @congo: Nah FTTC is better than FTTN.

            • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 22:30
              +15

              @congo: Because 10/100/1000 have nothing to do with the type of fixed line you have?

              The acronyms aren't hard to understand…. Fibre to Node, Curb and Premises. Self explanatory as to which would be the best.

              You can have gigabit connections on FTTP, and you can also have 12/1 if you choose…

            • Agret on 01/05/2020 - 23:26
              +17

              @congo: FTTN is fibre to the node, which then connects to your house over copper wiring from whatever run the node has to your house. Could be a very indirect route even if the node is located close by. The node provides power over the line so you can connect off a VDSL modem. You are limited by very long copper runs and will be very lucky to receive over 50mbps, this is why most ISPs have stopped offering anything over 50mbps to FTTN and you must special order over the phone a 100mbps plan (if the ISP will let you) and accept verbally that you have no guarantee of getting the speed you have purchased. This is decades obsolete technology and the most common connection type under the NBN.

              FTTC is fibre to the curb, the fibre runs all down the street and the only copper is the last mile between your house and the fibre. This requires your house to have a box installed that will power the line back to the fibre termination point (the curb), this box provides an ethernet cable in your house and connected to your router. You are limited by the copper between your house and the curb but it's a short run so it can support 1gbps eventually.

              FTTP is fibre to the premises and has fibre ran all the way to your house, no copper is used with these connections and what the vast majority Australia was originally meant to receive under labors rollout. The fibre is terminated within your house and then converted to ethernet for connection to your router. Being fibre this is able to support any modern connection standard, this is what New Zealand have rolled out in their country and they are launching 10gpbs connections this year. 2gbps & 4gbps already available.

              • OnTheMark on 02/05/2020 - 00:50

                @Agret: Yep - exactly my problem here - node is literally a stones throw from my house, but the copper goes all the way round a big block, so instead of <100m of copper with a 100/40 connection, I'm stuck on a <60/20 connection. I know that I shouldn't complain though because there are plenty of people that are far worse off.

                It was obviously going to be a train wreck if the liberals got in and so it has come to pass unfortunately :-(

                • entropysbane on 02/05/2020 - 08:22
                  -4

                  @OnTheMark: Having some involvement in the process, it was going to a train wreck regardless of who was in power. Nationalising the internet was a mistake that just resulted in progress taking a lot longer. We are too spread out and diverse for a one size fits all, command economy solution.

                  The libs complicated it and meant everyone doesn’t get the same access, but the process is actually sped up compared with an FTTP/Sat only solution, as NBNCo at original start up was stuffed with political hacks who didn’t know what they were doing. Red Underpants Conroy was waaay out of his competency. So bad he made Richard Alston look better.
                  Also, not everyone would have got FTTP under the Rudd/Conroy model, despite the rhetoric, Out of the city it would have been predominately Satellite, (with a few high profile exceptions for political purposes). At least in the current model more country townspeople can get FTTC and FTTN.

                  • klaw81 on 02/05/2020 - 09:32
                    +5

                    @entropysbane: False. Rudd's scheme was no copper at all: 93% fibre, 4% wireless (rural and regional close to population centres) and 3% satellite.

                    Nationalising the network was a fine idea and could have worked just fine. NZ managed it without major issues and had quite a few topography challenges that an Australian build never would.

                    All it takes is commitment and patience, which is something that no Liberals have had for decades.

                    • profane01 on 02/05/2020 - 12:41
                      -3

                      @klaw81: And NZ is basically the size of Victoria

                      • klaw81 on 02/05/2020 - 16:34
                        +2

                        @profane01: Silly argument. New Zealand is far more spread out (a long skinny country) and has far more challenging terrain. And yet somehow their overall costs were lower per premise with fibre than Australian costs with mostly copper, and their time taken per premise install was lower too.

                        The incontrovertible truth is that the Liberals utterly screwed the pooch….and it seems they did it deliberately just to spite Labor for having the audacity to cut Telstra out of the bargain and plan for the future.

                    • entropysbane on 03/05/2020 - 08:33
                      -1

                      @klaw81: I didn’t say that the Rudd/Conroy plan had copper. I said in many rural areas it had satellite. Maybe that 7% was by population, as it sure wasn’t area.
                      Not that city people care.

                  • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2020 - 20:31

                    @entropysbane: "Nationalised" infrastructure makes much more sense both economically and strategically than privately controlled, duplicated (or worse), non-integrated technologies. Conroy had nothing at all to do with the design or implementation of the NBN despite your reds-under-the-bed paranoia.

                    • entropysbane on 12/05/2020 - 22:00
                      -1

                      @[Deactivated]: People that are fans of nationalisation did not suffer the ennui and decay of a nationalised post war Britain that did not end until the eighties when nationalised behemoths were sold off. Returning Australian soldiers wouldn’t have truck with following the British path to nationalise the banks, and Curtin lost office over it. As for comms, only a person too young to remember the inefficiency, charges, featherbedding and shockingly poor service of the PMG and telecom could say that it should be nationalised.
                      The only thing that really should be nationalised is defence.

                      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2020 - 23:06

                        @entropysbane: Having been caught with your pants down - "red handed" (pun intentional) so to speak - with your paranoid Conroy comment you've jumped the shark, possibly a whale shark to boot.

                        Back to the topic though, which wasn't about your outmoded view of nationalisation, or your imaginary theory of what returning soldiers thought about anything. What would you say about technological standards and the efficiencies (technological and economic) they provide? Judging by your last sentence you'd apparently prefer different gauge railways, different sized shipping containers, a variety of monetary and measurement systems etc etc in the one country. On top of that you apparently think a dog's breakfast education system would achieve more - even for the less well-off in our society, that somehow the nation and its people would be better off with an entirely private health "system", and that business should negotiate foreign policy themselves.

                        You might want to study Australian political history a bit better in future. Curtin died in office. He was later succeeded by another Labor PM, the very highly acclaimed Ben Chifley who wanted to nationalise banks but also faced the hugely overblown communist bogey, problems with strikes, rationing and inflation. Here's a decent summary of his career: https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-issue-3…

                        • entropysbane on 13/05/2020 - 11:24

                          @[Deactivated]: What has railway gauge sizes, standards for versions business types etc (regulatory) got to do with whether a government owns the means of production or not? I don’t think you understand what nationalisation is.
                          And yes, a variety of education systems would deliver a better outcome overall. And in regard to health systems, wouldn’t you say our system with both private and public delivers superior outcomes to all private (US) and all public UK)?.

                          And you are right. I meant Chifley.

                          • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2020 - 12:12
                            +1

                            @entropysbane: I understand completely what your notion of nationalisation is and the NBN isn't anywhere near that. Nor is government development and "ownership" of any critical infrastructure in the country - ports, railways, roads, dams, schools, hospitals…..

                            The link between standardisation and primarily govt owned (during the build stage at least) NBN infrastructure is obvious. Those examples were to help you understand why and how. If you don't see why competing companies duplicating independent, exclusive comms infrastructure is inefficient and economically unsound then I can't help you. Nothing wrong with private companies extending and value adding to the NBN once the basic services and infrastructure is built.

                            Your blind faith in ad hoc education systems is heart warming but it appears that world leading education nations (eg Finland) have ignored your advice. For obvious reasons. That doesn't mean new things can't be tried nor does it mean that a govt straight-jacket is or should be applied to curricula or teaching/learning methods. It does mean national standards, concentration of resources and broadly egalitarian access. I have no issue with some variety or mix as long as a huge majority of the national taxpayer spend is put into a public system. Unfortunately we've gone beyond that. I didn't attend state schools in case you were wondering.

                            I see you're wavering badly in regards to your comment that the only thing that really should be nationalised is defence. Our national health scheme - another Labor initiative - is decent enough although subsidised private health insurance is a waste of money. Multiple health funds all with their own executives, staff and infrastructure is an extremely inefficient use of health dollars. The Netherlands and some other European countries have far better systems which are primarily public.

              • Bandicute on 02/05/2020 - 07:43
                +1

                @Agret: Wow, didn't know how lucky I was to be on FTTN with over 80mbps! Thanks for the info.

        • mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 10:46

          I thought the whole point of NBN was to get better speeds than 100/40.

          Sadly you are wrong. If that was the case then Labor would not have add speed tiers to the NBN. The Statement of Expectations signed by Labor MP Wayne Swan and Labor Senator Penny Wong was for a fibre network with entry level pricing similar to ADSL.

          Labor's expectation clearly set out in the NBNCo Corporate Plan was that close to 50% would be on 12Mbps and that by 2026 less than 1% would be able to afford 1Gbps.

          • entropysbane on 03/05/2020 - 08:35
            +2

            @mathew42: Don’t let facts get in the way of gamers’ dreams.

            Although to be fair, fibre would be more upgradable if the plebs eventually got some cash.

    • RaihaX on 01/05/2020 - 20:55
      +12

      Totally would pay this so I can get my Linux ISO in 15 seconds instead of a minute /s

      • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 20:57

        I'd love to know how many servers would actually cater for people with this sorta speed anyway.

        I'm on a 100/40 (seems to have dropped a bit from 90 to 80 lately) and I'm a pretty heavy downloader (2tb usage with a week to go this month) and I can't fathom how we'd actually be able to max out the speed.

        Not for one second saying it isn't better, just from a value POV it's pretty terrible.

        • ln28909 on 01/05/2020 - 21:00

          Holy (profanity), what do you download?

          • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:02
            +5

            @ln28909: Well being at home…. we have a few 4K TV's (with a 3yo who likes Youtube Kids) but overwhelmingly it's digital game purchases/updates of late.

          • Agret on 01/05/2020 - 23:28

            @ln28909: Just light usage, we've hit 5TB a couple months. Average is around 3TB/mo though. Share house with 4 people. Games & 4K media content are massive.

            • entropysbane on 02/05/2020 - 08:07

              @Agret: We are currently about three times what we usually do as our two daughters’ school is running to its normal timetable over MS Teams, I use MS teams all day for work and Mrs entropy is addicted to k-dramas on Netflix, plus the the fourth series of the last kingdom and upload on prime. And gamer son out of work.
              We haven’t even got near 1 TB on our 100/20 plan.

        • Ulysses31 on 01/05/2020 - 21:14
          +8

          Warez topsite

          • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:15
            +1

            @Ulysses31: Steam, Microsoft Store, Epic Games, UPlay, Blizzard, but yeah sure :)

            Been setting up a Gaming HTPC.

        • Deviner on 01/05/2020 - 21:40
          +3

          Have you never used newsgroups? You'd easily get that speed.

          • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:42

            @Deviner: No, but I been trying to download Gears 5 on my PC today and it's only ever maxed at 22mbps and often sat around 3mbps…. Such is the shit show that the Microsoft Store is.

            Steam/Blizzard are usually the only times I max out my connection.

            Dont get me wrong, I know there are ways to use the speed and actually get the benefit, but many people will never come close. A household full of Netflix 4k streams wouldn't make a blip on it for instance

            • albert0pia on 02/05/2020 - 00:18
              +3

              @scuderiarmani:

              … the shit show that the Microsoft Store is.

              I endured this experience for years until recently when I disabled "Allow downloads from other PCs on the internet." I don't know how they are related but I haven't experienced slow download speeds ever since I toggled the setting off. YMMV

        • Samuelsfoot on 02/05/2020 - 12:42
          +1

          I'm living in Canada at the moment, our internet is 400 down and 100-250up depending on the time of day.

          Just the amount of steam updates and downloads that happen in minutes / seconds instead of minutes to hours or overnight is incredible.

          Everything I've used that can benefit from faster download speeds has been capable of supporting the full speed over here.

          Just small things like Netflix has never buffered, OTA updates are done in seconds, downloading phone apps is near instant. It makes me really hate what the nbn has become and I'll struggle going back to my FTTN 24down speed.

          Also it cost us $45 a month.

    • Axelstrife on 01/05/2020 - 21:45
      +3

      Downloading 50-100gb games or Movie/TV show REMUX's really want faster speeds especially when mostly for movies and TV shows there are hundreds of them.

      • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:47
        +1

        PSN was another I hardly ever saw good speeds with…. didn't matter if I could get 90 down, PSN wasn't consistently anywhere near it for me.

        It has improved compared to when it initially rolled out though…. it was terrible.

        • Axelstrife on 01/05/2020 - 21:50
          +2

          PSN and Xbox Live both provide terrible download speeds always have, Steam,Uplay,Origin etc… on PC max's my FTTP 100mpbs easily.

          • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:52

            @Axelstrife: Xbox did improve too, I know MS mentioned it in an update once, definitely better then PSN but it does fluctuate.

            Microsoft Store is woeful though, I get errors all the time, particularly with gamepass titles, often need to redownload them (as I'm doing atm with Gears 5…), have restarted it several times FFS.

            • scud70 on 01/05/2020 - 22:59

              @scuderiarmani: Yep definitely way better on xbox live I've run both on my 50/20nbn and xbox hits higher speeds, doesn't max out the link but psn doesn't even come close.

              Can't comment on Ms store for pc, steam and gog hold most my pc Titles but barely play them.. (old pc/plex server lol)

              What htpc for gaming were/are you doing? (Case, specs etc..), was slowly planning an itx/sff build b4 shit hit the fan… Lol still, I follow whats out there and like hearing diff ideas… :)

              • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 23:40

                @scud70: Fractal Node 202, 9600k and 2080 blower :)

                Awesome case, little hot and noisy but I'll manage.

          • Agret on 01/05/2020 - 23:29

            @Axelstrife: I find Steam to provide the worst download speeds. Microsoft Store/Origin/UPlay are much faster than Steam.

            • Axelstrife on 01/05/2020 - 23:34
              +1

              @Agret: Something is definitely wrong with your setup then.
              Im absolutely maxing my download speed on steam at all hours of day/night.

              • Agret on 02/05/2020 - 01:12

                @Axelstrife: It's just the Steam servers, valve heavily throttle them to spread around their bandwidth. Sometimes you can get slightly better speed by going to an international server in your settings but I normally leave it on Australia. My connection is around 87mbps and in MB/s peaks around 11MB/s.

                Steam download max speed is around 7-9MB/s depending on how many Australians are downloading on Steam but the avg download speed is about 6-7MB/s on Australian steam which very well might be your connections max speed.

                On Epic/UPlay/Origin the speed is always over 9MB/s and will often hit 10-11MB/s. I would say they have a better backend but it's much more likely due to them only having a fraction of Steams userbase they have more bandwidth to spare.

                • Axelstrife on 02/05/2020 - 09:44
                  +1

                  @Agret: No it isn't, been downloading at over 11MB/s for years now and at random times throughout the day and night, it's never dropped like you are suggesting unless the steam servers where down or having issues.

                  The only PC launcher that gives terrible download speeds is Battlenet but that's well know to give slow download speeds.

        • Ibz on 03/05/2020 - 12:17
          -1

          The speed test in the network screen always shows a low number, but psn game downloads/updates have always hit the 13MB/s I got on telstra cable. If it's slow, try pausing and resuming it with no game running in the background

    • tessel on 01/05/2020 - 21:50
      +3

      640k if RAM is more than enough…

      • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 22:03

        DW I'm not for one second saying going fwd gigabit isn't a great thing… more just right now at this point in time. Factor in cost, the take up would be sooooo low it's not funny. Many aren't getting 100/40 plans and settle for the cheaper anyway.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 21:58
      -1

      I don't download but I'd love to just web browse without lag…facebook and reddit in particular

      • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:59
        +4

        You probably don't need a gigabit connection to browse the internet….

        • [Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 22:02
          +1

          I know, but I'd love things to just load instantly

          • Agret on 02/05/2020 - 01:18
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: Have to use ad & tracking blocking extensions for that. The reason websites are slow to load is all the requests to random embeds into the page from a bunch of different analytic and advertising sites.

            Many sites hotlink popular JavaScript libraries, you can get around this using the decentraleyes extension which redirects the requests to your local machine instead.

            It's a matter of request latency rather than bandwidth that slows down the page loads. Having 1gbps on FTTN won't load the pages any faster than 50mbps on FTTN. A 50mbps FTTP would be faster than 100mbps on FTTN due to the low latency of a pure fibre connection.

          • solidussnake on 02/05/2020 - 06:30
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Tried changing your dns settings to Google?

    • rompastompa on 01/05/2020 - 22:43
      +1

      It's better to have the bandwidth and not use it, than to need it and not have the possibility of getting it (FYI; I'm stuck on a shitty FTTN with old copper, with two people working from home and kids wanting to stream online content..)

    • AustriaBargain on 01/05/2020 - 22:50
      +1

      With gigabit internet I could download and watch the same 4k blu ray remux at the same time.

      • ssquid on 02/05/2020 - 05:28

        I have 500mbps+, takes longer to copy something to a USB drive than it does to download it.

    • p1 ama on 02/05/2020 - 03:10
      +6

      realistically most will never need or notice the difference with this speed anyway as they won't access content that would show it up

      This attitude is exactly why we are where we are. Also completely misses the point and is the root of every infrastructure problem. The question is not whether we need this right now, but whether we will need this in the future.

      The problem with building something to just satisfy what we need now is that, at some point, it will have to be replaced with something better at far greater total cost than if that had just been built in the first place. It's literally the equivalent of building a two-lane freeway, then upgrading it to a three-lane one, then upgrading it again to a four-lane one, then a five-lane one, all in the space of 30 years (i.e. the Monash Fwy).

      The amount of data throughput required is increasing every day. The current version of the NBN is ridiculous - we spent copious amounts of money on upgrading copper infrastructure that will eventually have to be replaced (within a decade). When it's all said and done, we wasted money on digging up kerbs, upgrading copper, then digging up kerbs again, then installing fibre.

      • scuderiarmani on 02/05/2020 - 08:37
        -3

        If you read my posts properly you'd see I know full well from a long term point of view.

        But there's a reason why take up of even 100/40 plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it. As much as the niche would like to think otherwise.

        I'm also skeptical that data use/speed will grow as exponentially as it has since dial up in the next say 25 years. No doubt it will get bigger, but not at that rate imo. 4-5kbps to 100mbps…

        But the main problem with this deal is the pricing, and that's not gonna just magically become affordable anyway. The take up of these plans will be so minuscule.

        • BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 14:01
          +3

          But there's a reason why take up of even 100/40 plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it. As much as the niche would like to think otherwise.

          That's because the price difference is stupid. In Australia an extra $20 gets you 50Mbps more. In New Zealand an extra $20 gets you 900Mnps more. There is also a limitation where many FTTN users cannot subscribe to a 100Mbps connection because of their line quality.

          • checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 15:22

            @BROKENKEYBOARD: You’re right. I’m pretty sure Telstra NBN is $99 a month. So people are fine with that amount. It was Telstra not consumers that made the choice to stop selling/buying 100Mbps. Cause copper sucks and no one wants to pay more than the KIWIS. It costs more to get the NBNs 1000mbps plan for a month or so than it does a whole years water and gas.

            Fresh water is cheaper. No wonder people aren’t buying even the 100Mbps plan on mass.

        • p1 ama on 02/05/2020 - 19:11

          But there's a reason why take up of even 100/40 plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it. As much as the niche would like to think otherwise.

          "But there's a reason why take up of even 24Mbps plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it." - ~2007

          "But there's a reason why take up of even 1.5Mbps plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it." - ~2003

          "But there's a reason why take up of even 56.5Kbps plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it." - ~1997

          So on and so forth…The difference is that all of those connections from Dial-Up all the way to ADSL2+ largely used the same existing network. We had the chance to do the same with the NBN. Doing a full FTTP would have meant that the potential is there for 1000 Mbps is there. It doesn't mean that we all need to get 1000 Mbps today. I agree that most will be happy with 100 Mbps, but what about in 20 years?

          • scuderiarmani on 02/05/2020 - 19:18

            @p1 ama: And did I ever say I didn't think it was a better long term investment to go all fibre? No idea why everyone is just assuming I'm thinking that. Any post defending/attacking NBN just gets the usual types assuming ZOMG he must like dial up, get him!

            Fact, people aren't taking up 100/40 plans, the overhwlming majority are on much slower, I believe 100/40 has increased recently but still MAY be only 10-15%.
            Fact, the pricing of the NBN is a joke
            Fact, no sensible person would pay 4.5 times the price for home internet right now… sure if you are a business or whatever that can be different.

            I also don't believe we will see the same exponential growth as we've seen from dial up to here in the next say 25 years. Sure it'll go up, but not that magnitude..

          • mathew42 on 03/05/2020 - 10:04

            @p1 ama: Your understanding of history is wrong.

            1997: 56.6Kbpus required purchase of a new modem, and some ISPs provided different numbers for 56Kbps services, but I don't remember a premium.

            2003: Telstra added speed tiers to ADSL services to protect frame-relay and FoxTel. Most people never upgraded to 1.5Mbps ADSL services. When you added the cost of a second line and cost of phone calls, costs were cheaper than dial-up.

            2007: ADSL2+ didn't come with speed tiers thanks to Simon Hackett's (Internode) decision to offer a connection as fast as possible. People didn't pay extra for faster speeds. It was cheaper to be on ADSL2+ than Telstra Wholesale's slower ADSL1 service.

            2017: Liberals cut CVC pricing from Labor's $20/Mbps to $8/Mbps and bundled with AVC. RSPs responded by moving customers from 25Mbps plans to 50Mbps at same price to maintain revenue.

            Do you know what hasn't changed significantly between 1997 and today? Cost of the plans. In fact ARPU has fallen. yet somehow we are expected to believe against all the evidence that customers will pay significantly more for faster speeds?

        • rompastompa on 03/05/2020 - 09:24

          But there's a reason why take up of even 100/40 plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it.

          100/40 Plan - Actual: 24/5
          40/20 Plan - Actual: 22/4.5
          25/5 Plan - Actual 20/3.7

          What would you choose?

          • scuderiarmani on 03/05/2020 - 09:37

            @rompastompa: That's hardly across the board, many FTTN and FTTB users get way above 25/5

            Also, many FTTP don't sign up for 100/40 either….

            People go for price first and foremost. They'd look at 25/5 and say that's ok for 2 Netflix streams, that suits, done.

            • mathew42 on 03/05/2020 - 10:08

              @scuderiarmani:

              Also, many FTTP don't sign up for 100/40 either

              just over 10% on FTTP connect at 100Mbps.
              Only 0.11% on FTTP connect at a speed faster than 100Mbps.

              You can check these figures on the ACCC NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report. Except for Liberal price cuts resulting in RSPs moving customers from 25Mbps to 50Mbps, take-up of NBN speed tiers has remained relatively constant.

              • scuderiarmani on 03/05/2020 - 10:28
                +1

                @mathew42: Thanks, that's my point all along, people aren't signing up for the max speeds, even if they have FTTP, they are signing up for what they can afford/value/need.

                Why this 'deal' has so many up votes is beyond me, next to no one here will sign up for it.

    • mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 10:54
      +1

      We'd all love faster Internet, realistically most will never need or notice the difference

      This is true 90% of the time, however online video conferencing is one example where faster speeds do improve the user experience by delivering better quality. Remote telehealth consultations would be significantly more practical if patients had 4K cameras so the doctors could see the responses of patients and have a better visual image of the patient for analysis of a rash or injury. Social isolation would be reduced with high quality video conferencing.

      The reality is most people won't pay more for faster speeds with the possibility of an improved experience, especially if they are on a budget. Interestingly people will pay more for more data because this is quantifiable.

      • scuderiarmani on 02/05/2020 - 11:07
        -1

        I know, but 4k conferencing wouldn't need a gigabit connection.

        I'm not disputing the benefits at all. But presently, right now, this price, its not realistic.

        That's all I ever suggested. Overwhelmingly most Australians wouldn't need this today. Let alone have any way of maxing it.

        • mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:09
          +1

          For the people who need ti most, the pricing will never be realistic.

          NBNCo are currently subsidising 25Mbps connections, but this still puts those students at a disadvantage to their peers on 100Mbps. This is sad when the cost to NBNCo is zero. Speed tiers are a software setting which actually cost money to implement and maintain.

          • scuderiarmani on 02/05/2020 - 11:13
            +1

            @mathew42: I know, the pricing is the real problem with the NBN. Can't see that being fixed anytime soon.

            • mathew42 on 03/05/2020 - 12:49
              +1

              @scuderiarmani: Labor could have fixed the pricing by simply removing speed tiers.

              Liberals cannot fix the pricing because it exposes the inadequacies of FTTN at fast speeds. Currently that isn't a significant issue because 85% are connecting at 50Mbps or slower.

    • abb on 02/05/2020 - 10:56
      +1

      Anyone who works in video editing, for example, will often need to upload gigabytes at a time.
      (Plenty of other jobs use big files too, just one obvious example)

      • scuderiarmani on 02/05/2020 - 11:06
        -1

        I know, but the vast majority of people don't. That's what I said. That's why these plans will have pitiful take up (along with the price obviously).

  • congo on 01/05/2020 - 20:54
    +6

    Waiting for Telstra 5G, so I can ditch NBN.

    • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 20:58
      +6

      And when you burn through the data limit in an evening?

      • congo on 01/05/2020 - 22:20
        +4

        Optus 5G has unlimited plan.

        • scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 22:24
          +2

          Ok… you said Telstra.

          And don't bet on it in the future…

        • Agret on 01/05/2020 - 23:35
          +2

          How do Optus provide unlimited 5G for $70/month but on 4G for $65/month you only get 200GB & $68/month you get 500GB :( Where's the $70/month unlimited 4G?!

      • muncan on 01/05/2020 - 23:08

        Unless the 5G towers burn first

        • sk3iron on 01/05/2020 - 23:18

          Unless 5G towers burn our brains first, lucky i'm wearing my trusty tinfoil hat though, it's rather snazzy too…

          • muncan on 01/05/2020 - 23:25
            +1

            @sk3iron: Tinfoil ensures an even cook for my potatoes in the fire!

    • checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 21:00
      +1

      “Waiting for ‘insert anything other than NBN’, so I can ditch NBN.” - FTFY

    • salmon123 on 01/05/2020 - 21:00
      +2

      not worried about it coming with a free side of the 'rona?

  • Hellcrusher3304 on 01/05/2020 - 21:03
    +14

    Australian broadband is a joke! In Hong Kong, you can get 1000Mbps for residential use for around $60AUD per month… Thats with homephone and subscription TV included.

    • checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 21:04
      +5

      Aussie is lovely. It’s NBN that sets this high wholesale price and CVC. It’s like $8 a Mbps from NBN.

      • mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 10:56

        Labor's pricing was $20Mbps, so the Liberal price cut to $8Mbs and bundling with AVC should be considered a bargain.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join