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

15 Jun 2020

Related Stores

Aussie Broadband

closed Comments

- - - checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 10:59
      
      +1
      
      That pricing was in 2013 I believe. I think, don’t quote me on this. We are now in 2020.
      - mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:05
        
        +1
        
        @checkingthisout: Agreed and Labor clearly documented in the NBNCo Corporate Plan the expected reductions in pricing which were significantly below growth in data consumption.
        
        High CVC pricing was actually the smartest part of Labor's plan as it would have provided revenue growth for NBNCo enabling network upgrades. The LNP neatly crippled NBN's future by cutting CVC revenue growth denying NBNCo future revenue.
        
        If Labor had been bolder with their AVC pricing and settled on $20/month wholesale with no AVC pricing it is most likely the NBN would be still all fibre.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 11:17
        
        @mathew42: We will most likely see CVC removed in place of flat AVC for residential and a much cheaper CVC for enterprise in the future. But knowing the NBN, maybe nothing will happen and prices will remain outrageous, who knows.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:22
        
        @checkingthisout: NBNCo revenue is AVC (access) + CVC (data).
        If you reduce CVC revenue then AVC rises, making faster plans even more expensive for RSPs to operate profitably as speed tiers are used to control network usage.
        If you eliminate AVC speed tiers then RSPs impose quotas to control network usage, and those who use the network more pay more, but everyone benefits from fast speeds.
        
        Considering that NBNCo is continuing to lose $billions, it is difficult to justify it's pricing as outrageous unless you think the government should be subsidising the service.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 11:26
        
        @mathew42: We are subsidizing the service directly, meaning users move to wireless, or the government is subsidizing the service and we pay the government. Both are the same. User pays model is obviously not working, the take up rate is low, revenue is falling behind FTTP targets, ARPU is not raising, NBN just mixes the ARPU figures with business numbers now.
        
        The NBN isn't just losing billions, it will lose all its cash reserves within 1-2 years. Meaning it will need more money.
        
        I know how AVC & CVC works. It's just that NBN is one of the only wholesale access networks to use CVC as a tool for residential environments.
        
        Lack of FTTP revenue is the issue. You can't sell me a 100Mbps plan anymore, i don't get it. Neither does the street. FTTN lines simply don't bother to order it on mass.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:35
        
        @checkingthisout:
        
        Lack of FTTP revenue is the issue.
        
        WRONG COMPLETELY WRONG. The take-up of 100Mbps plans doesn't vary that much across the different technologies. 90% of Australians simply cannot see the point in buying a faster speed. See NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report for proof.
        
        It's just that NBN is one of the only wholesale access networks to use CVC as a tool for residential environments.
        
        CVC pricing was the smartest part of Labor's plan, because it ensured as usage growth lead to revenue growth. 95% of people would have a better experience with a 1Gbps connection and a 1TB connection, than their current 50Mbps unlimited data plan.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 11:44
        
        +3
        
        @mathew42: That's interesting, as the fastest growing segment in the NZ market is the 1Gbps plan. You're mixing pricing with technology access, and you tell me how you would raise revenue on FTTN, FTTC and HFC than? Considering NBN 5-6 years in has failed to capitalize on 100Mbps as your report states.
        
        The fastest growing segment in Australia is 12/1Mbps, because it's cheap. That's it. Nothing to do with access technology at all. Soon it will be 25 or 50Mbps as long as that is the cheapest. But once the best priced plan is 100Mbps, then NBN will have no other sales tactics. They won't be able to sell a lot of user 100Mbps. At that point, revenue drops as only 25/50Mbps is a sales tactic for a long time.
        
        You're also glossing over the fact, most of the FTTP users are in remote locations with lower incomes, and are on Telstra connections, which are even pricier for 12/25/50/100Mbps than say Launtel/Mate is for 100Mbps. Of course those users won't upgrade, it's too expensive. Period. If 1000Mbps was $10 more, they would probably buy it, and it would allow the $51ARPU needed by NBN. Cost to deliver 50Mbps or 1000Mbps roughly the same, NBN is last mile after all.
        
        This ACCC report doesn't tell you much, the sample size is also tiny.
        
        It does prove though, that once FTTN got into the suburbs, most people wanted the fastest speed at the relevant price point, which is currently 50Mbps. In NZ that is 100Mbps, thus it's the largest, now 1000Mbps is getting cheaper, that plan is becoming 10%+ of connections and growing rapidly.
        
        I generally prefer to stick to decent articles instead of ACCC reports. https://www.mclarenwilliams.com.au/nbn-co-rollout-progress/
        
        Check out the revenue impacts. NBN is going down hill because of FTTN, FTTC and HFC. It's pretty simple really.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 19:32
        
        @checkingthisout:
        
        It does prove though, that once FTTN got into the suburbs, most people wanted the fastest speed at the relevant price point,
        
        How do you interpret that? Most people (85%) were choosing 25Mbps until LNP cut NBNCo revenue growth by bundling CVC with 50Mbps AVC making it a zero cost game for RSPs to upgrade users to 50Mbps.
        
        I generally prefer to stick to decent articles instead of ACCC reports
        
        Let me re-express that as 'Rather than reading facts and form my own opinion, I prefer to read articles that confirm my biases.'.
        
        My first dial-up plan was $60/month. My current internet spend is $80/month which is significantly less than inflation. The entire history of the NBN confirms that there is zero evidence that most Australians will pay for faster speeds. If people won't pay for faster speeds then CVC is the only way to increase revenue, because when people have 1Gbps connection and 4K TV, they will contact their RSP to purchase more quota when Netflix starts streaming in 320p.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 20:01
        
        @mathew42: “ Gary McLaren
        Managing Director at McLaren Williams Consulting (Former CTO of Hong Kong Broadband Network and Australia's NBN Co)”
        
        That blog I posted is from the former CTO of the NBN and founder of one of HK’s largest FTTP ISP’s. So not biased just factual but ok. Like. Hard 😂 I’ll leave the conversation there.
        
        https://mobile.twitter.com/gmclwill
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 20:10
        
        @checkingthisout:
        
        I generally prefer to stick to decent articles instead of ACCC reports. https://www.mclarenwilliams.com.au/nbn-co-rollout-progress/
        
        Check out the revenue impacts. NBN is going down hill because of FTTN, FTTC and HFC. It's pretty simple really.
        
        To claim that FTTN, FTTC & HFC are impacting on revenue, you would need to demonstrate that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for their internet connection. There is zero evidence to support this, however significant evidence that suggests this is this not the case:
        
        In 2014, 84% of connections were 25Mbps or slower (FTTP only network, prior to Liberal changes)
        
        In the middle of 2017, 84% of connections were 25Mbps or slower
        
        In December 2017, the Liberals cut CVC pricing and bundled CVC with AVC. RSPs responded by moving customers to 50Mbps plans rather than cutting prices.
        
        In December 2019, out of the 1,422,645 FTTP connections only 0.11% have opted for a plan faster than 100Mbps.
        
        What evidence do you have apart from wishful thinking?
        
        BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 13:55
        
        +1
        
        @mathew42:
        
        CVC pricing was the smartest part of Labor's plan, because it ensured as usage growth lead to revenue growth
        
        I would argue the opposite because CVC handicaps FTTP so hard that FTTN can compete with it. It's also priced so high that NBN has completely lost a source of revenue because it's next to impossible for people to get faster plans.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 18:47
        
        @BROKENKEYBOARD:
        
        I would argue the opposite because CVC handicaps FTTP so hard that FTTN can compete with it.
        
        Wrong lower CVC pricing means that AVC pricing has to be higher and FTTN struggles to provide faster speeds.
        
        It's also priced so high that NBN has completely lost a source of revenue because it's next to impossible for people to get faster plans.
        
        I disagree. Consumers demand was highest for unlimited 25Mbps plans and RSPs responded to that. The challenge RSPs have is that to when you move from 25Mbps to 50Mbps the amount that can be downloaded can be doubled, but customers won't pay double. The challenge for RSPs is that users willing to pay for faster speeds are also more likely to be heavy downloaders making the plans more expensive to operate.
        
        The alternative is that if you have 1000 customers on 1TB quotas the cost of CVC data for a 25Mbps, 100Mbps or 1Gbps because the quota constrains usage not speed.
        
        BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 19:10
        
        +1
        
        @mathew42:
        
        Wrong lower CVC pricing means that AVC pricing has to be higher and FTTN struggles to provide faster speeds.
        
        CVC is clearly stupid or at least excessively high, if it were such a good thing then can you name another residential network in the world that operates with such charges? CVC is priced so absurdly high that it has made gigabit impossible to service despite the technology being designed to provide gigabit speeds. Seriously think about the stupidity for a second, the vast majority of FTTP has been in the ground since 2013 and still to this day they have priced Gigabit connections out of the market.
        
        The challenge RSPs have is that to when you move from 25Mbps to 50Mbps the amount that can be downloaded can be doubled, but customers won't pay double.
        
        Just because you have a faster connection doesn't necessarily mean you will use more data for example how much data would a 4K movie take up on a 25Mbps connection? Now how much data would it take up on a 1000Mbps connection? Isn't it the same? If someone really wanted to download as much as possible you could already download over 7TB of data in a month using a 25Mbps connection but people simply don't. If there are outliers they could simply be stopped though a 'fair use policy'.
        
        The challenge for RSPs is that users willing to pay for faster speeds are also more likely to be heavy downloaders making the plans more expensive to operate.
        
        I think it's actually more problematic for ISPs to offer lower speeds than 100Mbps. With slower AVCs they come bundled with less CVC resulting in the ISP needing to buy more. With faster AVC (50/100) they tend to have just enough to not need much additional CVC.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 19:50
        
        @BROKENKEYBOARD:
        
        CVC is clearly stupid or at least excessively high,
        
        You are missing the point that NBN Revenue = AVC + CVC. If you reduce CVC then AVC has to increase. AVC is already so expensive that at the end of December 2019, ACCC reported tat out of 1,422,645 FTTP connections, only 0.11% (1631) of connections were faster than 100Mbps
        
        if it were such a good thing then can you name another residential network
        
        The other utility service providers all charge for consumption. Can you image electricity having tiered based access pricing and unlimited consumption?
        
        Just because you have a faster connection doesn't necessarily mean you will use more data
        
        Wrong. Firstly, there is a certain percentage who will download everything because they they have purchased an unlimited plan. Secondly many households have more than one device streaming at the same time so could easily consume more data. Many people leave on radios for background music. With a faster internet connection they could display 4K streams on TVs around the house 24/7.
        
        BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 21:08
        
        @mathew42:
        
        You are missing the point that NBN Revenue = AVC + CVC. If you reduce CVC then AVC has to increase
        
        That's not true at all. A price drop in AVC and CVC would actually increase revenue. Like you have explained yourself it is currently too expensive that the uptake is incredibly low. This is not how supply and demand works. If they lower the price then the uptake will increase, it's simple.
        
        Just to be clear the argument for AVC + CVC being too expensive is for >100Mbps connections. The CVC charge disproportionately affects >100Mbps connections because you need a big enough pool to support the burst data rates. This isn't a large issue for 100Mbps so in the scenario where AVC + CVC charges being reduced, it will only be reduced for >100Mbps connections. The 100Mbps and under connections cost can stay as is.
        
        The other utility service providers all charge for consumption. Can you image electricity having tiered based access pricing and unlimited consumption?
        
        Data is in no way comparable to other utilities. Electricity has physical costs such as burning more coal. Water is…. water. Data on the other hand doesn't inherently have any cost difference for NBN whether it's a 12/1 or a 500/200 connection. Think of it like a home router, does the running cost of a router change if you limit the network speed to 10Mbps?
        
        Firstly, there is a certain percentage who will download everything because they they have purchased an unlimited plan.
        
        Can you give an example of what you predict this certain percentage is? Majority of NBN plans available today are unlimited and as I said previously a 25Mbps connection can already download over 7TB per month. Quadruple that for a 100Mbps connection. If people want to hoard data they already have the ability to but you don't see it happening and even if it did the ISP should have a 'fair use policy' that allows them to kick users off their network.
        
        What you fail to understand is that 90% of Australia don't care about the NBN speeds and only about pricing.
        At the 2013 election, 84% had a 25Mbps or slower connection on FTTP. How much harder would the arguments in support of FTTN been if everyone on the NBN had 1Gbps?
        
        That sounds fairly normal. Looking at New Zealand I think they have around 10% opting for gigabit. The idea is to balance it through pricing. New Zealand's pricing seems fine. Australia's on the other hand is completely lopsided that ISPs are refusing to offer gigabit altogether.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 21:46
        
        @BROKENKEYBOARD:
        
        Data is in no way comparable to other utilities. Electricity has physical costs such as burning more coal. Water is…. water. Data on the other hand doesn't inherently have any cost difference for NBN whether it's a 12/1 or a 500/200 connection.
        
        There is a very significant cost to NBNCo to support unlimited connections. Every single part of the FTTP network starting with GPONs that share 2.5Mbps between 32 connections (78Mbps) each to routers at each point of the network.
        
        Consider the classic Gillette shaver marketing model: Give away the handle (access) and hope that people will buy the blades (data).
        
        What you need to consider is that the NBN pricing model is artificial. Labor built a pricing structure to deliver 12Mbps plans at close to ADSL2+ pricing. What Labor didn't expect is RSPs to offer unlimited data plans which resulted in congestion and lower revenue for NBNCo.
        
        Think of it like a home router, does the running cost of a router change if you limit the network speed to 10Mbps?
        
        Great example that disproves your point. If the network speed is limited to 10Mbps, a very basic bottom shelf $50 router with wireless N support will handle the traffic. If the router needs to service a 1Gbps connection with multiple clients, then you need to be looking at a top shelf router which can cost as much as $500.
        
        If people want to hoard data they already have the ability to but you don't see it happening
        
        ACCC report shows telco data caps nudging customers towards unnecessary but more expensive connections provides evidence that as speed doubles, data usage more than doubles. NBNCo have reported that one user downloaded 26TB in a month, and that The figures show that the top 14 percent of users on the NBN are driving half of all traffic downloads on the network.
        
        Looking at New Zealand
        
        NZ structurally separated the incumbent, where as Labor chose to gift $90 billion to the incumbent and created an opaque monopoly provider to replace the incumbent. Of course prices are higher here.
        
        Australia's on the other hand is completely lopsided that ISPs are refusing to offer gigabit altogether.
        
        RSPs are refusing to offer 1Gbps plans because they have backed themselves into a corner with unlimited data plans. If RSPs replaced unlimited data plans by 1TB plans, it would stop disadvanting the average consumer and make faster plans viable.
        
        BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 22:37
        
        @mathew42:
        
        There is a very significant cost to NBNCo to support unlimited connections
        
        Can you explain how networks in other countries that are using the exact same hardware, don't have these 'significant costs'? Why is NBN so unique?
        
        Every single part of the FTTP network starting with GPONs that share 2.5Gbps between 32 connections (78Mbps) each to routers at each point of the network.
        
        It's perfectly adequate, if you think that is a bad contention ratio you should look up what FTTN offers, yet somehow congestion at node level is extremely rare.
        
        Consider the classic Gillette shaver marketing model: Give away the handle (access) and hope that people will buy the blades (data).
        
        Again like your utilities example your analogy is about physical products. Firstly data is not physical. Secondly if you wanted to use this analogy, what purpose would there be for making a blade so expensive (1000Mbps) that no brand will be selling it? Like I said through the logic of supply and demand it makes no sense.
        
        What Labor didn't expect is RSPs to offer unlimited data plans which resulted in congestion and lower revenue for NBNCo.
        
        Labor had said themselves that charges will be adjusted over time to meet demand. Didn't this congestion issue only become a large issue post Labor where the prices weren't adjusted appropriately so all the ISPs tried lobbying for reductions?
        
        Great example that disproves your point. If the network speed is limited to 10Mbps, a very basic bottom shelf $50 router with wireless N support will handle the traffic. If the router needs to service a 1Gbps connection with multiple clients, then you need to be looking at a top shelf router which can cost as much as $500.
        
        I don't understand how this disproves anything. Lets say you have a $50 router. Does the running cost of your $50 router change if you cap the speed to 10Mbps as opposed to 100Mbps?
        
        NBNCo have reported that one user downloaded 26TB in a month
        
        One single user for one single month is not a good representation of normal usage and again this can easily fall under a 'fair use policy'.
        
        where as Labor chose to gift $90 billion to the incumbent
        
        What? Where's proof of this $90b?
        
        RSPs are refusing to offer 1Gbps plans because they have backed themselves into a corner with unlimited data plans. If RSPs replaced unlimited data plans by 1TB plans, it would stop disadvanting the average consumer and make faster plans viable.
        
        You're talking nonsense because even before ISPs started offering unlimited they still didn't offer 1000/400 connections.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 23:11
        
        @BROKENKEYBOARD:
        
        Can you explain how networks in other countries that are using the exact same hardware, don't have these 'significant costs'? Why is NBN so unique?
        
        NBN is unique because Labor created it as a bureaucratic monopoly to replace Telstra. The financial model is opaque with cross-subsidies including 2 expensive and soon to be out-dated SkyMuster satellites that have high ongoing operational costs. A significant portion of the fixed line revenue goes to supporting remote users. We don't know how much because of the way Labor structured NBNCo. It is certain that fixed line costs could be reduced substantially if the satellite costs were removed and even more if fixed wireless subsidy was removed.
        
        Your position appears to be that NBNCo should cut wholesale charges significantly and voilà everything will be perfect.
        
        Labor had said themselves that charges will be adjusted over time to meet demand. Didn't this congestion issue only become a large issue post Labor where the prices weren't adjusted appropriately
        
        Have you read Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plan describing price cuts in response to demand. Let me provide you with a couple of references.
        
        Plans for AVC pricing are outlined on page 101:
        
        1000/400Mbps falls from $150 to $90, while the average speed grows from 30Mbps to 230Mbps.
        
        Price falls by 40% while average speed grows by 760%
        
        Plans for CVC pricing are outlined on page 103:
        
        Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
        
        Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.
        
        Let me re-iterate; The Liberals have cut prices to below Labor's cheapest pricing and you still want further price cuts?
        
        I don't understand how this disproves anything. Lets say you have a $50 router. Does the running cost of your $50 router change if you cap the speed to 10Mbps as opposed to 100Mbps?
        
        The $50 router won't be able to provide full throughput for a 1Gbps connection. It will at best provide a significantly slower connection. At worst overload and require rebooting.
        
        One single user for one single month is not a good representation of normal usage and again this can easily fall under a 'fair use policy'.
        
        14% of users downloading 50% of data on the NBN is a fairly reasonable measure, but you seem to ignore evidence that contradicts your desire for cheap 1Gbps with unlimited data.
        
        You're talking nonsense because even before ISPs started offering unlimited they still didn't offer 1000/400 connections.
        
        1Gbps wholesale was released by the Liberals after winning the election. Unlimited plans were already dominate in the market at this time.
        
        BROKENKEYBOARD on 02/05/2020 - 23:59
        
        @mathew42:
        
        NBN is unique because Labor created it as a bureaucratic monopoly to replace Telstra. The financial model is opaque with cross-subsidies including 2 expensive and soon to be out-dated SkyMuster satellites that have high ongoing operational costs. A significant portion of the fixed line revenue goes to supporting remote users. We don't know how much because of the way Labor structured NBNCo. It is certain that fixed line costs could be reduced substantially if the satellite costs were removed and even more if fixed wireless subsidy was removed.
        
        This is completely contradictory. Here you are saying that NBN has to make revenue to support things like Skymuster and Fixed Wireless, so their logic is they must make gigabit so expensive that people can't afford it, how is that making revenue?
        
        Your position appears to be that NBNCo should cut wholesale charges significantly and voilà everything will be perfect.
        
        Yes. The cost difference to provision 1000/400 over 100/40 makes no sense, this needs to be changed. If they lower the cost they will make more money. This is something that NBN is actually admitting to and finally doing with 250/25 and 1000/50 although they are crippling upload speeds. Aussie Broadband already has shown an increase in >100Mbps uptake since releasing cheaper plans.
        
        Have you read Labor's NBNCo Corporate Plan describing price cuts in response to demand
        
        It would have been adjusted as necessary, not because of a prediction many many years ago. There is always going to be a 'sweet spot' where you can make the most revenue, that's how supply and demand works.
        
        Let me re-iterate; The Liberals have cut prices to below Labor's cheapest pricing and you still want further price cuts?
        
        Well this depends on how the launch of the nationalization of CVC works. If gigabit is still absurdly expensive then yes.
        
        The $50 router won't be able to provide full throughput for a 1Gbps connection. It will at best provide a significantly slower connection. At worst overload and require rebooting.
        
        Which is specifically why I said 10Mbps vs 100Mbps. What I'm trying to make an analogy of is…. does reducing the speed from it's default (100Mbps in the case of a $50 router) reduce the running cost of the router?
        
        14% of users downloading 50% of data on the NBN is a fairly reasonable measure, but you seem to ignore evidence that contradicts your desire for cheap 1Gbps with unlimited data.
        
        What is 14% of users downloading 50% of data even mean? If someone' increased their connection speed that enables them to do something that they couldn't on a slower connection, then yes there will be an increase in overall usage. But when increasing beyond that threshold it doesn't enable new things so instead of using more data it's just becomes about getting data quicker like reducing the time it takes to update software.
        
        mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 20:00
        
        @BROKENKEYBOARD:
        
        I would argue the opposite because CVC handicaps FTTP so hard that FTTN can compete with it.
        
        If CVC pricing was cut further, AVC prices would have to rise higher to make up the shortfall in revenue.
        
        NBN has completely lost a source of revenue because it's next to impossible for people to get faster plans.
        
        NBNCo made 1Gbps FTTP available to RSPs in December 2013 (after Labor lost the election). You have been able to order 250Mbps from Aussie Broadband for years. Out of the 1,422,645 FTTP connections only 0.11% have opted for a plan faster than 100Mbps. That indicates very little demand.
        
        This argument might have merit if more than 10% were choosing 100Mbps, but they are not and that has been constant since before Labor lost government. What you fail to understand is that 90% of Australia don't care about the NBN speeds and only about pricing.
        
        Consider this: If NBNCo removed speed tiers on FTTN, the average speed (68Mbps) would be faster than FTTP.
        
        Consider this: At the 2013 election, 84% had a 25Mbps or slower connection on FTTP. How much harder would the arguments in support of FTTN been if everyone on the NBN had 1Gbps? Would 4G / 5G be as enticing if every NBN connection was 1Gbps.
- scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:06
  
  +4
  
  Yes, yes, we all know other countries have better.
  
  There are some reasons for it though. It'd also be alot easier to provide that for a country like that too.
  
  Pricing is another issue though, that's a problem Australia really screwed up (not just the lack of Fibre).
  - Jolakot on 01/05/2020 - 21:15
    
    Why? I can understand that for regional areas, but in big metropolises like Melbourne and Sydney? Surely we have the population density for it to be cheap as.
    - scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:18
      
      +4
      
      Private investment should have done that YEARS ago in such areas.
      
      Also the NBN didn't even target such areas initially either…. most of the FTTP connections are in anything but CBD/High Density.
      
      We also have a problem of trying to make it more even across the board…. elecricity and water are like that.
      
      Whirlpool has a tonne of discussion about these sorta countries and why they have such things… for the most part they understand the differences.
      - Hellcrusher3304 on 01/05/2020 - 21:22
        
        @scuderiarmani: Agreed, privatisation from ISP's brings more competition, in return, lower prices for consumers.
        
        scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:25
        
        +1
        
        @Hellcrusher3304: Exactly, Telstra and others should have come to the party decades ago and begin to upgrade the higher density areas initially. It's absurd it's only starting to happen now with some private investment when the horse bolted.
        
        It's all well and good to blame the Coalition for it, but there's much more to it then that.
        
        ssquid on 02/05/2020 - 05:31
        
        @Hellcrusher3304: Except the government is committed to penalizing them via the Regional Broadband Tax. So even if you don't use the NBN you'll be paying for it.
      - twjr on 02/05/2020 - 09:31
        
        @scuderiarmani: Privatisation of linear infrastructure is not great as it tends towards natural monopolies. When Telstra was sold off, though I'd argue that was a mistake, the retail sales and wholesale infrastructure sections of the business should have been spun off into different entities.
    - gromit on 01/05/2020 - 23:17
      
      +2
      
      because both sides of politics demand pricing is equal/fair for everyone. So big cities are subsidising the huge costs for regional areas that could never be financially viable.
    - mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:02
      
      Labor made a decision in setting up the NBN to opaquely subsidise rural connections, especially satellite provision through SkyMuster. The alternative model used for mobile services is that the government invites providers to apply for subsidies to service areas that are not commercially viable.
      
      SpaceX Starlink currently have 600 satellites in orbit and are starting beta testing services. The service will have a latency of 30ms versus 300ms and that makes a huge difference in experience. Faster speeds and higher downloads will be a bonus. SkyMuster satellites will be worthless when this is offered in Australia, and given the high operational costs, NBNCo's best option might be to sell the satellites for a peppercorn.
  - Ulysses31 on 01/05/2020 - 21:17
    
    +2
    
    For some of the same reasons:
    We don't have big covid19 & NBN figures
  - entropysbane on 02/05/2020 - 08:27
    
    Pricing is what you expect from a government imposed national wholesaler.
    A further complications is that providers have to provide at the same price everywhere, regardless of how much it costs to install. A suburb costs a lot less than the outback.
- brent3000 on 01/05/2020 - 21:10
  
  -6
  
  @Hellcrusher2903
  Its funny as you clearly have no idea what your talking about :)
  - Hellcrusher3304 on 01/05/2020 - 21:12
    
    +3
    
    Lol thats funny, coz I'm actually from Hong Kong and my home broadband is still being paid by me monthly.
    - SonOfATightASS on 01/05/2020 - 21:23
      
      +8
      
      Fortunately for the Hong Kong fibre network authority they have incredible population density. Nothing like Australia. Distance is a large part of the expense.
      - scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:33
        
        +1
        
        @SonOfATightASS: Oh come on, their only 2248 times more dense… that's like a rounding error :)
    - brent3000 on 01/05/2020 - 23:14
      
      I think your missing the point, comparing one regions internet to another is not an offering, do the same with NZ, its not like i could buy HK internet in AU or have it shipped,
      
      I too pay monthly for my interwebs :)
- ltwo on 01/05/2020 - 23:16
  
  +2
  
  and entire HK metro area is smaller than Tasmania.
  - Cluster on 02/05/2020 - 00:57
    
    Hong Kong is only ~twice the area of the ACT. It's a very small place.
- p1 ama on 02/05/2020 - 03:12
  
  +2
  
  In Hong Kong, you can get 1000Mbps for residential use for around $60AUD per month
  
  I detest AU internet, but come on, Hong Kong is tiny, even compared to Melbourne and Sydney metro areas. We can easily do Gigabit here too, e.g. Warnambool.
- AustriaBargain on 02/05/2020 - 06:27
  
  +2
  
  May as well argue about the price of eggs in china too.
  - Hellcrusher3304 on 02/05/2020 - 14:14
    
    Not sure about mainland china, but eggs in HK are actually more expensive than AU. In fact, groceries in general are more expensive in HK. Inflation in HK over the recent years is crazy.
- whooah1979 on 02/05/2020 - 11:00
  
  They also live in small shoeboxes. Australians pay more for their internet, but we get to enjoy Netflix in our front and backyards.
[Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 21:03

+6

Thanks, bought 10
- Ulysses31 on 01/05/2020 - 21:17
  
  +6
  
  Please share receipt, OW price match
  - [Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 21:42
    
    +3
    
    here you go https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/7890978/675799/image.jpg
    - Goldfire on 01/05/2020 - 22:31
      
      +1
      
      XcQ doesn't get a click from me ;)
    - plague69 on 02/05/2020 - 19:22
      
      Well played…
snoopydoop on 01/05/2020 - 21:14

+1

Can a residential house use the small business plans?
- checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 21:15
  
  If you have FTTP and $429 a month. Then I don’t see why not.
  - snoopydoop on 01/05/2020 - 21:18
    
    Damn, only have HFC. Is the 250mbps/100up business plan available for HFC? Thanks!
    - checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 21:20
      
      Seems to say only FTTP. NBN hasn’t really shown that their implementation of HFC can get above 100Mbps yet. It’s not like cable from iiNet where you can get up to 500Mbps.
      - xpliset on 02/05/2020 - 00:03
        
        +1
        
        @checkingthisout: HFC and FTTP will most likely both receive the new ultra-fast plans by the end of this month with speeds up to 1000mbps.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 06:15
        
        +1
        
        @xpliset: That’s a different product but will have an upload of 50Mbps and cost about half of this. AND and its a big AND only if HFC under NBN proves it can handle this speed. Which I believe it won’t. Looking at past track records. The 250-500Mbps plans might.
        
        entropysbane on 02/05/2020 - 08:28
        
        @xpliset: IiNet already have a HFC plan @200/20mbps plan $39.99 per month for first 12 months in some towns in Victoria.
        https://www.iinet.net.au/internet-products/fibre/cable/
    - p1 ama on 02/05/2020 - 03:13
      
      Is the 250mbps/100up business plan available for HFC?
      
      HFC here - don't see anything above 100/40 showing up. Shame.
- cycleri3 on 01/05/2020 - 21:16
  
  If you have FTTP and get an ABN number then I don't see why not?
  - snoopydoop on 01/05/2020 - 21:18
    
    Damn, only have HFC. Is the 250mbps/100up business plan available for HFC? Thank you!
- antigrate on 02/05/2020 - 00:21
  
  Yes.
therealfattony on 01/05/2020 - 21:25

+2

whimper

/sobs on DSL modem.
KanTakahashi on 01/05/2020 - 21:34

+4

FTTN, max line capable: 26mbps cries
- checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 21:37
  
  +36
  
  Don’t cry. Water affects the speed of copper lines.
  - Munki on 02/05/2020 - 01:32
    
    I remember drop outs when it rained. Brings a tear to my eye.
- mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:07
  
  If you can afford $429/month then it is very likely the cost of technology change is also affordable. If you own a home it will almost certainly be cheaper than the cost of stamp duty on purchasing a new home in a FTTP area.
JuryWheel on 01/05/2020 - 21:49

We always get compared to canada - anyone got an idea what their internet is like and how much?
- scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 21:56
  
  +1
  
  I googled Internet and Canada and a question came up, 'is there Internet in Canada?'
  
  Oh FFS Americans. Never cease to amaze me.
  
  Can't say I have ever heard of us being compared to them though? Generally NZL/UK/USA?
  - JuryWheel on 01/05/2020 - 22:10
    
    +2
    
    Really? We are always compared due to similar size and population. All these people comparing Tony countries, have you seen how big and spread out we are?
    - scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 22:26
      
      Says their speed is an average of 88mbps. Better then ours obviously….
    - UFO on 02/05/2020 - 08:18
      
      You're right JuryWheel- Canada is virtually identical to us in population density and is regularly compared to us when talking about internet.
- ethan961 on 01/05/2020 - 23:30
  
  Nowadays often FTTP is available (no installation cost and with gigabit actually available) but costs can be higher - unless you sign a 2 year contract it's roughly $125-150/mo plus tax from major telcos for gigabit, if you sign a contract that might be more like $85/mo plus tax. Contracts and packages with TV channels included are more commonplace.
  
  As a rule the networks are solid but pricing is not, especially with mobile where major price fixing occurs due to lack of competition/arguable regulatory capture. Mobile is far far cheaper here.
[Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 21:56

+1

Can someone explain why bandwidth costs so much in Australia? FTTP tech is here but price is so high. I have fttp but can't afford this
- checkingthisout on 01/05/2020 - 22:13
  
  +14
  
  The Liberal party is running the NBN like it would a business. Internet is a utility though. So it’s expensive for the end user so that the NBN can get a return quickly. NBN is also having to spend immense amounts of money to fix the copper network again and again. Whilst also paying Telstra billions for the network they stopped upgrading, after we gifted it to them.
  
  If the price was lower and the speeds higher, the value would be in boosted GDP. But that’s not trickle down. So forget it.
  - scuderiarmani on 01/05/2020 - 22:27
    
    +2
    
    I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure the pricing problem was well before the Liberals came in…..
    
    I can't recall initial Fibre homes paying peanuts for their internet…
    
    They were obviously responsible for downgrading the network, but alot of what you are talking about was decided earlier.
    - checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 05:52
      
      +3
      
      Well it’s true that a lot of what is in place now was put in when full FTTP was in place under Labor. But the revenue model was higher on FTTP obviously as you can sell any amount of Mbps to any line. The current revenue targets are about $2-4 Billion a year less and growing rapidly in the negative against the projected FTTP models.
      
      Now plans like this are $429 as you can only sell them to maybe 0.5-1% of FTTP users. Instead of 10%+. Like NZ where 1Gpbs is the fastest growing line rate. And 10Gbps is incoming.
      
      If the revenue model was higher across more lines (ARPU) and each line can get 10Gbps theoretically right now. Then end user cost is distributed and thus lower.
      
      So it’s a FTTN FTTC HFC issue and that’s solely a Liberal choice. As Abbott famously did say “Destroy it”
      - mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 20:17
        
        -2
        
        @checkingthisout:
        
        Well it’s true that a lot of what is in place now was put in when full FTTP was in place under Labor. But the revenue model was higher on FTTP obviously as you can sell any amount of Mbps to any line.
        
        Except the demand simply doesn't exist. Labor's revenue expectations were madly optimistic. Very few people in Australia will pay the $100 ARPU that Labor required to balance the books.
        
        When Labor lost the 2013 election, 84% of connections were 25Mbps or slower. The only real change to that has been LNP cutting CVC prices from Labor's $20/month to $8/month and bundling CVC with AVC so that RSPs chose to move customers to 50Mbps speed tier to protect revenue rather than reducing prices for customers.
- alvian on 01/05/2020 - 22:19
  
  +8
  
  The government-owned NBN Co is required to achieve a 3.2 per cent return on investment to remain an off-budget asset rather than a liability, leading to "an inherent tension between the NBN's strategic goals," the infrastructure advisory body warned, saying it would potentially have to trade-off user outcomes to deliver the return.
  
  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nbn-customers-face-h…
  
  To achieve the RoI you either increase prices (to earn money), or increase value of the companay (for a future privatisation), or both. With MTM, much of the nbn is built on legacy copper and so, the value of nbnco sh.t. Thus the only way for nbnco is to maintain and to increase prices. These problems for nbn, RSPs, businesses, and customers had been forecast prior to nbnco switching to MTM, but Abbott and Turnbull wouldn't listen. One way out is for the government to write off the value of its investment in nbn, but it is bad news for the budget and for the political party.
  
  In accountantspeak, the NBN is "off balance sheet". To do this, the Government has tipped in $29.5 billion in equity and handed out a further $19.5 billion as a loan. The idea was that the money would all be repaid with interest, and perhaps even a profit, as once the thing was up and running, it would be sold to the highest bidder. And therein lies the problem. Given it is an investment, the NBN has to earn a commercial return and since the costs have blown out, it has to charge retailers like a wounded bull. They, in turn, pass on those costs to you and me.
  - Russ on 02/05/2020 - 20:47
    
    so, the value of nbnco sh.t.
    
    In a way, that's good. Makes it less likely it will be privatised, because it would involve a massive writedown of NBN's value. Which no government will want to do.
    
    It's about the only silver lining to what the NBN has become. It could have been so much better.
    
    To anyone who thinks privatisation is good, I say: name me a couple of privatisations where the end result has been better (service quality and service price) than the non-privatised versions were.
- Twix on 01/05/2020 - 22:35
  
  +2
  
  ISPs are releasing cheaper FTTP plans in a couple of weeks based on new NBN wholesale pricing.
  - [Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 23:02
    
    source?
    - Twix on 01/05/2020 - 23:06
      
      NBN
      - DogGunn on 01/05/2020 - 23:19
        
        @Twix: Those aren't the prices RSPs will be paying. They'll be paying for the ones that include bundled CVC:
        https://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/2020/documents/s…
        
        See page 150.
        
        However, they're not really that much cheaper.
        
        checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 06:03
        
        +1
        
        @DogGunn: On 1000/50Mbps. 5.75Mbps included CVC is a ratio of 176:1. So to get to 50:1 Aussie will need 15Mbps CVC at $120 + $80 line rate. $200 wholesale. Retail: $250+?
        
        Cheaper sure. Cheap. No. That wholesale price is a joke and it’s now no longer including a decent upload for the price.
        
        https://myrepublic.net/nz/hyperfibre/
        
        Twix on 02/05/2020 - 15:15
        
        @DogGunn: Yeah I know RSPs have to add their own extra costs.
- mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:14
  
  +1
  
  The Labor party made a choice to design the NBN financial model with tiered pricing for speed and also data usage charging. It actually costs NBNCo and RSPs money to implement speed tiers because of extra software settings.
  
  NBNCo could offer unlimited speed plans at the 25Mbps wholesale rate, and would most likely see increased revenue from CVC (data) sufficient to cover the shortfall, especially if pricing was returned to Labor's plan.
- p1 ama on 02/05/2020 - 19:16
  
  Can someone explain why bandwidth costs so much in Australia? FTTP tech is here but price is so high. I have fttp but can't afford this
  
  It's an uncomfortable explanation, but it is purely because those in the city are subsidising the cost of those in the country. Plain and simple. Nothing to do with the technology or the party in power.
  
  The overwhelming majority of Australians live in metropolitan areas (capital cities and regional towns), but there are enough people who do not to warrant building expensive infrastructure to serve them. We've (as a country) decided that it's "unAustralian" to charge someone in the city $30 for internet and someone in the bush $1000, so we all pay $70.
AustriaBargain on 01/05/2020 - 22:49

Oh lordy, it says I can get 1000/400 at my address.
vaper on 01/05/2020 - 22:59

+2

Same connection is like $50 in most developed countries
Nuggets on 01/05/2020 - 23:13

I wish you never posted this, gives me PTSD of seeing Australians vote for sh*t internet.
- AustriaBargain on 01/05/2020 - 23:16
  
  You all should have actually joined the ALP back when it mattered if you cared so much about Interent.
  - DogGunn on 01/05/2020 - 23:20
    
    +1
    
    Why would joining Labor matter?
    - AustriaBargain on 02/05/2020 - 01:22
      
      Join their campaign efforts. Convince your friends to vote.
      - Nuggets on 02/05/2020 - 08:40
        
        @AustriaBargain: Whether you're a party member when you're talking to friends or not doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The bigger difference is probably your dues paying for ads.
- mathew42 on 02/05/2020 - 11:24
  
  Agreed. Australia voted for Kevin Rudd's FTTN plan in 2007.
[Deactivated] on 01/05/2020 - 23:29

thanks OP. still on 56k.
Agret on 01/05/2020 - 23:38

+1

Aussie broadband has new, incredible, no amazing! NBN plans for the low, low price of 4x the average cost of a NZ FTTP 1Gbps plan. I mean only $429!

https://myrepublic.net/nz/hyperfibre/

It's 140.24 AUD a month for unlimited 2gbps / 168.47 AUD a month for unlimited 4gbps symmetrical connection in NZ. These are new home plans for 2020 they are rolling out.

Meanwhile in Australia we're going backwards and the new plans provide the same downstream bandwidth but half the upload for only $10 less, what a joke.
- askbargain on 02/05/2020 - 00:00
  
  -2
  
  Because we are identical in every way.
- theg00s3 on 02/05/2020 - 00:07
  
  +2
  
  Sometimes it would be easier for me to ship drives to NZ and get someone else to upload their contents. I hate that the NBN has (and is being) screwed by the liberal party
- checkingthisout on 02/05/2020 - 06:11
  
  So from 4x the cost to 2x the cost but now 50% of the line speed from 1Gbps to 2Gbps. So 4x the cost again. NBN has done it again!
  
  Wowww. They have 4000/4000 for $179 a month! My god we are getting screwed here.
- Nuggets on 02/05/2020 - 08:41
  
  +3
  
  Symmetrical…. Words that have never been uttered on Australian shores, ever, by any politician or journo covering the NBN. They just don't give a hoot.
Tsuivan on 02/05/2020 - 01:04

+2

I'd hold off and wait until the end of this month. NBN are due to release the Ultrafast (1000/50) bundle for FTTP and HFC. I'd estimate this to cost closer to around $150/month (AVC cost of $80/month). Far better deal for most home users than $429/month.
- Agret on 02/05/2020 - 01:24
  
  Wow, they would need to include a lot of CVC in the plans to the RSP.

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

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

Referral Links

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals