Australia ripped off in internet pricing...why?

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Croquagei, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. NiTeHaWk

    NiTeHaWk Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Location:
    Brisbane
    anyone know a country with cheap 100Mb internet with lax immigration policy?

    Its the only way to get decent broadband.
     
  2. Goose1981

    Goose1981 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,336
    Location:
    Perth
    *grabs popcorn and pulls up a beanbag*
     
  3. banshee343

    banshee343 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Perth
    Sweden? Dunno what their immigration policy is thou. Other euro countries like .nl might let you in.
     
  4. Rogue

    Rogue Old Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,652
    Location:
    Peakhurst NSW
    Share? This typing is making me hungry :)
     
  5. Goose1981

    Goose1981 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,336
    Location:
    Perth
    Of course.. :)

    *brings out the back-up beanbag as well*
     
  6. shredder

    shredder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    11,699
    Location:
    Dec 27, 1991
    I was just reading up on NZ's internet woes (similar problems to .au, but different proposed solution - LLU and Telecom split-up), and came across a nice quote which to me sums up the reasoning behind the so-called "evil meddling" in the monopolistic Telco's affairs.

     
  7. Falls

    Falls Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    3,287
    Location:
    Gun Cat @ Bikini Atoll
    I was in NL (Netherlands) and the subject of immigration came up in a discussion, basically the netherlands does'nt have any immigration policy or immigration minister. Alot of the Netherlanders seems to be aware of Australias policys regarding immigration, .Australias policies were highly regarded.

    In my passport the stamped it with the date of arrival.

    Also ADSL at that time seemed very cheap compared to Australia.Dont recall any 100mbit internet however.

    F.
     
  8. cgheaven

    cgheaven (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    S.E
    quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises

    Netherlands

    If all goes according to plan, the last home in these networks will be connected in June 2007. These networks also provide triple play services. Internet connection speed varies from 10 to 100mbit (up and down).
     
  9. yanman

    yanman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    6,587
    Location:
    Hobart
    My brother lives in Norway.. he laughed when I mentioned I have a quota :upset: Though their broadband isn't even as good as their neighbouring countries like Sweden or Netherlands.

    Try Tokyo.. $US25/mo for 100mbit including on-demand movies. Quota? what's that?

    [edit] seriously tho.. it's pointless comparing us to these countries. they're ideally located compared to us.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2007
  10. Herbo

    Herbo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,453
    I'm sure if there was enough interest then either A) the other carriers would or B) the ACCC would force them too.


    When their plans are so shit and so expensive they wouldn't want to bloody raise them anymore!

    I understand what you're saying but things change, you can only predict the future for so long and this is the first price rise since they began over 6 years ago. I'd say that's a pretty damn good record.

    Now this is the way I see it, please feel free to correct me as I honestly don't know.
    Costs in maintaining a wholesale port:
    Power (redundant, conditioned) -- Already in place for Telstra equipment, no addition required
    Environmental (Cooling, humidity control) -- No extra load on these systems as they would add nil extra heat to the room?
    Equipment maintenance (power supplies, control boards, port blades) -- power supplies and control boards would be controlling MULTIPLE other (more than likely Telstra) ports so it's not exactly like that's a per port issue. If it needed to be replaced it would also be to get back up Telstra customers. Also like I said, how often would hardware such as this really need to be replaced? Once in a blue moon?
    Egress bandwidth (from DSLAM to alternate provider's network edge)
    Egress network equipment (site routers, core routers, edge interfaces) -- I don't quite understand what these are, can you elaborate?
    Loss of income (from not being able to put your own retail customers on that port -- How many times have you been aware that Telstra has not been able to put on a customer because all the ports were taken in their exchange?

    I'd love to be able to tell you but I don't know :) But obviously for some reason it's a hell of a lot cheaper for these smaller ISP's running off their own DSLAM's than Telstra running off their own. Or you're trying to tell me these smaller ISP's are running at a loss?

    So low? Look at internet pricing right now as it stands compared to the rest of the world. Most people can only afford the basic plans as it is. Now everyone says it because of our lack of population density. OK. What is it specifically about our population density that makes it so hard? Why is a more lightly populated area any more expensive to support than heavier ones? Or is it simply recouping the initial cost of setting up remote exchanges?

    Well you obviously have a FAR greater knowledge on the ins and outs of this business and I greatly value your insight and opinion.

    Like I said I can't be sure. The only thing I am sure of is that Telstra have tried to do everything in their power to keep the monopoly going strong while offering the worst priced plans and artificially limiting Australian internet just because they can. They have proved that they are scum in every possible way. Surely another carrier built up of all the other ISP's that have actually paved the way for improved internet (while providing the best plans) in this country must be able to do a better job. Even if they only end up being 3/4's as bad as Telstra that's still better right?

    That is a terrible analogy. You can't be forced to give away your patented technology. These same laws are in most developed countries, they need to be. You can't have a company sitting there saying 'boo hoo, we're a monopoly, poor us!'.

    Gotta love Telstra's double standards.
    Link.

    I was on the "hate Telstra bandwagon LOOOONG before the G9 ever came to be. The only difference with G9's "propaganda" is that from what I've read most of it is backed up by fact.

    I highly recommend at least reading this page.
     
  11. -=N0N@ME420=-

    -=N0N@ME420=- Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,562
    I'm with Herbo

    When I found out all exchanges have been capable of 8mbit yet telstra decided to self impose a limit of 1.5mbit is when I woke up to what is going on.
     
  12. Rogue

    Rogue Old Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,652
    Location:
    Peakhurst NSW
    The ACCC should be creating it's rulings to apply to ALL providers, not just one. It claims to want a level, fair communications environment, but only forces one carrier to abide by fixed pricing? This is a clear example of the ACCC taking sides - force the other DSLAM owners to match the fixed wholesale prices, or don't regulate it at all.

    Almost every other provider has been progressively reducing prices, in small increments, then monitoring the result. Internode attempted to grab a significant market share by slashing it's prices and giving substantial quotas. Simon Hackett was in the media banging his drum demanding other providers stop profiteering and reduce prices significantly. Now he says his cost model is unsustainable. I only hope those Internode subscribers who are getting shafted finally see Simon Hackett for what he really is - an ISP owner who tries very hard to use the media to manipulate the market, rather than relying on sound business strategies.

    No - but have you noticed that the smaller ISPs only deploy their DSLAMs in exchanges where they have a high demand? That's because they have a break-even point at which it becomes economically beneficial for them to deploy their own DSLAMs. On the other hand, Telstra is expected to provide wholesale ports in all exchanges regardless of the number of ports that are required, or if it's economical to do so.

    It's obviously low enough that no other carrier wants to build a network to sell at those prices ;)

    Lack of population density means that you need more exchanges with fewer ports (phone or data), and the average distance from the exchange is much higher. Consider that a 120 port DSLAM costs $20,000 (random figure), but a 1200 port DSLAM costs $100,000 - that's 10 times the capacity at 5 times the price. From memory it was actually more like 10:3, but 10:5 is fine for this example. Then you have the cost of the backhaul from all of these exchanges to your core. Larger distances means longer cable runs means higher cost per Mb/sec of traffic. So now your ports are more expensive and your data is more expensive. Oh, and because you have more exchanges, you need more techs to look after them, so your personnel costs are higher too.

    Is it better to have one dictator or two? ;)

    Whilst I agree that Telstra has been less than forthcoming with low priced plans, there is a reason behind their artificial limits for DSL speed. Very early on, they had to make a decision between offering fixed speed plans that would be technically feasible for a majority of their customer base, or trying to educate the public that your speed was a factor of your distance from the exchange, number of line intersections/junctions, cable size and position of the moon. They took the path of offering fixed speeds (256, 512, 1.5) with a line attentuation threshold that must be met (based on a line database rather than physical testing, as physical testing is very uneconomical). It was a balance between achievable speed and the percentage of the customer base that would meet the threshold requirements.

    Even now many ISPs struggle to explain ADSL2 speeds to consumers - yes, you can get up to 24Mbs, but only if you're next door to the exchange. Oh, you live 10kms away? Sorry, you'll be getting considerably less than half what you expected. And these are consumers who have been exposed to ADSL for several years in the mass media. Imagine what this would have been like when the majority didn't understand any of it.

    At the time Request DSL was offering higher speed SHDSL connections via thier own DSLAMs, but the setup costs were prohibitive. You had to pay for a physical line test before you knew what speed you would be able to purchase. Then if your line test was satisfactory, the monthly costs were enough to make the average mortgage repayment look like loose change!

    Yep - bad analogy, it was late. I still stand by the sentiment though - the ACCC is stagnating the technology development because they force anyone with a new access method to wholesale to their competitors at bargain-basement prices. Why would you spend millions developing a better access method knowing you will be forced to sell it at very little margin to your competitors, whilst not being able to recoup your development costs? It's poor business strategy.

    Let's try another (hopefully better) analogy - Microsoft spent millions developing Vista. They wholesale this to Dell, IBM, HP, etc. Is this wholesale price dictated by a government regulator? Or is it set by market forces? Does the wholesale price give them enough margin to recover their development costs as well as cover the ongoing costs of supporting the platform?

    Does Microsoft have to justify it's pricing strategy to a government regulator every time that a competitor can't match it? Can Apple cry poor and force Microsoft to lower it's price? That's what happens when providers in Australia go whining to the ACCC - the ACCC illegally tells Telstra to lower it's wholesale prices (as demonstrated by the Federal Court decision regarding the competition notice issued to Telstra in Dec 05/Jan 06).

    I'm not going to touch the NZ comments, as they have a very different government and network landscape - a landscape that is rapidly accelerating towards seperation of telco infrastrucure and services due to government understanding and backing. Not something you'll see in Australia under either government regime, because of the shareholder revenues and conflicts of interest that abound. Comparing actions there to actions here is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2007
  13. Kozzie

    Kozzie Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    559
    primary sxhool hhahaha i dont gon tu school i work for telstra
     
  14. Kozzie

    Kozzie Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    559
     
  15. banshee343

    banshee343 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Perth
    I see what your getting at but its not much better. Microsoft OS's are the only ones you can buy standalone. Mac OS is only available with a machine and linux/bsd/unix are all free to download.

    Your analogy also fails with the point that it should be dell,acer,asus etc trying to force the price of vista down, not mac or linux as this is the case with telstra and ADSL. Telstra sells their product wholesale to people, who sell it off (microsoft selling vista to dell) and then dell sells it for for abit of a profit and wants to buy said product cheaper.
     
  16. Kozzie

    Kozzie Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    559
    this thread is ridiculous

    telstra dont have a monopoly

    telstra is trying to upgrade the internet to the best in world but without the governments okay can not do so *plus a weee bita funding :) *

    everyone refuses to touch anything telstra does as its far to expensive infact there trying to get themselve sout of the responsibility of doing it as it is not feasable for anyone. (if they got a monopoly on anything its that and there more then happy to give it to anyone with a big enough shovel to scoop it up because yes your right it is shit so contact local mp cant stress that enough close bracket


    sooooo if u want fast better internet contact ur local mp and let them know that you want the new fast internet like rest world except better .


    its funny the only other topic thats as heated as the Telstra topic is lack of young aboriginal youths in the workforce or what was snow really saying in informer
    *shameless snow plug hay least i didn't mention rob van winkle... oooops*
     
  17. banshee343

    banshee343 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Perth
    Please link to where we will be getting better than 100mbit/s and unlimited downloads? As far as i stand, that is the best retail in the world. Not sure about like Tokyo (they run on 1gbit yeah?) but i think its shared between the whole apartment building(also unsure about).

    If they didnt want to do it, they wouldnt be blocking the G9.
     
  18. Rogue

    Rogue Old Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,652
    Location:
    Peakhurst NSW
    They're not blocking the G9. They've never once said that they want to block another competitor from building their own network.

    What they are trying to block is competitors having wholesale access to the network they propose to build. This is where the G9 are misrepresenting facts - if the ACCC granted Telstra's demands, the G9 could still build their network. The government only intends to assist with funding for one network though...but I think that may change if both groups stick to their guns.

    Telstra are also trying to force the G9 to pay a fair price for wholesale access to the exchange and their residential infrastructure. Fair price being something equivalent to what it would cost the G9 to deploy their own infrastructure - anything less is effectively subsidising their build.

    I'd like to hope the next 12-18 months sees both Telstra and G9 start deploying their FTTN networks with equivalent government funding. I'd also like to see the government map out a clear and rational plan for seperation of service and infrastructure in the Telco space - whether that means buying back all infrastructure (Telstra and Optus) or setting up a seperate commerical entity to build, manage and maintain it.

    It's the only way we'll see any sort of true competition in the Telco space, when all carriers abide by the same rules, same costs and can focus on delivering new technologies.
     
  19. mordy

    mordy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    5,100
    Location:
    melb
    FTTN is stupid, FTTH make much more sense for future-proofing ... although its likely that wimax will beat FTTH because it cost too much per user, up to a grand per house covered by FTTH (even if they dont connect)
     
  20. Herbo

    Herbo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,453
    I don't know anywhere where the G9 are claiming that Telstra is trying to stop them building their own network (as in they both build one). This is definately something I'd like to see happen also.

    However from the way you have painted things Rogue it seems that without the government lending a substantial financial hand that Australia will be forever destined to have shitfully expensive internet :(
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: