Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Akh-Horus, Dec 21, 2016.
TBF caspian its not just Telstra, everybody says that CVCs are not commercially feasible and just an artificial way to drive up prices so NBN can make the govt mandated return. Telstra, Optus, Aussie BB have all gone on the record on this same topic. There's all the literature around what could happen if the govt simply drops the ROI target to 5% not 7%. and soforth
Got the Technology Choice quote from HFC to FTTP back today - finally.. There was a lot of argey-bargey "do you REALLY want to?", but the lasses I spoke with were all very helpful and accommodating.
I paid me moneys and got a call today. She was most apprehensive, probably used to the horrified "OMG I can't possibly pay that" sort of reaction..
But I was pleasantly surprised that the quote came in at around $11,000. Frankly I was surprised it was that low - I was expecting 15K +.
I now have the contract emailed to me tonight: I'll review, and assume it's reasonable, I'll authorize it and get things going.
The NBN rep was likewise surprised that the price was as low as it was, too. Frankly I was expecting the cable would have had to be drawn from Tally-ho, and cost an absolute mint... 11K is worth it to us without much consideration, to have a proper Internet connection - it's clear HFC will degrade, and become unacceptable soon, as time progresses.
So we'll see what happens next.. I guess HFC>FTTH upgrades are not all that common - but we'll be one of - perhaps - the first.
why will HFC degrade? and why now?
I am utterly sick to the back teeth over the whining about CVC costs.
if Ferrari just dropped the price of their cars no doubt a lot more people would buy them, too. the problem being that from Ferrari's point of view, they incur more costs for the same revenue. the government has much the much the same problem, they either write off a huge chunk of money as spent and never recoverable, or they drop the profitability of the company to the point where it's impossible to sell. the mandated return isn't at all unreasonable.
Telstra, Optus etc are hardly impartial. I'm sure they'd love for their input costs to drop, it makes it easier for them to sell services and still make their profit. I'm sure they'd love it if their staff would just work for free too, but I suspect the staff expect to be paid as much as the government does. why don't they just cut their profit margins? that's precisely what they are asking the government to do. if they just make less money the problem solves itself!
all of the complaining over pricing comes down to the same few basic points, every single time.
(1) the Australia public are cheaparses that consistently undervalue the telecommunications services they buy, and expect broadband to cost the same as the shitty Dodo ADSL connection they had a decade ago. guess what, fuel doesn't cost $1/litre any more, either.
(2) the providers of the country enable and encourage this behaviour by not sucking it up and charging a fair price for products. it's easier to blame someone else for their woes than face reality.
(3) comparing an NBN service to a craptastic ADSL service running on decades old gear that synced at an average of less than 8MBps is a farcical comparison on the performance level, so why is there any reasonable expectation whatsoever the price will be direct comparable?
(4) the government isn't a money tree to be shaken. we wanted a new network. new shit costs money, this is what it costs to make that happen.
Well if the public are cheaparses then the market has spoken.
I agree that underlying telecommunications infra is not exactly the best place to practice capitalism without lube (being a natural monopoly and whatnot) and the money has to come from somewhere (we all know that in the end it has been relatively poorly spent but that's beside the point).
here's an idea - why doesn't the government just slug everyone with a tax levy for FY2019-20? make it enough to fund a once-off write down of the NBN capital cost. job done! everyone will he happy, right?
but but but but we have to pay for that, people will complain.
how is that any different to paying literally a couple of lousy bucks a month to achieve the same thing?
how is it any different to just writing off $20 billion in public money to never be recovered? are people seriously that stupid that they don't realise that's their money too?
if the federal government writes that off, they don't build infrastructure, which costs people in lack of services. or maybe the next road that goes in has to be tolled, because the government can't afford to do it outright because they blew $20 billion so people could have their fucking broadband $5 a month cheaper, woo.
or maybe they cut the GST disbursal to the states, who in turn either cut services, or put up car rego or something else to recover the money. but at least people will blame that and not the NBN, shit let's do it!
HFC is a true shared medium, oft-times with over 1000 households sharing the one physical network segment with much, MUCH higher effective contention ratios/bandwidth than fibre (both FTTP and FTTN). HFC is also singularly constrained with upload capacity, and it doesn't actually take much effort to saturate the upload bandwidth of an entire HFC segment. PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, HFC can be a very good internet medium - but NBN's "roll it out whatever" mentality lead initially to a spectacular trainwreck, followed by a freeze on new connections, a year+ of remediation and now cranking out of DOCSIS 3.1's increased bandwidth capabilities to paper over hilariously inadequate physical segmentation of the network. That is surely the primary reasoning behind capping DOCSIS 3.1-implemented HFC to 100mbit in the forseeable future, and might be behind the recent canard flown by the NBN to possibly restrict residential connections to 110/20. Having Foxtel CATV hogging a broad sweetspot of bandwidth within the HFC spectrum certainly doesn't help matters, either, and we're a few years off from that being resolved.
As more and more people have been migrated of DSL and Telstra cable onto NBN HFC, contention has increased - I've been led to believe 4fold over Telstra's own HFC implementation. It's true the NBN is using a much broader spectrum than Bigpond's own DOCSIS 3.0 network, but the numbers still seem to stack up against it.
Oh, and in our situation, physical medium reliability itself has been atrocious. As soon as the NBN got their grubby mitts on the HFC, previously rock-solid service provision suffered commonplace days-long outages, even across other services like Telstra Bigpond and Foxtel sharing the same cable. It's got better over the years but there are still several outages a month, and my wireless failover setup sees plenty of action.
And i can only see it getting worse, not better. At least I have the money to be able to buy our way of this mess.
caspian I think the underlying issue is that there's no transparency on what the actual cost of an NBN service is, whilst we know what the amortised wholesale cost is, I have been unable to ascertain the actual opex which I think is part of peoples gripe.
Based on your $20b figure and that this country having 11.5m tax payers (treasury.gov.au), if the government wants to turn solvent asap, then the margin must be quite a large chunk of the $49 a month (50/20 plan) wholesale cost. You mentioned the tax payers shelling up to pay for the NBN, well the value turns out to be $1,739 per tax payer (total cost of the NBN is still drawing out), over 5 years this is $6 a week per person (not including inflation)
If the NBN were to table a roadmap for gigabit to the home within 5-10 years, then I don't think people would really mind paying the tax bill over 10-15 years as it is a national infrastructure project, this however is dependant on what people receive as a wholesale cost, this comes back to the baked in cost reclamation against the wholesale figure.
I would rather our federal government tax stimulus go towards a future national debt pay-down.
Unfortunately When people turn to places like NZ and attempt to align the cost breakdowns it changes the argument immensely due many misalignments.
do Telstra reveal the same information regarding their products? why is there any expectation that NBN do so? why not petition the government - who own and finance the company 100% - to release that data?
20 billion isn't my number, it's the one being mentioned by the media. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...o-run-infrastructure-project-telstra/11382398
ultimately, this is not an NBN issue at all. it's a government issue.
a lovely discussion about the whole make-CVC-costs-go-away farce arises out out of this article: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-...et-providers-buy-more-of-its-bandwidth-528875
let's say CVC costs *did* go away. the CVC is just an outer VLAN, and like any VLAN, its purpose is privacy - it segregates and segregates traffic. that allows the ISP's service circuits (in turn carried inside their own stacked VLAN inside the CVC) to be segregated from any other customer's traffic. along with segregation, the CVC also allows bandwidth dimensioning and carrier grade QoS packet prioritisation (known as traffic class in NBN nomenclature).
hey presto, I've just waved my magic wand and CVC costs are now gone! (a quantity of suspension of disbelief and reality will be required at this point.)
question arising: what bandwidth does the CVC get set to, now the ISP isn't controlling it themselves in a pay-per-use scenario?
no doubt everyone will want it set to at least the level where nobody experiences congestion even at peak demand, right? you know, the congestion that ISPs cause now by not buying enough CVC capacity? the amount to actually do it right, but the ISPs whine costs too much? and that they can't sell on to Joe Average for a monthly increase of the price of a flash cup of coffee once a month over that crap old ADSL service everyone says is too slow?
surely the ISPs would jump at the opportunity to ensure the amount of CVC is adequate! the alternative is that... they're actually deliberately trying to underprovision their CVCs, in the full knowledge the service performance will suffer? and at the same time blaming NBN? say it's not so!
“RSP’s are required to purchase CVC. Removing the ability of the RSP to control how that CVC is then provisioned would be completely outside normal commercial principles”
absolutely, because the original intent of ISP-controlled CVC dimensioning was to allow ISPs to control their own costs, and structure their product and place in the market to suit their business goals. if an ISP wanted to offer a premium product, they could do it. if they wanted to offer a cost-competitive budget service, they could do it.
what wasn't envisaged was that they'd attempt to blame NBN for something utterly within their control. that may have been a rose-coloured-glasses learning moment.
along comes NBN and introduces bundles pricing that automatically provisions a chunk of CVC with every AVC. a chunk big enough to do the job, like the ISPs could have done themselves, but d̶i̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ wouldn't. more magic wand stuff, poof! "NBN congestion" disappears!
surely the ISPs would like that, yeah? yeah... not so much.
“Some providers may wish to provide congest their CVC and therefore provide a low-price product, and others (such as ourselves) will continue to specialise in a high-quality service.”
excelsior. wunderbar. no wuckers. then there's no problem for ISPs already doing this, and it makes their job easier because it's done for them! the only objection could come from.... those who want to blame NBN for issues they themselves create, yeah? I have no issue with this, if you want to sell a budget service in a price-competitive market then I absolutely support that. there should be a range of options on the market, because not everyone wants (or more specifically wants to pay for) a premium grade service, so it's important that there be the ability for ISPs to choose how to differentiate themselves. that's precisely why the concept of ISP-controlled CVC dimensioning was done from day one. all I ask is to just stop falsely blaming NBN if you choose to operate in the budget market.
“Additionally, a change in CVC speed generates several required technical changes on the RSP side which NBN Co would be unlikely to be able to effectively and efficiently orchestrated under a mechanism where NBN Co adjusted CVC, leading to a poor end customer experience."
gee, just like NBN has to do every single time an ISP puts in a CVC bandwidth change order, which happens on a very regular basis? so that seems to be achievable then. just do the same thing in reverse, maybe?
hmm, there's a worry that the CVC might automatically exceed hardware or link capacity? that might be an issue, if not for the fact that NBN would make utterly clear the dimensioning rules, and all the ISP has to do is simply additive maths based on the volume and speed of services sold to get the answer. NBN does that now every day, on every order, to ensure that internal dimensioning rules are not exceeded.... because it risks providing a crap service. surely the ISPs are interested in achieving the same outcome?
"NBN Co effectively proposed to take decisions about traffic prioritisation out of RSPs’ hands, and to charge them for it."
no, what it proposed to do was do the job properly for them, and by protesting, they have admitted they want the power to underprovision and not do it properly if they choose to. again, I have no issue with this. just stop blaming someone else.
I honestly cant decide if that was a genuine offer to improve conditions for all, or a very clever way of getting ISPs to admit that congestion is absolutely and deliberately their doing.
People would complain unless it worked in with our progressive tax system, i.e. everyone else needs to pay but not me.
Everyone paying a couple of lousy bucks a month is inherently unfair.............
Best option, everything is free; but failing that - someone else pays on my behalf.
Should point out I'm not against our progressive taxation system, but there are unintended side effects.
that's always a problem, especially when you're in the majority of users who aren't at the very top end of a generally skewed bell curve. nobody ever wants to subsidise anyone else's costs.
there's another problem with doing away with CVC costs, and this time introducing reality - those costs just flow into service costs. (because when people say "make CVC go away" they don't mean "move the costs elsewhere", they actually mean "make the cost go away altogether". that would require a free money tree.)
current service costs are based on peak speed only, called speed tier. how does it work when you have two users on a 100Mbps speed tier, but one browses lightly in the evenings, and the other one flogs their connection 24/7 trying to download the internet? that would require either:
(a) the first user subsidises the second user's connection, or
(b) NBN introduces per-service data allowances, which the ISP orders as required and passes on the cost.
the first option would be highly unpopular, considering that skewed bell curve. for every internerd hell bent on downloading the internet every month there are 100 people who use less than half of what they do, and they don't want to pay any more than they have to, either.
the second is.... almost exactly like CVC, except NBN manages the data allocation at a per-service level, instead of selling the ISP a chunk of bandwidth and letting them sort out how they want to market and sell it to the end users. remember, this is the same ISPs that just objected to the idea of automatic CVC dimensioning, because they want to retain full control of the process.
finally, CVC as a concept has existed for years inside the Telstra Wholesale model, they just called it AGVC. I grant that if you looked at an E2E network diagram AGVC sits across a different part of the network than CVC does, but that's irrelevant - the important part is that it's an ISP-controlled bandwidth dimensioned link, and the ISP gets to control the contention ratio within it.
all the complaining about CVC is hypocritical in the extreme, it's not a new concept. it's simple an easily demonised fact the industry has seized on to complain about, when what they should be focussing on is educating the end user that your shiny new 100Mbps connection is going to cost more than the 8Mbps ADSL you used to have, and there's no getting around that.
CVC costs are not the problem. the new Ferrari costs more than the old Kingswood, and nobody should rationally expect otherwise.
What I don't get is how other countries are doing it? NZ for example, do they have the same model of bandwidth dimensioning and pricing? How about the SE Asian countries that everyone loves to say gives everyone gigabit to the home for half the cost in Aus?
see https://forums.overclockers.com.au/posts/18280639/ for an explanation why.
hey guys, what would be my best course of action for this. i live in a unit block of 6, only 3 years old. It has previously been fitted out by NBN contractors to recived the network, which involves boxes being install outside and ducting run ready for the cable. NBN website said i was getting my HFC nbn june this year, but has since been pushed back to Jan next year. My neighbours either side have access now to HFC nbn. My building obviously needs an extra step, but my understanding was it was ready to received. How can i go about getting action done to fast track this?
it'll get done when it gets done. as a consumer you have no say in the roll out of the network.
imagine the chaos if every tom dick and harry could request priority service.
Current talks of NBN Co. wanting to remove all 100mbp plans.
that is not correct. there has been some discussion about restructuring the 100Mbps plans into more price-conscious residential service formats vs business oriented formats.
Sorry I meant the existing 100mbp wireless plans. They want to only provide it to business' and remove it from consumers.