NBN Australia to undergo first ACCC investigation/monitoring into speed

[mr moose]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/the-accc-wants-volunteers-to-help-monitor-home-internet-speeds-across-the-country/news-story/304c221fa5b7f856c60c789485fa05f

 

 

 

The NBN has faced a myriad of issues ever since it's inception a decade ago.  However The Australian consumer watchdog is about to implement a program to monitor speeds across the NBN.  Unlike other programs that rely on speedtest, surveys and ISP data, this program will install hardware into the homes of 4000 people and physically test internet speed.  There will be no way for the NBN to dismiss the data as it is actual physical speeds the end users are getting, not what they might be promised or sold under "upto" conditions.   The benefit of this will also be that it will be much harder for the NBN and ISP's to shift blame when the network suffers dropouts or issues.

 

Quote

“Performance information will be made publicly available for the benefit of all Australians,” said a statement from Communication Minister Mitch Fifield when the government announced the plan.

 

Transparent and publicly available is what I like to hear. 

 

Quote

The program will install hardware-based devices in around 4000 households over four years, beginning with around 2000 volunteers in the first year.

 

Of course my only fear is that ISP's will detect when the device is doing it's test and remove any artificial bandwidth limitations they might impose.

[ARikozuM]

Hopefully, the test is blind with applications permitted for drawing.

[adams]

Wireless technologies (like 5G) will soon be way faster than the NBN anyway so it is useless.

[Brooksie359]

Time for the isp to boost the signal to 4000 homes and say screw it to the rest.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, adams said:

Wireless technologies (like 5G) will soon be way faster than the NBN anyway so it is useless.

It still suffers the same issue - NBN (FTTP) can hit mega speeds but the issue is the CVC charges - you'd have this same issue with 5G setups. The connection between the carrier (NBNCo / Telstra 4GX / Optus 4G / TPG) could be 10000 Gbit/s however it comes down to what bandwidth the carrier has supplied for the point of connect (5G / NBN FTTP / NBN FTTN).

 

For example we've got quite a few clients at work that have dual 10Gbit/s links between their office and the data centre however the WAN transit is only 250Mbit/s from the data centre. This is the same concept at work - the 10Gbit fibre (or for your example 5G wireless) is capable of great speed but it's limited by the connection out to the rest of the world due to cost.

 

1Mbit/s from the NBNCo is approximately $15.25 - sure you might have 1000 users all who have bought 100/40 NBN at $120/month collectively paying $120,000 however you as a provider might only buy 1Gbit of bandwidth at a total of $15,250 cost from NBNCo. 

 

For your reference: http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/sfaa-wba2-product-catalogue-price-list_20161205.pdf

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, adams said:

Wireless technologies (like 5G) will soon be way faster than the NBN anyway so it is useless.

I understand what you're getting at, I've held for quite sometime that we shouldn't write off wireless (even started hearing some amazing stories about telstra's new 5g stuff).  But all that flexibility and speed means nothing if your ISP oversells its bandwidth or engages dodgy shaping practices (NN anyone). 

[JAKEBAB]

34 minutes ago, adams said:

Wireless technologies (like 5G) will soon be way faster than the NBN anyway so it is useless.

Yes totally, a technology that uses fiber as backhaul will be faster than fiber.... /s (talking about the FTTP part of nbn obv)

 

Op idk what this is suppose to achieve anyway, whats going to happen when they figure out Telstra, Optus, Tpg etc haven't bought enough CVC? They are selling an "upto" consumer grade service with no SLA. And how are they suppose to stop FTTN users from signing up to 100/40 plans online without removing the option completely and screwing over the people who can achieve it? This just sounds like some PR move to make it look like something is being done but nothing will actually come of it.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

And how are they suppose to stop FTTN users from signing up to 100/40 plans online without removing the option completely and screwing over the people who can achieve it? This just sounds like some PR move to make it look like something is being done but nothing will actually come of it.

I think they'll end up forcing providers to state a minimum speed achievable. That way ISP's can't say "well you're getting your minimum speed"

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Yes totally, a technology that uses fiber as backhaul will be faster than fiber.... /s (talking about the FTTP part of nbn obv)

 

Op idk what this is suppose to achieve anyway, whats going to happen when they figure out Telstra, Optus, Tpg etc haven't bought enough CVC? They are selling an "upto" consumer grade service with no SLA. And how are they suppose to stop FTTN users from signing up to 100/40 plans online without removing the option completely and screwing over the people who can achieve it? This just sounds like some PR move to make it look like something is being done but nothing will actually come of it.

For a little while now consumers have been complaining of the stupid low speeds and random dropouts associated with the NBN,  by testing user speeds first hand the ACCC will have evidence that an ISP is overselling (because they will be over represented in statistics) as opposed to NBN issues where whole streets across different providers will be over represented.

 

Also by including a random number of ADSL lines in the program they will be able to see which NBN areas are under performing by comparison.

[JAKEBAB]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

For a little while now consumers have been complaining of the stupid low speeds and random dropouts associated with the NBN,  by testing user speeds first hand the ACCC will have evidence that an ISP is overselling (because they will be over represented in statistics) as opposed to NBN issues where whole streets across different providers will be over represented.

 

Also by including a random number of ADSL lines in the program they will be able to see which NBN areas are under performing by comparison.

But what are the consequences going to be? They haven't stated any afaik.

 

If the ACCC really gave a shit and wanted to do something they would being hounding NBNco about the ridiculous CVC price.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

But what are the consequences going to be? They haven't stated any afaik.

 

If the ACCC really gave a shit and wanted to do something they would being hounding NBNco about the ridiculous CVC price.

 

For now I am imagining that the consequences will be the same as they are for any company that misrepresents its product/services.   I also don't think the ACCC are going to hound the NBN co. until they have evidence that the CVC price actually has a bearing on the problem.   

[ApolloFury]

Good. My ISP promised 100Mbps but I am only getting exactly 50Mbps, not more or less, just 50 which is suspicious since it reaches 50Mbps quickly but it never goes above 50 and is very stable at 50, so it looks like a hard cap. It is an upgrade over my previous non-NBN 18Mbps contract which is actually more expensive than my current NBN contract but still...

[JAKEBAB]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

For now I am imagining that the consequences will be the same as they are for any company that misrepresents its product/services.   I also don't think the ACCC are going to hound the NBN co. until they have evidence that the CVC price actually has a bearing on the problem.   

Well i guess we can only hope that this does give them evidence CVC price is a problem.

[skywake]

1 hour ago, adams said:

Wireless technologies (like 5G) will soon be way faster than the NBN anyway so it is useless.

The issue is that 5G is not really an advance in mobile technology like LTE was. At least not exclusively. Most of the "5G" chatter is actually about moving users onto smaller and smaller cells. Because the smaller the cell, the lower the number of users. Less users? More bandwidth to share. Which is fine for the cities but it doesn't exactly work for the suburbs.

 

Think about it. To deploy that kind of wireless network in the suburbs you'd have to run fibre down the streets of suburbia anyways. You do that and then put a small cell wireless tower on every street corner which needs power and maintenance. Then you install an antennae on the roof of subscribers to get the best signal possible. And at that point why not deploy/upgrade FTTH/FTTN/HFC? With all the rhetoric against every single thing the ALP did, if wireless was a viable option the current government would have done more to the NBN than just swap FTTH deployments for FTTN

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

But all that flexibility and speed means nothing if your ISP oversells its bandwidth or engages dodgy shaping practices (NN anyone). 

IMO NBN was never really about getting ISPs into line or providing adequate backhaul. Those are problems that can be resolved outside of the NBN debate. What the NBN was about was delivering the proper physical infrastructure that could deliver decent speeds. All things considered it's easy to crack down on users being shaped down to 50Mbps on their 100Mbps link. At least compared to trying to fix the issue of someone only getting 5Mbps because that's all their link can physically handle.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, skywake said:

IMO NBN was never really about getting ISPs into line or providing adequate backhaul. Those are problems that can be resolved outside of the NBN debate. What the NBN was about was delivering the proper physical infrastructure that could deliver decent speeds. All things considered it's easy to crack down on users being shaped down to 50Mbps on their 100Mbps link. At least compared to trying to fix the issue of someone only getting 5Mbps because that's all their link can physically handle.

 

The only problem is they don't have evidence that the ISP is actually shaping,  people are complaining but the ACCC can only take the ISP's word for it at the moment.  This should prove one way or the other if the ISP is shaping.

[JAKEBAB]

8 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Good. My ISP promised 100Mbps but I am only getting exactly 50Mbps, not more or less, just 50 which is suspicious since it reaches 50Mbps quickly but it never goes above 50 and is very stable at 50, so it looks like a hard cap. It is an upgrade over our previous non-NBN 18Mbps contract which is actually more expensive than my current NBN contract but still...

Are you FTTN, FTTP, or HFC? If your FTTN have you checked your line sync?

6 minutes ago, skywake said:

All things considered it's easy to crack down on users being shaped down to 10Mbps on their 100Mbps link. At least compared to trying to fix the issue of someone only getting 5Mbps because that's all their link can physically handle.

Is FTTN really that different to adsl in that aspect though? Also i've never heard of anyone actually being shaped in Aus it's usually people using the wrong term for congestion.

[skywake]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The only problem is they don't have evidence that the ISP is actually shaping,  people are complaining but the ACCC can only take the ISP's word for it at the moment.  This should prove one way or the other if the ISP is shaping.

I agree entirely. I'm just making the point that this is a much nicer problem to have than having infrastructure that physically can't handle those speeds. It's an economic/business/politics problem not a physical hardware issue.

 

5 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Is FTTN really that different to adsl in that aspect though?

I don't like what has happened to the NBN, I'd rather it had stayed largely FTTH. But I don't buy into the idea that what we have now is "the same" as what we had before. The fact that FTTN is being deployed is a huge positive IMO. I'd call the transition of "wireless is the future" in 2010 from one side to bipartisan support for near universal fibre deployment of some kind a victory. The debate is done, we have FTTN now. Time to move on.

[JAKEBAB]

4 minutes ago, skywake said:

I don't like what has happened to the NBN, I'd rather it had stayed largely FTTH. But I don't buy into the idea that what we have now is "the same" as what we had before. The fact that FTTN is being deployed is a huge positive IMO. Not as fantastic as FTTH would have been for various reasons but a hell of a lot better than nothing. 

I don't think anyone really denies FTTN is an upgrade, it's just a really shitty upgrade. either way what good is FTTP with these CVC prices anyway, limited to 100 - 200mbps and plagued with congestion lol.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Is FTTN really that different to adsl in that aspect though? Also i've never heard of anyone actually being shaped in Aus it's usually people using the wrong term for congestion.

I've without a doubt been shaped by Optus - chewed through 4TB+ per month when I first got it. Went down to 3/10 during peak. Complained to TIO, Optus suddenly fixed my area and I went back up to 80-100/40. 

 

I then asked for a static IP and now I'm back down to 30/35 at most times

[JAKEBAB]

4 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

I've without a doubt been shaped by Optus - chewed through 4TB+ per month when I first got it. Went down to 3/10 during peak. Complained to TIO, Optus suddenly fixed my area and I went back up to 80-100/40. 

 

I then asked for a static IP and now I'm back down to 30/35 at most times

Lol usenet user? You did just remind me though ive seen 2 others be shaped for downloading mass amounts so i retract that comment.

[Guest]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

Lol usenet user? You did just remind me though ive seen 2 others be shaped for downloading mass amounts so i retract that comment.

Nah - other stuff, mainly work.

[skywake]

3 hours ago, JAKEBAB said:

I don't think anyone really denies FTTN is an upgrade, it's just a really shitty upgrade. either way what good is FTTP with these CVC prices anyway, limited to 100 - 200mbps and plagued with congestion lol.

It's a shitty upgrade mostly because of longer term issues though. In the short to medium term there really isn't much of a difference between FTTP and FTTN. Not in terms of speed given CVC pricing, the end user hardware and what speeds people would be happy to pay for. And not in terms of cost or the speed of rollout either based on what we've seen happen. So all things considered? At this point it's about the same and it's still a victory of sorts for now.

 

The issue is that with FTTN there are more ongoing costs in terms of maintenance. Worse yet it won't scale in the way that FTTH could have if/when consumers want to buy into higher speed plans. Those are things that may well hit us hard in the next 20 years or so. The Liberals have gambled that something better might come along by then. My fear is that there won't be, some future government will sell NBNCo and we'll have to go through all of this crap again when we hit the limits of FTTN.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, skywake said:

 My fear is that there won't be, some future government will sell NBNCo and we'll have to go through all of this crap again when we hit the limits of FTTN.

 

A valid fear too.  Although I am a little more optimistic with some reports putting 5g as low as 5Mb, realistically very few would drop that far from what I have heard with majority being over 50Mb.  So as a virgin technology with only optimization in front of it, the Fibre backhaul installed for FTTN might be enough to convert nodes to 5G AP's.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/nbn-refutes-telstra-gigabit-lte-network-speed-comparisons/news-story/676bb323984917c8a4a72ee28ed5ac08

[skywake]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

A valid fear too.  Although I am a little more optimistic with some reports putting 5g as low as 5Mb, realistically very few would drop that far from what I have heard with majority being over 50Mb.  So as a virgin technology with only optimization in front of it, the Fibre backhaul installed for FTTN might be enough to convert nodes to 5G AP's.

The issue is capacity not raw throughput. As it stands about 13x as much data in Australia flows over fixed-line subscriptions vs mobile. 5G doesn't need to be as good it needs to be an order of magnitude better just to be as good in the real world. And it needs to do it for less cost than some other upgrade while also serving people's mobile usage.

 

If something better comes along it'll more likely be in the form of better ways to run fibre or better ways to use the existing copper. Because as I said earlier, most of the advances in mobile tech at this stage is with shrinking the footprint of the cell. You're not going to get a much smaller cell than the WiFi AP people already install in their house.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, skywake said:

The issue is capacity not raw throughput. As it stands about 13x as much data in Australia flows over fixed-line subscriptions vs mobile. 5G doesn't need to be as good it needs to be an order of magnitude better just to be as good in the real world. And it needs to do it for less cost than some other upgrade while also serving people's mobile usage.

 

If something better comes along it'll more likely be in the form of better ways to run fibre or better ways to use the existing copper. Because as I said earlier, most of the advances in mobile tech at this stage is with shrinking the footprint of the cell. You're not going to get a much smaller cell than the WiFi AP people already install in their house.

The difference in data used on wireless versus fixed line currently is a reflection of pricing and usage type.  I Don't know what the actual physical limitation is of the mobile network, But given it is more likely to be rolled out in smaller towns and country areas than inner city (where fttp is cost effective) it would be interesting to see a feasibility study.