Adding Simon Hackett given there seems to be a lot of speculation as to his
input here ..

:)


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

> “The price in other countries seems irrelevant. Those conditions don't
> exist here, otherwise the service would exist already, and we wouldn't be
> having this conversation.”
>
> Really? Are you saying that a global economy no longer matters? Wow,
> astounding. Maybe they should build a fence around Australia to keep the
> rest of the world out – they are a bit of a pain, after all.
>
>
>
> To answer your question in an appropriate way given the ongoing political
> response to this deceptive line is that the cost for a deceptive Liberal
> Party suggested single CVC that nobody would ever want, including most
> businesses is $20,000 (maybe – I haven’t actually seen this figure anywhere
> other than Malcolm’s comment). He’s absolutely right in that no individual
> home would want one because it is a ridiculous political assertion.
>
>
>
> (Mind you, this is what is supposed to be in the NBN plan -
>
> The NBNCo Corporate Plan contains these examples on page 67:
> * The 1Gbps AVC price will fall from $150 to $90 (40% decrease) while the
> average speed increases from 30Mbps to 230Mbps (760% increase)
> * CVC pricing starts at $20Mbps/month when average data usage is
> 30GB/month and falls to $8/Mbps/month when average data usage is
> 540GB/month. Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows
> by 18 times, which means 720% growth in revenue from CVC when accounting
> for price falls.
>
> )
>
>
>
> Or
>
>
>
> I believe I read in the draft NBN document that they were intending the
> wholesale price to be $150 per month for a 1Gbps FTTH connection in
> Australia. So the least deceptive answer is that you could have a 1Gbps
> connection for $150 per month plus the cost of the ISP service. They didn’t
> broadcast the fact because they assumed that everyone would expect the same
> behaviour that they are getting from just about every single internet
> connection in the country at the moment, and that is, you are likely to get
> speeds of 1Gbps from your ISP and then you’ll share a pipe to the rest of
> the net with the other customers of the ISP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that FTTN is going to suffer the exact same issue, do you think
> Malcolm Turnbull is going to stand on a podium and declare that there is
> also going to be capping or shaping within the new FTTN network? Oh, right,
> I forgot, they’re untouchable.
>
>
>
> Here is Simon Hackett’s preference, by the way. I believe it’s pro fibre:
>
> http://simonhackett.com/2013/07/17/nbn-fibre-on-a-copper-budget/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Joseph Cooney
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 November 2013 6:26 PM
>
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* RE: NBN Petition
>
>
>
> The price in other countries seems irrelevant. Those conditions don't
> exist here, otherwise the service would exist already, and we wouldn't be
> having this conversation.
>
> So, given the distinction you've created between 'dedicated' and
> 'continuous' what would the prices be for those two different types of
> services under the NBN?
>
> On Nov 12, 2013 5:18 PM, "Tony Wright" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not $20,000.
>
>
>
> There is a difference between “dedicated” and “a continuous 1Gbps stream
> of data”
>
>
>
> A number of CVC lines are purchased. Data transmission is spread over the
> entire lot.
>
>
>
> If you look at international prices, 1Gbps costs around $105 per month. In
> Japan, it is possible to get a 2Gbps connection for $20 per month.
>
>
>
> So why would Australia cost $20,000 per month? Ridiculous. No one would
> purchase it. So they would be forced to lower prices to a point where
> they’d get people to open their wallets.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Joseph Cooney
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 November 2013 6:14 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* RE: NBN Petition
>
>
>
> I'm confused. What WOULD a dedicated gigabit connection cost under the NBN?
>
> On Nov 12, 2013 5:10 PM, "Tony Wright" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It was deceptive rubbish.
>
>
>
> He implied that it would cost $20,000 for every household.
>
>
>
> It’s a blatant lie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Connors
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 12 November 2013 5:58 PM
> *To:* ozDotNet
> *Subject:* Re: NBN Petition
>
>
>
> On 12 November 2013 15:51, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
> That is a typically deceptive political response and is a load of complete
> Liberal Party BS and Malcolm Turnbull lost any credibility he had with me
> when he said it. It won’t cost $20,000 a month for ANY household. A single
> household never needs a continuous stream of data getting a maximum of
> 1Gbps at all times, so it is shared among a whole bunch a households. So a
> single CVC line might be split between 10 to 20 houses.
>
>
>
> There is nothing incorrect in what he said, 1gbps flat chat is $20K a
> month wholesale. End of story. More over, that's *significantly more
> expensive* than what you can buy today.
>
>
>
> If Joe Punter uses less, great for him, but a school or a SME might want
> to use more.
>
>
>
> It begs the question, what is the average the NBN is designed for? Any
> sort of application that involves bulk data transfers is out of bounds cost
> wise - which is somewhat ironic.
>
>
>
>  On top of this, CVC charges will have to come down over time due to
> economy of scale. See:
> http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php
>
> Historically, transit pricing has dropped by around 1/3rd every year
> since 1998.
>
>
>
> CVC and IP Transit are *completely different things*. NBN Co doesn't even
> sell IP Transit.
>
>
>
> You need to pay for both. And you pay CVC even if the data is 'on net' and
> never leaves your RSP (i.e. watching the TV or downloading freezone).
>
>
>
> CVC isn't going to go down ever because there is no incentive for it to as
> competitive technologies are outlawed (except for LTE, etc)
>
>
>
> David.
>
>

Reply via email to