Slashdot Mirror
Death of Decent Australian Broadband
iamplasma writes: "As reported by several Australian newspapers, Optus cable internet services will be switching their standard plan to a 3gb "soft-limit" broadband service (once the limit is passed, the service slows to 28kbps). This is effectively the end of decent broadband in Australia, with Optus being the only major provider to offer a service without a highly restrictive usage cap. This is also the ISP who proudly promoted themselves over their main competitor specifically over the issue of the competitor's 3gb limits."
A per megabyte fee is NOT the way to go, not in the slightest.
I use cable internet for the freedom of having it on all the time, and being able to just surf around a bit while I'm bored. I don't want to be thinking about every little page I visit and weighing up whether it's worth visiting. Or worse yet, to spend a long time downloading a large movie or game demo, only to find out it's absolute crap... and I've then effectively paid for it. That would annoy me no end.
No, I think Optus's decision is about the best we could hope for, I'm absolutely against the 'cap at XGig, and then xxcents per Meg after', it's just unworkable, and forces you to be constantly eyeing your usage meter... at least with Optus's plan you know straight away when you've used your allotment, and you aren't charged anything for it, you just cruise along at a slow speed until the next cycle.
Considering their large losses over the past few years, I would rather they switch to this and remain a competitor to Telstra ($69.99 for 3Gig vs $85 or so), than to close up and give the monopoly back to them.
I for one will be supporting Optus.
Having started and run an ISP in the mid nineties, there is a simple equation. In Australia, bandwith costs money and is considerably more expensive than in the US (because of the poor deal Australia gets on bandwith to/from the US).
Asking Australian service providers, no matter how large to foot the bill for file sharing networks, movie downloads etc. is a non starter as an idea. Would you like Optus to go the way of One.Tel? No bandwith is considerably worse than limited bandwith.
As far as file sharing goes, why not start building networks using wireless links etc. in urban areas (I realise this is a non starter in rural areas), or perhaps start an ISP who's emphasis is on file sharing (connections provided via wireless or ADSL (I have a feeling such an ISP would quickly attract the attention of the Australian equivalent of the RIAA)).
As far as distributing Linux ISOs via CD/DVD is a far more efficient method while bandwith is still limited. Perhaps talk to Optus about putting certain large files like this online for download at reduced bandwith cost (i.e. the bandwith used is say 10% when downloaded from their "mirror"). This could be a different way for Optus to distinguish their service from Telstra's (perhaps some sort of voting system could be implemented to request files)
Yeah, though people on the netstats system will lose out too. When the usage becomes capped like this, you can obviously expect the average usage to fall dramatically, affecting the netstats figures quite a bit too.
I've heard I don't know how many times that "xxxx is enough for the average user" in computer-speak, and every time it's short-sighted.
It is short-sighted, but complain when the Next Big Thing actually arrives. We have 2.4 GHz Pentium IV's, and I'm 'chugging' along on my 500 MHz Celeron, and the most processor intensive operation I do (aside from dnetc, but that doesn't count) is run mplayer, which eats 25% CPU. This is why the tech industry's in a slump, we don't have a Big Thing and haven't had a latest Big Thing for a while now.
Look at the latest greatest game, look at how beautiful the 3D is, and then look out your window and realize how truly shitty it looks and you get the idea. We will need more computing horsepower for graphics and AI and everything else, and we will definitely need more bandwidth than 3 lousy GB per month.
And in twenty years when we're at that point, we'll have a far better Internet infrastructure than what we have now. You presume that the 3GB a month limit will still be the same in the year 2022, and it won't. Sorry.
The problem is, the Internet is as much an entertainment medium as anything else, and it's competing with technologies that are not pay-as-you-go, like television and so forth.
While the Internet is an entertainment medium, it differs from traditional devices by the method of transport: Waves vs. bytes. You can put a 100,000 watt FM tower and cover millions of people with your radio station. With radio and television, you don't pay for each user like you do with the internet distribution.
Calculate the bandwith costs to cover four million people listening to 128 kbps Internet radio instead. To serve this, you'd have to be thinking 4,000,000 * 16 * 1024 bytes per second. Each OC unit (Optical Carrier, as in OC-3) transmits data at 51.84 Mbps, or 6,794,792 bytes per second. Divide out and you're going to need an OC-9645.
Even if this were a regular day, ie, not four million people listening, and you had a fraction of the total listeners, you'd still have to serve massive bandwith out; the costs of which would be far more than any large-market FM radio station could cover.
I'd rather put up my 100,000 watt FM antenna.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the Internet is not the best method of distribution for, uh, packaged entertainment, like pay per view and radio and television shows. Maybe in 2022 when we have your true-to-life 3D, things will change, but it is unfortunate that in 2002 we have advanced so far but still have a long way ahead of us.
If you disagree, reply.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
It's just a case of greed. Corporate greed and user greed. The OptusNet cable division has turned a profit for the first time, but they need more money to pay for the other bits of optus, so to speak, that run at a loss.
The users want more. Fair enough, people like me have become accustomed to the soft download limits we have previously had. We don't use the phonebook. I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. The Internet is everywhere, accessible anywhere in the house from the nearest PC or laptop with wireless card.
Compared to Telstra users, who are used to their 3GB/month cap, this is a major blow to our habits. This also affects the broadband acceptance in Australia - we've had all sorts of politicians and companies (even Bill Gates himself) tell us that our broadband is too expensive and inaccessible.
> TPG [tpg.com.au] for instance charges A$26.95 per > month, plus 15c a meg Whoa, bad deal man! 3GB at those prices will be Aus$476.95! Hence the person saying $0.01 per meg would be fair (or Aus$0.02 perhaps). This is extreme profiteering by TPG for sure, if Optus and Telstra are making a profit charging ~Aus$50 a month for 3GB.
Only some parts of Sydney, Brisbane and Melborne ever had cable internet.
As far as warez goes: the main reason I want broadband is so I can download linux ISOs.
The second reason is warez. But people, if the entertainment and software companies arn't forced to provide downloadable versions of their products, they ain't going to do it out of kindness.
I'd pay for fast servers. I already do for some programs (ei DAVE, Virtual PC and EV Nova). The rest of software, movies and music will be legally downloadable if the corperations are forced by consumer soverignty. I'm not advocating free beer. But internet distribution (not just the ordering) is a good thing, and better when it's legal with artists and programmers compenstated.
BTW the only broadband for those aussies not in syd/melb/bris is ADSL. Decent ADSL (3GB peak, 7GB off-peak 512K/128K) is AUS$100 (US$50)
The again relates to why adam smith's free market is a good thing. As it is, their is 2 cable companies in Australia. If one changes terms, there far less incentive for the other to keep there old terms. This is far different with real competition.
Barto
Just a hint: Anyone who is even remotely interested in thinking about how much bandwidth in Australia "should" cost really needs to understand that there is no such thing as a T-1 in Australia. Trying to make judgements without that kind of basic knowledge is a bit like making judgements about how much cars "should" cost without knowing that they're made out of steel.
If the deficiencies in your knowledge are really that basic, you just aren't qualified to comment about how much it "should" cost. A fundamental understanding of the market conditions in Australia is required before you can put yourself into the position of making authorative statements about costs.
What you are really doing is taking a US-centric view of the Internet, and applying it to other parts of the world -- And anyone who lives outside US territory will be able to tell you that that's just nonsense.
- mark
Network Engineer, Internode
-----
I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.
This will happen where ever the telecoms are privately owned. Don't tell me you didn't see it coming.