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."

Comments

Unofficial soft limits

[AlaskanUnderachiever]

While I know the vast majority of broadband packages I've used either don't have a cap, or simply have a "per gb" fee after a cap is reached, I have the sinking suspicion that my current provider (1.2mb DSL) puts "heavy" users on a cycle that gradually decreases bandwidth with total amount used. In talking to others in my area with a similar file sharing setup, as we approach 2-3gb of data per week, our speeds slow to a trickle (only to mysteriously appear at 12am monday). Could this be the implementation of an unoffical soft limit? Could similar tactics be in place already with many other providers across the US with most users not aware of it? The "gradual" drop in bandwidth is the scary part though. Until I talked to friends and realized the relationship between amount downloaded and speed, I didn't see anything other that occasional "traffic jams" down the line. Now my paranoia has kicked in. . . .

Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[wackybrit]

What are they thinking? 28kbps is slower than what you'll get out of the average DIAL-UP, let alone broadband.

In fairness though, they have a point. $54.95AUS per month does compare favorably with getting a second phone line and hooking a modem up to it all day.

And it's also true that regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month. Unless you're a techie and downloading a lot of Linux ISOs or watching independant movies, 3Gb per month will get you a long way. It applies to Web hosting, so why not here?

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte? There's no such thing as 'unlimited' or 'free'.. you end up paying in the end. So why not charge per megabyte, which will force users to consider what they're actually downloading. US$0.01 per megabyte sounds fair.

(In the UK, BT is also trying a similar scheme with dial-up. That is, their 'Anytime' service is not actually 'any time' anymore.. you can only use it for a maximum of 12 hours a day!)

Re:Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte? There's no such thing as 'unlimited' or 'free'

This may apply for ISP's outside the US getting service from major backbone providers of which most if not all are based in the US, and are charged by the amount of data they use.

However inside the US, ISP's pretty much pay flat fees from backbone providers, and in alot of cases, ISPs have peering agreements with each other, so source and destination traffic stays within the respective source and destination networks.

However once you have to cross the ocean, your being charge by the amount of data (whether undersea lines or satellite). The problem is, the US providers don't bear any of the costs, whether its someone in the US sending data to an ISP outside the US, or that ISP sending data to the US, that ISP bears ALL the costs

Re:Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[E-prospero]

...regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month. Unless you're a techie and downloading a lot of Linux ISOs or watching independant movies, 3Gb per month will get you a long way

However, you will notice that the people complaining about the 3GB limit are ususally those who were sucking 10GB of warez a month. The "normal" consumer in Australia hasn't even considered ADSL yet.

Admittedly, some people do have a legit claim - Telstra sold their service as "unlimited bandwidth", and then imposed a limit. However, now that limits are here, I for one expect them to stay.

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte? There's no such thing as 'unlimited' or 'free'.. you end up paying in the end. So why not charge per megabyte, which will force users to consider what they're actually downloading.

There are already some ISP's in Australia doing just this. TPG for instance charges A$26.95 per month, plus 15c a meg. Note - this is not intended as an advert - I know nothing about their quality of service, or their terms and conditions, just their pricing scheme.

US$0.01 per megabyte sounds fair.

Sounds fair to whom? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Oz, whenever paying for bandwidth gets mentioned, the same figure of $0.15-0.18 per meg gets mentioned (eg, this figure was always mentioned at uni whenever volume billing was suggested to a department).

That said, I notice that TPG sells high levels of bandwidth at 5c/meg - I have no idea where their figures come from.

It may be fair for the consumer to pay 1c/meg, but not if the supplier is paying 1+Xc/meg, X>0...

Russ %-)

Re:Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[newt]

The thing that always chokes me up about these sorts of conversations is that the people who have strong ideas about how much it "should" cost don't actually know what they're talking about.

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

Re:Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[newt]

In the US, T1's are used by businesses; In Australia, most businesses use ISDN (yes, 128kbits/sec), or if they need a "fast" connection they'll usually pick one of the Telstra "DDS Fastway" offerings (leased-lines provided as a managed end-to-end data service at committed datarates between 64kbps and 2 Mbps). There's an increasing amount of ADSL used for business connections too.

In the wholesale marketplace, ISPs have tended to use Telstra Megalink for 2 Mbps services (basically E1 on G.703), but that's increasingly being replaced by 100 Mbps Ethernet as next-generation carriers lay more fibre around the place.

Yes, you'd be right in thinking that all these connectivity options are very Telstra-centric. They're the monopology carrier in our, ahem, "competitive" telecommunications marketplace. It sucks, but it's one of the industry conditions which we just have to cope with, and it's one of the single largest reasons for the high cents/Mbyte figure you see quoted by retail ISPs in Australia. Just to give you some starting points, a Telstra Megalink in the 6km distance band costs $3000 to install and $800 per month to run. 64k on ISDN costs about $400 per month (if you've told Telstra which number you'll be dialling in advance - if you dial any other number, it's about $1800 per month in the local call charging band).

- mark
Network Engineer, Internode

I'm going to disagree with some of what you said

[suzerain]

In truth, your post is coherent and logical, but let me play devil's advocate:

And it's also true that regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month.

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 may be enough given usage patterns right now, but as soon as video is distributed on the network, all software is distributed that way, and as soon as The Next Big Thing (tm) comes along, your point becomes moot. Believe me, 3GB a month will seem like a pittance sooner than you think.

Computers in general aren't even 1 1,000,000th as powerful as they need to be. 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.

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte?

Well, it makes business sense, pure and simple. If I want to download the 500 MB Lineage installer, and that alone takes one sixth of my monthly allotment, then it ought to be my problem, right? Wrong. 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. I think the public will demand unlimited access, if given a choice. The first time they get a bill for $1000 in a month, they'll be looking elsewhere.

Of course, the industry coould just collude and force per-download pricing, but it's ridiculous.

As a consumer, I'm already pissed off that my cable company won't allow me to broadcast. It's their way of keeping distribution in the hands of the few; a way to maintain the status quo. Yes, I understand the reasons why they don't want to host my pr0n and wArEz, but I'm being selfish here; this is about what I want.

I for one will always seek out unlimited pricing if possible.

Prices

[Ambush]

Here's the new pricing plans;

1. 550Mb/Month $AU64.95

2. 3Gb/Month $AU79.95

3. 5Gb/Month $AU164.95

4. 10Gb/Month $AU305.95

The average user, according to Optus, uses around 65Mb per day (or almost 2Gb/Month). The 3Gb plan could therefore be construed as offering 50% more than the current average usage.

For comparison, the plan I am currently on is $AU74.95/Month (incl GST) for up to ten times the average monthly usage, or 19.5Gb.

So, time to start hunting for alternatives. Oh, and ways to monitor my usage.

Live With it or Build Your Own Network

[Taliesan999]

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)

Re:I'm going to disagree with some of what you sai

[Combuchan]

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.