Our area ‘finally’ got NBN and now I have to pay more for slower internet with downgraded infrastructure. Yes. It’s insane.

Our ‘NBN’ is simply the old copper coaxial Foxtel/Tesltra cable they’ve repurposed for internet as HFC…. They’ve added nothing.

The thing is, Optus also has a coaxial network in my area that’s been around for over 20+ years….and has been offering great, fast internet for ages… I’m currently paying $60pm for unlimited 100Mbps and there is NEVER any congestion as few people are on it.

But now with the NBN… they are going to RIP UP the old Optus copper coaxial cable (to use elsewhere/sell) and force me to switch to the worse Foxtel/Telstra one….

So now, I have to pay $70pm (more) for 40Mbps (less than half the speed) and MUCH more congestion on EXACTLY THE SAME (Copper/HFC) INFRASTRUCTURE

Yes, you heard that right… the NBN is making me pay more for more congested, slower internet and DOWNGRADING THE INFRASTRUCTURE in my area from two cooper cables to only one…. they are not adding anything… just taking it away…

INSANE. What can I do to complain? The NBN is literally technologically regressive. Also, are my facts correct? I live in Slacks Creek QLD. Also, the reason I pay only $60pm for 100Mbps is due to a special, negotiated deal with Optus… to be fair, what I have left out is that I get only 2Mbps upload, while NBN is more…. but as I understand, this is simply due to software (is that the right term?) changes.

Comments

      • I just compare us to New Zealand. When NZ saw that we were going to build a fibre NBN they decided they should as well - except they did it. So most of their country now has 100mbps fibre connected directly to the homes for cheaper than we pay for our NBN. NZ is culturally very similar, is a much smaller country, but a pretty similar urbanisation. They have more difficult geography than us.

        • We Kiwis are hard workers :)))

  • +22

    NBN HFC is an upgraded version of HFC Cable internet. Both hardware & infrastructure level.

    NBN HFC supports above 100Mbps for future proofing.

    NBN HFC had issues 2yrs back hence stopped any rollout until this year after fixing them but not retrospectively so consider yourself lucky getting NBN HFC v2.

    HFC Cable was notorious susceptible to congestion on hardware infrastructure level if your neighbourhood all on it.

    NBN HFC congestion is your ISP skimping on CVC quota. Not NBN problem.

    NBN HFC Max speed / line stability depends on your existing co-ax line quality - the last bit inside your house.

    Managed to get NBN tech pulled new line-in on new co-ax outlet for free during NBN HFC installs.

    • +2

      NBN HFC congestion is your ISP skimping on CVC quota. Not NBN problem.

      Yeah, this bit is important! Not just an issue with NBN HFC, but NBN overall.

      • -1

        There’s no reason to have a CVC charge, NBN could give everyone 10x more for free without any costs or network congestion.

        CVC is just a bullshit made up charge to make everyone pay more for internet because the government pissed away an enormous amount of money on a gold plated network before it was really needed and now they need to force everyone to pay them back.

        So it definitely is NBNs problem that they priced their network to gouge as much as possible from the wallets of working class aussies with their monopoly.

      • ISP's are probably skimping because of the razor thin margins because NBN isn't being marked down.

    • +2

      NBN HFC supports above 100Mbps for future proofing.

      Technically the current physical network does not even though the protocols can. For the current HFC network to be capable of higher speeds and no congestion there needs to be lots more node splitting. This will involve more truck rolls and more Fibre cable deeper into the HFC network footprint. At the current cost if this is done it would have been cheaper to just deploy FTTP in the first place. NBNco is using Docsis 3.1 at this stage ONLY to mitigate the need for node splitting and to ease congestion.

      They have made it clear that they have NO plans to offer any higher speeds than 100mbps over HFC.

      • +1

        Kicking Foxtel and Telstra off the network and reusing their channels will improve things a lot and requires no hardware changes (at least for NBN).
        I am on a non-NBN HFC network (iiNet) which obviously has the whole spectrum available, have had over 500mbps since 2015.

  • +57

    You can complain by never ever voting for the incompetent regressive LNP who's fault this is.

      • +45

        you actually made me LOL when you mentioned LNP "social policy" - do you have any more fairy tales for me?

        • +69

          It is no fairy tale. You just have to look at Barnaby Joyce now supporting two families.

          • +6

            @Baysew: Poor guy's barely scraping by,

          • @Baysew: Love your comment. yeah, it looks like he couldn't afford condoms, or a sense of decency. They should give him a doctor of divinity so he can swear a hypocrasy oath.

      • +32

        Well you got what you voted for then.

        • I didn't vote this rabble in.

      • +19

        Yes, so you supported a party which was in favour of what is exactly happening to you now.

        But seriously though, in what way do the LNP "support the family" that the ALP doesn't?

          • +72

            @The Wololo Wombat: I didn't neg you - just so you know. I don't really think you've got it right though.

            ALP, being slightly left-leaning will generally tend towards policy's which take/supersede individual responsibility shift that responsibility to the state/state programs.

            And you're here complaining about how the government has failed in its responsibility to provide you with quality internet. The irony of the situation…

            Labor is more likely to subsides childcare programs instead of tax benefits for stay at home parents for young children

            The logical result of your argument is that people should stay at home more and work less. This doesn't make any sense. I spent much of my career as an economist in labour economics and the evidence shows that taking time away from employment is harmful to earnings, future career prospects and a lot of other indicators of success in one's career. On top of that, there is very little correlation between parents staying at home and how the children turn out when they grow up. None of the metrics of success in life - education, earnings, crime…etc. are really related to whether their parents stayed at home or not. In fact, the biggest predictors are family income, where you live and the education you got.

            What you are suggesting is actually not "pro family" at all - it's actually "anti family" - incomes are lower, people are less productive and kids are going to grow up worse. You have no idea what you're talking about on this point.

            more likely to remove support for private education [which removes personal/individual choice and allows parents to choose schools which support their own values]

            Weren't you just harping on about personal responsibility? If you want to attend a private school, you pay. If you don't want to pay, then your kid can go to the local public school with everyone else. That's the literal definition of personal responsibility. The irony isn't lost here either…

            Labor's support for same-sex marriage was another philosophical difference

            You had a choice between good broadband or hate the gays. You chose to hate the gays. Live with your crap broadband. Take personal responsibility for your voting decisions. Isn't that what you believe in?

            • +10

              @p1 ama: Wow. He got told. Well done.

              As for whether or not he'll understand just how deeply you worked him over… Well let's just say that people who disguise hating the gays through invoking ideas of sanctity of marriage and family values usually aren't known for the depth of their insights.

              • -3

                @ozbjunkie: you don't have to hate the gays to be against gay marriage …

                i had a good mate from interstate living with me at the time and discussed it a few times, it's a matter of terminology, provide the exact same legal rights and call it something else and everyone's happy … they get legal recognition and rights, the 'traditionalists' get to keep the sanctity of the word 'marriage' as a "union between a man and a woman, before god"

                • +2

                  @weezlebub: No more than you need to hate black people to endorse their rightful place as slaves… Call it what you want, I call it hate, either way it seems like weasel words to hide behind the phrase "definition of marriage".

                  And no, calling it something else won't make everybody happy, it doesn't satisfy gay people who don't wish to have their relationship treated any less legitimately than a heterosexual relationship, including being able to use the term "marriage" to refer to their relationship.

                  Don't worry married people - just because gay people can get married doesn't mean anyone thinks you're gay if you say you're married, (but then again, why would you care if someone mistook you as gay?).

                  • -1

                    @ozbjunkie: Marriage is a religious term, legitimised by law …

                    If you get all of the religious organisations to change their definition of marriage, then great …

                    But maybe that all stems from my disgust with identity politics:
                    - just because you identify as a 12 year old girl, doesn't mean you should be allowed to have sex with 12 year old boys
                    - just because you're from a different cultural background, doesn't mean you should get special rules for committing a crime
                    - just because you feel that something should be a particular way, that doesn't make it a good idea to make it law

              • +2

                @ozbjunkie: Yes lefties are far more intelligent than the dumb plebs who keep voting the wrong way.

                hashtagBigBrains

                • +1

                  @IHatePeople: I prefer not to view all politics through the unnecessary dichotomy of left/right.

                  There are plenty of right wing people who are very intelligent, and have no issue with inclusion of homosexual people in marriage and in society in general. There are however probably more right wing people still coming to terms with the need to be inclusive though. The left seems to generally agree on that point.

                  • +1

                    @ozbjunkie:

                    I prefer not to view all politics through the unnecessary dichotomy of left/right.

                    I agree, and I do think that the traditional "right wing conservative" type of politics is dead. They're all just bigots trying to mask their agenda, which are full of inconsistencies. Want the government to stay out of their lives, but somehow in favour of government controlling everything when it comes to marriage.

                    The only consistent "right wing" view is libertarianism, which I actually whole heartedly respect (despite not being a libertarian myself). This is because their views are consistent, and what they are striving for is clear. You can easily sum up the libertarian viewpoint as having as little government as possible whilst still protecting the basic rights.

                    You can't define what the old "right wing conservative" is because they don't have any agenda or philosophy.

                    • @p1 ama: I'm somewhat idealistic rather than pragmatic, and I think this is why I am more left than right leaning. But I am slowly coming to understand opposing viewpoints in that people seem to support political views that they think will ensure their safety and prosperity.

                      So when I see someone screaming "build the wall" I try to remember this person is probably more fearful than they are hateful.

                      Still, some more hawkish foreign policies seem more to do with maintaining romance and advantage (which I guess is still fear motivated).

                      But relevant to your point, I'd be a libertarian except I believe that large corporations cannot determine the structure of society in any acceptably humanitarian way, and the "free market" is fundamentally not free due to existing vast inequality and corruption/nepotism etc. Hence, the smashed avo eating leftie I remain.

            • -25

              @p1 ama: Your second point made me think - of course, family support in the way I have described will lead to lower workforce participation and this is a negative outcome for the economy… at least in the short term… this supposes that higher-income/economic output is preferrable in all circumstances… which maybe it is?

              Much more I could say… but I can't see you find any common ground on the other points and either you don't recognize the inconsistencies in your arguments, or your worldview is so different to mine that we can't really have a proper discussion anyway.

              • +11

                @The Wololo Wombat:

                Much more I could say… but I can't see you find any common ground on the other points and either you don't recognize the inconsistencies in your arguments, or your worldview is so different to mine that we can't really have a proper discussion anyway.

                I'm just pointing out the internal inconsistencies in what you're saying.

                Let's set things straight from the outright - do you want the state to stay out of your affairs, or do you want them to be a part of your affairs?

                You say the former, but you want the government to provide you with better broadband, with subsidies for kicking around at home doing nothing (that's what tax breaks are), and you want your choice to attend a private school paid for by the taxpayer.

                If you don't see how that's inconsistent with your own stated philosophy then I have nothing more to add. If you said that you believed in personal responsibility and the state staying out of matters and then proceeded to pay for your own private school fees, private medical bills, and paid to put in your own fibre line because you wanted fast internet, then I can respect you because you live by your principles.

                However, the likes of you - going around harping one thing and then doing something else behind the scenes when it's in your own interests, you have no overarching philosophies.

                Your second point made me think - of course, family support in the way I have described will lead to lower workforce participation and this is a negative outcome for the economy… at least in the short term… this supposes that higher-income/economic output is preferrable in all circumstances… which maybe it is?

                Having parents stay at home after having kids is bad for everyone. Nobody benefits. Hence it should not be policy.

                • +4

                  @p1 ama:

                  Having parents stay at home after having kids is bad for everyone. Nobody benefits. Hence it should not be policy

                  Except, of course, the kids.

                  The science is pretty clear on kids staying at home for the first 3 years improving their outcomes:

                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/going-beyond-intelli...

                  (I applaud you for pointing out inconsistencies in typical right-wing BS, don't give them an excuse by not upholding the same standards yourself)

                  • +3

                    @ItsMeAgro:

                    The science is pretty clear on kids staying at home for the first 3 years improving their outcomes:

                    The issue I have with those sorts of studies (and I'm quite familiar with them, being a labour economist for many years) is that they only focus on the short term outcomes, not the long term outcomes.

                    When I've analysed the long term impacts of parent employment vs. the child's eventual education, income or likelihood of committing a crime, I don't find any significant impacts. To be fair, it's not something that I've looked into deeply and there may well be psychological impacts (e.g. they feel less happy or have less stable family lives or whatever), but the science is still really unclear as to the long term effects.

                    Basically what I think is happening is that children who attend centre daycare might indeed be less cooperative or show more signs of aggression, but these will fade as they get older. The physical illnesses (e.g. respiratory/stomach) are just a result of being around other kids and will have no long term effects.

                    Again, I don't want to try to appear "all knowing" because I'm not a developmental psychologist and there are other angles to look at this issue, but I don't think we should ignore that some of the best countries in the world in terms of happiness and other "positive" outcomes tend to provide subsidised (or free) daycare.

                    • +1

                      @p1 ama: One big problem with the studies is that many include low income households (say African American if studies done in the US) where having kids in daycare is a far better option than having them with the parents where they are exposed to drug trade, etc.
                      These are the statistics that are used commonly and they are not removed nor like for like is used when dealing with middle to high income so hardly representative of the Australian experience, news sites (mamamia) are the worst for citing the articles and not explaining the studies behind it.
                      Or they use Sweden's childcare system - which is basically the highest care around (high wages, constant training, low occupation drop out rate compared to every other country).

                      Additionally most of these social science studies are done very poorly - almost none are peer reviewed, and those that were showed only a 30% replicate rate. I mean here is a criticism of one such study: "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), did not find significant negative effects but, unlike Han et al. (2001), did not follow the same children over time." (talking about children in daycare).
                      Which in my opinion is pretty problematic!!! (I mean wtf…)

                      Basically the more house spent in day care over a week basis the worse it is for children, Under 10 hours almost no affect, more than 30… well….

                      • +1

                        @IHatePeople: Also have a look at https://www.workingmother.com for BS reports.

                        Kids are cleverer in daycare (Swedish Day care - certainly NOT American, or comparing them against Average child in daycare which does not meet current standards after placing them in High quality day care), less chance of leukemia (which can be lessened just by going to a playground), so light on facts and truth and just pushing a narrative.
                        They don't even define what a high quality day care is…..

                • @p1 ama:

                  Let's set things straight from the outright - do you want the state to stay out of your affairs, or do you want them to be a part of your affairs

                  What you say in response to this question? I’d assume your answer would be like mine ‘it depends on the context’.

                  You think I’m inconsistent because you think I apply the same ideas to all contexts, or perhaps that I should?

                  You assume that my reasoning for generally liking Liberal social policy applies to other areas, i.e, infrastructure and fiscal, health, NBN….

                  You also can’t see why state support for private education is coherent with wanting individual choice…. it’s not that I want the state to stay out of matter… it’s that I (generally) want the state to support individual choice for those matters….

                  And I say ‘generally’ because this is probably how I view things, maybe…. 75% of the time… like you, I’m not black and white… My reasoning for support/disliking a given policy will change depending on the issue… but if I try to analyse and describe a pattern in my thinking in the context of family (as I was asked to) it’s often because I ‘generally’ support individual choice and responsibility over state responsibility…. but not all the time and in all cases… and certainly not in all/other contexts….

                  That’s why we can’t really have a proper discussion as you have been extremely quick to put my views/political ideology in a narrow box based on limited information.

            • @p1 ama: Hey, mate just wondering if you have statistical data (AU) for "there is very little correlation between parents staying at home and how the children turn out when they grow up."
              Just keen to know this, personal reasons.

              • +6

                @gtech:

                What you say in response to this question? I’d assume your answer would be like mine ‘it depends on the context’.

                No, I would say that the state is of intrinsic important in everybody's life as it needs to ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed. I view what the state should and should not do based on whether it helps to achieve equal opportunities. For example, the state has the responsibility to provide healthcare and education because without equal access to healthcare and education, people who cannot afford them will have no ladder in which to move up.

                I have a standard through which I assess things which are inherently not contradictory.

                On the other hand, you've said that you "generally like Liberal policies", but you haven't really listed any policies which are traditional right wing policies apart from discriminating against gays.

                Out of all the policies you want - i.e. government subsidised broadband, government subsidised parents staying home, government subsidised education…etc. are all big government, big spending policies.

                You also can’t see why state support for private education is coherent with wanting individual choice…. it’s not that I want the state to stay out of matter… it’s that I (generally) want the state to support individual choice for those matters….

                But you don't want the state to support individual choice in terms of the gender of person you want to marry. Right. So many inconsistencies.

                On the issue of gay rights, I go back to my original point about equal opportunity - everyone should have equal opportunity to marry anyone they wish as long as both parties consent. See what I mean about having a philosophy that actually makes sense and is consistent?

                My reasoning for support/disliking a given policy will change depending on the issue… but if I try to analyse and describe a pattern in my thinking in the context of family (as I was asked to) it’s often because I ‘generally’ support individual choice and responsibility over state responsibility…. but not all the time and in all cases… and certainly not in all/other contexts….

                You know, I actually feel really sorry for you. You've genuinely been duped by right-wing talking points and are voting against your own interests (e.g. getting good broadband) for wishy-washy ideological "support individual choice" bullsh!t and being anti-gay. That's what it really comes down to. I just can't respect that.

                There are some people who vote Liberal because of their own personal interest, and at least with them, I can respect their point of view. For example, if you're rich and you just want a big tax cut, then fair enough vote Liberal and say it's because you want a tax cut. That's honest and I respect that because, at the end of the day, I understand that people put themselves first. On the other hand, you've just drunk the cool-aid and you're just voting based on meaningless talking points. You can't even name a single LNP policy that's good for you. You don't even have a consistent view.

            • -2

              @p1 ama: How is crap like this allowed on this forum? This person accuses the OP of hating gays without one ounce of evidence and that sort of bigotry is just as shameful "hate the gays"! The more shameful thing is is that his post got 50+ upvotes.

              It's no wonder the extreme left continue to get smacked in the face within the West, e.g. Trump, Brexit and our recent election, when they abuse and slag everyone that doesn't conform to their twisted sense of morality.

              • +2

                @moggott:

                How is crap like this allowed on this forum? This person accuses the OP of hating gays without one ounce of evidence and that sort of bigotry is just as shameful "hate the gays"! The more shameful thing is is that his post got 50+ upvotes.

                If you are against a part of the population receiving the same rights as another part of the population, then you are a bigot. OP has the right to hate the gays, but if he does, the least he could do is own up to it.

                I never get why people are so dishonest. You have the right to be bigots (as Brandis once said), and you're allowed to hate whoever you want to hate. Just come out and say it. Own it. Don't be a weaseling coward.

                Either way, history will not judge those who opposed gay rights kindly, just like history did not judge kindly those who opposed civil rights, interracial marriage or women's right to vote. One day, people will look back on what OP said and will think exactly the kinds of things we think when we read the words of the racists who opposed civil rights. When people look back on what you're saying, they will think exactly the kinds of things we think when we think about all those who defended the racists and allowed society to continue oppressing others.

                • @p1 ama: Definition of bigot is someone who won't change their mind, no matter what is presented to them … are you claiming that every baby is born a racist and that racists never change from being racist babies?

                  I'm pretty sure that every child is born loving everyone, meaning that only a lefty can be a bigot …

                  As for discrimination, I am completely against it, treat everyone equally … unfortunately, that means equality NOT equity, so aboriginals shouldn't get special treatment based on their race, women shouldn't get special treatment based on their sex … pretty simple really …

            • +1

              @p1 ama: Are you really saying it doesn't matter if the parents spend time with their kids, as long as they're making a lot of money, living in a good area and getting a good education?

              This really sums up why we shouldn't listen to economists. You think you know how the cake was made just because you've analysed a slice. And now you want to tell everyone else how to make that cake and why they're wrong. Because you know better. Because you're an economist.

              • +1

                @Sxio:

                Are you really saying it doesn't matter if the parents spend time with their kids, as long as they're making a lot of money, living in a good area and getting a good education?

                I didn't say parents not spending time with their kids, I'm talking about whether the parents work or not. There's a big difference between the two. Plenty of parents work and spend more time with their kids than parents who don't work. Did you even read what I said?

                On top of that, there's some tradeoff involved. Is working and sending your kid to a better school better than not working and sending your kid to a worse school? I don't know. All I'm saying is that the data shows there's no correlation between parental employment and 1) the kid's income later on, 2) the level of education the kid gets, 3) whether the kid is likely to be involved in crime.

                Could it be that kids who have parents stay at home are more likely to have some great characteristic compared to kids who don't? Maybe, I haven't analysed that.

                This really sums up why we shouldn't listen to economists. You think you know how the cake was made just because you've analysed a slice. And now you want to tell everyone else how to make that cake and why they're wrong. Because you know better. Because you're an economist.

                That's exactly right. If you were sick, who would you trust, a doctor or someone without any qualifications in medicine? If you drove on a bridge every day, would you feel safer if it was designed by an engineer, or someone without any engineering qualifications?

                Either way, the data says what it says. It's not my opinion. You can try and explain why/how the data is saying what it says. I'm just calling balls and strikes, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.

        • They support the rich family? shrug

    • +28

      Yep.

      When retards voted for banker and Telstra employee Malcom Turnbull they gave Telstra 60 billion dollars on top of NBN's 40 billion and the pathetically bad private sector still hasn't provided adequate service.

      The same morons are insisting it's cheaper because it's private sector even though it isn't because they're brainwashed idiots.

      • +22

        labor put $46 billion in the bank to pay for FTTP in about 2012?

        This 46 billion was upfront and paid for…

        In september 2013 my suburb was to get FTTP at the start of the local FTTP rollout.

        In september 2013 the majority of australian voters said that i did not deserve FTTP.

        They also said that it would only cost $26 billion to give me/us/australia FTTN from september /december 2013

        The last financial review released by NBN co estimates it will cost approx 51-52 billion for what we have now.

        Dont blame me i voted labor

        • +2

          There is no way any government could have rolled out nbn with $46billion let alone by 2020. Just think about it. The fttp roll out in your area itself was delayed. If you were supposed to get it in sept 2013 the construction would have started months earlier and you would have been cheering here with fttp. But that didn't happen did it.

          • @JungliChilli: gday Junglichilli

            Just to clarify my situation.

            I had a mate who was a high level telstra staff member in my capital city.. he was involved in the liason with NBN concerning telstras involvement.

            1. NBN co actually had my exchange/suburb etc in print on their roll out plan to start roll out in sept 2013

            2. My telstra mate told me all the nbn equipment or whatever they used was in the exchange 100% ready to commence in sept 2013

            3. In early sept 2013 [before 14th] we saw nbn rolling out greenish fluoro fibre down main roads from the exchange area.

            4. On saturday sept 14 2013 a federal election was held.

            5. A couple of weeks? later the nbn rollout in australia was suspended [sort of] and a federal govt review took place over a few months.

            6.Things then changed as we know.

            1. NBN started converting to FTTN in my exchange area/suburb in early 2014.
            • @grog: Hey grog

              Yup that makes sense.

              However point is still that Nbn would not have changed the tech choice if the build was actually almost complete. There would have been too much cost involved to do so.

              And other point (related to point above) is that nbns forecast for building fttp, that is cost and time wise(during the Labor days), was not accurate at all.

              The green cable you might have seen could been the distribution cables (feeds nodes or largeish optical joints) and they usually get rolled out much earlier than the local fibre network(feeds homes or smaller optical joints).

              The distribution cable can be used for basically any fibred tech type so whatever was already built could be used for fttn fttc etc etc.

              The work/build in the exchange is fairly small in scale/effort/cost if compared with building the last mile as they call it.

              And to sum it all up. I do not believe nbn under Labor would have been able to rollout nbn by 2020 within the $46mil budget.

  • +1

    I'm a few suburbs over and this is happening to me too :(

    Do you know when we'll be forced off cable? The NBN site has no disconnections planned yet so I'm trying to stay for as long as possible but Telstra are trying to get me to jump ship asap lol.

    • +1

      You have 18 months from the "ready for service" date.

      Once NBN Co has announced that your area is ready for service you will generally have 18 months to move your service to the new NBN network. Some providers might have shorter timeframes than that and you will need to contact your preferred telecommunications service provider to confirm the timing and move to the NBN.

      • This is correct. Use that 18 months wisely though.

        I suggest putting in an NBN service application earlier than later whilst keeping the cable/ADSL running.

        I recently connected to the nbn and it took a whole month more than it should have. The techs initially connected up the wrong premise and when that was apparently fixed, the connection was still not working. Had two months of internet usage refunded to me but, being a new place that I moved into, I had to get wireless broadband to get me by for about a month.

        Of course, if you're on hfc or any subpar infrastructure, I'd prefer to wait a while longer.

    • +1

      Telstra are trying to get me to jump ship asap lol

      Yes, prepare to be bombarded by their bullshit. Subcontractors too.
      If you're on a landline, they may also put a message on your phone every time you pick up the receiver.
      I made a point of getting away from Telstra altogether after all that.

      There was even a dubious article in the local newspaper about how phones would be disconnected during the week , which was false.
      I think that one may have originated from NBN marketing.

      • +1

        Telstra are trying to get me to jump ship asap lol

        Yes, prepare to be bombarded by their bullshit. Subcontractors too.

        I've just changed my internet plan with Telstra but wanted to remain on cable despite NBN being available in my area.

        The s**t I had to endure as they tried to convince me to go to NBN was unreal. Basically said it couldn't be done and they would have to seek special approval.

        After standing my ground and speaking to a manager I am now paying less for unlimited fast cable internet.

        The irony of it all was when I read the new contract terms there was actually no requirement to go to NBN at this time and I can only assume they must get some sort of kick back for pushing the issue.

        It was a very painful and tedious experience…. but then again this seems to be the norm these days…

  • OP. I don't think you can do anything other than to complain when the service isn't up to the plan speed you are going onto. You'll just need to try some ISPs. Some are better then others. As for speed overall. It is what it is unfortunately.

    We argued for 6mths with NBN as they were saying we couldn't have the HFC cable in the ground ( as I hate possum freeways into my house). Which they just wanted to do as cheaply as possible as the cable was up in the pole. We eventually won and had it installed free and the NBN person who set it up also fixed the line in the kitchen so that could still be used as a line for a normal land line. So stressfull. All because we wanted it in the ground. We don't have any overhead lines into our house.

    • +21

      OP. I don't think you can do anything other than to complain

      OP literally voted in the government who gave us this disaster of an NBN. OP has no reasonable grounds to complain. Maybe OP should have voted for Labor. Typical example of facing the consequences of your actions.

      • -1

        So you you’re saying can only make a complaint to the government if you vote against them? Come on…. politics is never black and white, there many reasons one votes for a party in a given election; no one party will represent all your interests and you alternative policy on the issue you have grievance with may as also be inadequate.. Labor’s $55,000 per person solution (as others have stated) was also woefully inadequate….

        • +2

          In this case you have suffered the consequences of your own actions. Perhaps you will benefit from your action somewhere else, but here you do not.

          • +1

            @StiffHindQuarters: Not true. People seem to have a black and white approach with this stuff and it's far from it. At the most basic level, it depends on where you live. I used to live in an extremely safe labor seat and it wouldn't matter if I voted liberal 300 times I'd still have zero impact on the results. In other words my (voting) actions have no consequence. Unlike many personal actions that have a lot of direct consequence (i.e health choices) which of course people take no responsibility for.

        • +7

          No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying that elections have consequences and when you get screwed over, have a think about who you vote for and why.

          The issue is that many people live in an ivory tower, with comfortable middle class lives where the majority of public policies will not affect them personally. As a result, they never think about their vote and they never actually consider the consequences of their actions. They vote based on knee-jerk reactions and usually without appropriate thought paid to the actual policies.

          This is a prime example of this. You voted Liberal because of whatever reason, but based on what you've said so far, you're not even terribly familiar with their policy platform. You probably thought that it was fine and there wouldn't be any issue with voting Liberal, I doubt you even thought about the NBN. But here you are complaining, after seeing first hand the consequences of what voting the LNP in does for you.

          The irony is just all your huffing and puffing about personal responsibility and not having the state do this or that - only when it comes to things that benefit you personally should the state be pouring in money. Broadband for you? Yay! Private schools for your kids? Yay! Tax breaks for you? Yay! Equal marriage rights for others? Nay! Childcare funded for others? Nay! No overarching philosophies.

  • +2

    I was in the same boat and asked them nicely to retain the 100mbps speed pack at no extra charge and they did.
    The connect is faster too. Upload speed is way better.

    • Are you paying $60pm on NBN + phone line?

  • +1

    I live on the other side of Brisbane and have the same issue. We switched from Optus cable to Telstra cable ‘aka NBN’ two weeks ago at $30 extra per month for crap internet. I was only just cursing how slow it is it when I read your post.

    • +1

      Shouldn't be slow HFC is capable of 100/40 right now and very soon gbit. I currently get 95/35 all day long

      • +1

        They are complaining because they want 100/40, but only want to pay for 50/20.

        • I’ve subscribed to the 100 plan. I thought the $30 per month increase on what we were paying for cable might have been a good hint.

      • Not very soon. There's a lot of equipment that needs upgrading to support DOCSIS 3.1.

        • It's meant to be by or around end of this year as most of the trials have been completed. Price wise though just forget about it. Current price for 1gbit on fiber isn't even funny. 11x what you would pay in nz for example lol

      • The issue is, before the NBN, some people could get ADSL2 (1 ??) and HFC, so in a neighbourhood, 40% of people might have cable, 40% of people have ADSL, 20% have nothing.

        Now, everyone gets HFC - straining the single line more.

  • +4

    The original NBN that we were supposed to get was a big upgrade from optus cable, however the nbn we actually got is worse, better than adsl2+ but worse or the same as cable for more cost in all cases.

  • +6

    Welcome to the NBN. Probably the worst decision ever made by the Liberal Gov't. Especially as the future will only use more and more data. I freaked out the other day when i got a new WiFi modem that shows all the connected devices in my home. 59. Took me while to work out what they all were (We are a family of 7 and have some smart home things in my home but they only make up 19 of these).

    The 100mbs plans on NBN are so expensive you can hardly justify them. I don't have a need for speeds over 40Mbs but with so many devices, I may need to pay more for the times when a few are consuming at the same time. Even NBN say we will have over 30 as an AVERAGE by end of next year: https://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/connected-homes/on-track-for-o...

    Crazy days.

    • +3

      what were the other 30 connections?

      • +4

        please don't ask ~ I don't want him changing the password again

    • -1

      Doesn't secure wifi network. Blames the government.

  • +5

    Ah, the glorious multi technology mix NBN.

    I pay for a 50/20 fixed wireless plan but never get more than 20Mbps download at optimal times, and less than 3Mbps during the busy hours (sometimes less than 1Mbps). Even YouTube at the lowest quality setting stutters in the evenings. This is normal according to NBNCo because at any one sample point during a 24 hour period performance is slightly better so they say there is no fault and the service is performing optimally. That 20Mbps upload will be cut to a max of 10Mbps later this year to enable them to offer options up to 75Mbps but when I enquired I was told customers won’t, in reality, experience a 75 Mbps download speed and performance would be equivalent to current experience or maybe less as demand grows.

    What a mess.

    • Starlink might be your only hope

    • Who’s your service provider?

  • +2

    The nbn is a disaster. I've waited 2 years since the original due date to only be told after finally connecting property it will be another 6 months to finalise(town houses). Signed up to optus wireless broadband yeserday. Wish I had done so a long time ago. Speeds are up and down but worse cases is as fast as best speed received on previous adsl2. Looking forward to 5g, nbn no thank you.

    • You won’t be able to afford 5g in the data allowances you want.

      • At the moment, give it a couple of years.

  • +1

    Yes we are in the same boat (Birkdale area) and have fantatic internet service now with telstra (100 Mbps, unlimited, but we pay for a speed boost). We had foxtel in this house for 17 or so years (since it was available in this area) so the cable is that old. Not expecting much from HFC. We are holding off as long as possible to convert over to NBN.

  • +3

    You get faster uploads.

    Most people don’t realise the benefit that’s why the nbn is hated.

    • +13

      Nobody is saying that it is easy to put fibre into a country as large and isolated as Australia, but it is a political issue. Two parties took two different proposals to the Australian people. The ALP wanted to put in the NBN, the LNP wanted no NBN and was only forced to continue with a severely cut NBN because a lot of it was already put in.

      The idea that "it doesn't matter who was in power" is wrong, it tells people that elections don't have consequences and that they are not responsible for the decision they make at the ballot box.

  • +2

    Some areas won the lotto though and it’s not too hard to figure out the rocket areas if required .

  • +5

    The problem with NBN is FTTN. This should never have been thought of.

    FTTC and FTTP work pretty fine as long as you tidy up your internal wiring beforehand.

    Hopefully 5G can save those stuck on FTTN.

  • This is happening to me too.
    I have very reliable Optus cable for $55 (120 Gb) which I am happy with.
    Being replaced by NBN fibre to the curb (FTTC) then the old Telstra landline cable.
    I am worried because my landline is ancient and has always been dodgy.

  • +2

    IMO it's better to have a licensed cabler check your wiring before NBN arrives, do whatever necessary ( you might be fine) and get the TCA1 form from him.

    That's what I did. My FTTC is very stable.

    Once NBN comes to your house, any hiccups, you can blame them directly.

Login or Join to leave a comment