• expired

Business nbn Plans 500/200Mbps $319/Month, 1000/400Mbps $429/Month (Was $699) at Aussie Broadband

1061

Aussie broadband has new, incredible, no amazing! NBN plans for the low, low price of 8-10x the average cost of a NZ FTTP 4000/4000Mbps plans at $179NZD. https://myrepublic.net/nz/hyperfibre/.

I mean for only $429AUD for 1000/400Mbps, bargain!

This is a deal because “They were over $699 a month so it’s a saving of $200+“

Must have FTTP connection. Static line included.

“ Actual speeds on FTTN/B technology type to be confirmed upon connection. For more information on nbn™ speeds see here.
Plans above 250/100Mbps have a 250Mbps download shaping profile applied from 6pm to 12am AEST Plans above 100/40 Mbps only available on FTTP Fibre build cost may apply pending site qualification check.”

https://techau.com.au/aussie-broadband-selling-1gps-400mbps-...

Referral Links

Referral: random (651)

$50 each for referrer & referee apply afterwards.

Related Stores

Aussie Broadband
Aussie Broadband

closed Comments

      • +2 votes

        :-(
        Most houses are FTTC.
        I thought the whole point of NBN was to get better speeds than 100/40.

        • +35 votes

          Welcome to NBN

        • +93 votes

          It was. Then people voted the Liberal Party into office, now you get this.

          • +41 votes

            @serideth: This is the truth. NBN was a good idea until the Coalition started messing with it. Now we've paid for a world class network and actually built a 3rd world network.

            Classic Liberals - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

            • -21 votes

              @klaw81: The other parties may have good ideas, but they’ve no idea on how to implement them. The current party is about to finish the project.

            • +1 vote

              @klaw81: "Classic Liberals - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing."

              Oh man you have just summed up the heart of Aussie politics so eloquently!

        • +27 votes

          Most houses are FTTC

          FTTC is not that common. Can’t be bothered looking up the numbers, but would say FTTN and HFC would make up the most non-FTTP numbers.

          • +6 votes

            @PainToad: Negged for telling the truth. lol.

            58% or so are FTTN and HFC. FTTP is 17%….. so factor in wireless and FTTC isn't that high.

            The original aim of the NBN was just to get 12/1 or 25/5…..

            • +32 votes

              @DisabledUser139667: No, the original idea was to have a world class first rate network, that was capable of keeping up with faster speed demands over time and as required by increasing data requirements due to ever expanding demands of technology (upscalable, as futureproof as a thing can be). Being optic fibre its as fast as light, because it is light, but moreover the pressing need was to use the forward spending on replacing the 1930s copper network to prevent recession. It was part of the cure for the GFC, and it worked.

              Its capable of being the fastest internet possible. Nothing is faster than light.

              All those that think wireless is quicker, NBN was meant to be all light FFS, nothing is faster than light. By the way wireless, between wireless points is via the NBN anyway. Its only wireless from you to the tower. Seems this wireless thing that is meant to be faster than NBN, uses the thing its meant to be faster than.

              NBN is only slow because, LNP opposition for the sake of opposition.

              • +1 vote

                @Tuba:

                All those that think wireless is quicker, NBN was meant to be all light FFS, nothing is faster than light.

                WiFi uses radio waves, which are just another form of electromagnetic and also travel at the speed of light.
                FFS, nothing travels faster than radio waves.

                • +1 vote

                  @newdad: That was never the argument though, wireless was touted to be faster than NBN could ever be. That physical connections are old, SLOWEER and dated. And that at some time in the future (NBN was touted as being future proof), wireless would be faster somehow (thats the faster than light reference). The Liberals even had artists impressions of 100 foot cartoon future magnet looking things on mountains to show how good it would be. Never mind that if it needs to be that big to reach homes, the one on the home needs to be equally big or its one way comms.

                  The allegation was NBN was already outdated, too slow, blah blah. FFS. And numpties fell for it.

                  A physical connection is always more reliable than wireless.

            • +11 votes

              @DisabledUser139667:

              The original aim of the NBN was just to get 12/1 or 25/5…..

              False. The original (labour) plan was FTTP, then coalition pissed all over the NBN and made it political game. Blame Tony and especially Malcom Turnbull the ""internet Inventor" for all the mess.

        • +11 votes

          As PainToad said, FTTC is a tiny amount of connections comparatively.

          To date the NBN™ rollout has seen:

          Over 248,800 premises ready to connect on FTTB
          Over 376,600 premises ready to connect on FTTC
          Over 1,048,300 premises ready to connect on FTTN
          Over 281,500 premises ready to connect on FTTP
          Over 924,200 premises ready to connect on HFC
          Over 290,841 premises ready to connect on Satellite
          Over 249,700 premises ready to connect on Fixed Wireless

          https://blog.iinet.net.au/nbn-wrapup-2019/

          First link I could be bothered finding on google with the 2019 numbers - the numbers would be different now of course.

        • +3 votes

          I think most are fttn, no? Which is bloody worse.

          •  

            @tessel: Isn't FTTN better than FTTC?
            Why can't they keep these acronym simple.
            Like 10/100/1000

            • +3 votes

              @congo: Nah FTTC is better than FTTN.

            • +15 votes

              @congo: Because 10/100/1000 have nothing to do with the type of fixed line you have?

              The acronyms aren't hard to understand…. Fibre to Node, Curb and Premises. Self explanatory as to which would be the best.

              You can have gigabit connections on FTTP, and you can also have 12/1 if you choose…

            • +17 votes

              @congo: FTTN is fibre to the node, which then connects to your house over copper wiring from whatever run the node has to your house. Could be a very indirect route even if the node is located close by. The node provides power over the line so you can connect off a VDSL modem. You are limited by very long copper runs and will be very lucky to receive over 50mbps, this is why most ISPs have stopped offering anything over 50mbps to FTTN and you must special order over the phone a 100mbps plan (if the ISP will let you) and accept verbally that you have no guarantee of getting the speed you have purchased. This is decades obsolete technology and the most common connection type under the NBN.

              FTTC is fibre to the curb, the fibre runs all down the street and the only copper is the last mile between your house and the fibre. This requires your house to have a box installed that will power the line back to the fibre termination point (the curb), this box provides an ethernet cable in your house and connected to your router. You are limited by the copper between your house and the curb but it's a short run so it can support 1gbps eventually.

              FTTP is fibre to the premises and has fibre ran all the way to your house, no copper is used with these connections and what the vast majority Australia was originally meant to receive under labors rollout. The fibre is terminated within your house and then converted to ethernet for connection to your router. Being fibre this is able to support any modern connection standard, this is what New Zealand have rolled out in their country and they are launching 10gpbs connections this year. 2gbps & 4gbps already available.

              •  

                @Agret: Yep - exactly my problem here - node is literally a stones throw from my house, but the copper goes all the way round a big block, so instead of <100m of copper with a 100/40 connection, I'm stuck on a <60/20 connection. I know that I shouldn't complain though because there are plenty of people that are far worse off.

                It was obviously going to be a train wreck if the liberals got in and so it has come to pass unfortunately :-(

                • -4 votes

                  @OnTheMark: Having some involvement in the process, it was going to a train wreck regardless of who was in power. Nationalising the internet was a mistake that just resulted in progress taking a lot longer. We are too spread out and diverse for a one size fits all, command economy solution.

                  The libs complicated it and meant everyone doesn’t get the same access, but the process is actually sped up compared with an FTTP/Sat only solution, as NBNCo at original start up was stuffed with political hacks who didn’t know what they were doing. Red Underpants Conroy was waaay out of his competency. So bad he made Richard Alston look better.
                  Also, not everyone would have got FTTP under the Rudd/Conroy model, despite the rhetoric, Out of the city it would have been predominately Satellite, (with a few high profile exceptions for political purposes). At least in the current model more country townspeople can get FTTC and FTTN.

                  • +5 votes

                    @entropysbane: False. Rudd's scheme was no copper at all: 93% fibre, 4% wireless (rural and regional close to population centres) and 3% satellite.

                    Nationalising the network was a fine idea and could have worked just fine. NZ managed it without major issues and had quite a few topography challenges that an Australian build never would.

                    All it takes is commitment and patience, which is something that no Liberals have had for decades.

                    • -3 votes

                      @klaw81: And NZ is basically the size of Victoria

                      • +2 votes

                        @profane01: Silly argument. New Zealand is far more spread out (a long skinny country) and has far more challenging terrain. And yet somehow their overall costs were lower per premise with fibre than Australian costs with mostly copper, and their time taken per premise install was lower too.

                        The incontrovertible truth is that the Liberals utterly screwed the pooch….and it seems they did it deliberately just to spite Labor for having the audacity to cut Telstra out of the bargain and plan for the future.

                    • -1 vote

                      @klaw81: I didn’t say that the Rudd/Conroy plan had copper. I said in many rural areas it had satellite. Maybe that 7% was by population, as it sure wasn’t area.
                      Not that city people care.

                  •  

                    @entropysbane: "Nationalised" infrastructure makes much more sense both economically and strategically than privately controlled, duplicated (or worse), non-integrated technologies. Conroy had nothing at all to do with the design or implementation of the NBN despite your reds-under-the-bed paranoia.

                    • -1 vote

                      @DisabledUser67242: People that are fans of nationalisation did not suffer the ennui and decay of a nationalised post war Britain that did not end until the eighties when nationalised behemoths were sold off. Returning Australian soldiers wouldn’t have truck with following the British path to nationalise the banks, and Curtin lost office over it. As for comms, only a person too young to remember the inefficiency, charges, featherbedding and shockingly poor service of the PMG and telecom could say that it should be nationalised.
                      The only thing that really should be nationalised is defence.

                      •  

                        @entropysbane: Having been caught with your pants down - "red handed" (pun intentional) so to speak - with your paranoid Conroy comment you've jumped the shark, possibly a whale shark to boot.

                        Back to the topic though, which wasn't about your outmoded view of nationalisation, or your imaginary theory of what returning soldiers thought about anything. What would you say about technological standards and the efficiencies (technological and economic) they provide? Judging by your last sentence you'd apparently prefer different gauge railways, different sized shipping containers, a variety of monetary and measurement systems etc etc in the one country. On top of that you apparently think a dog's breakfast education system would achieve more - even for the less well-off in our society, that somehow the nation and its people would be better off with an entirely private health "system", and that business should negotiate foreign policy themselves.

                        You might want to study Australian political history a bit better in future. Curtin died in office. He was later succeeded by another Labor PM, the very highly acclaimed Ben Chifley who wanted to nationalise banks but also faced the hugely overblown communist bogey, problems with strikes, rationing and inflation. Here's a decent summary of his career: https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-issue-3...

                        •  

                          @DisabledUser67242: What has railway gauge sizes, standards for versions business types etc (regulatory) got to do with whether a government owns the means of production or not? I don’t think you understand what nationalisation is.
                          And yes, a variety of education systems would deliver a better outcome overall. And in regard to health systems, wouldn’t you say our system with both private and public delivers superior outcomes to all private (US) and all public UK)?.

                          And you are right. I meant Chifley.

                          • +1 vote

                            @entropysbane: I understand completely what your notion of nationalisation is and the NBN isn't anywhere near that. Nor is government development and "ownership" of any critical infrastructure in the country - ports, railways, roads, dams, schools, hospitals…..

                            The link between standardisation and primarily govt owned (during the build stage at least) NBN infrastructure is obvious. Those examples were to help you understand why and how. If you don't see why competing companies duplicating independent, exclusive comms infrastructure is inefficient and economically unsound then I can't help you. Nothing wrong with private companies extending and value adding to the NBN once the basic services and infrastructure is built.

                            Your blind faith in ad hoc education systems is heart warming but it appears that world leading education nations (eg Finland) have ignored your advice. For obvious reasons. That doesn't mean new things can't be tried nor does it mean that a govt straight-jacket is or should be applied to curricula or teaching/learning methods. It does mean national standards, concentration of resources and broadly egalitarian access. I have no issue with some variety or mix as long as a huge majority of the national taxpayer spend is put into a public system. Unfortunately we've gone beyond that. I didn't attend state schools in case you were wondering.

                            I see you're wavering badly in regards to your comment that the only thing that really should be nationalised is defence. Our national health scheme - another Labor initiative - is decent enough although subsidised private health insurance is a waste of money. Multiple health funds all with their own executives, staff and infrastructure is an extremely inefficient use of health dollars. The Netherlands and some other European countries have far better systems which are primarily public.

              • +1 vote

                @Agret: Wow, didn't know how lucky I was to be on FTTN with over 80mbps! Thanks for the info.

        •  

          I thought the whole point of NBN was to get better speeds than 100/40.

          Sadly you are wrong. If that was the case then Labor would not have add speed tiers to the NBN. The Statement of Expectations signed by Labor MP Wayne Swan and Labor Senator Penny Wong was for a fibre network with entry level pricing similar to ADSL.

          Labor's expectation clearly set out in the NBNCo Corporate Plan was that close to 50% would be on 12Mbps and that by 2026 less than 1% would be able to afford 1Gbps.

          • +2 votes

            @mathew42: Don’t let facts get in the way of gamers’ dreams.

            Although to be fair, fibre would be more upgradable if the plebs eventually got some cash.

    • +12 votes

      Totally would pay this so I can get my Linux ISO in 15 seconds instead of a minute /s

      •  

        I'd love to know how many servers would actually cater for people with this sorta speed anyway.

        I'm on a 100/40 (seems to have dropped a bit from 90 to 80 lately) and I'm a pretty heavy downloader (2tb usage with a week to go this month) and I can't fathom how we'd actually be able to max out the speed.

        Not for one second saying it isn't better, just from a value POV it's pretty terrible.

        •  

          Holy (profanity), what do you download?

          • +5 votes

            @ln28909: Well being at home…. we have a few 4K TV's (with a 3yo who likes Youtube Kids) but overwhelmingly it's digital game purchases/updates of late.

          •  

            @ln28909: Just light usage, we've hit 5TB a couple months. Average is around 3TB/mo though. Share house with 4 people. Games & 4K media content are massive.

            •  

              @Agret: We are currently about three times what we usually do as our two daughters’ school is running to its normal timetable over MS Teams, I use MS teams all day for work and Mrs entropy is addicted to k-dramas on Netflix, plus the the fourth series of the last kingdom and upload on prime. And gamer son out of work.
              We haven’t even got near 1 TB on our 100/20 plan.

        • +8 votes

          Warez topsite

          • +1 vote

            @Ulysses31: Steam, Microsoft Store, Epic Games, UPlay, Blizzard, but yeah sure :)

            Been setting up a Gaming HTPC.

        • +3 votes

          Have you never used newsgroups? You'd easily get that speed.

          •  

            @Deviner: No, but I been trying to download Gears 5 on my PC today and it's only ever maxed at 22mbps and often sat around 3mbps…. Such is the shit show that the Microsoft Store is.

            Steam/Blizzard are usually the only times I max out my connection.

            Dont get me wrong, I know there are ways to use the speed and actually get the benefit, but many people will never come close. A household full of Netflix 4k streams wouldn't make a blip on it for instance

            • +3 votes

              @DisabledUser139667:

              … the shit show that the Microsoft Store is.

              I endured this experience for years until recently when I disabled "Allow downloads from other PCs on the internet." I don't know how they are related but I haven't experienced slow download speeds ever since I toggled the setting off. YMMV

              • +1 vote

                @albert0pia: Thanks, will try

        • +1 vote

          I'm living in Canada at the moment, our internet is 400 down and 100-250up depending on the time of day.

          Just the amount of steam updates and downloads that happen in minutes / seconds instead of minutes to hours or overnight is incredible.

          Everything I've used that can benefit from faster download speeds has been capable of supporting the full speed over here.

          Just small things like Netflix has never buffered, OTA updates are done in seconds, downloading phone apps is near instant. It makes me really hate what the nbn has become and I'll struggle going back to my FTTN 24down speed.

          Also it cost us $45 a month.

        • +2 votes

          PSN and Xbox Live both provide terrible download speeds always have, Steam,Uplay,Origin etc… on PC max's my FTTP 100mpbs easily.

          •  

            @Axelstrife: Xbox did improve too, I know MS mentioned it in an update once, definitely better then PSN but it does fluctuate.

            Microsoft Store is woeful though, I get errors all the time, particularly with gamepass titles, often need to redownload them (as I'm doing atm with Gears 5…), have restarted it several times FFS.

            •  

              @DisabledUser139667: Yep definitely way better on xbox live I've run both on my 50/20nbn and xbox hits higher speeds, doesn't max out the link but psn doesn't even come close.

              Can't comment on Ms store for pc, steam and gog hold most my pc Titles but barely play them.. (old pc/plex server lol)

              What htpc for gaming were/are you doing? (Case, specs etc..), was slowly planning an itx/sff build b4 shit hit the fan… Lol still, I follow whats out there and like hearing diff ideas… :)

              •  

                @scud70: Fractal Node 202, 9600k and 2080 blower :)

                Awesome case, little hot and noisy but I'll manage.

          •  

            @Axelstrife: I find Steam to provide the worst download speeds. Microsoft Store/Origin/UPlay are much faster than Steam.

            • +1 vote

              @Agret: Something is definitely wrong with your setup then.
              Im absolutely maxing my download speed on steam at all hours of day/night.

              •  

                @Axelstrife: It's just the Steam servers, valve heavily throttle them to spread around their bandwidth. Sometimes you can get slightly better speed by going to an international server in your settings but I normally leave it on Australia. My connection is around 87mbps and in MB/s peaks around 11MB/s.

                Steam download max speed is around 7-9MB/s depending on how many Australians are downloading on Steam but the avg download speed is about 6-7MB/s on Australian steam which very well might be your connections max speed.

                On Epic/UPlay/Origin the speed is always over 9MB/s and will often hit 10-11MB/s. I would say they have a better backend but it's much more likely due to them only having a fraction of Steams userbase they have more bandwidth to spare.

                • +1 vote

                  @Agret: No it isn't, been downloading at over 11MB/s for years now and at random times throughout the day and night, it's never dropped like you are suggesting unless the steam servers where down or having issues.

                  The only PC launcher that gives terrible download speeds is Battlenet but that's well know to give slow download speeds.

          • +2 votes

            @bkhm: Have to use ad & tracking blocking extensions for that. The reason websites are slow to load is all the requests to random embeds into the page from a bunch of different analytic and advertising sites.

            Many sites hotlink popular JavaScript libraries, you can get around this using the decentraleyes extension which redirects the requests to your local machine instead.

            It's a matter of request latency rather than bandwidth that slows down the page loads. Having 1gbps on FTTN won't load the pages any faster than 50mbps on FTTN. A 50mbps FTTP would be faster than 100mbps on FTTN due to the low latency of a pure fibre connection.

    • +6 votes

      realistically most will never need or notice the difference with this speed anyway as they won't access content that would show it up

      This attitude is exactly why we are where we are. Also completely misses the point and is the root of every infrastructure problem. The question is not whether we need this right now, but whether we will need this in the future.

      The problem with building something to just satisfy what we need now is that, at some point, it will have to be replaced with something better at far greater total cost than if that had just been built in the first place. It's literally the equivalent of building a two-lane freeway, then upgrading it to a three-lane one, then upgrading it again to a four-lane one, then a five-lane one, all in the space of 30 years (i.e. the Monash Fwy).

      The amount of data throughput required is increasing every day. The current version of the NBN is ridiculous - we spent copious amounts of money on upgrading copper infrastructure that will eventually have to be replaced (within a decade). When it's all said and done, we wasted money on digging up kerbs, upgrading copper, then digging up kerbs again, then installing fibre.

        • +3 votes

          But there's a reason why take up of even 100/40 plans are so low…. People right now don't need it and won't pay extra for it. As much as the niche would like to think otherwise.

          That's because the price difference is stupid. In Australia an extra $20 gets you 50Mbps more. In New Zealand an extra $20 gets you 900Mnps more. There is also a limitation where many FTTN users cannot subscribe to a 100Mbps connection because of their line quality.

          •  

            @BROKENKEYBOARD: You’re right. I’m pretty sure Telstra NBN is $99 a month. So people are fine with that amount. It was Telstra not consumers that made the choice to stop selling/buying 100Mbps. Cause copper sucks and no one wants to pay more than the KIWIS. It costs more to get the NBNs 1000mbps plan for a month or so than it does a whole years water and gas.

            Fresh water is cheaper. No wonder people aren’t buying even the 100Mbps plan on mass.

  • +6 votes

    Waiting for Telstra 5G, so I can ditch NBN.

    • +6 votes

      And when you burn through the data limit in an evening?

      • +4 votes

        Optus 5G has unlimited plan.

        • +2 votes

          Ok… you said Telstra.

          And don't bet on it in the future…

        • +2 votes

          How do Optus provide unlimited 5G for $70/month but on 4G for $65/month you only get 200GB & $68/month you get 500GB :( Where's the $70/month unlimited 4G?!

      •  

        Unless the 5G towers burn first

        •  

          Unless 5G towers burn our brains first, lucky i'm wearing my trusty tinfoil hat though, it's rather snazzy too…

          • +1 vote

            @sk3iron: Tinfoil ensures an even cook for my potatoes in the fire!

    • +1 vote

      “Waiting for ‘insert anything other than NBN’, so I can ditch NBN.” - FTFY

    • +2 votes

      not worried about it coming with a free side of the 'rona?

  • +14 votes

    Australian broadband is a joke! In Hong Kong, you can get 1000Mbps for residential use for around $60AUD per month… Thats with homephone and subscription TV included.

    • +5 votes

      Aussie is lovely. It’s NBN that sets this high wholesale price and CVC. It’s like $8 a Mbps from NBN.

      •  

        Labor's pricing was $20Mbps, so the Liberal price cut to $8Mbs and bundling with AVC should be considered a bargain.