• long running

Free Speed Boost for nbn Fixed Line Customers (Modem Reboot Required, Selected Areas)

2530

Hi all. From the outset, please note this may not work for everyone but has certainly worked for me and a few others I've asked to test. Let us know in the comments how it went for you. Read this article on Whirlpool so gave it a go. Previously getting 46/17Mbps on Speedtest but now getting 54/18Mbps after a modem power cycle. Not sure what the '15% overprovisioning' really means, so I'll let the experts comment below. This article has a lot more information. Hope it works for you. Stay safe, and enjoy :)

Edit: Telstra announcement.

Mod Note: This is not specific to Telstra, the deal is just linked to a Speedtest hosted by Telstra.

Related Stores

NBN Co
NBN Co
Telstra
Telstra

Comments

  • I'm not sure what all the '15% overprovisioning' really means

    Lots of people complained about not being able to get the full speed that you're sold e.g. 100Mbps but only getting 95Mbps in speedtest.

    • Yep, Im with telstra 100/20
      Offpeak is just 88Mbps max

    • e.g. 100Mbps but only getting 95Mbps in speedtest.

      Ok, I'll take the risk of getting negged…

      First World Problem much?

      • Australia has low internet speed with high cost compared to the world (below average) hence not really a First World Problem since we are not in First World for this category.

        • Australias geographically spread population is also unlike most country’s.

          • @Roger Ramjet: Correct but our internet in urban areas is still bearly second world, more like the third world.
            Not only the consumer side, I've been hearing complaints from friends doing global website business about the high cost and low speed in Australia for years.

            • @yfxsmike: Have you been to the third world? I can’t imagine slums in India or refugee camps in Africa having high speed internet. Let’s get back to reality here, we have life pretty damn good and for most the Internet we have does alright.

              I’m not dismissing the issues but in the grand scheme of things…

              • @Roger Ramjet: I hesitated when I typed the third world too but then I thought about the satellite NBN (can't remember what it was called) in the news bearly transfers word document. The overall speed for Australia is not much better than India and slower than Vietnam.

                I know speaking it out is depressing and my own experience is not that bad with HFC 100 but we are 60% of the world average speed according to speedtest.com data.

                Just hope we can get the speed and price right one day.

              • @Roger Ramjet:

                I can’t imagine slums in India or refugee camps in Africa having high speed internet.

                Honestly, you need to start imagining before you happen to visit a few of those places after Covid and the reality hits you hard.

              • @Roger Ramjet: There are places in India and Africa, not slums but poorer places that have huts and beggars in the streets of the same suburbs that have faster internet than we have. Plus they can even get free PPV for boxing, wrestling, UFC, etc. on their cable TV and its legal. Strange priorities but there you have it…

              • @Roger Ramjet: Well Slums may not, but I have work colleagues in India and they all have Fibre to their house and they have had it for years I just got Fibre to the Node less then 2 years ago and one of my mates less then 10km away is still on ADSL.

                • @Not SkyNet: And I know plenty of people with FTTH so…

                  • @Roger Ramjet: So the point was they have a common GOOD infrastructure in most areas unlike us where we have in suburbs not Rural people still on ADSL and others with a mix of FTTN, FTTK, FTTH ,Satellite , cable and 4G/5G .

                    In the scheme of things it goes to show that countries considered worse off in some people eyes have better internet infrastructure then us.

              • @Roger Ramjet: I found the internet in India pretty good when I was there in February (31 days - great place, lovely people). Cheap as chips too.

                I think the correct term is "emerging economies" or similar.

            • @yfxsmike: "bearly' ??? LOL

            • @yfxsmike: This is a bit of a fallacy. People have just decried our internet speed for so long that they haven't actually done any research.

              This table does show the average speed of Australian internet as being only 11.1Mb/s, but I will warrant that anyone who claims "We have shitty internet" is getting well and truly more than 11.1Mb/s. In fact, I dare say that these people are also getting well and truly more than the FASTEST average internet speed of South Korea at 28.6Mb/s. From what I've been reading, the vast majority of connections in the USA are 25/5 cable connections.

              And honestly, unless you have a large household or do a lot of uploading, 50/20 should really be enough for most people. In a 2-person household I've bounced up to 100/40 three times, but always dropped back down because I've never needed the extra speed. This is coming from someone who goes through about 1Tb of data a month, has multiple cloud-connected security cameras, and runs their own servers.

              • @trankillity: Why are you comparing the top tier of Australian internet users to the average South Korean connection? Compare it to the top tier SK connection.
                A regular 500Mbps (goes up to 5Gbps) costs about $48/mo in SK. The highest generally available connection is 100Mbps here and costs $90/mo. In capital cities here you're more likely to pay almost double for 1/4 of the speeds.

                With MTM you're pretty much hamstringing the potential speeds we can get, as well as cost more since we'll eventually need to upgrade to fibre.

                Just imagine 20 years ago, you're on a mix of ISDN/ADSL trying to load the current feature rich websites, which can go up to multiple MB now just for HTML/JS. Sad thing is some people are still stuck with ADSL2+ now.

                Your analogy is that who needs planes when you can get everywhere you need by driving at 80km/h now anyway?

                • @derfel.cadarn: Australia and SK are geographically so similar that you make a great point.

                • @derfel.cadarn: You definitely make some good points. Especially about the fact that NBN is definitely not future proof. Once 8K and game streaming become more commonplace, NBN will cripple under the pressure.

                  Hopefully by that time though, we'll have wireless technologies that can support the demand, rather than needing to build sparse, connected infrastructure to every home.

                  My main point was that the people who are the loudest complainers, often don't even know how good they have it compared to the vast majority.

              • @trankillity: Well summed up. People who spout this rubbish have no idea what they’re talking about.

          • @Roger Ramjet: Then you combine that with our remoteness and desire for distant, overseas traffic which is also unique in the world (meaning higher cost), unlike Asia, Europe, the Americas and even Africa.

          • @Roger Ramjet: Not true, 66% of the population lives in only the 8 capital cities. We are heavily urbanised.

            • @bulletmark: And always have been mostly city based. Its funny how the country living myth persists.

              But fiber is fast enough to overcome distance (the world is further away than the rest of Aus). And we laid out copper decades ago, lets not pretend the distances or efforts required to lay cable today are worse. Current tech makes laying long distances of cable much easier now.

              We should have got FTTH Ruddnet, not the mixed bag winners and losers, and far more expensive, Turnbullnet with its imaginary space colonyesque super transmission magnets that would equalise the differences. Ah yeah, they were so tech savvy.

            • @bulletmark: Sure but 34% is a third of the population and the cost to get that geographically spread population internet is massive.

      • Third World as you'd imply is better served than Australia :/

      • Oh great, that's going to set all the Beasleyband fantasists off…

      • When a person buys 6 eggs but there's only 5 in the box, they'd be within their rights to complain. That's literally what ISPs have been doing for years - and I'm not convinced they should be treated any differently.

        I totally understand there are logistical challenges in Australia's internet - but I don't think that's the problem. It's the false advertising.

        • the difference is an extra egg gives you extra food for a day…extra 5mb on a 95mbs isn't going to help most ppl download their po*n faster

    • lol 95 not 100 and complaining… -__-

  • It's just overprovisioning that all other RSP enabled at the start of the month. Telstra have been dam slow to it

    • Isn't it fantastic that the NBN has speed tiers which means that lines can be 'over provisioned' while still performing at 5% of their true speed.

      • I used to work for Telstra and have seen the unrestricted speeds in customers accounts and for a brief period on my own usage when I first got it. Well over a GB/s unrestricted through cable. Some customers were seeing more than double that too. Only one guy I know that had it for a couple months before it was rectified. The rest were within 1-3 days.

        • It is such a shame that Labor included speed tiers on the NBN. If they hadn't been so stupid, most people would have 1Gbps connections today.

          • +10 votes

            @mathew42: LOL, It was Turnbull and Co in the Liberals ruined the NBN. Thats why not everyone has FTTP, the dogs breakfast we have had nothing to do with Labor.

            Rudd planned fiber to just about everyone.

            • @Tuba:

              Rudd planned fiber to just about everyone.

              Rudd went to the election with a FTTN plan and only switched to FTTP when Telstra proved recalcitrant. Labor expected that close to 50% would be on FTTP capped at 12Mbps today and <1% on 1Gbps in 2026. If Labor hadn't introduced speed tiers that would have been 100% on 1Gbps and FTTN wouldn't have been an option due to the disparity. Instead, even today if you removed the speed tiers on FTTN, the average speed (68Mbps) would be faster than FTTP with speed tiers.

              • +3 votes

                @mathew42: So their initial idea wasnt ideal, but what they settled on was pretty good for infrastructure which could allow better speeds at any time, and then Libco ruined it in a way that the infrastructure is not there to take advantage of, and youd still prefer to blame labor? Given liberal didnt stick with Labor plans anyway, I find it laughable you think they would be bound by the ideal speeds.

                And I doubt 12 would ever stand, I got better than that with ADSL.

                • @Tuba: I see the Fantasy Writer's Guild is churning out copy at a great rate…

                • @Tuba:

                  So their initial idea wasn't ideal, but what they settled on was pretty good for infrastructure

                  Choosing FTTP was the right idea, but it wasn't Labor's first choice.
                  Implementing artificial speed tiers when the same NBNCo Corporate Plan stated that a minimum of 100Mbps was required for tele-medicine, remote learning, etc.

                  And I doubt 12 would ever stand, I got better than that with ADSL.

                  I suggest you look through the take-up rates. After you remove the first 12 months of early adopter data, Labor's predictions about people being unwilling to pay for fast speeds were pretty accurate. When Labor lost the election, 85% of connections were 25Mbps or slower on a pure FTTP network.

                  • @mathew42: But they werent forced onto 12…. thats the point.

                    So its Liberal who ruined NBN by implementing the wrong infrastructure.

                    • @Tuba:

                      But they werent forced onto 12…. thats the point.

                      If you cannot afford the expensive faster NBN speed tiers required for video conferencing then you don't have access. Labor expected that 15% would move to wireless because NBN plans were too expensive.
                      It is a bit like saying nobody is forced to drive around in a 20 year old car.

                      The same argument could be made that everybody has access to technology change and so aren't forced to remain on FTTN. The cost of technology change is less than stamp duty on moving house and easily affordable for the <1% who could afford 1Gbps speeds under Labor's plan.

                      • +3 votes

                        @mathew42: TL:DR, Rudds net, had limited grasp of how fast people in 2008 needed, but designed it so any future PM can change opinion on speeds, flick a switch, and voila, gigabit net. Under Turnbull net, the speeds are slightly higher, but future PMs are locked into those speeds without major national works projects that will double and triple the cost of the NBN we have now.

                        You seem focused on old policies that dont actually support you anyway.

                        Under Rudds net, all that needs to change is an opinion about speeds, the hardware is there for gigabit even if they limit it to 12mbit. ie: change by flicking the switch. Under Turnbulls net, another decade of works, and more tax payers money is needed to overcome the physical limits. Theres no simple switch. To fix it its many many diggers and people, laying fiber again over a another decade or more, with costs that will blow out like it already did.

                        You can get gigabit under Rudds even if he thinks no one needed it back in 2008. The genius of his plan, that was not seen by Turnbull is it allowed Mr(s)2016s or 2021s PM to approve faster speeds, or let the market decide, and they could easily provide it with the existing infrastructure. Mr Turnbull said no one will ever ever need more than whatever someone not close to the POI can get now, say 30mbit and if they do then they can pay to upgrade the street.

                        • @Tuba:

                          Rudds net, had limited grasp of how fast people in 2008 needed

                          Completely wrong. The first NBNCo Corporate Plan had a chart showing that 100Mbps was the recommended minimum speed for remote education and tele-health with 1Gbps being recommended.
                          That same documented estimated that 50% would connected at 12Mbps and less than 1% would be on 1Gbps in 2026.

                          There was a model for how prices would reduce as up-take increased and the revenue growth and unsurprisingly prices fell by a tiny fraction of the increase in revenue.

                          You can get gigabit under Rudds even if he thinks no one needed it back in 2008. The genius of his plan

                          Genius? Seriously? Introducing speed tiers was the worst decision made as part of the NBN. It denied the majority the benefits of the NBN. Can you imagine the innovation opportunities if companies could plan for 93% of connections in Australia to be 1Gbps? Companies would have been lining up to pilot projects.

                          no one will ever ever need more than whatever someone not close to the POI can get now, say 30mbit and if they do then they can pay to upgrade the street.

                          Technology change is likely to be cheaper than stamp duty on moving house and if you could have afforded 1Gbps on Labor's pricing model, then you could easily afford technology change costs.

                          • +2 votes

                            @mathew42: LOL, you keep ranting about some tiers that never happened.

                            How hard is this? Rudd net, in the hands of say Mr PM2021, could provide gigabit to me. Turnbulls net, under the same Mr PM2021, cant and wont without billions more tax payer dollars. Your argument is those tiers were awful, when they were merely ideas, but dont see how Turnbulls are not just ideas, they are set in stone.

                            Try this, I can do 100kmh if my car is capable and live with 30 if thats the speed limit, but if the car is only capable of 30, then I cant do 100 even when the limit is removed. Rudd is the first case, Turnbull is the latter.

                            • @Tuba: No other factors matter in any way, only that the poster gets a gig internet. Nothing else, like costs, or others getting any service at all, matters. Might as well live in the US.

                              • @mickeyjuiceman: Yeah, or you could read for context. Instead of not caring about the facts, instead you need to back your team at any cost.

                                I said me, because people start on about someone living in the middle of the desert, one house for a 1000sq kms. Not eveyone got it, yeah, country is large, its complex. So I simply stated me, context? FTTN, and FTTP. Me, by definition includes most situations where people who are NOT on FTTP (gigabit capable), and instead are on FTTN (not gigabit capable) or HFC. This is people that live in similar suburbia, with streets and many many houses, that all have FTTN and not with FTTP. And yes, that includes people that werent even getting their Turnbull hamstrung advertised speeds either, like 50mbit plans that top out at 43. Thus the thread, about an overhead to counter the shortfall that gets a 50 plan, to 50.

                                Me = everyone else on FTTN, or at least not on FTTP.

                                That wasnt hard now was it and its certainly nothing like what you decided I said? But you know, you know this already, youre not even close to genuine.

                                If it helps you, I get 93/37 pretty consistently, with pings of 7. Im not actually concerned for my speeds yet, but so many people cant get half that, and without major works, that CANT change. It remains at a self serving aspect that if I want gigabit, I cant get that either, not that I want it but it will still be true when it turns out 100/40 is the base plan needed for the worlds data usage of that time. FTTN is not future proof at all. FTTN is built for now, not tomorrow, FTTP is built for today and tomorrow. Need it explained more?

                                • @Tuba:

                                  Yeah, or you could read for context. Instead of not caring about the facts

                                  The problem is that when Labor proposed FTTP, people ignored the fact that Labor were expecting close 50% to remain on 12Mbps for the next 15 years (limit of the projections). If more people had complained then, there is a possibility that speed tiers would have been removed. MTM would have been much more difficult to push through if every fixed line connection was 1Gbps. Instead people were blinded by the glowing light of fibre and dismissed concerns as we change the pricing later.

                                  • @mathew42: Regardless, Rudds fiber was gigabit capable. No matter how misguided Rudd may or may not have been over uptakes (these are plans, not rules forever), he still planned FTTP where feasible. He planned a gigabit capable net, even if he never understood how soon it would be in demand.

                                    Turnbulls too slow hardware, was a rule forever. Turnbulls hardware, not Rudds ideas, stopped anyone on FTTN from easily getting an offer of gigabit.

                                    Saying that you failed to convince everyone back in 2008 that tiers would stop us getting gigabit in 2020, is magic 8 ball stuff. No matter how wrong Rudd might have been, his infrastructure would have dealt with his error. Turnbulls infrastructure, cant deal with Turnbulls error.

                                    And people didnt decide on Rudd which your premise about voters understanding this and that about speeds like you claim, the wranger.. ranger?… redhead ousted him, and she in turn was unpopular enough that people based their choice on other factors. Her opponent could have used puppies to beat kittens to death on national TV, and still beaten her.

                                    • @Tuba:

                                      Regardless, Rudds fiber was gigabit capable.

                                      Unfortunately there is a large gap between capable and reality. A couple of facts: Labor planned FTTN and only switched to FTTP due to Telstra not agreeing. According to Quigley, Labor only switched from 100Mbps to 1Gbps in response to Google Fibre announcement in the USA and fear of bad publicity.

                                      Saying that you failed to convince everyone back in 2008 that tiers would stop us getting gigabit in 2020, is magic 8 ball stuff.

                                      Wrong. It was clear as day to anyone who read the first NBNCo Corporate Plan that 1Gbps would be available only to a special few (<1% in 2026) and that wireless operators would compete with NBNCo for the bottom end of the market with faster plans. Plenty of threads on Whirlpool confirm this.

                                      I know whose mistake Id prefer.

                                      If you could afford Labor's 1Gbps plans (in top 1%) then the mistake doesn't impact you as technology change costs can be covered by that European holiday you couldn't take this year.

                                      • @mathew42: Youre still relying on ideas in planning stages and changes to a PLAN as an argument about what is in place today. That ludicrous. The plan that went ahead, was FTTP, and thats what I said. They could have planned two cans and a length of string, it doesnt change the fact that in the end, to use your own words, they listened to experts and upped the ante to FTTP and gigabit capable. Good choice.

                                        Your assertion that something is wrong is again based in distortions of reality and argues against something you proposed in the first place. You said that if people focused on speeds, instead of being blinded by the blinding light of fiber (its up there go reread your own post), we would have gigabit as it would be harder for Turnbull to make the poor choices he made. Its funny how you do these mental gymnastics to defend Turnbulls choices and try to make them Rudds responsibility.

                                        How is it you think the 2026 timeline is any more set in stone than FTTP? Like Rudd would be in power in 2026. Its laughable how you cling to ideas of 2008 that would never be in place anyway come 2020 let alone 2026. If Turnbull can change from FTTP to FTTN, then he can easily change from 12 to 100, or 1000 too, and so could whoever is Mr 2021PM too. They cant now.

                                        All that was said, that youve tried some astounding mental gymnastics to argue with, is that Rudd, after planning, and consultation, and revisions, and advice, and US announcements in tech directions, decided on FTTP that is gigabit capable even if he didnt see most using it. And along comes Turnbull, and gave us a dogs breaskfast that means most Australians cant today take advantage of 100mbit, let alone gigabit.

                                        • @Tuba:

                                          they listened to experts and upped the ante to FTTP and gigabit capable.

                                          Unfortunately Labor didn't listen to the experts. Telstra refused to cooperate with Labor to build FTTN, blocking their election manifesto. According to Quigley, the NBN was only increased to gigabit capable, because Labor feared criticism based on the Google Fibre announcement.

                                          How is it you think the 2026 timeline is any more set in stone than FTTP?

                                          My mental gymnastics are simple extrapolation of the facts which have been shown to be reasonable. 85% are still on 50Mbps or slower and without LNP bundling CVC on 50Mbps plans and cutting prices faster than Labor it would have been 85% on 25Mbps.

                                          Your mental gymnastics are:
                                          1. Build FTTP (ignoring the details of the plan) because fibre will solve all the world's problems.
                                          2. Something amazing happens with a build that was over budget and behind schedule from day 1
                                          3. Everybody has cheap 1Gbps

                                          The reality as those who read the NBNCo Corporate Plan expected was:
                                          1. Estimates on take-up were extremely optimistic
                                          2. Estimates on demand for faster speeds were extremely optimistic
                                          3. Competitors were able to offer better deals for price sensitive customers

                                          As for MTM being a bad decision, the impact is much smaller than you think. Less than 4% on FTTN are unable to obtain the speed that they would choose on FTTP. Remove the speed tiers on FTTN and the average speed (68Mbps) on FTTN would be faster than FTTP. Even with FTTN, HFC & FTTC, speeds on MTM are significantly higher than Labor predicted for a fully FTTP network. Does this not demonstrate how badly Labor messed up?

                                          • @mathew42:

                                            Unfortunately Labor didn't listen to the experts. Telstra refused to cooperate with Labor to build FTTN, blocking their election manifesto. According to Quigley, the NBN was only increased to gigabit capable, because Labor feared criticism based on the Google Fibre announcement.

                                            So now we are past the presentations, consultation, meetings, costings whatever, and Rudd now has to make the final decision about which he is going to use as the backhoe is about to dig and the trucks roll out the fiber, and he went with FTTN? When Labor was no longer government, the decision they made before being ousted, was Australia was getting FTTN everywhere? Turnbull inherited the Labor decision of FTTN. Nope… no they didnt did they? Ah yeah, so now that decision has no merit to you because you dont like how it came about, instead you want to dissect the why and how Labor decided, and argue that they didnt decide at all when in fact it was the PMs job is to decide and no one elses for whatever reasons. Yet the end result is, Labor went with FTTP but Im not meant to consider how FTTP everywhere would solve the <100mbit issue, let alone the gigiabit. Yeah, no mental gymnasitcs here. This process of yours means that despite not being in government any longer, and having already said FTTP for whatever reasons, Turnbulls choice not to bury enough fiber is Rudds fault and not Turnbulls. Ok.

                                            The GENIUS, of Rudds plan, was the FTTP, regardless of what made him decide on it or even if you want to credit him with it or not. Its still the permanent portion of the plan he went with. The problems now, is even if the world was willing, my inlaws cant get better NBN than 43, with out a backhoe or permits to enter pits, qualified and authorised staff, and significant lengths of fiber as is true for many on FTTN. Even if Rudds plan was implemented, as you claim he intended it, in the manner you claim he got there, with all your real and imagined problems and complications, all that needs changing is the rules to improve speed.

                                            My mental gymnastics are simple extrapolation of the facts which have been shown to be reasonable. 85% are still on 50Mbps or slower and without LNP bundling CVC on 50Mbps plans and cutting prices faster than Labor it would have been 85% on 25Mbps.

                                            I can tell you some of those on 50 plans, that you imply are happy there, cant get better on their line. My inlaws line tests at 43, so they took on the 50 plan, but if it tested in the 70s or up my mother inlaw wanted 100/40. I must know plenty of the 4% you reference below, and not much of the remaining 96% because its a fairly common complaint they cant get better speeds. The NBN guys that came to my inlaws to sort some noise or whatever it was to sort their initial connection told me the same thing too. Its funny how life doesnt feel like that 4%. It might make sense with say 30%, but 4%?

                                            And no, youre trying to argue that what Rudd plans in 2008, is set in stone or youre arguing with yourself as you never actually addressed the post you responded too. If youve ever been in a planning meeting, its rarely the first incarnation that gets the nod. Otherwise, why bother with the meeting?

                                            The only part set in stone, was what is laid in the ground. Youre splitting hairs over how they came to their conclusions as if that changes what someone else decided to lay in the ground once it was laid.

                                            Your mental gymnastics are:
                                            1. Build FTTP (ignoring the details of the plan) because fibre will solve all the world's problems.

                                            Really? No, I said FTTP means I could, if I like, get gigabit although I dont care right now about gigabit, but more over I was focused on the people I know that would want 100/40, but had to settle on 50/20 as their line is incapable of beating 43. Or even if they dont want it, they should be able to have it if they so chose. Not sure I addressed world hunger or peace, or corona… but you know, resort to histrionics as you fail to stick the landing.

                                            Less than 4% on FTTN are unable to obtain the speed that they would choose on FTTP.
                                            Ah yeah, today thinking. What they need tomorrow doesnt matter, and the fact they CANT if they want too, means nothing. Gothca.

                                            Thanks for now admitting there is a problem though. Those 4% count and Rudds final plan, would allow 100, or 1000. The current system, does not.

                                            Remove the speed tiers on FTTN and the average speed (68Mbps) on FTTN would be faster than FTTP.

                                            Oh I see, and thats without caveats? Youre saying that FTTN is always faster than Fiber all the way? That somehow removing fiber from the last meters is making NBN quicker for those fortunae enough to be on FTTN? No, youre not saying that? So just on the assumption that no one wants 68 and wont 20 years from now… lol. No, nothing at all gymnastic in that. And yes, maybe 1000 wont be enough 20 years from now, but sure as hell if its true 68 will be very short long long before that.

                                            Lets boil out the histrionics and preferences for a story that may or may not be true…
                                            My limits have nothing to do with what Rudd thought or didnt think as he didnt build our NBN, he only got as far as set it in motion, and began its funding. My physical limitation, and many more were imposed by decisions from the Liberal government that followed, and Rudd was long gone by then. My NBN went live in I think 2018.

                                            • @Tuba: What you and other fibre fanbois want me to believe is that as long as fibre is in the ground all is perfect. The magic fairy will come along and fix the pricing. The current speeds are four times faster than Labor expected in their NBNCo Corporate Plan. This is purely because of Liberal price cuts. Interestingly those price cuts have focused on CVC which have damaged the NBN even more.

                                              I can tell you some of those on 50 plans, that you imply are happy there, cant get better on their line.

                                              Look at the ACCC numbers in the NBNCo Wholesale Report and you will find that 85% even on FTTP are choosing 50Mbps or slower. It used to be 25Mbps until the Liberals cut the price.

                                              My limits have nothing to do with what Rudd thought or didnt think as he didnt build our NBN

                                              Wrong. The state of the NBN today is directly due to Labor's decision to implement speed tiers. Now those price cuts have damaged NBNCo revenue because they were focused on CVC. Labor knowingly structured the NBN pricing model with the expectation that 50% would connect at 12Mbps well into the future, due to speed tiers and faster speeds on the NBN being too expensive for the average person.

                                              My physical limitation, and many more were imposed by decisions from the Liberal government that followed

                                              You keep the focus on a physical limitation but it is Labor's speed tiers that were significantly more damaging and continue to be more damaging. I could own a Ferrari but on the public highway it will never fulfil it's potential.

                                              Labor documented their expectations that the majority wouldn't be able to afford faster speeds and that was the case when they left office. 85% were selecting 25Mbps or slower plans. Unfortunately if you are in the 15% that want to more than the other 85%, it is only reasonable that you pay a premium, especially as it was your selfishness to accept speed tiers that directly lead to the current situation. Accept the consequences of supporting Labor's flawed plan, be happy that Liberal price cuts have delivered faster speeds to the bottom 85% and spend the money if you want more. Sorry but the magic price cut fairy never existed under Labor's plan.

                                              • @mathew42: You know that physical limitation? Its the only one that matters. Abbott, Turnbull, Scomo, MrMagoo, arent bound to whatever Rudd said. I know, because they changed it to FTTN where I and many others were slated for FTTP. They can clearly change it, and did so those rules you say hampered their decisions, didnt.

                                                Stop defending that they changed the good bits, and hiding behind them not changing the bad bits and then blame the guy from 2008 that got the whole ball rolling in the first place. The only impediment that matters, is the one buried in the ground. Rules are easy to change, and are bound too when set more than a decade ago, especially in the field of technology. Prices are no harder to change if you so want them changed. It just takes longer to recoup a project more designed to spedn money out of recession, which worked, no recession, and bring forward a future project. It already did its job for what he initiated it for. NBN didnt do NBN related job its was potentially capable of because well, according to you the people that changed it all (FTTN over FTTP), cant be blamed because, oh wait… because they cant change it lol.

                                                Fact, I can only get 100. FTTP, I could 1000. My inlaws, can only get 43, but could get 100 or 1000 with fiber.

                                                That Ferrari, if the rules changed, can go as fast as a Ferrari can. But the horse and buggy many are left with, even with rule changes that let the Ferrari open up, is still a horse and buggy.

                                                • @Tuba:

                                                  You know that physical limitation? Its the only one that matters.

                                                  The speed limits have the same effect as the physical limitation if you are on a low income.
                                                  You keep talking about the rules changing, but it is a strawman argument as you don't agree with my statement that speed tiers are bad. You keep stating that rules can change but don't make an argument to change them.

                                                  Face the reality that you are in the privileged 15% who can afford a connection faster that 50Mbps and yet expect the government to subsidise your fast connection while not caring that your neighbour can't afford faster speeds. My response is want more than the 85% stop expecting middle class welfare. If it is really that important spend the money for technology change it is likely cheaper than many other home improvements and cheaper on the stamp duty to move.

                                                  • @mathew42: Speed limits based in rules, are easy to change. Are you trying to tell me still, that you think that people4 who already make the rules up as they go, cant change a bleeding rule that is 12 years old? The only limit in speed that is hard to fix is the physical bits that are buried. If youre going to keep arguing an idea, a written rule that has no physical capability to limit is somehow a bigger deal than the absence of the physical needs in the first place youre mad. And its made worse when you claim the very people who changed all the rules, cant change those rules.

                                                    The speed tier of capped 25, am I limited to that? Did I have to pay for gigabit? No. So, that tier you keep rabbiting on about, already doesnt exist, and you cant claim it as the cause 12 years later. No. Stop it then. It was not a limit that cant be changed.

                                                    2008, wasnt more than a few years after pretty much everyone on the net in Aus was using dial up. 2008 was certainly closer to dial up era, than we are now to 2008.

                                                    Face nothing, my plans price is closer to 30% more $ than it is to being twice of my inlaws, yet its double the speed. Add in we no longer pay Telstra $30 odd for a line to have any net at all. My inlaws paid $60ish before for ADSL, and pay $69 now for NBN, she was happy to pay the $30 she doesnt pay Telstra for 100/40. She gets nothing for her money if she did, so didnt, and cant.

                                                    What you need to face, is many people want opportunity to take up faster than 50 net and cant, in 2020, because the physical line wont let them, not rules from 12 years ago. Sure, they can fund it themselves, far more true of that implication of your Ferrari budget complaints as if you talk for the battler.

                                                    Rudds tiers, with FTTP, is gigabit capable even if never enabled as gigabit.
                                                    No speed tiers and FTTN, is not gigabit capable. Its not that hard.

                                                • @Tuba:

                                                  It already did its job for what he initiated it for. NBN didnt do NBN related job its was potentially capable of because well, according to you the people that changed it all (FTTN over FTTP), cant be blamed because, oh wait… because they cant change it lol.

                                                  Very few people have made an argument that speed tiers should be removed from the NBN because they unjustly impact on 85% who cannot afford faster speeds. Those people who argued strongly back in 2008 / 2009 that adding speed tiers to the NBN was a bad idea can hold their head high, everyone else deserves FTTN for their selfishness.

                                                  That Ferrari, if the rules changed, can go as fast as a Ferrari can.

                                                  Just like very few can afford the fast speeds on the NBN, very few can afford a Ferrari. In both case, those same people can afford technology change or track days to enjoy their Ferrari. The reality is that if you cannot afford the cost of technology change you probably aren't in the <1% that Labor expected to have a 1Gbps connection in 2026 and more likely in the 85% choosing 50Mbps or slower due to costs.

                                                  • @mathew42:

                                                    Very few people have made an argument that speed tiers should be removed from the NBN because they unjustly impact on 85% who cannot afford faster speeds. Those people who argued strongly back in 2008 / 2009 that adding speed tiers to the NBN was a bad idea can hold their head high, everyone else deserves FTTN for their selfishness.

                                                    And now we get to it. Youre trying to toot your own horn, and the illogical nature of your viewpoint in 2020 is lost in your pride.

                                                    Let me clear it up. Rudd, planned FTTP, tiers and whatnot be damned. They wont change how easy gigibit is from there even if he said every house gets the line BUT only every second house can use it. Wont change the potential of FTTP over FTTN. People who argued tiers, divided the potential for today, because in the end, Rudd pushed FTTP, gigabit capable. The tiers dont need to stay. Arguing it in 2008, plays to the FTTN crowd part way in the roll out and might lead to changes and people now getting FTTN, oh wait, thats what happened, and now so many cant gigabit even if govco wanted us to.

                                                    So in essence, you debated at the time, when the proposal of FTTP should have got at least the infrastructure down to gigabit and do it at whatever price govoc of the day, or free market, set. Next government or that one, once the cable is laid, can easily change the tiers. We know he settled on FTTP, and according to you with tiers. But its still FTTP and gigabit capable.

                                                    You got your way, Rudd was defeated, and we got FTTN, no gigabit capable without the investment of a Ferrari. Oh yeah, to you that Ferrari investment is fair, but not where you want to pretend you fight for the battler. Funny how Turnbull didnt off the tiers you dont like, he stuck to the very hard to alter, very pricey to redo, buried bits that ensure anyone even pensioners, have to get a loan to sort it if needed.

                                                    Sure net would be dear with tiers, but gigabit capable out of the box. One government change, price drop and gigabit. What we got, mild price drops, no gigabit capable unless youre in the 1%.

                                                    Head high, sure, youre deluded amply for that.

                                                    Just like very few can afford the fast speeds on the NBN, very few can afford a Ferrari. In both case, those same people can afford technology change or track days to enjoy their Ferrari. The reality is that if you cannot afford the cost of technology change you probably aren't in the <1% that Labor expected to have a 1Gbps connection in 2026 and more likely in the 85% choosing 50Mbps or slower due to costs.

                                                    But theres Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, other Euro, and plenty of others that perform better on tracks, and do the speed limits on roads, than that Ferrari, and more can afford those. We dont have to have a horse if we cant have the Ferrari.

                                                    The point was FTTN is the horse and buggy and no budget increase or cost saving make it faster than a horse. I cant get gigabit without someone laying fiber that should already be there. Id need to have the Ferrari budget to get FTTP, just as many needed a small cars price to get a Telstra line back in the John Howard days.

                                                    • @Tuba:

                                                      Next government or that one, once the cable is laid, can easily change the tiers. We know he settled on FTTP, and according to you with tiers. But its still FTTP and gigabit capable.

                                                      This is where the mistake was made. Too many acted as a Conroy cheer squad rather than critiquing the plan. I suspect the reason is they were too scared that Labor's plan was built on a house of cards.

                                                      Sadly the slow speeds are the direct consequence of your selfishness. In 2009 if there had been outrage over the introduction of speed tiers, then the baseline would have been 1Gbps. Labor chose to add speed tiers, with the knowledge that 50% were expected to connect at 12Mbps. Telstra not offering 12Mpbs, meant that many more connected at 25Mbps. LNP price cuts to CVC and bundling increased that to 85% on 50Mbps or slower. Most FTTN connections handle that speed or close to it.

                                                      I cant get gigabit without someone laying fiber that should already be there.

                                                      This is where we disagree. You chose to ignore the plight of the 85% who couldn't afford fast speeds on the NBN due to Labor's speed tiers. It is a project built for the good of the nation. If 85% cannot access the benefits and the 15% who can are those who are already better off financially, then I consider it reasonable to that the 15% should pay the additional cost to have a better service.

                                                      • @mathew42: No, I was just happy someone wanted to stop a recession and did. The US apparently was still reeling from that for all of Obamas 8 years as he inherited it, while we didnt, yes I know, his didnt either but it did take a harder hit. And I knew that optic fiber was better for the future as its not a magnet like structure from a drawing of life on Mars perched on a hill 100km away (surely you remember the artists impressions), despite me not having the same monster magnet on my roof to beam signal back, and that could supposedly beat light speeds of fiber as it was touted as faster. Sure, faster than light, cool story Mr Liberal Party. All this in a time when telcos couldnt even ensure their what was it, 2 or 3G mobile speeds were delivered, and many couldnt due to congestion back when not many could afford mobile data rates and plans, let alone a mobile phone capable of it. Bodes well for the wider nation using it for everything, not just find me a restaurant nearby, or Google prices of things Im looking at in a store, or the data free facebooking people did in 2010 on a mobile phone.

                                                        Moreover, with mine, if powers out, no phone. With FTTP, I can have landline phone with a simple backup device that cant help with FTTN.

                                                        Then theres this dogs breakfast that baffled the elderly. I know, I dealt with several. Many elderly dont use mobile, my mother inlaw does, although not a smart phone, her husband does not use one at all. No landline, no phone. The day before NBN switchover, power out, phone worked. When we had a cyclone not that long ago, their power was out for the better part of a week, they used my 4wd fridge and a battery on solar. I think it was pre switchover for them so phone still worked but wouldnt now. Awesome if someone sans mobile, need an ambulance for say 82 yr old him, and 80 year old her cant move him. Cant think where the nearest payphone is to anyone today. Its a long way to the neighbors, and no certainty that one is home, so off to the next hoping for a mobile. Thats without even considering how hard that decision is too leave them there while you hunt a phone. I guess I should now ascribe to you a lack of care for the elderly with your head held high there? So youre proud of that disdain for old folks, outliving their usefulness? Not what you did? Sure.

                                                        Then if its all FTTP, theres simple walk into Hardly Normal and back out with your boxed solutions, less difficulty for the elderly.

                                                        Ah yes, mobile, but like you claim, if they cant afford basic net, they cant afford mobile too now.

                                                        If you think they couldnt have laid the fiber, thats delusional.

                                                        Again, unless the fiber is currently limited for everyone at 12, or 25, your point is invalid. If the customer opts not to, thats their choice, currently, it was as already said, Turnbulls choice.

                                                        If 50 is fast enough now, thats the kind of narrow thinking that caused no one to listen to you earlier. Now is not what matters, it was not now in 2008, and it wont be 2020 in 2026, or 2030. But 50 will still have to be enough in 2030 for a fixed line without more investment. Pay twice.

                                                        • @Tuba:

                                                          No, I was just happy someone wanted to stop a recession and did.

                                                          The argument on the measures to taken in response to the GFC are for a different topic.
                                                          The NBNCo build was not connected with those responses.

                                                          With FTTP, I can have landline phone with a simple backup device that cant help with FTTN.

                                                          What you mean is that you have an unreliable battery that requires replacing and lasts less than a day. The battery along with 4 ports are examples of Labor's timidity and overspending.
                                                          A UPS could provide the same reliability.

                                                          Then theres this dogs breakfast that baffled the elderly. I know, I dealt with several.

                                                          Why? Order a connection, RSP sends a router, connect.
                                                          To an end user there isn't any difference between FTTN, HFC, FTTC & FTTP. I seriously doubt that anyone could tell the difference when capped at 12Mbps like Labor expected for 50%.

                                                          Many elderly dont use mobile. So youre proud of that disdain for old folks, outliving their usefulness?

                                                          That is not my experience, unless possibly in the over 90 age bracket. That number not using a mobile are diminishing very quickly. Specialised phones exist and it is significantly cheaper and more reliable to have a mobile than a fixed line. A mobile battery will last many hours longer than the FTTP battery, can be easily recharged from multiple sources and needs only one tower to be online.

                                                          If I was worried about an elderly relative, I would make sure they had an appropriate mobile and probably a bluetooth speaker. You might want to check out Mobile phones for seniors reviews. You might want to consider the Opel Easy Smart 2 with lanyard so it can be carried all the time. A mobile should be as easy to use a cordless phone.

                                                          Lastly, if there is a concern about frailty, these people should have a medical pendant so they can call for help at the press of a button.

                                                          If 50 is fast enough now, thats the kind of narrow thinking that caused no one to listen to you earlier.

                                                          It is not my narrow thinking. Remember I've advocated for the removal of speed tiers since Labor announced their introduction in the NBNCo Corporate Plan. It was Labor's expectation in the NBNCo Corporate Plan that stated close to 50% would be on 12Mbps now.

                                                          Fibre fanbois seem to have a 3 step plan, that completely ignores what Labor planned (except for shiny fibre).
                                                          1. Build FTTP (with expensive uncompetitive plans that include access and data charging)
                                                          2. Magic fairy waves wand and reduces prices, whereas Labor's plan had prices falling but at a fraction of the increase in usage
                                                          3. Unlimited 1Gbps FTTP for everyone.

                                                          The more reasonable but selfish, replace 2 & 3 with as long as I'm in the 1% who have 1Gbps that is okay.

                                                          • @mathew42: Your last three, are more hysterical distortions. You keep talking like things change where it suits you, and are then argue its impossible to change where that suits you. Price can change as its government infrastructure, by any government. They can recoup over 20 years, or 50. England repaid its WW2 (2006) debt to the US, before it repaid its WW1 (2014), both in this century. Grow up.

                                                            It has no bearing today if Rudd said one house gets NBN, but we all get FTTP, then gigabit would be possible today. It wouldnt matter if Rudd said its a million bucks a bit, it wont change whats connected to my home in 2020. FTTP. Its funny you still think Rudd is PM, its odd. Did you take a hit to the head in 2010? And all you have to counter that is, FTTP fanboi lol.

                                                            And frailty? Yeah, because the only old people that get hurt are frail. Got it, your pretense and fake outrage over the poor and no accesses is nothing but smoke and mirrors. You dont have to be frail to have a heart attack, or even be elderly. But its worse when you are older and fall. Yeah sure, pendant. Now who is talking rot and ignoring a vulnerable group with lip service. Here try this instead, it wont help if Im 12 with no mobile phone due to being poor, and theres a power failure, I cant call an ambulance for my 12 year old twin that I found drowned in the bath, slipped and banged his head, and Im alone and no time to run to neighbours as Im busy trying to do CPR. Or I could be the 30 year old parent with a child snake bit and again i dont have a phone or car because as you said people must think of, Im poor. How many scenarios do you want before you realise, having a reliable phone during a blackout isnt minor?

                                                            That UPS is going to give me FTTN phone in a blackout is it? Yeah, no it wont. Check the NBN site, they clearly state no way to get landline working during a blackout with FTTN. Can with FTTP with a back up device, that you then just leap to the conclusion is on some battery that I cant recharge for some reason with solar, and then spout about a UPS as if it solves the FTTN issue. See, you lie left and right, and hide behind claims of changes when it suits, and then when it doesnt you argue change is impossible for a future government, followed by assumptions and ascribing to fantasy leaps of your frail mind as if fact. Mental gymnastics galore.

                                                            No magic wand needed. Government infrastructure like a bridge, or fiber or even expenses like wars can be recouped over 20 years, or 100. If Rudd sets a plan that tried in 20 years, nothing stops the next government from altering that and reducing the cost of plans, and now recovering over 60 years, or whatever was required. Stop it, you couldnt lie straight in bed.

                                                            I cant get gigabit, because I dont have FTTP. Thats it. Most cant get get 100 because no FTTP. Thats it.

                                                            And the reason for the expenditure is relevant, you just have zero better arguments than the gymnastics youve attempted here and history proves its knockers, wrong. There was no recession, while all comparable countries were in recession. If there was no GFC, Rudd likely never would have started the NBN in any form. Of course its relevant. He had time constraints, ball rolling was urgent, the thing required a timely response, not endless meetings with geeks who cant agree, or Liberal plants that dont want him to succeed in avoiding the GFC, or creating something that they wanted in private hands from private money from day one, when they get around to it. Regardless of his other wrongs, he at least ended on the right parts that get buried and are VERY difficult and COSTLY to change. These are facts.

                                                            • @Tuba:

                                                              How many scenarios do you want before you realise, having a reliable phone during a blackout isnt minor?

                                                              I fully appreciate that reliable phone is important. However, the switch to FTTP made a mobile service cheaper and more reliable that a landline.

                                                              I cant get gigabit, because I dont have FTTP. Thats it. Most cant get get 100 because no FTTP. Thats it.

                                                              Wrong. There is a process called Technology Change. You cannot get 1Gbps because you don't see the value.
                                                              Most people are on 50Mbps or slower because they cannot afford a faster speed and yet the government should subsidise your 1Gbps connection?

                                                              Stop demanding middle class welfare. Labor's speed tiers mean that FTTN provides what most people can afford. If you want more pay for it.

                                                                • @Tuba:

                                                                  Youd think this thread wouldnt be here at all, if people were happy with their sub 50 speeds as you keep asserting.

                                                                  People might be unhappy with 50Mbps, in the same way they are unhappy about not buying a new merc every year.
                                                                  The evidence in the ACCC NBNCo Wholesale Market Indicators report provides sufficient evidence that 85% even on FTTP are simply not prepared to pay for faster speeds.

                                                                  I'd like a 1Gbps connection but accept when thanks to Labor's speed tiers 85% on FTTP cannot afford the monthly fees, then I should expect to pay the full price. Now that full price isn't that expensive when you consider the price of house renovations or moving.

                                                                  Your selfish agenda is I want my unlimited 1Gbps at a discounted price and bad luck to those people who cannot afford it.

                                                                  • @mathew42: Go on, tell me the full price that you with your concern for the poor over and over again, now suggest is not high CONSIDERING home ownership and renovations in a market where many struggle to just rent, let alone move willy nilly for internet. LOL, hahaha, you understand the poor like let them eat cake. And then remember, this line induced limit of 50 due to distance and copper, will still exist in 2030 and beyond until someone replaces the buried parts. How likely is that in a rental, let alone a rental in a low income area? Is it even necessary if they already laid FTTP? Nope. Has your concern for the poor run out here? The truly poor dont own houses mate, they are stuck in the rental cycle, odd you didnt know that. Took govcos from the 1930s to update the network last time. Yeah, concern for the poor. So fake.

                                                                    Sure when official interest rates rise again to say 6%, and owners struggle to meet the mortgage they took when it was nearer 0, and they have to choose between meeting the mortgage, and food, home owners might be able to claim they are poor again. Yeah yeah, you meant the wealthy can pay for their high speed. Im saying neither poor, nor wealthy had too outside of the taxes that funded it, and the plans that feed off it. When 2030 rolls around, and 60 is woefully inadequate, those poor still stuck in rentals, will still be stuck on 60. Not with FTTP they wouldnt be, the new middle range of todays 25, 50, 100 style net plans in 2030 (100, 200, 400), that 200 could be as close to adequate as 60 is now. But its not even possible with FTTN.

                                                                    Just so you get it. Im fine with 100/40, and getting 93/37 with 7 second pings. If i was selfish like you keep trying to imply with your passive aggressive faux rage for the poor, I wouldnt even be posting about sub 50 speeds. Id be, Im right, dont care. Im just lucky enough the POI is damn close, Im aware many are not that lucky. There should be no luck in this thing.

                                                                    Again, a dude from the past has no relevance to the current status. That limit is imposed by what was buried, and the cost to rectify that. The govco own the NBN, they can lower the price or make it free if they choose. Just as The earlier Libs could have continued with FTTP, and removed the tiers, and made its prices reasonable or free…. or do what they did instead… but they chose it.

                                                                    But go on, its funny to watch you claim to understand the poor, then exercise the quintessential socioeconomic hypocrisy… Let them eat cake.

                                                                    • @Tuba: Let me extract the essentials of your argument:
                                                                      Speed tiers are okay as long as there is FTTP so I can access a speed that 85% cannot afford.

                                                                      My argument is:
                                                                      Speed tiers are bad because it denies 85% from the benefits that Labor proclaimed the NBN would bring.

                                                                      • The benefits are based on Labor's statements in the NBNCo Corporate Plan about 100Mbps being the minimum recommended and 1Gbps the preferred speed for remote education & tele-medicine.
                                                                      • The 85% is based on 10 years of NBN speed tier take-up showing that few will pay more for faster speeds.

                                                                      10 years ago the response was don't worry it will change. I expect that speed tiers will still be here in 10 years. You continue to believe that despite all the evidence and while supporting speed tiers that the magic fairy will make it all better. Speed tiers are still here 10 years after Labor added them and I don't see any evidence that this will change. In fact people want CVC removed which will make faster speeds more expensive to cover revenue loss from CVC.

  • +22 votes

    This has nothing to do with Telstra, its an NBN thing, I have had it for a few weeks now. 100Mbps averages 105-109Mbps.

  • The plans are overprovionsed by Nbnco by 15% now to account for overheads but still requires action from the RSP to implement it.

    Aussie Broadband made the changes on their end on June 30. The 100 plan is actually 115 and achieves a real world speed test of 109.

    I suspect the other providers are a bit slower in making the changes to their traffic policy shapers.

    There is no overprovisioning on the upstream btw.

    • I'm on their 25 plan, but only getting 22-23 - what do I need to do?

      • If you’re with ABB, just kick the connection from the toolbox/app or call them and ask them to do it.

    • Just rebooted my modem on MyRepublic. Paying for 100/40, getting 85/36

      • Since it’s MyRepublic and it’s the evening, there might be other factors effecting the speed. You could try the MyRepublic section of Whirlpool to see if they have implemented it, or try outside of peak time.

      • MyRepublic are terrible at peak times all the time.

        • Are you Joking

          • @Joshminey: Nah. Well documented on here and Whirlpool. It was the case with my own experience when I had them on FTTP 2 years ago.

            • @Clear: I miss read what you said I thought you said they have good peak times speeds I used to get around 4 mbps on NBN 100 with them around 3 years ago

        • Honestly, I have always had a good connection, speed and minimal drops with myrepublic at 2 locations(newcastle, taree) With the 50mbps speed always had 46mbps or higher.
          However… My brother had huge issues with drop outs, slow speeds and just a pain in general as they couldn't or didnt do anything however after a couple months i think they fixed it because eventually it started working no issues.

          I would highly recommend them from personal experience but i might be one of the lucky ones

      • Is that your modems reported sync speed, or a Speedtest result?

    • I am on 50 mbps ABB plan. Just restarted my modem and I am now getting 4 mbps. Lol. Looks like I am missing another digit in my speed!!

    • I changed from TPG to ABB at the end of June, and was thinking wow - this is amazing, as went from around 92 to around 110Mbps. So this is why…

    • +2 votes

      Aussie BB has not changed over all connections. They said more to come in August.

    • Well, this explains why I've been getting 109ish download speeds the last few weeks. I thought my new router somehow broke the internet.

  • Can confirm this works. My Telstra connection's mid-tier plan on FTTP has always been up to 44/15 and now I'm getting around 54/18.

  • Top