It seems like it’s taken an age, but the Labor government has today released the business plan for the NBN. The big numbers: $24 uniform wholesale price for the minimum 12Mbps download speeds, 10 million homes connected within the next 9.5 years with 1.7 million of them connected by June 2013.
Of course, nobody here cares about the entry level wholesale price – you want to know about the 1000Mbps wholesale price, which is set to be $150 a month. That’s not the retail price that you’ll be paying, but it’s still a fairly decent starting point, and the wholesale price is set to lower over time.
In addition to the wholesale price, there will also be a capacity charge, explained in the press release as:
As well as the access charge there will be a capacity charge for the shared resource between the premises and the point of interconnect. This charge is shared across many end-users on the RSP’s service and will add around $1 for end-users based on average data rates.
In terms of financials, the project will cost $27.5 billion in government equity, there’s an annual revenue forecast at $5.8 billion in FY2021 and $7.6 billion in FY2025, with positive operational earnings from 2018 and a positive net income in 2021. From 2015, NBNCo will be sourcing funds from capital markets.
You can download the NBNCo business plan press release here.
Labrat
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 1:21 PM$150 a *month* (wholesale!) for 1gbps. Yeeeeouch!
Dean
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:15 PMBut that is $150 per month for access to Internet, telephone, television, radio and whatever other services can be sent down the pipe. Yes, usages charges added on top but it isn’t that much more than what people are paying now in line rentals, cable fees and internet access (without usage or content).
Daniel
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:40 PMUmm yes it is. It’s way more.
Richard Djordjevic
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:19 PMIt’s substantually more than what people are paying. Just because it can do video, telephone and the like doesn’t mean you still don’t have to also pay for those services. Phone line rental is maybe $20 a month for those that have it (and now days a lot of people are just using mobile phones). Internet plans you are probably looking at around $50 – $80 for most users I’d guess. Radio doesn’t need a line to the house…it’s designed to be wireless.
Cable TV is nice and all but you still have to actually pay for the cable TV separately. Look at Foxtel on the XBox, they charge a minimum $20 for the most basic package and that uses your internet connection.
It’s also the wholesale price…consumers will pay a fair bit more.
That said, it should hopefully lower over time and I doubt many people will really need 1000Mbps right off the bat.
boc
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:45 PMDo residential users need 1gbps?
I’d say only businesses and institutions would be using that – initially. So at that “initial” price it’s not that crazy at all.
By the time it’s common for residential users to “need” gbps it’ll be a lot cheaper.
attila
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:45 PMThe NBN will let me get radio sent down the pipe for $150/month? Awesome – here’s my wallet.
opm881
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 4:08 PMDaniel and Richard, considering right now it costs $3,000 a Month for a 1GBPS connection(retail of course), the wholesale cost of $150 is not that much.
Richard Djordjevic
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 7:04 PM@OPM
I’m pretty sure we are talking about consumer pricing here, not retail. Why would you bring things up like cable TV and Radio otherwise?
I’m sure $150 is great compared to getting a business line put in but I don’t think thats the context of this thread. The claim was that $150 is comparative to what consumers are paying currently. Not whether it’s expensive or cheap, just that consumers pay $150 to get a connection ATM which I think is far from the truth.
Dean
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 10:09 PMFor comparison Transact currently charges $129 per month for 30Mbs cable with free on-net phone and a basic TV package (free to air & some pay-tv channels). ISP charges are additional.
They also provide 100Mbs fibre to the home for $149 per month with the same inclusions.
Labrat
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 1:32 PMmmm.. Didn’t see that price quoted in the TFA linked?
Steve
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 1:35 PMIts not 27 billion cost, I dont know why you keep insisting on that. Its 27 billion plus about 15 billion in debt (the document cleverly calls it ‘capital raising’). NBN Co’s debt will be backed by the government, so it is the same as 43 billion total.
Ward Paterson
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 7:28 PMDont you mean 43Bn + interest??
Labrat
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 1:41 PMhttp://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/12/20/1225973/864345-aus-file-nbn-corp-plan.pdf
I think noteworthy is $38 (wholesale) for 100mbps/40mbps and $70 for 250mbps/100mbps.
Those are pretty good prices, really.
P3t3
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:50 PMYeah, considering I pay $60 now and I only get 4Mbs at Lane Cove in Sydney.
Corteks
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:34 PMYeah those are pretty decent prices seemingly, although it depends on the volume attached to the prices too.
$150 for 1000Mbps doesn’t seem that bad, in the same way it depends on the volume attached to the service price. Of course 1000Mbps is much more than a private account probably needs, seems like it’s really more in the realm of big business where they might have numerous live HD video links running simultaneously along with a large number of other processes.
I know I’d be plenty happy with 250Mbps. Like seriously, that’s pretty freakin’ fast. I’m currently on a theoretical 24Mbps connection (You know how it is, the connection CAN get that fast technically but it’s more likely running at 5Mbps or 10Mbps or something) and I can load HD Youtube almost in realtime. 250Mbps would absolutely destroy for a home user in my opinion.
David Rudduck
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:22 PMTHe wholesale prices are just for access from your home (or business) and the POI (previously the exchange).
There is still the need for backhaul from the POI for your chosen VSP (was ISP). It’s similar to how Telstra charged for access to copper to put DSL services on (ULL?).
william dutton
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:24 PMguess the 1gb/s will only be brought by business, buy home users who want to upload lots or by a family that has 6 people who want to watch 6 different tv channels online and still play wow with low pings :D
Chewy Bravo
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:33 PMKnowing my luck my house will be the 9,999,999th to be connected. by then 1000mbs will be as slow as my 2mbs connection now
Dman
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 9:40 AMThat’s exactly what I was thinking hahaha. I’m 20 minutes from the city and can’t even get adsl1. Now I’m stuck with Vivid’s ‘seriously fast wireless’ @ 1.2 mps!
I’ll take whatever I can get thanks!
Cameron
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 2:34 PMHaving a look at the comparison charts provided in the business plan I feel they are missing a vital point here. Most people pay for access to a certain amount of data, not a speed. They are assuming that having increased speed alone is enough reason to upgrade. I myself would want a great deal more traffic allowance over my current plan to get me to upgrade to the NBN, Speed wise I’m pretty happy with what I’ve got currently, in fact most of the time I find that the bottlenecks are usually at the other end, I very rarely max out my connection.
JT...
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:44 PMIndeed. My 9mbs 70gb allowance suits me fine.
Although the faster the speed the more likely one is going to be tempted to download/stream HD(1080p) quality content which will hammer the allowance somewhat.
Adam
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:07 PMNBN Business plan.
NBN good.
Coppper network bad.
Love,
Everyone even remotely competent who works in IT
Adam 2.0
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 12:47 AMThe price of getting 1080p streamed to your house. $43 bn.
The price of national mental healthcare. $1bn.
Reading endless stories about mental patients being wrapped up, drugged up and then shipped back. Priceless.
For everything else there’s retarded priorities and a debate on something no one ever asked for.
blah.blah
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 1:48 PMPeople who benefit from NBN = > <
"For everything else there’s retarded priorities and a debate on something no one ever asked for."
For everyone else there are statistics that look good at first glance!
NBN would be like building a rail network or road network linking all the cities.. Who needs that ???
Greg
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:14 PMHundreds of thousands of people already have what the government is calling “superfast broadband” of >= 30mbps.
Hard to see what’s in it for cable/fibre customers who have been enjoying these speeds for years already, let alone those on 108mbit services.
I pay < $70/mo for my 108mbit cable service. Will the NBN be able to compete with this? I think not.
faction
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 3:54 PMYes, but it’s more for the people who don’t currently have access to such speeds. The fastest connection I’ve ever had is 4mbs and I have to pay $70 a month for ~50GB (and I’ve got it better than a lot of others).
Bob
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 4:16 PMHey greg.
Im glad your happy with your 108mbit service. I would also like a 100mbit service. But the best service i can get is a measly 2mbits from my naked adsl2 connection. its not like i live out in the styx either. your right, the nbn probably doesn’t offer much for current cable/fibre customers. but it WILL for the other 99% of Australia.
Greg
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 5:34 PMI sympathise with you, and if it will be beneficial for you, then that is definitely a good thing.
What I don’t understand is the motivation to spend tax payer’s money swapping people over from a service they are already happy with, and already provides good value and in some cases, probably better value than NBN).
The NBN should be about the customers, and about promoting competition and choice, but instead it seems to be about creating another broadband infrastructure monopoly.
Everyone will be at the mercy of the same infrastructure. I am not suggesting continuing maintenance of the aging copper network. But surely diversity, where available, is a good thing? But I suppose that would be logical, and governments rarely understand logic – let alone use it.
Daniel Timmons
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 2:21 AMBut you see its not even just about ‘swapping people over for a service they are already happy with’. Like you said, It is Infrastructure and currently the best that is available.
Sure, right now everything is fine for the people who broadband is available to, but there are many country dwelling individuals who cannot get broadband and are stuck with dial up or satellite connections. This service plans to connect those people.
Also, the internet is becoming increasingly a part of life and business. Upgrading the infrastructure to the best quality now will give the country a head start where it will take just as long to rollout a service like this in the future when we really do need it. We currently have one of the crappiest overall internet services in the developed world, and this will put us well ahead of the pack once it is completed. Its building us as a country, and just because you are satisfied does not mean everybody is.
Dean
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 10:04 PMWhat is in it for current cable customers is freedom to choose which ISP, telephone, IPTV etc provider to use.
BJ
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 5:16 PMIt’s all hypothetical anyway. Indications are that Labor will lose the next election and Tony the Wrecker will cancel the NBN before it’s even 1/4 finished. I just hope they do my area before this happens.
skadd
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 6:52 PMAll of you inconsiderate people have to remember that not everyone has access to broadband. We do not care if you people are happy with what you got and that the government is wasting their money.. why dont u think about all the others out there who are stranded with nothing but pathetic dialup and wireless. NBN is for them ! and there is more of them then there are of you.. they just cant be here to voice their opinion.. COZ THEY DONT HAVE THE INTERNET !
Dan
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM40 billion for that 5% of the population can connect to broadband…. Does that seems really considerate to me.
Daniel Timmons
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 2:24 AMHaha, well spoken. They indeed do not have the internet. :P
Justin
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 7:50 PMyou people suck… we are still stuck with dial up if we go by line or wireless/satellite (which we have both) which quite frankly are shit unless you pay a hell of a lot of money. oh yeah and their theoretical speed is 512kb/s but really runs at 60kb/s or so. And we are paying as much or more than what you do for what you call slow so please stop winging, really.
Dan
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 10:47 PMI think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to complain about this.
You should be paying more for internet if you live in a rural area for the simple fact that it is more expensive to connect one home 20 miles away that it is to connect 20 homes 1 mile away.
The NBN is costing 40 billion dollars. One of the main reasons for this is because it is connecting rural areas to high speed internet.
Ultimately city people are going to be subsidizing the internet costs of country people. Given this fact I think they might be entitled to complain a little bit.
Andy
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM@Justin with satellite internet – if you are forced to use satellite internet now then it’s likely you will be having satellite NBN in the future – the NBN changes nothing for the most remote internet users. If you dont have more than about 1000 people in your town you won’t be getting fibre -you will have wireless and\or satellite. But have some heart in knowing you will pay the same as everyone else – it’s the NBN way.
Dan
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 8:26 PMIt’s going to fail. I all ready get 100MBps with Optus Super Sonic cable. By the time the NBN gets rolled out it will be out dated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for super fast broadband in Australia but the government all ready gave up their right when they privatized Telstra. If they did the right thing and kept the network and only sold Telstra as a retail serves and not a provider then we might of had a better broadband network then we have now. The government should put through legislation that states that all the current broadband suppliers have to supply 100MBps connection min.
Bern
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 12:08 AMYou get 100Mbps cable. That means you share that 100Mbps with however many people happen to be online in your neighbourhood at any given time. My (theoretical) 30Mbps cable has slowed down to <10Mbps at times.
The other problem is that HFC cable has abysmally low upload speeds.
I'd be quite happy to pay the same price I do now for a 25/5 connection. Happy to pay $10-$20 a month more for 100/40. Very happy!
Greg
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:44 AMCongestion is absolutely an issue on Optus, but not on Telstra.
Bryn Busai
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 1:36 AM>> The government should put through legislation that states that all the current broadband suppliers have to supply 100MBps connection minimum.
Impossible due to to technical constraints, (you are assuming that this can de delivered to all metro customers via ADSL2+ right?) and for that speed for wireless access a tower must be built per customer, and for satellite… kiss goodbye to decent video chat as the latency is too high.
Not to mention that while most people will at this moment not need 100Mbps internet you cannot predict what the average consumption of bandwith will be needed as more services move to an ip-based networking system.
A private company will only wire up new estates, higher class suburbs or a Packer/Murdoch Farm. as without government support the private industries will want the payee to pay for the backbone as well. (Japan and S. Korea are small and has a large population, Australia is huge and very small population, Small nations need less cross-country backbone compared to a larger nation. larger populations need to pay less per capita for backbone Cabling. QED)
the idea that the network would cost $5,000 per household for connection… This is a infrastructural project, how about amortising the cost over 25 to 50 years… this would reduce the cost. (if you were alive at the creation of the current POTS network you’d be complaining that this telephone network would be too costly due to duplication of the existing telegraph services, too costly due to the staffing of the exchanges and so-on…)
Gavin
Monday, December 20, 2010 at 8:41 PMWhat the f$%^k are people going to download at 250mbps, is there any increased backhaul to support this level of demand across the pacific?
Why would be possibly run cables to houses when the brutally obvious trend in computing is towards mobility? To keep up wireless router sales?
What a joke.
How moronic are these people?
Data-Cain
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:17 AMWhy are so many making assumptions that everyone uses the internet the way they do?
I want fiber for many reasons. So… FFUUU!
same goes for nubs going on about wireless.
You are also assuming everyone uses the internet like you do… WRONG!
I only have interest in using the net at home. I have wireless internet on my phone and I can tether to my laptop for mobile internet should I want\need it. So… why would I want a wireless connection for home when a physical connection is better in every aspect for me?
Harry
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 9:23 AMTo everyone who is whinging about only getting dial up speed. i have a solution.
MOVE AWAY FROM THE STICKS!!
its your choice to live in the sticks so stop complaining about it. You live there cos its cheap and for that you get cheap internet.
Rhys
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 10:56 AMHarry is right… lets all move in with him and his mum.
TWMG
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 11:35 AMOne word for you… WIRELESS.
Anyone happened to notice how many people are now accesing all of their online needs via that new fangled device…hmm whats it called… oh yeah an iphone. Combined with ipads, tablets, smartphones and laptops, I don’t know ANYONE who gets home and plugs into the wall.
Yes prices are high currently, but by spending a fraction of the $43B on wireless and satellite technologies, prices will come down, & we can use the rest to fix the other problems in the country – health, roads, scrapping the water buyback scheme and building some dams etc.
My 2 cents worth
PsychoSmiley
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 2:31 PMI am speechless. I am without speech.
Baka…
matt
Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 12:33 PMwait what!!? on the news they were reporting the entry level cost would be like $50!! are they suggesting the useless ISPs take over a 50% cut!?
outrageous!
also, $150 for 1gbit is not expensive. for example, it is cheaper than buying 40 ADSL2 connections…