NBN Co's Great Idea To Make Australian Internet Even Worse

Image: South Park

Australian internet is internationally famous for being a bit shit, and that's partially down to how spectacularly cooked the NBN rollout has been. But rather than put forward suggestions on how to improve the situation, or maybe ask resellers ways they can improve the end-user experience for suffering Australians, NBN Co has come up with a cracker of an idea to make our internet even worse.

A foundational principle of the internet is what's called net neutrality, or the principle that one packet of data shouldn't be prioritised over another packet of data. If you want to stream a video, play a video game, read a site in a browser, your internet should treat all of that data with the same level of priority. Equity in internet usage, basically.

But with the rise of video streaming, and the effect Netflix and streaming services have had on internet usage over the last decade, conversations have been kicking around in the industry about how to cope with that.

NBN Co's suggestion? To ask their top 50 retail service providers (RSPs), according to Commsday and iTNews, how they could charge extra for video streaming.

"Would your organisation support the development of a price response whereby charging of streaming video could be differentiated from the charging of other traffic/services?" NBN Co asked in their latest wholesale price review. "Would your organisation be likely to productise such a mechanism if developed by NBN?"

It's impossible to understate just how much of an impact this would have on general internet usage. Practically every internet user in Australia on a landline connection would be effected, because everyone at some point — even unknowingly — ends up streaming video at some stage. If NBN Co were to enforce traffic prioritisation for video streaming, or if ISPs signed up to the measure, it could easily result in users being asked to pay more to guarantee the same performance they receive when watching Twitch, using future streaming services like Google Stadia, and the potential discrimination of users based on their internet usage.

To the absolute surprise of no-one, industry isn't thrilled about the idea. Former iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay said there was "absolutely no justification" for NBN Co to artificially throttle or deprioritise video traffic just to increase revenue. "If I send NBN Co a packet, I kind of expect them to carry it unmolested to my consumer," he told iTnews.

Others raised questions as to why NBN Co, a publicly funded corporation, was raising these kinds of questions in closed-door consultations and not being more open with the process. Regular internet users were outraged, remarking that the principle would effectively created a two-tiered, unfair internet system in Australia.

Kotaku Australia contacted Netflix for a response, but was told they "will not be commenting at this time".

Grahame Lynch, the creator of CommsDay who originally reported the story, suggested that NBN Co's idea was "likely intended to charge less for video bits so you can have more of it".

Despite reportedly declining to comment on consulations with industry prior, NBN Co provided a statement to Kotaku Australia confirmed the consultation process was seeking "feedback" on video streaming. "NBN Co is building the nbn to meet the needs of Australians today as well as delivering capacity upgrades to meet growing data demands into the future, which includes the provision of additional capacity within the network to accommodate the rise of streaming services," NBN Co's general manager of commercial, Ken Walliss, said.

NBN Co has released an industry-wide Wholesale Pricing Review Consultation Paper, which seeks RSP feedback on balancing industry economics with affordability and choice for customers. As part of this consultation process we’re interested in engaging in a constructive dialogue with Retail Service Providers (RSPs) and the industry about any challenges and opportunities they may face. Video streaming is an important part of using broadband for many customers and a significant proportion of overall internet traffic and future traffic growth, and one of the particular areas where we are seeking feedback.

The focus of the paper is not about levying additional charges on customers, but rather to engage with RSPs and the industry on how we can collectively deliver the best possible service to customers, including for video services.

But as is often the case with any regulation or legislation, it's not the intent that matters, but what's permissible. And the major sticking point is still one of basic infrastructural fairness.

"This [proposal] would discriminate against people according to their usage of the internet," Phillip Britt, Aussie Broadband managing director, told iTnews. "It’s not how it works nearly everywhere else in the world, and we don’t believe it should happen here in Australia."


Comments

    If this was to somehow happen, charge more for streaming video, it would simply mean a rise in downloading of tv shows or movies as files from torrents or similar places. Then you arent paying any extra.

      I think the intent was to charge less.
      Have a streaming only package with access to the major streaming sites only.

        Sorry to say that what you think and what Graeme Lynch says is "likely" are both just opinions.

        My opinion is that any company wants to make more money, not less, and that making more money is probably what was being contemplated in this case.

        Is that not just a modified Foxtel?
        We already have a shit, highly restrictive pay to watch system. Why do we need another?

          Bevaus2e people pay for it. Foxtel wouldn't be around if no one used it. The fact is people do.

    "NBN Co is building the nbn to meet the needs of Australians today as well as delivering capacity upgrades to meet growing data demands into the future"
    Now admittedly that's only half the quote. But that right there shows how bloody short sighted the people building this network are. If they were building for the future like they should have from the start then this discussion wouldn't need to be had at all.

      It was being built for the future from the start. Problem was that the people responsible for it changed in 2013, and promised Faster Sooner Cheaper. None of which they delivered.

      I wonder what the opinion of those that supported that slogan is today...

        The chief of them got booted out as their party leader so his opinion doesn't matter much anymore.

          Talking about the fanatics in the general community that bought into the Liberal spin, not the LNP themselves. So many arguments with people at the time, with them arguing that the LNP plan was the better one.

          Didnt matter how much evidence was put in front of them, either technical (sibling has lectured in the field for 20 years, not sure how high their qualifications are), or financial (my area, plus I studied electronic engineering for a little), the aggressive nature of their fervor just never ended.

          So theres a petty side to me that wonders if they're actually happy with what we ended up with, or are able to admit they were wrong. And yes, theres a little bit of troll in all that :)

            Regarding "the fanatics who bought into the spin": I'm just going to play devils advocate here;

            Back when NBN mark 1 was being built at a snail's pace in Tasmania, my house in outer suburban Brisbane was treated to lightning fast ADSL1 speeds of about 5Mb/s with a 100GB data cap.

            When I bought an Xbone on 2014 it swallowed up the cap in a week, I eventually started paying Telstra through the nose for a higher cap (Because no other ISP had a DSLAM in the area - I used to fucking hate that smug iiNet guy on TV!)

            When Turnbull switched to FTN, yes it's inferior and all that but it only took a year and I suddenly had 35Mb/s a choice of ISPs and Unlimited data!

            I know it's inferior to the ALP design but (and this is the general objective of government) it was a significant improvement for a greater number of people.

              Yeah I got that (and no problem playing devils advocate by the way), but I would sit down and explain WHY it was a bad idea, using the limitations of copper and those technical reasons, as well as the additional financial costs of needing to replace FttN to back the argument up. Evidence supplied from numerous sources, and it made no difference.

              If the support is based on them truly thinking it was the better plan, then evidence should have been able to sway their opinion. All they had was "it will be here in 2016 instead of 2019 instead of 2025" (um... OK...) and "$20b instead of $120b" or whatever the financials were.

              I forget what those numbers were now ($37b?), but they undersold the LNP time and costs, and oversold the Labor equivalents. It was clear they werent interested in which was actually better for Australia, but serving a political agenda.

              Simple example was the additional cost needed to replace FttN once it hit its end use point. Technically, the copper loop wouldnt be able to handle anything above around 50 Mbps for the lengths they were suggesting. Yes, some would get better, but only if the node was close to their property and the copper loop was less than 100m.

              For some reason, everyone would be next to a node, and nobody would get worse. Thats not how averages work, and the average loop length was planned to be 400m. Which means that for every person thats 100m away, theres someone 700m away.

              So, the lines would need to be replaced at some point. Copper just couldnt work - I supplied worlds best research proving it - basically, the faster you go, the shorter the copper must be. And there was no technology in the world (as far as I know there still isnt) that could upgrade the FttN nodes used to be full FttP. Side node, that isnt an issue with FttC which runs fibre optic to the same transfer points FttP does.

              FttN would need to be fully over built at some point, meaning the costs they think they're avoiding will still need to be paid at some point. On top of the cost of building the FttN. Its as if the claimed $20b cost was all that needed to be paid, ever. Which is provably false.

              There was plenty more in the whole debate, and we could go on for days, but it was so blatantly wrong at the time that the supports were clearly Liberal shills that didnt care a single bit about the actual infrastructure, just that the Liberals were in power.

              And we're paying for it now.

              As a side note, Labor's target to complete it was originally 2019, and with everything largely the same up to the pit outside your home, the consistency would have seen less delays that what we've seen with the MTM version. Its likely that it would have taken no longer, or possibly even less time, to stick with the single technology rollout. Any delays would be in the last 20m of the build, not the major rolling out along the phone conduits.

              So, out of all that, I wonder what those shills think of the connections now.

              As for your position, that was great. You got a nice upgrade. But because of all the above, namely the cost to replace it, you're going to be in the same position at some point in the near future. Not too many years from now that 35 Mbps connection isnt going to be enough, and nobody is going to want to pay to upgrade it.

              Thats the additional issue with this. That next stage we're quickly approaching, and who deals with it. Our needs grow a lot more than people realise, and why people should be able to be swayed if they were genuine. Roughly every 2 years our speed needs double. Its a trail you can trace back to the 90's when dialup was the norm, and the internet was just starting to be used.

              26.6k to 56k to ADSL to ADSL2 to NBN its been steady. And somethings come along to fill those needs. That hasnt changed, so why will it suddenly change tomorrow? I figured we'd be needing 100 Mbps as a base speed some time around 2021 to 2023, and thats not going to be far from reality with all the streaming we do alone.

              In other words, FttN will be outdated before its completed. It already is.

              Plenty of friends at the time supported the Liberal plan, truly believing it to be the better one. When I sat down and explained it to them using the above, they understood how the MTM option wasnt in Australia's best interests either medium or long term.

              Short term, maybe, as it was with you. But longer, like from about now onwards, no, it couldnt be because it wouldnt be good enough, and something would be needed to replace it. Which means someone would have to pay for it all over again.

                I have no doubt that in several years time they'll be agonising that broadband is in a bad state compared to where it should and FttN will be a big reason.

                But ultimately the best thing that came out of this whole NBN venture was a democratisation of the infrastructure and fixing one of the big public policy gaffes of the last 30 years (that being that Telstra should've been split up before being privatised)

                And yeah I am posed with the state of my internet now vs most of my adult life where it seemed to be a step behind what was available in other more inner city locations

                Also now Telstra' s only competitive advantage is it's mobile network (which all has to be upgraded now anyway) Norwich overall had brought the price of internet down for a lot of consumers

                  But ultimately the best thing that came out of this whole NBN venture was a democratisation of the infrastructure and fixing one of the big public policy gaffes of the last 30 years (that being that Telstra should've been split up before being privatised)
                  Absolutely no disagreement on me on that one. I'm not sure it fully has yet, but its certainly not the monopoly it was. And the whole blame on that lays on Howards doorstep when he actively chose not to separate them to get a few more bucks when privatising.

                  Irony is they replaced that with another monopoly that they plan on selling off as well... But thats an argument for another year.

                  Main reason I'm not so sure the monopoly is totally gone is the mobile towers are still owned by them, and most other telco's still have to piggy back off a lot of that infrastructure. It still gives them a wholesale advantage over the rest. And with how everyone wants to push wireless and mobile broadband in the future, thats going to be important if it works.

                  Whole thing just gets me so annoyed and always has. There was a once in a century chance to do the right thing and the Liberals fucked it up purely for political gain. And I'm not sure it could have been screwed any more than they did either. Its a failure on every level, and no matter how much the Liberals say it, there aint no fault on Labor for that.

              And that was a much longer reply than I intended :)

            it's funny you talk about the fanatics, i get called a right wing nut on here regularly but i have never voted for anyone accept greens or labour because the libs are always doing at least one thing i cannot condone and for several elections the NBN was that issue.

            well i found it amusing anyway.

              This took 6 days to get posted... Or at least 6 days for the notification to get to me :/

              But yeah, its strange how people perceive opinions, and I'm no exception. That fanaticism went both ways though, and there were definitely FttP fanatics that couldnt see reason either. When it was just FttP v FttN, it was easy to sit on one side and not the other, but that fanaticism was just as clear when options like FttC were emerging.

              But the Liberal supporters in 2013 were just rude and arrogant about it all when LNP won. It was insanity, and they were rubbing in that the FttP dream was dead, Liberals would kill it, etc etc, and not caring about anything neutral, or willing to discuss anything that didnt fit their agenda. Just the options on political grounds only. They fit every marker of being fanatics.

              I'm a swing voter myself. I vote on what policies I like, and when I dont like any, I vote Greens or Independents. But like you, I've found something unpalatable with the Liberals every election. I also live in a very safe Labor electorate so its largely been a moot point, at least at the Federal level. Labor sits at about 63% here.

                yeah it took forever to get out of moderation, i suspect the same people as usual are bullying me and getting away with it because the TOS is bias and so are some of the moderators, assuming this message goes through i was just suspended not banned although how would i know since they do not communicate whatsoever, which i guess is not that surprising if i was doing what they are i wouldn't want to try justify it either. Rant over

                Where i live it's actually a competition not 63% labor :S

                don't forget every vote counts, you may be the man stopping labor from being 64% lol

        They still tend to support it, it's ludicrous because even before it happened we were calling out how stupid and shortsighted it was. Coalition supporters seriously annoy me.

          Oh, I remember. See above, I was using professional opinion (mine and other family) to back my arguments up and it still wasnt enough. Was so frustrating. Delimiter at the time was a cesspool of idiocy from them. Then arrogance once the Lib's got in and decimated the FttP plan. Whirlpool was worse.

          I was an analyst in the ATO for 20 of my 30 years there, yet was apparently wrong. Sibling lectures in the field (around the world at that) and they were apparently wrong as well. Was insane. I gave up, and just settled on knowing I was getting FttP.

          The only thing thats altered my opnion since then has been FttC, which has most of the benefits of FttP but is considerably cheaper which was FttH's one advantage. And its too late for that to be as effective as it could have been.

          But the petty side of me is still curious.

    Lots of misinformation around about NBN's idea of a separate video charge. The idea is likely intended to charge less for video bits, so you can have more of it (HD, 4K) with less wallet damage. It is part of a consultation that is framed around better value packages for RSPs

    I don't see any misinformation here, Grahame. If your description is accurate, then you (and NBN) are just dressing up a tax on non-video data as a discount on video data. The result is still that some data is more expensive than other data. This violates the core principles of net neutrality and should be firmly and decisively opposed.

      Reminds me of the old net neutrality argument.
      "There will not be slow lanes! Only fast lanes!"
      "The existence of fast lanes by definition means that all other lanes are slow lanes, you fucking muppets. Right now, all lanes are the same - as fast as they can be."

        Maybe they're trying to get out of their NBN hole by digging up...

      Playing devils advocate for a moment here.

      Depends on how they were planning to implement pricing. If they don't change there pricing from existing figures but introduce some sort of cheaper rate then it's not really a tax on other content. They're not making our life worse by billing us more, they'd be potentially saving us (or at least some of us) money.

      However, I don't see it playing out that way in the long run. For a couple reasons, ultimately I'm worried about the slippery slope concept, where it starts off that video traffic is cheaper. But eventually they decide VPN traffic is more expensive, or torrent traffic or whatever they choose.

      I'm also not really sure how "cheaper" video traffic is actually feasible. I mean as I mentioned lots of people use encrypted VPNs so does it even look like regular video traffic anymore and will it be on the "Cheaper faster" lane? And that's before you get to the issue that video traffic seems to be the big congestion problem for the internet. So you're going to encourage the thing that causes problems by making it cheaper and faster? That seems pretty counter-intuitive.

    I work for an ISP in the NBN space... I’m over the NBN and it’s uselessness

    Oh boy. Now we get to relive everything America's gone through with respect to Net Neutrality. Let's hope that we don't end up with the Australian version of Ajit Pai because that really would just be the hilariously awful punchline to the joke that is the NBN.

      Summed up my thoughts exactly. America has been dealing with this shit for years.

      Too late mate.. we have the LNP in power so its already half way there... just waiting for them to start fiddling nbn again in an attempt to improve and recoup costs on a "wasteful project" started by Labor and all that jazz..

    Shrug. This is what the majority of Australia voted for. We shouldn't be surprised.

      Pretty sure the Coalition campaigned with exactly one policy, and it had nothing to do with the NBN

        I don't know if "Labor bad and scary!" even counts as one policy.

          I thought the policy was more "lets sit back and watch Labor shoot themselves in the foot".

            It was idiots who don't even know what franking credits are let alone have the investments required to get any worried they were going to loose them.

              Yeah, I agree completely. Labor still shot themselves in the foot with it though due to those idiots. Very easy for Liberals to play off it, hell they didn't even need to, the uneducated retirees did it themselves in their gossip circles.

            No LNP put a whole lot of money into giant ads claiming that Labour will ruin the nation. DON'T TKE A RISK ON LABOUR etc. At least they did in my electorate. In fact on voting day they had giant signs posted up. No other party had anything of the sort. LNP put a whole lot of time and effort into a massive fear campaign and Australians, as always, ate it up.

        This is the problem with politics, the "biggest" (or scariest) policy wins. So if people are scared of immigrants or worried about tax dollars or whatever, that trumps other sensible policies.

        It's just a pity that politicians aren't really acting in the interests of the public in the truest sense of the word. :(

          "I didn't vote for tax breaks for the wealthy, rampant privatization, dismantling of environmental protections, persecution of whistleblowers and media, enshrining bigotry as a protected legal right, eroding public health spending, keeping property prices high, keeping wages low, and sabotaging enterprise bargaining... I voted to turn back the boats! The fact that all that other shit happened to be tied to that isn't my fault!"

            *shrugs* doesn't matter how you phrase it, that's the reality. At least for many people. It's not a case of weighing up all the policies and voting "overall" it's usually the one policy that most affects them. I have a couple friends who voted Libs because they were worried about what labour would do to capital gains relating to properties. That was basically their whole deciding factor.

    Just remember, the only reason Nbn Co is doing this is because the Federal Government refuses to write down the asset after their switch to MTM turned out to be a disastrously costly and backwards mistake, leaving Nbn Co to try and increase an already high ARPU, or find other ways to nickel and dime us.

      We already had previous rollouts of similar crap elsewhere that showed on the scale we needed to be done that FTTP was the more cost-effective option. We shot ourselves in the foot ignoring reality, typical of the Coalition sadly.

    Geez, just as the 5G networks are getting ready to eat their lunch, NBNCo are actually offering to cut the crusts off the sandwiches and cut them into little triangles for them.

    This sounds like one of those ideas so ridiculous it's put out there to distract everyone from some other shady nonsense the publisher is trying to pull. So...what other ridiculous things have NBN Co been doing quietly this week?!

      There's nothing so subtle at play here... Murdoch got his muppets back in, so now it's simply time to further strangle anything remotely competing against Foxtel.

        Not so sure on that. Foxtel is as heavily invested in streaming as anyone these days, with Foxtel Now and Kayo.

          Don't expect me to act shocked when Foxtel get a sly exemption from this.

          They can't charge rental on IQ boxes on either of those services.

            Not sure what thats got to do with what I wrote. The meme about Murdoch wanting NBN to fail doesnt hold as much weight as it did a few years ago, thanks to Fox's streaming services, one of which (that would be Kayo) is the only legal one in Australia. Thats all I'm saying. They're making plenty of money from those services that they otherwise wouldnt be.

            Nothing to do with Foxtel boxes or their outdated services, just that they have an interest in streaming services now. So are in the same boat as Stan, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc when it comes to these proposed changes.

              Ah, now I get you. I was saying they'll add this "streaming tax" to everything but Foxtel Go or whatever it's called.

              The meme about Murdoch wanting NBN to fail doesnt hold as much weight as it did a few years ago

              That's because it didn't hold weight to begin with. Even back in 2013, many held to the idea and based it on News Corp owning Foxtel despite it (back then) only being 50% owned and the rest Telstra.

              In fact, since the Telstra slice has been shrinking, there seems to be more interest in streaming now.

              But some will always blame Murdoch even though the evidence does not exist and most that is provided stems back to angry tweets from Kevin Rudd who is still in denial over his PM term coming to an end due to his (Rudd's) own actions.

    Wasn't it only a couple of months ago they were blaming gamers? make up your damn mind at the very least NBN Co

      They always blame someone, I like being squarely in their crosshairs as a streamer. I've been calling out this before we got saddled with Abbott as ridiculously shortsighted even for the Coalition. A few things I disagree with the ALP on regularly, but the original NBN was not one of them.

      Maybe this is about the gamers. Video good - give it faster, cheaper deals. Gamers bad - give them slower, more expensive ones.

    Something makes me think that NBNCO has invested heavily in Blockbuster stock.

    "how spectacularly cooked the NBN rollout has been"

    As opposed to how... raw? it could have been? English, please.

    Even excepting everything else the LNP have screwed up with their incompetence, hate, shortsightedness and ignorance, I will never forget how they f****** up the NBN. Unforgivable.

      Cooked is pretty common slang. Depending on which definition you prefer it means stoned, exhausted, in trouble, wrecked... so take your pick.

        I thought "Baked" meant stoned? The funny thing is that if something is "cooked" it can either mean that it's spoiled and gone bad or it can mean that you've falsified things to look better. (eg. Cooking the books) Though I guess you wouldn't be cooking things unless they were cooked...

          Yeah gotta love slang that can mean one thing, and the complete opposite.

          Personally, my slang for cooked is related to cars and mechanics. As in, "the engine's cooked". ie: it's overheated and it's done and no longer working. But yeah, depending on who you talk to it means something like a dozen different things 0_o

    What the actual fuck are they thinking? Why would I pay to subscribe to a streaming service and then pay extra for the data? Or alternatively, why should I pay extra for me other data? This makes no fucking sense.

      I suspect the end consumer wouldn't see a difference in how we get bills. ie: you'd still get a monthly bill. But they may change billing to the ISPs to be more granular. It's then up to the ISP to set the consumer pricing.

      In some ways it reminds me of early mobile phone deals: pay x for texts, y for local calls, z for long distance calls on top of a monthly access fee. Ultimately Telcos flattened the billing a lot so most of us just see a monthly fee.

      I could see it being useful and even saving us money if it resulted in a situation where we had a much lower access fee and then paid based on usage on top of that. eg: if the monthly fee changed from $99 to $9 then you paid for data you used. However, that is unlikely to happen :(

        Thats the only way I see this as a positive. If the access fee for the CVC is cheaper for a portion that handles streaming, it could be a step forward. On the other hand, that still means there are "lanes", which tampers with net neutrality and could (and probably would) be the thin edge of the wedge. Thats a negative any way you cut it, even if we're better off.

        You also have the issue that its a wholesale fee to the RSP, which may or may not get passed on to the consumer. How often are changes that lower costs absorbed by the supplier rather than passed on? Plenty of times "costs" have magically gone up around the same time mortgage rates went down...

          Yeah I feel like even in the best case where they did make video access cheaper it's still risky as other access types could wind up being penalized. I'd hate to discovery that say VPN traffic became slugged with slower speed or higher cost.

          I think it's also a difficult balancing act. While some people would prefer granularity and the ability to fine tune plans (and their related speeds and costs) I suspect most just want a single, simple bill for everything. And I'd imagine it'd be a lot cheaper administratively for a company to just do a flat monthly bill than trying to itemize.

            If people want granularity, I can think of better ways.

            For example, people talk about 100 Mbps plans as if thats the total of their connection. It isnt, theres also the 40 Mbps upload portion for a total of 140 Mbps. Let users tweak that 10:4 ratio to add more bandwidth as needed.

            Works for streaming, where you dont really need to upload much, as well as small business/home office, where you might want a bigger upload speed.

            But dont mess with deciding at the exchange. To me, the very least of the issues is what we're talking about as well. Privacy would go out the window with this, and THATS a risk going forward with so much of todays technology that I dont want to see it accelerated in ways like this.

            Excuse me, I gotta go refresh my tin foil hat.

              I feel like privacy has already gone out the window. I mean that's what the whole meta data collection scheme has done, and ISPs have been logging pretty much since the internet became a thing. That's not to say I like or agree with losing privacy (or even how little we have now).

              I feel like up/down is too simple to be the only thing you tweak (though it's a good start). I think though, that for most users trying to prioritise or price traffic types differently would be problematic. For example, some games use bittorrent (or at least similar methods) to distribute patches. Heck even Windows took a similar approach with updates. It'd suck to tweak you ISP settings to say de-prioritise file sharing as a money saver, only to discover your game downloads and windows updates took ages and cost a fortune.

              I think if they (ISPs) were to offer more granularity they'd have to provide great reporting tools to customers so you could see your data usage in a graphical way to determine whether tweaks to your plan (even as simple as changing up/down speeds) would be beneficial.

    My decision to stick with $80/mth Optus 4G 500GB plan at 70-170Mbps most days was fucking stellar obviously! And we're 50kms west of Melbourne. Kevin Bloody Wilson should update his "Stick that fucking phone..." song for NBN lol! :)

    The basic idea of applying quality of service to a network connection isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can make sense to do this for your own outgoing traffic: if your upload bandwidth is congested, you probably want to favour interactive traffic like VoIP and gaming over bulk transfers like Bit Torrent. It's harder for a user to control their incoming traffic though: you essentially need to accept anything your ISP sends you. So the ISP would need to make some QoS decisions here.

    Now while IP packets can indicate their traffic class, it'd be crazy for the ISP to honour them: if your website will load faster by pretending to be the highest priority traffic class, then pretty soon all traffic will pretend to be of that class. So you'll probably find the ISP favouring traffic from known sources such as their in-house VoIP service and maybe partners like Netflix/Stan. The problem here is that it is effectively picking winners ahead of time: now an upstart video streaming service doesn't just have to overcome the disadvantage of being unknown: they technically can't offer the same level of service as the big players.

    My street was due to be connected to NBN by May 2019. It's now changed to June 2020 with no warning and no explanation except for 'more work is required'. The incompetence just boggles the mind.

      The election's over, so as long as they get it done in 3 years, the government will be happy :)

        Vote for us! It's obviously still Labor's fault it's been delayed. It'll be much worse if you let them back in!

        I wouldn't be surprised it the govt is banking on wireless improvements and praying everyone moves to 5g (or 6G or whatever is next) and they can forget about the NBN.

          As things stand, cant happen. Wireless still needs a fixed line connection to get the data from the tower to the exchange, and that needs to be fully fibre. Copper has reached its usefullness, so if theres a copper line from the tower to any hub, you have a speed limit.

          And if theres a reliance on wireless, there is going to need to be a hell of a lot more towers, which basically means FttP rollouts anyway as you put towers on each street (ignoring the NIMBY attitude you'd get). Just disguised as infrastructure investment from the telcos. Infrastructure the NBN laws let NBNco access.

          If thats their plan, its a ballsy one.

    "NBN Co is building the nbn to meet the needs of Australians today as well as delivering capacity upgrades to meet growing data demands into the future, which includes the provision of additional capacity within the network to accommodate the rise of streaming services,"

    They're sure keeping that fact quiet

    Maybe get rid of the CVC charges instead.

    Australia is a highly apathetic nation. It's why we get fucked over so much and so regulalrly. I guess it's the price we pay for being "laid back".

      I mean we can get to a point where we go from "laid back" to "Pissed off" and actually do something.

      Workchoices and John Howard for example. #Kevin07

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now