Broadband Internet Provider Review

I don’t know if this is the case…and someone within the industry would need to be able to comment whether this is the case. As the NBN often uses existing exchanges for their infrastructure, I wonder why past backup systems have been removed/disconnected when they could have potentially met the needs of the NBN. Don’t seem to make sense.

For non-exchange based connections such as FTTN, it is worth noting that FTTN green boxes have backup batteries for local power outages.

1 Like

We had an all day outage a few weeks ago. It happens. By 2PM the NBN advice was they finally discovered a localised power failure affecting their equipment. I then did a quick scan of outages and found it was a SCHEDULED all day power out for maintenance. The NBN may not have been advised, nor could they discover it themselves, but they went down within minutes of the SCHEDULED power down and returned to service shortly after the SCHEDULED end of the maintenance. The maintenance outage only affected a 100 or so premises and the vast majority served by that NBN ‘pit’ never lost power.

The RSP (AussieBB) was oblivious since they relied on NBN for information. A formal complaint got lodged through AussieBB as it affected their ability to advise and support their own customers in a factual manner.

We could go on about this and that, but other than identifying how fragile it seems to be as well as arguably unfit for purpose, we might leave it having noted backup issues?

2 Likes

@PhilT and @phb as moderators, you ought to know better. You are both getting to an in-depth conversation that has got off topic.

In the opening discussion, is the focus a question on internet service providers upselling plans that provide no real benefit to unwitting NBN customers. Perhaps those less familiar with technology?

Are there specific examples we can share?

This appears a different question to the previous?
The topic title might benefit from an update.

1 Like

A fairly wide topic such as this one should allow a discussion of other features providers can supply and I see no reason they should not be mentioned.
Ability for the customer premises equipment to work in the event of a power failure as was the case at least for voice communications with the Telstra twisted pair copper all the back to the exchange and the powered lines that worked the handsets.
Automatic switching to the mobile cell network in the event of an NBN failure?

Other than the numerous other topics currently open that look at those other aspects?

When there are no emergency communications

Communications Solutions for Emergency and Disaster Events

NBN battery cost - #10 by PhilT

🌐 Best internet provider

NBN installation and the elderly - #18 by grahroll

There are many more.
This new topic appears to be asking some new questions. The IT press have previously raised various concerns about the NBN wholesale pricing strategy and ongoing complaints from the RSP’s concerning the cost of each tier.

2 Likes

And that is a different topic again to the original posters issue. Specifically, upselling users to faster speed than they actually need.

The Thread title relates to the Choice review, of the same Title. Choice chose to make that a comparison of the speed and volume advertised by the providers package and what the data records by users of each package using the NBN app. That data may also have the capacity to tell users whether they are actually using the speed and volume, implying that the data could tell users whether they have the package they need, and hence, possibly save them significant monthly fees - a core aspect of consumer advocacy. Package choice, for many, has been based on marketing rather than need, again a core role of Choice to separate market pressure for consumers, into fact driven choice.

1 Like

The data in that review is all about actual download and upload speeds achieved compared to what RSP package you are paying for.
NBN would have no idea what speed a specific user actually needs, nor would Choice, although there are some good guidelines available for speed required based on generic profiles.
Perhaps your RSP has some metrics on speed utilisation of your connection; they will certainly have data use metrics.

3 Likes

I’m with Exetel and was on 25/5 which I was quite happy with but when 50/20 was offered at no additional cost (they were deleting the lower speed), I went with that. I noticed the other day that the 25/5 is back, and $10 cheaper, so I’m switching back. I have not been able to achieve the speeds I theoretically had, even though I am only 400M from the node.

5 Likes

I don’t know precisely what data NBN will collect with their app, but am asking the question here as a consumer, whether it can be used to extrapolate the pattern of use. Based on that pattern it seems feasible that one might be able to deduce the package required rather than package marketed? Armed with new knowledge the user, like @SueW has done could then opt for a cost saving package.

2 Likes

As a general strategy buying any plan and seeing how you go with it and then adjusting the plan upward or downwards is usually only the click of a mouse or touch of a finger, or at worst a phone call.

Relying on any report of what if or averages required for this and that is advisory and a place to start, but with all the RSPs within about $10 of each other for any particular plan level, considering what support they provide and their overall packages would be more rewarding for most than trying to get the absolutely most economical plan for their needs from day 1.

Beyond economy many of us are happy with unlimited plans just so we don’t have to worry about data traffic. Some will discover based on their use over a month or few that they only use 200 MB or a few GBs and can save some money by downgrading. Others might reinforce they use ‘unlimited’ data because of their 24x7 streaming.

As for speed? It is dependent on the MTM and to a lesser extent on the RSPs servers and infrastructure on what you pay for vs what you actually get. Those interested in speed can routinely run speedtest checks or watch the ‘buffering icons’ during peak times. Even the best of the RSPs will be limited by the NBN MTM coming to each premise especially during prime time when you have HFC or FTTN+derivatives, FW or shudder, SkyMuster, mostly competing for under resourced NBN lines. No plan will overcome an intrinsic NBN limitation but might reduce its severity. On the flip, not wanting to pay for what one will not get as a practical matter requires monitoring one’s individual situation and adjusting accordingly.

4 Likes

@PhilT
Why are you trying negate the need for deriving better information to aid consumer choice?

My point is NOT about switching to alternative providers within a plan level, that is totally different topic.

My point is about getting better information from real data to choose the best plan level needed, particularly when marketing is based on providing the most expensive plan instead of the least expensive, the latter possibly meeting most users needs. I’m glad that once armed with that info, that making the change is then easy, ‘a click of the mouse’! What about ‘those who don’t need the speed and volume’

I don’t believe most households need unlimited plans, but many have them, because they knew no better, when the marketing hit them.

Your last para about ‘speed’ is the what the Choice article focuses upon, ie, giving consumers the info they need beyond merely an individuals speed check at a particular moment.

You misunderstand. Information is always good, but if the information is not much value added at what cost does it become warranted?

The quarterly ACCC reports provide the performance in multiple ways. A consumer needs to discover their data requirements. This other topic includes links to those reports as issued.

Attributes that can be measured are being measured.

That is true, but it is not always from ignorance, sometimes it is for convenience as I indicated - unlimited? then no worries on data and some consumers would be satisfied.

An analogy might be car insurance. It is cheaper if you buy 5000km p.a. than unlimited. But if you might take a tour around Australia you could be inclined to buy an unlimited km or 15,000km policy as a form of insurance so as to not be caught out. And so it goes with some households and data. eg one less thing to worry about, albeit at a cost (that could be avoided if one knew precisely where and how often they would drive in the upcoming policy period).

As the NBN (especially) has forced more consumers to become tech savvy some do, and others are willing to pay a premium to avoid having to. YMMV (obviously) but I will agree to disagree that much of anything beyond a real world monthly statement can authoritatively advise a consumer how much data they actually need/use.

Since that is the case I’ll step away from this topic.

5 Likes

My ACCC Whitebox results show my package is appropriate to our wants. Every month our usage is currently between 3 and 4 TB (between 24 and 32 Terabits per month but one month we went to over 10 TB (80 Tb)) and on a rising trend. With over 12 devices connected at any one time including Smart devices eg tablets and phones, IoT devices, Computers, two Smart TV devices streaming, we still notice buffering. We also don’t use our mobile data while we are within our WiFi network’s reach as we get better overall service using WiFi. For reference our package is FTTP 1000/50 Mbps Unlimited. Test data used every month by the Whitebox is about 170 GB, this data usage is relative to the tier ie a lower speed tier and bandwidth will result in lower testing data usage.

It is easy to say we think most people need less, maybe they do and maybe they don’t but I have yet to see any definite research about what people need. I think people would use more if they could use more, many are limited by the tech that connects them. That old saying comes to mind “ what you’ve never had you never miss”. Sure, some are happy with less. If they can save a bit by choosing the lower level that is a great outcome. The catch may be that a penalty applies (usually speed capping to around 256 Kbps or the cost of buying a data add on for the month) if they exceed the limits imposed or find quality of the results are less than desired.

To assess the true needs needs a lot more research than CHOICE could reasonably undertake. So if a user is happy on 25/5 and a limited limit and it meets their needs and saves money I think that is great. If they don’t know what a higher speed could do or can’t get a better speed is that a reason to think that is all they could use. Many who may wish for more are often limited in their ability to get more.

Evolving tech requires more and more bandwidth and speeds become more important as well. If we wish to remain somewhat behind in development then remaining at lower levels is an acceptable choice. If we wish to get on the front foot then we need to change.

3 Likes

I agree, we are limited for speed more by the technology offered (only one option for most).

The differences between most providers are a few dollars for similar services.

The two things that matter most:

  • Who provides the best customer service and experience?
  • Which of the technology options available to our site/home deliver an adequate and reliable service?

There after one can change the speed tiers with most providers based on outcome. Start on the slowest/lowest cost and step up if it is not delivering. Note some service providers appear to automatically package added products at higher speeds, whether one needs the package or not. Value added debatable?

Would I pay more for higher speeds?
If it was upload - likely because NBN Fixed Wireless is prioritised for downloads. We are on the top tier available. For another discussion.

4 Likes

CA doesn’t necessarily HAVE to do the research. Rather they can, often do, represent the needs of consumers to retailers, organisations, gov’t.

Easy to say, ‘if we wish to get on the front foot…’. But, CA exists because, many can’t afford that, but may need too as you imply, that in doing so it may be poor value, poor quality, etc.

“Yet to see any definitive research about what people use” - THANK YOU my point exactly, needed but not available - but the whitebox might be a potential source of extrapolating such data - you seem to be, but only a few have white boxes!.

12 devices - I couldn’t even afford to own 12 devices, let alone need bandwidth for them. Some research was done about energy usage in various WA suburbs. A surprising outcome was in the middle-class but affluent suburbs, many had heaps of solar, and yet bragged about their enormous power bills, rather than the savings and their efforts to reduce power usage.

1 Like

Any reasonably knowledgable network designer could work out what speed and data allowance would be needed.
Certain needs require other factors to be considered like high network latency (Skymuster) and what level of connection sharing will be imposed through multiplexing (HFC, FTTN) that will see you get buffering problems no matter what speed your local connection has.

1 Like

I don’t understand why some posters here seem to oppose consumers being given better information, based of usage, so that they get the most appropriate package level.
One doesn’t need to be a pilot in order to buy the best airline service.
This is consumer advocacy group!

1 Like

Now to be fair, Choice has published many articles about the NBN, and plans by RSPs, and tested, and is certainly concerned that consumers get what they are paying for.
Members of this Community offer advice and experience on various specific issues and more general issues.
You can choose to avail yourself of this information. Or not.
I think I shall also leave this topic to you @longinthetooth and cease replying.