My Republic changes its data rules for wireless internet customers

The amount that some use may indeed create a reason for them to look at an option to go for a lower data allowance, but there isn’t always much difference in pricing and that is so true that a user should look at what they need and thus sign up to. The link to BroadbandNow allows a user/household to guesstimate their possible need. I can say with certainty that in our household we do need unlimited and use at the moment 2 or more Terabytes of data a month. With increasing want/need for connectivity the amounts households use will only continue upwards, many households also now have many devices that while not typically used like a PC now benefit from that connectivity and use extra data each day as part of that eg smart fridges, air con controllers, security systems and so on.

2 Likes

If not forced on them by NBNCO then forced on them by the ACCC. “Unlimited” is considered a swear word in connection with any product or service where it is not possible to provide something truly without any limit, and “Unlimited *” does not cut the mustard with the ACCC.

Regardless of the ACCC, surely we have learned our lesson already about “unlimited” in connection with internet plans? “Unlimited” is very rarely sustainable, very rarely lasts for long. A few customers will take it to heart, and use the internet so hard that it is not viable for other customers or for the ISP.

I would go as far as saying that: any ISP customer who signs up for an “unlimited” plan takes some of the responsibility for the failure of the ISP to deliver that plan forever. Go ahead and leach hard while you can, but assume from the outset that the bonanza won’t last forever.

In this case, the ISP is giving customers the opportunity to terminate the contract early without penalty - if you think that you can get an “Unlimited” deal with another ISP.

* Limitations apply. See https://unlimited.com/limitations for full terms and conditions.

1 Like

Of course it is what they really term ‘fair use’. Why is it a failure to continue to deliver? If the tech supports very high speeds and thus movement of large amounts of data, a provider can continue to supply the data as long as the pipeline has capacity. It is just pricing that data. Overseas there are also many ‘unlimited’ plans on much higher bandwidth circuits eg 10 Gbps speed plans that are vastly cheaper than our offerings here. What a provider has to recover under the nbn™ is firstly their wholesale costs and they offer their plans based on those as many of the NBN Co charges are fixed and high, then they can add frills such as Fetch TV or Foxtel. What they charge to provide the frills is mostly their choice and to stay competitive with their other competitors in the market.

There are some technologies used that have harsher limitations than others eg Fixed Wireless and Satellite are very poor regarding capacity Vs Fibre Optic that has very large capacity per strand. I am sure one day a single fibre will be saturated but then that offers the opportunity for multi strands that are combined to offer even higher capacity in a very small footprint.

The reason MyRepublic would be offering no fault termination is that they are obliged under contract law to do so as the contract they sold is no longer valid. As I said the tower is the problem and any RSP/ISP(old term) using that tower will have exactly the same issue with what NBN Co are allowing, until that tower gets increased capacity or the tech used is changed to support higher bandwidth the problem will remain.

2 Likes

Because they are shaping to 128 kbps. That is not broadband. That is excruciating. While they are not technically cutting you off, they might as well be.

2 Likes

My response was to the broad statement you made, not to the shaping that the people on that Tower are receiving. More of the problem on that tower is not the use by unlimited plans but the capacity of a very limited service to deliver the promise of a LNP Govt to supply us with a World Class service. They are basically saying “You want to use the nbn™ to connect you to the world for any number of reasons but hey we are going to savagely limit that ability because we had no foresight”. The tower has a small ability to feed a larger than anticipated audience, that’s the problem.

2 Likes

You didn’t believe that, did you? :slight_smile:

Let’s start by banning the word “nbn”. There is no such thing. It is an fbn, f for fragmented, a hodge podge of different technologies with wildly differing capability. In fact, it was never ever proposed as a truly national network. There were always going to be digital losers. It’s just that the set of losers is these days proposed to be (much) larger.

1 Like

An adjunct to this is being able to identify how the Fixed Wireless towers in an area, in this instance the Brisbane Valley, Esk, Toogoolawah are interconnected. Also which of the towers are physically connected to fibre and have better backhaul capacity, and those that are relying in the microwave relay backhaul. All of that region from Ipswich northwest through to near Kingaroy appears to be Fixed Wireless in the areas around each major settlement, with no fixed line services. It’s possible to dig deeper and make an educated guess at how it all connects.

However knowing so is not going to change the outcome. The design of the FW NBN network only really provides for email, low level browsing and on a good day a single SD data stream. Although the prospect of the NBN charging extra for streaming content for FW or Satellite would really be a step too far.

2 Likes

Of course not and I certainly wrote to the Ministers and spoke to my local Federal Member about the stuff up they call MTM NBN. I also wrote online about it in forums like here on CHOICE. But as a people we voted the LNP in and we got what they wanted to give us. We still vote them in and we still get what they want to give us. We here just means the larger amount of the voting population of Australia not individual voters.

If we want positive change we need to force positive outcomes by refusing to support those who give us negative or neutral outcomes, this mostly only happens at the voting box and so Australians need to become smarter about who and what they vote for.

4 Likes

While other responses agree that fixed wireless is a total mess, I suggest your friend make sure of the problem first. They can do this by checking what other ISPs are prepared to offer. While it is likely to be a problem with the NBN’s wireless congestion, there is a possibility that the ISP just sees an opportunity to raise prices and blame-shift. Getting quotes from other ISPs (should be possible on their websites, just typing in the address) would confirm exactly where the issue is - and if your friend is ‘lucky’ enough for it to be merely a case of My Republic over-selling capacity when it hasn’t bought enough from NBN Co. then your friend can move to another ISP.

And 128kbps would be unusable on a modern website.

1 Like

The difficulty will actually be getting an answer from an RSP. They will have plans that show unlimited but on implementation they may advise because a tower is congested they cannot give an unlimited allowance and then like MyRepublic have to void the contract or allow the user to reduce to a limited data allowance. NBN Co have given themselves until Sept this year to address congestion issues on the problem towers, but where once they advised in reports which towers were affected they really only list numbers affected. They have also likely (read have here) been under reported because until now they only looked at cells and not the backhaul (about 1 in 10 suffer) and similar.

3 Likes

Thanks for that. I will pass that on. The 128kb/s only applies once the 200gb’s have been reached, I believe.

1 Like

Perhaps of historical interest only, it appears Toogoolawah was originally intended to receive FTTN.

This report by ITNews says it all.

iTnews can reveal whole towns that were originally in the FTTN footprint have now been allocated fixed wireless.

They include Coraki and Tumbarumba in NSW; Childers, Millmerran, Toogoolawah in Queensland;

It’s all about minimising cost ahead of quality of outcome, with the observation the ABS defines broadband as any speed faster than 256kbps!

“NBN Co’s mandate is to provide broadband access to all premises in Australia with some form of NBN technology, whether that be fixed line, fixed wireless or satellite,” the company said.

“The technology that may already be available in an area (for example ADSL or 4G etc) is not so much a driver of NBN Co’s technology choice as other factors such as the cost per premises of servicing the area.”

2 Likes

I went searching for this, and found the definition on page two of the ABS December 2018 Order Internet Activity Record-Keeping and Reporting Rules (PDF):

Broadband means an internet connection that enables high speed usage with high capacity limits and download speeds of greater than or equal to 256kbps.

That was a definition tabled in Parliament in 2018! It was also the last year the ABS produced its Internet Activity Survey, which the ACCC replaced with the Internet Activity Report upon which this ‘new’ definition is based!

The December 2018 Internet Activity Report (PDF), published by the ACCC in May 2019, states on the penultimate page that it is also going to be replaced (emphasis added):

The ACCC will be discontinuing the collection of information relating to retail broadband SIOs by estimated download speed. However, the ACCC will be collecting and releasing a richer dataset of internet activity information with a greater level of granularity and disaggregation.

It goes on to list ‘included’ changes, basically all sorts of not-very-informative information for the actual end user.

Edit: while that 256kbps definition may be literally correct, if one defines broadband as anything faster than dial-up, it is useless in the context of a modern Internet connection.

4 Likes

1,000 million percent agree!

Apologies if anyone was alarmed by the revelation, although it is consistent with the attitude of the NBN Co and minimum deliverables set by government. I was surprised that Australia was officially still hanging on to the old speed definition.

In comparison the FCC (USA) changed the definition for their nation in 2015. The minimum download speed four years ago was very simply 25Mbps! No nonsense about up to xy-Mbps or typical peak hour speeds.

The relevance of all of this is that for rural Australia the NBN Co commitment falls well short of delivering usable and workable broadband to rural and regional Australia. That is when measured in a ‘World class’ sense, as related by @bottville and others examples within our community topics. The NBN Co elected not to run a fibre backbone through the Upper Brisbane River and Esk Valley in Qld. As it also elected not to for many other parts of rural Australia.

@bottville’s story and friend could be relevant to any one of the 1.1million plus premises the NBN Co intends to service by satellite or fixed wireless. That is out of 11.2 million planned premises to have service available (passed).

For anyone considering whether rural Australians will be getting a fairer outcome from the NBN in future, there was a major parliamentary enquiry completed late last year. It specifically enquired into communications in rural and remote Australia, and reported to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Bridget McKenzie, as Minister for Sport, Minister for Rural Health, and Minister for Regional Communications.

The report, from my read had a focus on business, education and health/social services outcomes in relationship to communications and also the internet. It’s a revealing read in what it does say and also in what it does not say. There is a consensus of opinions, that rural internet is not performing adequately. A number of businesses made submissions including Aussie Broadband.

https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/2018-regional-telecommunications-review-getting-it-right-out-there

Of some relevance to another Choice communications topic relating to a ‘Netflix Tax’ is that the delivery of media for entertainment using streaming services to rural Australia appears to have a low priority. However the future of the wonders of 5G and low earth orbit satellites bringing competition to rural areas does get a mention.

1 Like
  1. 5G is a solution in search of the right problem, and needs infrastructure (sorta like the NBN)
  2. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are not going to be delivered by any Australian government any time soon. Does this mean that rural Australians will be relying upon Elon Musk’s Starlink or one of the competing projects?
2 Likes

I’m hopeful of encouraging others to read the report and make any observations that relate to regional outcomes of the NBN. Rather than specifically debate the reliability or relevance of the suggestions in the report to 5G etc.

For consumers in rural and remote Australia the report offers insights into how the government, notably the Federal members in rural and regional Australia may view the NBN and communications needs.

The reference to 5G and low orbit satellite services in the report was not qualified.

Like any well written government departmental report it is possible to read most things in more than one way. Typically empathetic to key voters while reassuring on the success of government policy.

P.S.
Just for the record, I’m open minded about the future implementation of 5G. Whether it offers part of a solution to improving internet services to rural and remote Australia it is unlikely to be a reality any time soon?

1 Like

I think this news article answers your question @bottville. Please note the very ‘Liberal’ (pun intented) interpretation of the speeds that should be achieved.

ABC News: How Netflix and the streaming revolution killed the NBN’s dream of super fast broadband on fixed wireless

2 Likes

The first paragraph of that article states:

About 10 years ago, when the original plan for a mostly fibre NBN was first hatched by Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy, streaming TV was not a thing.

Wikipedia states that “Netflix expanded its business in 2010 with the introduction of streaming media while retaining the DVD and Blu-ray rental business”.

Then of course there’s YouTube, which was created in 2005 - well before NBN planning began. In fact that last link makes clear that changes to the original design were still occurring in 2011.

You would have to be blind, stupid, or wilfully ignorant to ignore changes in how the Internet was being used and opt for a second-class solution!

3 Likes

For all practical purposes, Australia does not have a National Broadband Network, we have a “National” Internet Network, so henceforth NBN Co should be known as NIN Co.

2 Likes

I agree.

There appears to have been no professional future capacity planning, and the LNP (Turnbull) ignored all the industry experts who correctly forecast the current shemozzel, just so they could reject the Labour proposal.

And then there were the masses of voters who unquestioningly believed the political hyperbole and voted to save money in the short term, at the cost of getting something that would work well into the future.

2 Likes