No-one’s going to say no to faster broadband, but would you really pay $100 a month for the privilege?
Predictably, the announcement early yesterday morning that the National Broadband Network would now be set up as a government-owned entity has resulted in an absolute glut of analysis and coverage.
Amidst the glut of business and politics analysis, Fran Foo’s discussion of how much an NBN connection might actually cost at Australian IT stuck out. Based on quotes from Internode (which already offers a fibre-to-the-home service, Foo suggests that $100 a month might be the typical cost for consumers.
In truth, it’s probably a little bit early to be making any pricing assumptions, if only because of the effects of inflation and the long-term nature of the project. But if the NBN was available right now, would you pay $100 a month for access — and would that depend on other factors (like download caps)? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Service to cost $100 a month [Australian IT]
Dan
April 8, 2009 at 10:08 PM
I currently use 3G broadband paying 39.95 for 5gig which is great for my needs. I would like to see different tiers for download limits, as 100 is quite steep at the moment for what i need.
Report Permalinkkrystoff
April 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM
most Aussies are currently being gouged chronically by Telstra for line rental they don’t really need (VOIP over FTTH would be significantly better line quality than POTS copper lines anyway), and a key reason the Gov’t has come to this decision — so you can include $15-30/mth in that estimate, less ~$5 for a typical VOIP account.
almost 75% of us suffer from no options but ADSL1 or wireless speeds, and with plans averaging in the $40-60 range users would shy away from a large jump in price, even with line rental savings.
you also might factor in inflation — averaged over a decade is roughly 120-140%, so if this takes eight years to materialise, we are looking at the equivalent today of about $80/mth (or has this already been assumed in the $100 figure?).
the sweetener here could be the promise of unlimited/uncapped internet, which seems commonplace across parts of EU/USA/asia. whilst that might not be revolutionary, it would certainly transform Australian communications: ask yourself — why would any current user of internet and/or cable tv (85%+ of Australians) want to effectively pay less money for what will then be ubiquitous, seemingly limitless communications, with the wealth of free online content that Americans already enjoy (cable & satellite tv are fast becoming redundant there).
it equates to buying an new fax machine today, rather than a colour laser printer for the same price, all decades after email has replaced the need for faxes (oddly enough, there are still imbeciles out there who persist with antiquated systems like that).
Report Permalinkmr-crash
April 9, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I’m actually surprised how much some here appear to be paying…
But I also think that the crowd of people reading this site probably isn’t a terribly representative community. I think $100 a month is a lot for many people.
Report Permalinksarah
April 9, 2009 at 2:24 AM
i already have a connection speed at 22,000kbps. This means im downloading at around 800kbps generally. the internet is slowed down from me accessing sites in the united states and in europe and the sheer distance of the connection. the national broadband network is going to do nothing for my speeds. i’m slow as a result of trying to connect to servers in united states. unless they upgrade the links out of australia this national broadband network is a complete and utter waste of time! would I pay $100? no I certainly would not. i’m getting over 100GB a month now with iiNet for less than $100 a month. I can’t download more than that. I don’t need a national broadband network so I can download more. it’s completely pointless. what on earth is it going to do for all the people who are on a RIM! NOTHING!. and what is it going to do for people living out in the country. Fibre to the node, and then they still have a dial up connection out in the country so they still can’t get fast internet. the plan has failed before it even got going!. meanwhile japan has 50,000kbps connections standard and you can easily get 100,000kbps connection there. would I pay for this NBN plan, absolutely NOT!
Report PermalinkNicholas Orr
April 9, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Considering I currently pay $315 / month for 250GB I’m up for +$100 / month bills provided I get a massive data allotment.
No point having speedy net if it runs out after 2hrs of use…
Report PermalinkStephen Dean
April 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM
What people are forgetting is the people on a low income. $100 a month is too much for them. I thought this broadband plan was to give everybody easy and reasonable costing internet access. The cost needs to be around $20 to $30 a month to give all people access to this service. Why should only the wealthy have access only.
Report PermalinkCraig
April 12, 2009 at 3:42 AM
Wealthy? It’s more about where you put your priorities. You can pay $30 for internet access, but you don’t get much for that $30. You want more internet but can’t currently afford it then you sacrafice something else so that you can.
Report PermalinkFacebook User
April 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Im with iinet.. paying $159 (including phone line) a month for 140GB all up of DL. But the upload is really shite.
$100 p/m with a decent quota, decent uploads.. i’m there with bells on.
Although I’m not sure 8 years is a timeframe I will actually be excited about.
Report PermalinkPete
April 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM
To all those who are hoping for a unmetered USA model, Time Warner Cable in the US is introducing pricing equiv to how we get billed & other ISPs in the USA look to be following.
(read up here – http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/44497 for example)
In regards to paying $100- a month, like several others I’m already paying more for a decent download cap, so yes $100- is a no issue.
Report PermalinkCraig
April 12, 2009 at 3:34 AM
Most people that have said they probably would because they pay $100 now or even more – well you don’t have to :S
I don’t have any issues with the speed i get. $70 for naked DSL – 25gb ul, 25gb dl, 25gb internal. An i can get more from a couple of other companies for less money, so i don’t think i would be willing to pay more for less. Not interested in paying more money for a little bit more speed when i’m happy with the speed i get.
Not interested in paying more than what i am and considering i don’t even use my VOIP service i’m not really interested in paying what i am now.
On that note though other sources have advised that $100 per month is a very low estimate and that for the project to be worth anything you would be looking at more like $200.
Report PermalinkDan P
October 18, 2009 at 8:49 PM
you guys are kidding right, i pay about $50 a month for ADSL2+ with about 30gig download. WHY would i want to pay double when this is more than enough for me and my family? and if NBN co. goes ahead it looks like i wont have much of a choice because the consumer will be the one that has to fork out for all this new infrastucture.
Report PermalinkABCDiamond
July 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM
2 years later and the figures are out.
Internode will charge $189.95 a month for the full 100Mbps service with a 1,000GB download quota.
Lower priced packages will start at $59.95 a month for the basic 12Mbps service with a 1,000GB download quota.
I pay $40 pm for 13Mbs actual on a 24MBs service, with 100Gb download (4 times what I need).
Why would I change ?
Report Permalink