The NBN Might Cost $100 A Month For Consumers

38
The NBN Might Cost $100 A Month For Consumers
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]

Comments

  • That would depend on how much the download limits were.
    I now pay $75 per month with download limits of 102gig.

    It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make me change my ISP, and pay more.

  • I would consider it, provided that it wasn’t capped. Lets face it if you want some serious take up Australia needs to model it’s plans on the US (or any other un-capped country). If it’s capped it better not be the crappy telstra model of Downloads AND Uploads.

    It’s interesting reading some US comments on another article where posters are leaving an ISP in droves because they want to introduce capping… funny how that doesn’t happen here.

  • $100 might seems unreasonable now, but by the time this is up an running, inflation etc. It’ll be within the grasp of most. It will be sweetened as an alternative to Cable TV, with the speeds promised.

    Good One Kev.

    BJ

  • I pay about that for my internet and landline and mobile phone each month. I’m probably not a representative sample, but I use these very extensively for work and having the seperate landline is pretty essential.

    Unless this was unlimited bandwidth I can’t see myself switching, because I think it would add significant cost (when i’m forced to seperate out phone lines, handsets etc), for very little advantage past the speed (which would be genuinely awesome). Particularly given the fact that ten years from now, I expect mobile network coverage to do its job sufficiently well in areas that I work and travel, that i’d be comfortable enough having it as my main source of internet. Undoubtedly the mobile access wouldn’t be unlimited bandwidth, but at least i’d be able to use it in different locations easily.

  • Depends on the bandwith. I have a 50gb adsl2+ plan that I can’t get over 1mbs because i live to far from the exchange (not to mention the drop outs and packet loss). Fiber would be a great option for fast speeds but If fibre gave me 50gb of bandwith for $100 it would be temting but i am only paying half that for adsl2 which is alright for everyday web browsing. What i really want to know is with everyone being capable of having such great speeds won’t the submarine communications cable need an upgrade to be able to get the full benefit from this?

  • I already pay close to $100 for ADSL2+ (which only connects at ~3Mbps) with a big download cap, combined with phone line rental. If the download cap was similar and includes phone service (surely it would?) it would be a no brainer … so the only variable lies in the download caps for me!

  • I already pay ~$100 for ADSL2+… so if the plan significantly exceeded what I pay for now sure. For $100 from a govt. scheme engineered to provide quality internet infrastructure, I’d expect quite a bit, after all, you can pay for a better connection (or multiple connections) now if you wanted to just throw money at a better home connection.

  • I’m paying $99 to optus, for Net and home phone for ADSL2. ( Opps + $2 processing fee) 100 bucks for something alot faster then adsl2 is great! except – at that speed we need more content that is financially realistic and available, and I can see that no matter who runs it if you want more then a basic account you will be paying through the teeth for the downloads not the actual speed.

  • I feel kind of bad for people who pay so much for slow broadband already I page $50/mo for ADSL2+ and a 50gb cap (and slowed speed after that, NO charge for extra downloads).

    If speeds of up to 100Mbps are actually going to happen then things like watching TV/movies online will be a much nicer experience, coupled with that of course will be the download limits. for $100/mo I would expect pretty much unlimited download limits, providers in other countries currently offer services without download limits, providers in Australia should follow suit.

  • $100 a month is not unreasonable provided absurd data limits are either increased dramatically or removed all together.
    I’m actually really pleased about the way this has played out. My experience of Telstra tells me that had they got the bid, this project would have been twice as expensive taken twice as long to build and been less useful over all, likely a much slower target speed.

  • As with many commenters, it would depend on the cap. A really fast connection is useless if the cap is too low. I already hit the cap most months for my ADSL2+ connection.

    In many ways the cap is more important to me than the connection speed.

  • ok but are they up grading the lines into Australia because that’s where most of the internet comes from. we need more from the US becuase there were most things are held and maybe a few from Europe wouldn’t hurt either

  • Only if it were totally unmetered. I pay $70 per month at the moment for 150GB of data on ADSL2+. I’d want unmetered upload, unmetered download, and the full 100Mbit (or damn close to it) of bandwidth before I’d consider that much money.

  • Journalists need to include the cost of Telstra line rental. Based on the ADSL2+ experience, a VOIP connection will be $5 a month, compared to $30 Telstra.

    When we talk about the cost of FTTH, we need to compare the cost of Line Rental ($30), ADSL ($40-$80) and Pay TV ($40-$100). If FTTH cost is < $80 then there is a reasonable chance many people will save because Line Rental (if you really need it) and Pay TV (especially movies on demand) will be considerably cheaper.

    • i like the fact that you believe the inertial move from telstra/optus controlled mediums like HFC and copper-wire PayTV/POTS telephony, to NBN cable, will lead to cheaper line rental or internet, pay tv, etc.

      it won’t.

      Imaginably, the first ten years of NBN cable will be fantastically expensive for non-internet services on NBN infrastructure, like Pay TV, just because of the licensing/copyright issues.

      $100/month for internet access, won’t be a big issue in 3-5 years, when you would have cheaper, more user-friendly technology, e.g. thin-client wifi-enabled VoIP handsets, which will make VoIP incredibly easy to sell on shelves when it’s built into the handset, i.e. for a fraction of the cost of mobile phones or 3G internet access, a wifi VoIP phone would be remarkably easy to attach to long-term plans, i.e. contract-locked models much like mobile phones.

      pay tv is also on the way out, with the expenditure of commercial investment and the relicensing of archived television for internet streaming, will allow blu-ray quality streams for a real HD tv/movie watching experience, not just the rough postage-stamp youtube quality movies you pay the premium on now.

      for millions of Copper/HF Cable/Satellite internet users in Australia, NBN will make things easier, not just for those in the designated cabling areas, but also for distributing the load on the current ADSL/Satellite/HFC/copper networks and making them more accessible. though, not cheaper for those users, just more accessible.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 ?

Log in to comment on this story!