It's official: BigPond is too expensive

McBanjo:

It's about time that Telstra was put in its place and shamed for the prices they charge Australians.

SimonM:

Telstra have a choice to make it on to the list, they are not saying Telstra can't be represented, just that Telstra plans offer nothing to consumers, they simply don't fit the criteria, I think the days of the Telstra monopoly are gone, and for the better!

Bryce :

I guess the government have finally woken up to the fruadband that 256 is.

The only reason that half of Australia uses 256 is that's all they can afford with Telstra.

256 is not an option. It's only 200kbits more than dialup.

sunset:

For me dialup never got speeds above 49Kb/sec, but with data compression on {default}, web page data can be 1.5x that speed, about 75kbits/sec.

With ADSL you are stuck with an overhead {PPPOE} ~ 0.78 of line speed {as quoted by the adsl provider}.
So your 256kbit/sec is a usable 200kbit/sec.
At that rate, a 256 plan is less than 3x better than a standard modem connection.

In usable bytes/sec: 200kbits/sec /8 kbytes/sec = 25 kByte/sec.

Monthly download of 200 MByte means you can download ~ 200 MByte/30days=6.7 MByte/day
= 0.28 MByte /hr
= 77 Bytes/sec
if you use it continuously over the whole month. {60 Bytes/sec usable due to overheads}.

OK, instead say you use the computer for 2 hours every day of the month. You then can download = 925 Bytes/sec maximum before you run out of your monthly quota.
So you have a pipe that can supply you with 25,000 Bytes/sec, but even for a small amount of usage per day, you can't use more than 925 Bytes/sec, or you will run out of monthly capacity {including the overhead means 722 Bytes/sec usable}.

Alternatively, you might choose to use the full available bandwidth, starting from the first day of the month. This lasts you only:
= 200 MByte/month * 8 bits/byte / 256kbits/sec
= 6,250 secs = 104 minutes = 1.74 hours.

Such a download might be eg purchase of music compressed to 192kb/sec {very good quality}. At the 256 kb/sec rate, you are able to download it and play it real time {just, remember the overheads}, and you get to half way through your 3rd x 45 minute album when your monthly capacity limit kicks in.

Or maybe you try to keep your computer secure and run the updates tool. Oops, no more {decent} usage for the month...

If you are being band-limited to 64kbits/sec {usable 50kbits/sec} for the rest of the month and you downloaded continuously for the whole month, you could still download:
~=((60*60*24*30)-6250)secs * 50kb/sec / 8 bits/byte
=16.16 GBytes
, so total available usage on the plan could be 16.36GB / month. {with 99.76% of that at about modem speed}.

BrendanB:

I find it most amusing that Mr Middleton doesn't realise that the above mentioned site doesn't exclude Telstra on services offered such as the 256kbit mentioned, rather it's the price!

Everyone else seems to be able to manage to make the list?

Anonymouse:

So is this the same reason they didn't add Internode???

Bob Fribber:

"Most broadband users enter via a 256kbps plan" - or so the Tel$tra PR spin says.

You know - I dont actually know of any of my friends or family on a 256k plan. I think what Craig was trying to say was:

"Most Tel$tra broadband users enter via a 256kbps plan because we charge way too much for any other speed"

Good to see Helen Coonan understanding broadband for a change

robertatascot:

Telstra is like a dinosaur, needs to become extinct!!! Remember how they wanted to charge for timed local calls before deregulation and the wide spread adoption of dialup internet in the mid 1990s. That policy would have killed the internet back then, and their ridiculous download limit of approx 200mb per mth then penalty for mb overlimit (capped of course!!) Telstra overcharges, and promotes self interested policies to protect themselves from us, rather than to serve the public (still 51 percent government owned, where is the service?) Again I ask everybody to give telstra the big freeze like the last iceage and hopefully they will go away-permanently! There are internet providers who do not sign customers for rip off fixed con tracts and have minimum penalties for downloading beyond what is reasonable. We the customer can make rip off companies go away in our nation if we choose not to let them see the light of day,(or our money).

tailgator:

The govt has finally taken a stand on Telstra's deceptive and manipulative pricing regime and exposed it for what it is. How long did Telstra think it could get away such predatory plans. So try all the spin you like Craig, the chickens have come home to roost.

steved:

Telstra has always set broadband back in this country with high access charges and low useage. Now all they do is whine like a school kid when they don't get their way.
Yep 256k and locked in for two years with 400k downloads per month is Telstraa version of broadband.

moondy:

Official? took long enough.

i hate Telstra for there unfunny bigpond ads and them lieing to the public. Even my own family needed to be taught why you cant get a decent Internet connection STARTING from 'only' $19.95 a month. For 256k and 200mb...its fraud.

I hate telstra and im going to keep spreading the word until telstra dies.

Jonathan:

I've noticed an inordinate number of anti-Telstra "articles" by Dan Warn this past week. There's no denying that Telstra offers some of the worst value in the industry, but it's by far not THE worst.

Encouraging positive change needs to go beyond petty pot-shots against Telstra, which to tell you the truth has lost some of its significance in the marketplace anyway over recent years.

When trying the Online Service Locator for myself, I found that none of these popular ISPs (on the basis of cost, performance and support) showed up either:

1. Internode
2. iiNet
3. Exetel
4. TPG
5. AAPT

The only ISP that people would recognise as being well established in the industry offering some value is Optus. Even Optus in some cases is more expensive than those mentioned.

So Dan, in the interests in promoting positive change in the industry, let's try adding some credibility to the case that broadband in this country is expensive because of the incumbent based on fact.

Dan Warne:

I love how people like to accuse journalists of being inaccurate but don't actually state how an article is inaccurate. Care to find a factual error in my article?

tin:

They may have skipped listing more than Telstra, but Telstra is the one that the government has specifically explained to be left out for price reasons.
If they don't mention the others, I don't think Dan can make up stuff about them.

Jason Torrento:

Exactly.

He is a very credible journalist, who writes articles without bias.

I don't want him to start showing bias by making non factual statements about other ISPs.

Good word Dan, and Good work to the government for finally protecting consumers from the fraudulent scam that is Bigpond Broadband.

Icewind:

The difference between telstra and iinet/node etc., is those other ISPs didn't complain their arse off just because they didn't fit the criteria.

Loosestping:

Bigpond/Telstra have provided a rich vein of derision lately, mostly due to their, at times, inept attempts to reimpose a Telco monopoly on the Australian public. When are the mum and dad shareholders, excluding Telstra employees this group is Telstra's most fervent defenders, going to realise that the returns on their Telstra investments will in no way compensate them for monopoly prices Telstra would like to charge(as evidenced by the FTTN pricing briefing)?

Anonymous321:

i'm a telstra employee and i can't stand them. As a company they're dishonest, diceptive and anti-competitive. I'm glad they didn't make the list because it's further illustrates the state of broadband in austrlia. if the largest telco in the country can't get it's act together there's someting wrong.

SJT:

I agree most wholeheartedly Johnathan. After reading this then the accompanying links about Mr. Warne, his personal ill-feeling towards Telstra becomes quite apparent. Whilst this is his prerogative and fair enough, (everyone is entitled to an opinion, except you and I of course as we dare question) one would suggest that whilst not impossible, it is most improbable that Mr. Warne would ever consider giving an even handed report to any aspect vaguely related to Telstra, due to his underlying disposition? Mr. Warne pedantically retorts, “Care to find a factual error in my article”? Sidestepping the fact that you were simply highlighting other omissions, which he may or may not have, conveniently overlooked, to suit his motives! So please Mr Warne, don’t get all defensive, no one said you were, or are inaccurate, but you are certainly (sneakily and selectively?) biased!

Craig Middleton, BigPond:

For the benefit of readers, just before 6pm last night I emailed the following to Dan, proving the error by DCITA. Despite a promise to correct it "when I get home", it remains uncorrected.

Sorry Dan, but your readers deserve to know this. here is the full text of my 5.56pm email about a letter just received from DCITA.

"Hope this clarifies what I was trying to explain.  They have just sent a letter to Telstra which says (and I quote) "that both Telstra ADSL and ADSL2+ services will now be identified to those premises that can receive ADSL service on the locator. This will occur within the next 24 hours. Telstra ADSL (and any other non-metro-comparable ADSL services) will be identified as such on the list of ADSL service providers, and where Telstra offers metro-comparable ADSL under the Australian Broadband Guarantee these services will be identified as terrestrial Australian Broadband Guarantee services in the appropriate category.
More broadly we are proposing to further develop the website to include a category of general broadband services that are clearly differentiated from the metro-comparable services category that has been established for the purposes of identifying eligibility under the Australian Broadband Guarantee. This is intended to minimise the possibility of confusion for consumers seeking services under that program. We expect this revised structure to be available by the end of this month."

Dan Warne:

Craig, I did actually update the article when I said I would -- when I got home last night. It appears you might have missed the "update" text at the bottom of the article.

Furthermore, this is not a factual error. The government published a list of ISPs based on a criteria for what it considers to be metro-comparable services (clearly outlined in the story).

Following your complaints to the government, it has now advised you that it will list Telstra, with a warning to users that Telstra's services are 'non-metro-comparable', which is exactly what I said in the update to the article.

This is an update in the government's position, not a factual error in my reporting.

raindog:

Craig you can pee about with labels, lobby for inclusion and revised definitions all you like. The simple fact remains the Bigponds offerings are poor value.

Is your purpose just to confuse further with more options, more catagories? Migh have worked in the past but joue public is wising up.

You should be thankful Dan responded to your email in the time that he did, and not accusing. You may regard APC as a 24hr propaganda service for Telstra but that's not how the readers see it.

Instead of all your proposal to develop websites how about putting some of the same effort and zeal into analysing why Bigponds offerings are not competitive and why the company is so much on the nose.

sandra_madness:

Funny thing is that all Bigpond need to do to get on the list, from what I can gather, is drop the price of the Bigpond 1500kbps Liberty plan by about 55c and they would make the grade. That is $69.40 per month ($2498.40/3y) plus the 12Gb plan with no excess MB charges.

Simple isnt it? Instead, they spend all their time lobbying, politicising and whinging.

How about adjusting the customer value a bit and spending less money trying to tell us how good you are.

Matt:

Damm, you are ignorant of reality in this stupid country. One where too much of the population doesn't realise just how much they are being ripped off.

Here you are being told that explicitly, but you stand by the con merchants that Telstra is and accuse one of the best technical journalists that this country has.

Dan is certainly not biased in any way. He just tells it as it is though.

Peter Avram:

You certainly are entitled to your opinion; however Dan Warne wasn't omitting anything.

This report covered Telstra's complaint that it did not appear in the governments list. And the article indicated the reasons it did not appear in the governments list.

Dan then confirmed that this wasn't a mistake.

The article is NOT about Telstra being missing from the list, it is about the stink that Telstra MADE about being not on the list. No other ISP publicly complained about being missing from the list. (That we know of; and if they had I expect Dan would have mentioned them.)

There are no omissions. As another poster mentioned several other well-known (though perhaps not as established) ISPs were missed on the list, but I don't see any complaints from them. (Nor do I see their plans being added to the list with a special mention about how they are not actually meant to be on the list as per the article update).

I like the update; because it really is the government officially handing Telstra a badge of: ,"Not affordable broadband by our standards" rather than no badge atall.

chopper:

Nah mate, Mr Warne got it right...

there are just self-interested lackies who "play the man" who exposes the truth. That appears to be an observable "feature" of Tel$tra type responses - refer to them sukily bagging the ACCC and the government cause they didn't get their own way.

Scott:

...Internode. Internode doesn't appear on the list, however iiNet, Exetel, AAPT, and TGP all appear.

The link to the list:

http://www.dcita.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/connect_australia/adsl_broadband_providers

Anonymous.:

You might be right that Dan picks on Telstra by doing a lot of articles. But each article he does he remains unbiased. After the way Telstra's treated him at nowwearetalking.com I think Dan's being too nice to them.

Dan Regan:

Get with the program Jonathan, I am 59 years of age, been in it and communications for 25+ years.

During in that time, I have had need to deal with Telstra and their representatives over 1000 times. Rarely ( will repeat that) Rarely have I either not been fobbed off, outright lied to, and generally received bad service from poorly trained (not their fault) and under informed staff.

I can back up my claims without much trouble – for example, just ask anyone who has tried to connect to ADSL through a supplier other than Telstra….. and listen to the rubbish that comes out their mouths. That has happened to me personally on a number of occasions.

My experience dates back to times when they charged $2+ for every phone connection in a building, under the guise of servicing the equipment, or times when fax’s were introduced into Australia and Telstra demanded to know what a new second phone was required for – they then tried to sell fax streaming lines etc etc etc etc…. Never ending b$!& s@#t

Stephen:

About time telstra/bigpong where exposed for the rip off merchants they are. Just have a look at the following website & see how much they rip you off.
http://broadbandguide.com.au/ & yes I did mean bigpong.

Mick:

"256Kbit/s has to be metro comparable, because half the population is using it!" he concluded.

This is because of Telstra's ridiculous 256k 200mb for $14.97 advertising. I would question what percentage of the 256k users are with Bigpond, and how many of them are with other, more competitive, providers.

Unfortunately there are a large portion of the population that don't realise they can get a much better service, generally with larger download quotas, for the same or less than they are currently paying Telstra. Those that figure this out usually do so with 18 months still remaining on their lengthly 2 year contracts with Bigpond.

drewhiggins:

Good job and Craig, maybe talk to Sol and ask him to reduce his ridiculous prices. Not all of us are American and can afford $70 a month.

Shame on Telstra for these prices. I challenge Craig to tell us why 256Kbps broadband is expensive and why the service is crappy. I remember an article in APC which says 'what could be more Australian than meat pies and Telstra'? Obviously not prices, that's for sure.

Who believes Telstra broadband is a joke? Name and shame them I say.

Theo Witteman:

As for Craig, caugth with his hands in the Tel$tra cooporate spin, why do we continue importing foreign MD's running our infrastructure when they can't even deliver a "metro-comparable" service.

We need fast internet. We need it now. We need it at an affordable price.

Why do we still need an active phone line for our ADSL to work? Voip is becoming more relevant every day.

Russo:

Funny how the government has realised this finally. Telstra has to be by far the worse ADSL provided available in Australia with its outrageous ADSL plans! I guess the Cable broadband isnt so bad but imagine if other ISP's could offer that service with their prices. Sadly i could only get cable down my side of the street..again shows how good telstra's cabling is in a metropolitan area! The other side of my street can get ADSL amazingly but not the point of this story. Lucky to say that there are other ISP's available in Australia that offer competition..pitty Telstra hasn’t done much to keep up with it.

Danny Regan:

I would like to have telstra renamed to

Low Life Lying Thieving Scum

How long are business and the general public going to put up with their threatening, lying and monopolistic practices.

There are just to many why’s to be answered;

Why: do we have to pay $30+ monthly for a for a line rental
Why: shouldn’t LLLTS (see above) be broken into 2 parts;
1. Backbone and controlled by the
government
2. Retail section have no better access
privileges than anyone else
etc etc etc

etc etc etc – It makes me sick every time I read about Telstra, they seem to be threatening the Government and the public – they are really in a terrorist class

If the public were the threaten the Government and the people of Australia we would/should be run outa town

Moh:

Does anyone actually realise that the reason Telstra is so expensive relative to the competition is because it is legally mandated, through the Universal Service Obligation (USO) to provide services to country and remote areas that are effectively maintained at a loss. Back in 98, the regulator costed this out at $598 million but Telstra only got $200 million from the government mandated industry fund, constituting a loss of nearly $400 million for Telstra.

Consequently, Telstra has to average out the price, so it uses the city to subsidise the country/rural space. Its competitors do not have to do this and can simply cherry-pick the most profitable urban areas and use Telstra's infrastructure at less than commercial rates (mandated by the ACCC in order to artifically maintain the competition). In short, the cost for Telstra in providing you with say, a 512M service with a 1G cap is much higher for them than it would be for say TPG (who I'm with).

Russo:

I have to say that is a very good point. If the job was left up to say optus they would be copping the same as what telstra would be now. Its a pitty the government doest do more about this, we are so far behind in comparison to other countries.

To say telstra isnt that bad as such, Ive been with telstra cable internet and have to say its better than any ISP i've been with.

SJT:

Interesting point Moh! I've also heard too, but I’m unable to clarify - so I would therefore appreciate Mr. Warne’s expertise, in please elucidating the situation if possible? Is it true that because the now privatised Telstra are the owners of the vast majority of infrastructure - as this infrastructure is also utilized by rival ISP's, Telstra are legally prohibited (via the Trade Practices Act of 1974) from undercutting any of these competitors, in relation to similar product? Is it also true that if Telstra do so, they can be liable for up to $3m per day fines? Now I may be wrong - and again would appreciate Mr. Warne’s clarification, so as to be clear of the facts both for myself and everyone else - but if there are 3 competitors, one charging $30pm, another $40pm and the last $50pm for similar product, Telstra’s minimum charge by law can only be $50, not one cent less? If this is true, add both this and the info Moh has previously supplied, and we may just have discovered (apart from the typical assumption of greed) two other reasons as to why Telstra tend to be more expensive?

Derek Nguyen:

Tell it like it is, the mums and dads should be more educated when it comes to telecommunications. Telstra's are making billions thanks to the non technical mums and dads, if we all can just convince one household each to stay away from Telstra, wouldn't Australia be a better place??

Hozana:

Talking of "metro-comparable" service without defining it is misleading. Who defines what it is and what its download allowance should be? What is the basis for that? Who determines what the "real" price of such a service should be? Any price structure dependent on subsidies is an economic distortion, a short-term gamble and a long-term business risk. If you can, remember what happened to OneTel! Price has to reflect investment, re-investment and commercial sustainability. Imagine if Telstra didn't re-invest in its network infrastructure - almost all of those "low price" providers would go under. Imagine if Telstra lowered its ADSL price below those of the small operators (and they can afford it) - there would be a 'riot' and cries of 'foul play' by the 'big bully'. A network costs money - loads of it, be it cable, fixed line or wireless (including satellite). Check this: licences to operate in specific areas must be obtained; network deployment specifications need approval; transmission systems and user equipment need approval; equipment used is to specified standards; staff must be technically qualified; land must be negotiated and acquired from landowners and permission sought from States and Local Councils and conservationists); billing systems (and I hear Telstra makes over 100million bills a year!), fault monitoring and reporting systems, maintenance and repair teams must all comply with regulatory requirements and meet industry standards; etc etc. These are the things that determine price end-users like you and I pay. Some of the prices some service providers charge for their broadband service do not have to take all of this (and more) into account. I think Telstra offers reasonable value for money, and they give sustainability and lots of tax money which goes into the Gove surpluses! Let's be balanced and objective rather than jump onto bandwagons without the facts!

legless:

I have long supported Telstra and will continue to do so in some areas. However as a Telstra/Bigpond customer I am the first to agree that they are uncompetitive when it comes to most services.

I emailed Bigpond about the fact that they are not competitive and that in real terms their broadband offerings are fairly laughable in today's market and supplied some other ISPs' offerings for comparison. I almost laughed but was not surprised when I received a reply which stated "It is not Bigpond's policy to indulge in comparisons with it's competitors." What sort of a way is that to run a business? would think it is exactly what they should be doing. He went on to explain that Bigpond is a "full-service ISP" meaning they not only supply a connection but give many other wonderful things too, such as access to games, sport and other free content. I hardly ever find anything I want on the free files server, I don't play games online and I don't watch sport of any kind, so great value all in all.

Also they must be one of the only, if not the only ISP who counts uploads in the data quota.

12GB for $60/month really does not compare with their competition's offerings and certinaly not with 150GB for $80/month offered by TPG. As for the "full-service" comment, other ISPs such as iiNet offer free content as well so that can't alone can't be used to justify the exorbitantly high prices.