Telstra to upgrade cable to 100Mbit/s

Dan Warne10 March 2009, 12:00 PM

Melbourne, you lucky bastards. You'll be surfing at 100Mbit/s by Christmas, according to Telstra.


Telstra has announced it will upgrade its HFC network to 100Mbit/s using DOCSIS 3.0 technology, after successful rollouts by other cable operators around the world.

In a conference call this morning, CEO Sol Trujillo would not name dates for other cities. "We want to make this as robust and successful as we can, and as we move forward, the board, the management will make decisions based on the customer demand, revenue and usage levels that we think we can stimulate."

The upgrade will cost Telstra $300 million, which does not include the cost of the DOCSIS 3.0 compliant modems customers will need to pay for to access the new high speeds.

The high speed cable service will pass 1 million homes in Melbourne. The network has a total footprint of 2.5 million homes around the country, which means that around 8 million homes are not reached by the network.

Why Melbourne first and not Sydney or Brisbane? "We have a pretty big footprint in Melbourne," said Sol Trujillo. "We have our engineering team, our technology team and some of the technology equipment already located in some of our labs that we've been testing for the last year. So it's a lot easier for us to get started and move quicker where we have the centricity of the platform, the component pieces and the people to make it happen. It's that simple."

Telstra said it has the technical capability to extend the speed to 200Mbit/s.

However, it admitted that the upstream speed was only 2Mbit/s. Trujillo said this speed would be fast enough to do high definition video conferencing. "We will be able to provide high resolution video conferencing on this platform — high resolution, not what you're used to in terms of standard definition video conferencing," he said.

However, he also said there was very little demand from customers for fast upstream speeds.

"We're not intending to be enabling broadcast of content which would require big amounts of speed here. What we're trying to do is tailor this to what our customers are telling us they'd like to do as services, and that's the vast majority of customers. There are specialised needs I would agree where higher upspeeds would be necessary, but in terms of our platforms that we have today, we're not having much demand from customers saying they need 20Mbit/s or 100Mbit/s upstream," he said.

"Right now, the customer feedback, the demand and research doesn't indicate the need for super high upstream speeds. What most people are doing in today's environment is mostly in the other direction in terms of downloads."

Telstra's head of networks, Michael Rocca, also said that 2Mbit/s was faster than the upstream speed proposed in the Rudd government's FTTN rollout, which would have topped out at around 1Mbit/s. However, he conceded 2Mbit/s was a max speed shared among all customers on a cable node.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

adsl2exchanges (New user):

great, just when u thought the excess charges couldn't build up any quicker, now they can!! :)

10 March 2009, 12:59 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

he also said there was very little demand from customers for fast upstream speeds. Where do they get their market research from? NWAT polls? Of course any customer with a clue not wishing to be billed for upload is no longer a Telstra customer. At least not directly.

What we're trying to do is tailor this to what our customers are telling us they'd like to do

What most customers would like to do is bludgeon the Telstra CEO and board with a cricket bat. That and to be able to get fast and affordable telecommunications on reasonable contract terms.

What most people are doing in today's environment is mostly in the other direction in terms of downloads. And that is mostly due to the restricted availability and provision of Australian broadband and the excessive cost per Mb.

100Mbits/s is attractive, having to sign a Bigpond contract to attain it, is unattractive. No sale.




10 March 2009, 1:08 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

I was going to make a comment on that line about tailoring to customers, but you beat me to it. Mine was more about how they were tailoring services to the suckers that got hooked into a 24 months contract by a telemarketer that made it sound good.

10 March 2009, 1:14 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Tin:
Mine was more about how they were tailoring services to the suckers that got hooked into a 24 months contract by a telemarketer

Not just the suckers and those who should know better. I've just had a customer order 5 lines to a new premises 2 of which needed to be ADSL2+ capable. A few days later 2 big-pond self install kits arrive. Never ordered, nothing signed. Again I get to look forward to a game of make Telstra remove the line codes so we can use our preferred supplier.

And Telstra wonder why they are hated with such passion!


10 March 2009, 1:39 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Michael J (Cornerstone member):

it'll probably be 10 years before we get 100 mb/s internet in tassie! i'm still stuck leeching off our neighbours 512kb/s wifi because the only broadband we can get is nextG (toooooo expensive) and sattelite (toooooooooooo much laency)...

10 March 2009, 2:13 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

Research shows that most people would sacrifice a bit of the down for some more up. Originally, ADSL2+ Annex M was going to provide 2Mbps up by getting some from the down, reducing it to 20-22Mbps, though in the end the Ericsson dudes were able to get the 2Mbps up without changing the down.

In order to provide a satisfactory service Telstra should have stated 90Mbps per shared node down and 10Mbps per shared node up. 90+10=100Mbps is how they could have spun it. Adding that most sources could not feed you the 90Mbps anyway.

10 March 2009, 3:38 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Mmmmmmmm I reckon I'm getting that 100Mbs/sec now with Internode unless my cursor is lying to me every time I go over the network icon on the taskbar :) That's probably what's happening ay Curse it :)

10 March 2009, 4:31 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting The Big Baboo:
Mmmmmmmm I reckon I'm getting that 100Mbs/sec now

you are! all the way to your modems Ethernet port!


10 March 2009, 4:52 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

I remember in dialup days when we used to get 115kbps from our 33.6k modem ;-)
I think that was NT4 that used to do that, but I don't remember.

10 March 2009, 9:07 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Yep "Raindog" and because of this I definitely won't be moving to Melbourne any time soon.Used to be a nice town but very dirty and since the 70's there just isn't anything there to keep me happy.

11 March 2009, 9:53 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

FostWare (User):

Wow!

Imagine how quick that 200MB quota would last now...

No lie!!! http://www.bigpond.com/internet/plans/cable/plans-and-offers/

11 March 2009, 12:51 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Ok Guys :) Here's one for you. Every time lately when I respond to one of these forum topics I get the message: "Sys.WebForms.PageRequestManagerParserErrorException : The server could not be parsed.Common causes for this error are when the response is modified by calls to Response,Write,Response filters,http modules or server trace is enabled.Details : Error parsing near
11 March 2009, 10:02 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Er :( Here's the last bit of my previous message. For some reason it didn't complete properly.
"Error parsing near
11 March 2009, 10:08 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags