How come, in England, I can get 8mbit ADSL with unlimited downloads for £10 a month, but in Australia, I’d struggle to get anything close for $25?
Screw the bush, I want decent service where I can get it. Honestly, as much as I am all for equal opportunity, I think the fact that the phone companies here are required to provide the same (approximate) level of service to the bush is holding the city service back. When the difference really is that great, it should be acknowledged and the market allowed to vary.
I doubt we’ll get that for at least another 3-5 years.
Especially unlimited downloads.
Isn’t it only Telstra that has to provide the same level of service to the rural areas? I didn’t think any other ISP was obligated to.
To be honest, I see a lot of competition in Australian ADSL. There is already 24Mbit ADSL2 available in metropolitan areas (which is unheard of here in America, you can only attain similar speeds with fibre to the premises but the rollout is still limited). A large factor in the push towards ADSL2 was the fact that Telstra tried to ignore ADSL altogether and keep cramming cable down our throats.
As for unlimited downloads, they are subsidised by those that download very little. Here in the States, all the plans I’ve seen are unlimited and only differentiate on speed. A lot of people are forced into paying $55/month for far more broadband than they need. In Australia, while the prices are less attractive, it is easy to pay for exactly what you’d use. A heavy user could be paying 3 to 5 times as much as a light user and in a way, that makes perfect sense.
I’m not saying that Australian broadband prices are cheap but considering the demand, infrastructure and population density, I think it’s in very good shape.
@ Karan: lol. you sound just the teeny-est bit selfish.
it’s unfair to decide that people who live in Melbourne and Sydney should have things better at the expense of those in the country. in many ways their need for fast internet access is greater than us city folk.
as soon as you move away from the city things become much more “mainstream”. the radio stations, the bookshops, the cinemas, the cd/dvd shops all stock whatever is most middle of the road. the options of live music are limited. as someone who likes obscure(ish) music and movies i think you’d have some sympathy.
i’m pretty sure that the phone companies just do whatever makes a profit for them – they decide whether or not reputation for large coverage is more profitable than investing in better services in the cities. only Telstra has any obligation to the people in the bush, which is one argument why it should not be sold off.
the problem is we’re a large country with a small population and even the number of people in the cities does not make it viable to have the kind of technology that smaller countries with much higher density have. with a smaller number of people the costs are always going to be higher.
sorry, yeah, that should’ve been phone company, singular. Their price structure however reflects the fact that they’ve got to keep at least service parity, and being the largest provider of communications in Aus that flows on through.
ADSL2 isn’t really available in the UK either; I have to say from my experience at least, 8 mbit is great service, and while “unlimited” is probably limited by an Acceptable Use Policy, the option is there for very cheap ($25/mo) – even if you’re not a heavy user, that’s not much to pay.
Population density might be cited as a factor, but really that’s only significant if you consider population density across the country; suburban population density of Australia would be comparable, if perhaps a little lower than the UK. It still shouldn’t mean that you need to pay close to 3 times as much to get comparable service.
lol. i feel like i’m arguing here by posting again. i don’t care that much, but i disagree :P
Australia has 15 cities with more than 100,000 people while there are about 70 in the UK. Also, when you’re close to other countries it allows companies to span over much much larger populations, thereby reducing costs.
sorry kirsty, didn’t see the moderation queue for the first comment.
you make a decent point about the need for these services in the bush, but I think I’m leaning to paying proportional to the cost of providing the service, as I don’t think it’s proportional at the moment and the city is subsidising the rural service. I’m not saying don’t deliver it to them, I’m saying that maybe the price structure could be steeper.
Australia’s urban population proportion is around 85%, so on a global scale, we rank pretty highly, and even if we’ve only got 15 cities vs 70 in the UK, that should mean that for those 15 cities, we’re paying the same as you might in the 70 cities in the UK. The technology should be the same, and the cost to implement comparable. If it’s not, the question’s got to be asked as to why it isn’t.
The companies providing this in the UK (BT, Sky, Virgin Media) don’t span across other countries as far as I’m aware.