Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FridgeSeal 1522 days ago
I feel you.

Here in Australia: $90/month nets you “100/40mb”, which is really more like “~85mb down, 25 up but only a quiet night, if you’re next to the router, and it hasn’t rained within the last week”.

2 comments

It’s much, much better than it used to be at least (depending on where you live + NBN technology choice of course). And yet still completely hamstrung by the mess the current government made of the original NBN plan.

If you live in an area that can get HFC, FTTP, FTTN etc. it’s possible these days to get a pretty consistent 1000/50 for $150/month. Those fibre services are pretty stable in my experience, definitely a million times better than the old broadband which as you put got destroyed by bad weather and distance from the exchange.

Did you mean FTTC instead of FTTN? FTTN can rarely get close to the max of 100/40 in best case scenarios.
I did indeed, thanks. Too many acronyms!
The area of Sydney I live in has HFC-based NBN offered only, and it still falls over if it rains too much.

Apparently you can pay money to have fibre routed to your house from the nearest node/etc, but I rent, so I’m not going to do that.

You can but it's EXPENSIVE. Something like $5k-20k depending on residence and technology choice you have.
If you have to be "next to the router" than it's a problem with your infrastructure, not then NBN
The point is, that even if I were to plug my computer directly into the router, I'm not getting _good_ speeds, I simply wanted to head off comments like "have you tried 5Ghz networks? Have you tried a quieter band? Have you tried x/y/z other thing?".