markzzzsmith at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 21:05:56 EST 2016
On 22 November 2016 at 19:30, Nathan Sullivan <nathan at nightsys.net> wrote:
> Just to touch on the CVC topic again... has anyone done the math on how much
> the AVC would need to be increased to match the CVC charge revenue base?
> As we know, NBN Co has some revenue targets to meet all of their financial
> viability requirements, and there are a few cost bases that they recoup this
> through. The 2 large ones being CVC and AVC charges, with other smaller ones
> such as NNI (from the perspective of overall revenue, not itemised cost).
> Based on the fact NBN Co has provided some figures in the past of percentage
> of services on each tier (I don't have the most recent media articles that
> were quoting those handy), that would allow calculating the AVC revenue
> component to an extent, as services activated is a public metric on the
> weekly reports.
> Excluding the "other revenue" portion of things, this would then leave CVC
> for the most part, plus a little for NNI's etc.
Quite a lot of what you're after is in here. ARPU (per month not for
the quarter), revenue broken down in to FTTP, Satellite, CVC etc.,
speed tiers and percentages etc.
> Being that NBN Co has stated that as traffic volumes increase, they will
> drop the per Mbit CVC price (within a defined range for now, publicly a
> figure of "$10"/mbit has been thrown around), that would effectively argue
> that they just need to meet that % of overall CVC revenue somehow. If this
> were done in the form of increased AVC, and in return CVC goes away and all
> services can consume up to their AVC rate limit, or the maximum capacity of
> aggregated NNI's on a per provider basis, would this be a more suitable
> I suspect the AVC prices would have to go up a semi-decent amount for this
> to stack up, but if the only scaling cost to RSPs is then adding NNIs (which
> are closer in price to IX ports), would this avoid a lot of concerns and
> confusion? I'd be interested in seeing what those numbers actually looked
> like, and if someone does publish them what other RSPs would think of
> them... I haven't had enough spare time to do the math myself yet :)
> Open to feedback/suggestions/criticisms.
> (Pricing document incase anyone wants to do the math:
> Regards, Nathan.
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Nov. 2016 11:33 am, "Alex Samad" <alex at samad.com.au> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> > there was some talk about our network being able to handle amazon video
>> > coming to oz.
>> > I'm thinking this might have more of an impact
>> > http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/21/13703152/netflix-4k-pc-windows-support
>> > All those 4k tv's being sold..
>> How many are actually being sold and how many are actually big enough for
>> how close people sit to them for those people to benefit?
>> To sit a normal distance of at least 6 feet away, you need a 70"+ screen
>> to actually benefit. Smaller 4K TVs look great in the shop because you're
>> standing much closer to the screen.
>> > from
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
>> > Streaming video
>> > YouTube, since 2010, and Vimeo allow a maximum upload resolution of
>> > 4096 × 3072 pixels (12.6 megapixels, aspect ratio 4:3)
>> > High Efficiency Video Coding should allow the streaming of content with
>> > a 4K resolution with a bandwidth of between 20 and 30 Mbps.
>> > Not sure what the current average DSL connection is . But all your going
>> > to need is 2 kids (teenagers) and ....
>> > if only it hadn't become politicised
>> No even wrong.
>> CVC cost is the problem not FTTN. Changing to a literal 100% FTTP network
>> would not solve that problem and would make it worse - NBNco have to pay for
>> thosr loans somehow or other.
>> > A
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > AusNOG mailing list
>> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
More information about the AusNOG