The NBN needs subsidies if it is to work

Cross-posted from The Conversation:

Half of all Australians are now able to connect to the NBN. But around 40% of eligible households have chosen not to connect to the network. Our modelling shows that subsidising the NBN is key to encouraging more Australians to connect. This would benefit the economy as a whole, but hurt the government’s plans to privatise the network.

The government is currently counting both on receiving ongoing revenue from the NBN, as well as the proceeds from its eventual privatisation. To achieve both goals, the NBN charges for access to the network.

Switching from a pricing model that charges for access to the network to one that subsidises access will mean the government won’t get a return on its investment.

The NBN’s pricing model

The NBN currently charges internet service providers, such as Telstra, for access to the network. The internet service providers then sell the service on to consumers – businesses and households.

Our model tried to find an NBN access price that would generate the greatest benefit to consumers, internet service providers and the network. We set our model in the future – when the NBN has been fully constructed, the cost of construction has been paid, and the government is preparing to privatise it.

In order to maximise the shared economic benefit from the network, we found that the access price has to be less than zero – a subsidy. The network shouldn’t be charging internet service providers to access the network, it should instead pay them to connect.

The internet market in Australia is dominated by four large internet service providers (Telstra, Optus, TPG and Vocus) so we can’t expect the subsidy to be fully passed on. But competition means consumer prices would drop, and the number of customers connecting to the network would increase by as much as 25%. The benefit to the economy as a whole would outweigh the costs, but the cost falls entirely on the NBN, which would have to run at a loss.

The NBN as a public service

We know that regulators want the NBN to benefit the whole economy. This requires more customers to connect to the network. Our model shows that means prices need to be reduced.

This will weigh on the plans to privatise the NBN. There was a similar issue over access to Telstra’s copper network, which was marked by repeated litigation and public wrangling between Telstra and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over access pricing.

Private companies won’t invest in infrastructure such as the NBN unless they can earn a profit in return. In fact, neither Telstra nor its competitors managed to build a fibre network themselves precisely because they couldn’t agree with the ACCC on how much profit they would be allowed to make from it.

But the NBN is financed and currently owned by the government. This means it doesn’t necessarily have to run at a profit.

Our model shows the NBN should be treated like other services the government provides – roads, education and doctors visits. All of these services can theoretically be provided by the private sector but are subsidised because the benefits of broad access outweigh the costs.

Any guarantee of a profitable NBN also means that the benefit to consumers and the economy will be suboptimal. With the nbn Co. due to finish construction and be polished up ready for privatisation in less than four years, it’s time for our politicians and regulators to start transparent conversations with the public, investors and broadband businesses about how many consumers will be connected to Australia’s broadband future.

Article by Troy S Barry and Ishita Chatterjee from the University of Western Australia


  1. It doesn’t need subsidies it just needs better organisational capability. I would happily pay to extend my FTTN to my home but I can’t even do that.

    • Exactly. It really should be as simple as a tick and flick exercise with a simple choice if you want it extended to your home with an extra setup cost.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      What the NBN should have done is to get the home owner to pay for their FTTH via a ‘caveat’ on the property, and the cost is only paid on sales/knock down/change of title. Tell the home owner ‘this won’t cost you anything and will increase your property prices’ and everyone will hop onto the band wagon.

      • HadronCollision

        Brother in Woodend on wester side of Mt Macedon just off Black Forest Hwy can’t get NBN LTE
        Too far from ADSL or else no ports
        Pair gain

        NBN won’t do satellite.

        The cost is not the problem

        Disclosure: I am on LTE NBN 50/20 and LOVE IT

      • @migtronix – Wireless is not good internet. It uses copious amounts of power, is subject to disruption by things like weather, the broadcast stations are generally unpopular with local residents, the bandwidth is shared and rapidly depleted, the top bandwidth even if not shared is really poor.

        Frankly, if you want wireless internet the private networks are meeting demand and growing their networks. Wired internet is crucial if you want some return for the investment. Businesses are the ones who need stable fast internet the most. That includes individuals running a home business, or telecommuting employees.

        The only areas that should be getting wireless, should be sparsely populated regional areas. Town centres and residential areas should be capable of being cabled.

    • FTTN is completely shit and will not suffice for even 5 more years.

      It degrades incredibly rapidly and completely falls over with even moderate demand.

      What people are failing to understand is that the technology of FTTH meant fibre – which can be passed down several thousand kilomoters of cable did not require power to run, was not impacted by weather, and could be run from huge dedicated centralised hubs.

      The FTTN is an entirely different system which can carry barely anything – in order to get FTTH speeds the rest of the world is getting we have to rip them all out and install FTTH.

      Heres the thing – we have absolutely ZERO choice about this – NONE – not wireless, not 4 or 5G – we will eventually HAVE to install FTTH if we want to be a FIRST WORLD ECONOMY.

      No ifs no buts – we are already behind most African countries at this stage and are amongst the worst in the developed world and pay the highest fees on earth – our energy issues are NOTHING compared to our internet issues.

      All this will happen within the decade – no ifs, no buts, no maybes or major companies will simply pack up and leave.

      Its literally like not having running water and electricity – Australians are just to fucking stupid to understand the basics.


      Insidious levels of moronic.


      • migtronixMEMBER

        Derp Derp why do we install FTTH only to WiFi to every useful device? Derp Derp dipsh#t

      • @Mig I always thought you were a nutcase, but that comment is fucking retarded. You are an idiot.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        If you knew the first fucking thing about IP infrastructure and network topology you’d know you’re the retard

      • migtronixMEMBER

        “I don’t do magic Morty, I do science. One requires brains the other dark eye liner”

        Enjoy your eye liner. BTW what terminating devices were you planning to use on FTTH? Yeah that’s what I thought

      • @ MIG

        you got a point but far from a cigar and not enough to call anyone an idiot.

        WiFi has connectivity well in excess of 1Gbps and if a new higher band becomes free it can exceed that by a lot.
        I am not professing WiFi as the future of the comms but it is not stuck at 54Mbps either.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        If the FTTN is NG-PON2 40G/10G, then that will provide 800 50Mb/10mb links to homes. If that is deployed to service a few streets, I can’t see the problem. For old ratdumps, you can use the old copper into the slum, for new buildings a fibre into the premises. Also what mig says is true – most end devices are wifi, so FTTH is in many cases casting pearls before swine.

      • Also what mig says is true – most end devices are wifi, so FTTH is in many cases casting pearls before swine.

        ? 802.11ac is easily pushing real-life ~100Mb speeds even in average conditions, and twice that or more in good conditions (eg: AP is across the room from you).

      • @Mig and his supporters – Battery technology is pretty good. I still want a fucking electrical mains running into my house. I do indeed use wireless data. But when I need to update apps/download new shit, I usually do it over a wifi connection which is merely an interface to my wired connection.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        Wireless may reach those sort of speeds, but the reality of wireless is that is has a lot of flakey built in. What is worse is that more and more wifi devices run Android, which is likely to drop its bundle at a fraction of that data rate. Giving an android device 100Mbits is like a funny joke. So, for most households that use wireless devices, I can’t see a 50/10 link into the house being a bottleneck at all. Even if the wifi is 100Mbits, that is shared peak BW and realworld throughput will be considerably lower.

        I just can’t see the problem with FTTN at all. Fibre links are really cheap now, so a 40G link to a small distribution point every street or hirise makes sense. If that distribution point can use old copper pairs or fibre links into the homes it solves the problems of old buildings that would be a nightmare to rewire with fibre.

        As for the future, a while back someone demonstrated that you can actually impose a light signal on a solar panel and decode that, so there may be some interesting ways to augment our networks with extra download channels. Also, look at LiFi – using LED bulbs to send hi bw data into a room. It seems to me that given how uncertain future tech is, the best thing now is to replace old infrastructure with new stuff that doesn’t paint us into a corner.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        More airy fairy nonsense. Here’s a real world example, at work the LAN goes through the corporate proxy which is so fucking oversubscribed it’s useless! So those of us who want to do real work use Wi-Fi and it’s orders of magnitude faster. See how I’m trying to explain that in the real world the pipe isn’t the only issue there’s all the other, very expensive, IP infrastructure kit? But no just be jerks about “NEED THIS BLAH BLAH BLAH” which gave us the worst Internet in the world.

        BTW I work at the biggest telco in oz

      • What is worse is that more and more wifi devices run Android, which is likely to drop its bundle at a fraction of that data rate. Giving an android device 100Mbits is like a funny joke.

        WTF are you talking about ? Pretty much any contemporary 4G/LTE Android phone will be capable of several hundred megabits. Android is basically just Linux, and Linux has been shifting big network loads for a while, now.

      • See how I’m trying to explain that in the real world the pipe isn’t the only issue there’s all the other, very expensive, IP infrastructure kit?

        LOL. The poster child of context-free, cherry-picked, single-issue, drive-by commentary is whinging about other people not considering the bigger picture.

        Corporate wifi APs are already pushing multiple gigabit backhaul connections. Even (modern) home wifi single-AP systems can comfortably host enough clients with enough bandwidth to saturate a 100Mb internet downlink.

  2. The authors of this article need to do a bit more research on the NBN, a topic on which they seem slightly ignorant:
    NBN users already pay a subsidy of $7.10 per month[1] so that regional Australia can get cheaper NBN.

    Every NBN user pays more so that Nationals voters in regional Australia can enjoy a cheaper service.


    • ResearchtimeMEMBER

      Which I don’t disagree with – but wait, there is more, Telstra gets close to $3bn per annum as a subsidy as well for at least 20 years!

      Add that one up – on top of the $60bn and counting!

      The NBN was always a pig, Rudd the Dud did not care about alternatives – or even if we even needed it? Which (lets be honest), most of us don’t!!! Rudd was out to make history, and arguably became the worst PM we ever had!

      Moreover, lets be truly honest, which is rare on this site (too much hyperbole and not enough fact) – the NBN has cost us more than the entire gain (talking government revenues) from the mining boom – and then some. On a technology that will be made obsolete – that was wasted on most of us anyway… for no net negligible benefit.

      Faster Facebook…

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Says the guy who cries “we’re a wealthy country, just build! We need to populate until we’re 80% Chinese population to stop the Indos!”


      • ResearchtimeMEMBER

        They aren’t to far away from having a superior military than ours. granted, we still have the moat. They will have a bigger economy than ours soon though (growing 6% pa) – and their population, well that is entirely another story.

        From a utilitarian perspective, if we are not using a resource, those who need it more will… nature abhors a vacuum.

        Good to see you Mig.

      • ResearchtimeMEMBER

        Getting back to the subject Mig (you are very easily distracted) , this NBN was always an obsolete exercise – and wireless making all the above worthlesss. Ultrafast wi-fi on horizon as scientists send data at 100 times current speeds (

        At the time Rudd the dud was putting this out to tender, there was a proposal for a wireless network to cover 80% of the proposed coverage for $200m. Given the scope was been reduced from the original, to roughly that 80% – even if you argued that the costs were wrong, and it blew out by 200% i.e. $400m – who cares!!!

        A decade on, that massive investment is virtually worthless.

        And all those supposed experts – turned out they weren’t!!! And that was obvious at the time…

    • JunkyardMEMBER

      It’s a terrible article written by an academic with zero industry knowledge.
      Any article that discusses nbn’s pricing model without mentioning the current CVC pricing scheme and how that is playing out with ISP’s is worthless.

      Currently retail ISP’s pay nbn for each end user circuit (AVC) but they also pay for an aggregated virtual interconnect by the megabyte. This was designed to create dynamics in the market place. So you could have providers offer less contention at the CVC for a better user experience but charge a little more. Other providers could run their CVC with more subscribers per Mb but charge a bit less.

      What everyone forgot when building this pricing scheme is this is Australia where (like most industries), 4 large players have hoovered up all the competition and are currently racing each other to the bottom on customer service and other costs.

      There is a game of chicken being played between the retail ISPs and the nbn. ISP’s are used to making 30% margin on the old copper network that was paid for by tax payers several times over before being gifted to telstra. Now they are being asked to make, say 20% margin in order to pay for a new modern network as all their customers get switched to an NBN connections.

      The people that run nbn want it to be a success, but the ISP’s often run their CVC’s massively congested to apply pressure for the nbn to reduce the CVC charge. This has already happened once with a price drop last year. This works because the poor speed gets blamed on the nbn (see the recent media pillorying of the nbn) when much of the time the end user is on a CVC that is at 100% utilization during peak and discarding packets.

      And of course we have MTM. Malcolm’s Technology Mess.
      FTTN is a diabolical mess. Optus HFC network was acquired and abandoned due to literally being held together with old tape and all that…

      Australia has a massive problem with lack of effective competition as this site so often points out, but nbn articles on here are always week and full of clueless comments from people who think everyone uses the internet like they do, or who think you’d actually get a decently priced mobile network in Australia if there wasn’t a fixed line network to compete with it.

  3. Ronin8317MEMBER

    That is a total misrepresentation of the NBN saga.

    Telstra didn’t build the fiber network because they make more money by not building one. Some small ISP like Internode did built their own Fiber to the Home network on a small scale, but they are all wiped out by the ACCC’s decision on number of point of interconnects from the NBN to their own backhaul.

    So to add insult to injury, now that all the competition is dead, the tax payer will have to subsidize a soon-to-be private company? WTF?

    • Specifically they didn’t want to do it because they told the regulator that the only way they would do it was if they were allowed a complete monopoly on access. The regulator wanted them to allow other retail providers access at reasonable prices, but Telstra wouldn’t have a bar of it.

      So basically it all stems from the absolute madness of privatising Telstra as one huge anti-competitive behemoth. That was just a huge blunder by the Howard Government. Telstra should have been structurally separated into a retail company and an infrastructure company, and ideally the infrastructure side would have been better to stay Government owned (the retail doesn’t matter). This blunder by Howard was the whole reason we needed the NBN – and then their successors come in and destroy it with obsolete technology – more madness!

      • migtronixMEMBER

        It wasn’t a blunder, it was just one more asset strip and dump operations to benefit boomers.

      • Agree one hundred percent. Peter Costello should have known to structure it better. Also, the full privatization would not have passed the Senate if Labor had not preferenced Family First over The Greens at the 2004 election, thus replacing two Green Senators with an FF Senator in Victoria and a Liberal Senator in NSW elected on Labor primary votes passing through FF to the Libs. We are now all paying dearly (tens of billions of dollars) for that bizarre decision.

  4. The ALP wanted to privatise the NBN and probably still do – a disgraceful policy.

    * cue a comment that I must love the LNP *

    What happened to the fibre optic cables laid in the CBDs by Optus and others? Is it illegal to do that in the suburbs?

    Not allowing that would be like not allowing an aluminium smelter to build its own captive power station for exclusive use by the smelter – to the exclusion of all others.

    And given that houses are connected to the electricity grid, why not have a fibre optic cable and a power supply cable twisted into one?

    • >Is it illegal to do that in the suburbs?
      Yes it is now.

      Private enterprise started seeing that the NBN would be rubbish and started building their own.

      In 2013 “TPG fibre plan challenges NBN”

      In 2014 the government changed the law.
      “TPG withdraws super-fast fibre service competing with NBN”
      “TPG said that on December 14 [2014] it had been advised of new regulations that precluded it from selling its fibre-to-the-basement products after January 1”

      In fact, even if you are happy with your existing ADSL connection you cannot keep it.

      NBN = another monopoly, just like 1970’s Telstra, with bad service and old technology.

      I expect 4G LTE and 5G wireless to be such an attractive option to consumers soon that government will have to legislate against it to make NBN attractive.

      • JunkyardMEMBER

        TPG has not been stopped from rolling out its FTTB product. It’s been building it for the last couple of years, cherry picking choice buildings that offer lots of subscribers to nearby existing fibre runs.

        Listed buildings serviced here:

        Also you can’t keep your traditional landline or ADSL after the coexistence period ends (18 months) because all that extra attached copper degrades the performance of FTTN and needs to be unjumpered at the pillar. Also copper is shielded twisted pair in various sized pair bundles. 10 pair bundles, 100 pair bundles, running down the street. Your ADSL signal is actually interfering with all the nearby pairs. FTTN (VDSL) uses funky stuff like vectoring to minimise this and achieve higher speeds.

        But until coexistance ends and all the legacy services are canned everyones FTTN runs slower.

    • Its like a road, electricity or water. Its hard to point out big economy stuff because its a force multiplier, not a force in itself.

      To give you an example though. Lets say I want to run a business, but I’m a small operator that doesn’t require bricks and mortar (or cant yet afford a decent commercial lease). I could stick some shipping containers on my land to store my goods (and lose whatever CGT concessions for that activity) and then setup a security system to protect my goods.

      With low speed internet, my options for offsite video are limited. My remote access to my cameras are limited. Now add in everything else businesses use- general internet, data etc. The lack of a decent pipe can be really restrictive.

      Now step up the nature of the business. I’m a medium sized business with 50 employees. If you’re not in a CBD with reasonably priced internet, you will feel it. 50 people accessing various work related websites, employee computer’s need updates for a whole suite of applications (some of which won’t have centralised deployment options), VOIP starts being a thing and so on. You start having databases that you can only take offline for backups overnight, and you need those backups offsite to ensure business continuity. You do not want your offsite backup process to interfere with normal business processes.

      I can give you a specific example. Many years ago, before 3G internet, I worked with a lot of developers/builders. These guys needed to be able to send all kinds of plans, pictures and other stuff between their work site, central office and 3rd parties. It was prohibitively expensive (this is pre-ADSL2 as well) to be transferring data, and generally took a long time as well. Plenty of people in the construction industry are not full time permanent staff. They are subcontractors/independent workers or small businesses, but they all have to communicate with each other and share information.

      Yes 3G and 4G networks these days would give them a lot more freedom. But they’ll still have things like a home office. They need to be able to go home and maintain their financial records, and the systems on which those financial records are stored, interact with clients and so on. That can be really hard to do on just mobile/wireless data.

      ADSL2 should be good enough except that as the world marches on, the nature of technology changes. Before widespread broadband, we were all using modems. If you were a site that was poorly optimised, people just stopped visiting. But once we got ‘web 2.0’ sites started getting bigger and more bloated. A site that was once under 1mb on its frontpage might now be 10mb. As I sit here typing this, MB keeps loading new ads on the sidebar. In 10 years time, ADSL2 will be slow and rubbish, not because it cant send a lot of data..but because data inflation is real and Australia is too small a market to get in its way. In 20 years time those ads on the sidebar that keep reloading? They’ll consume more bandwidth than a standard def netflix stream does today. It fucking sucks, but if we don’t stay in front of it, its no different than sticking with goat tracks when others are moving to train tracks.

      TL;DR – Netflix isnt the only use for the internet. Security updates alone, plus agile programming practises means that a fatter pipe is required than that we needed back when software came on a CD and nobody had heard of a ‘windows security update’

      • Thanks for taking the time to type out such a thoughtful reply. I think I still disagree though, and it’s around how many people are high intensity users of dataflow. The businesses you describe, no question they exist and many more besides (banks, universities, creepy internet companies tracking everybody, etc). So I think in terms of the number of actual users they are limited and could be serviced on a node-type basis, ie a CBD or commercial area. The point you made I think is the same as mine, which is “data inflation” – this is coming from the majority of users and is from Netflix et al. My suspicion is that this sort of non-productive leisure use dwarfs the business use, which could be serviced more efficiently.
        TLDR: we are using unbelievable amounts of money to subsidise Netflix which already loses money like its going out of fashion and is a parallel means of delivery anyway (I know nothing about broadcasting so pls don’t yell at me).

      • I think a lot of geekier types agree that if we could cull the marketing, spam, inefficiently designed sites etc, yeh, ADSL2 would be an amazing speed. But that isnt how it works. Even if we just got rid of netflix, page ads, marketing designed websites etc will just consume the excess. Only when we reach the cap of the next tech (as we did with 56k ala modems) will there be a roof that further infrastructure investment cant immediately handle. (Obviously DSL, cable etc raised the cap once, but for a long time sites had to assume you were 33-56k modem, not 512k-1.5mbps dsl/10mbps cable)

  5. migtronixMEMBER

    NBN is just another consultant scam perpetrated on the dull as dishwater electorate.

    Given the opportunity your betters in Straya will always scam you – but do you hear late twenty something Simone complain about data speeds? 😂😂😂

  6. >30 billion~ invested into NBN by government
    <NBN needs government subsidies.

    When government subsides something like electricity it does not make electricity cheaper (socialises costs) and logically puts little onus on people to do so.

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      Makes you wonder how the state and federal governments ever built most of the nations electricity generation and distribution system, water supplies, irrigation systems, the telephone network, all of which functioned more or less well from state to state when Australia had a fraction of the population and wealth it does today. And no 457 visas back then. Amazing..

  7. In regards to NBN co, If they took out a loan for 30billion dollars to build a network and just paid interest of 4%pa it would equal 120million dollars.

    4 million households pay $3 a month covers the interest and minorly pays the principal.

    If $3 a month p&i + cost of doing business = more than $15 a month per household I’ll eat my own hat.

    How to get 4million homes? Charge $15 a month.

  8. Nearly 5 weeks after I first initiated contact with my ISP, I’m still waiting for an NBN tech to show up to install the Network Termination Device (or whatever the hell it’s called) to my brand new FTTP house. Hopefully it’ll happen sometime next week, but based on past experience with my iiSP I hold little hope.

    My recommendation to NBNCo would be to spend more money on staff and subcontractors so that it doesn’t leave someone without an internet service for 6 weeks when they move into a brand new house. Or to put it another way, an internet provider that provides no internet for 6 weeks is little more than a fucking joke. This is supposed to be the 21st century fer Chrissake.

  9. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    We are a big country with a small population, that supposedly thinks decentralisation is a good idea.

    If equality of high speed connectivity across the country is so fucking important for this goal,…to allow work from home anywhere,…over the internet doctor consultations,…remote area robotic surgery controlled over the internet,…all this business cloud based shite etc etc,…not even mentioning fair access to high def 4k porn,…for all Australians,…then this whole persuit of a profit based business model is total Bullshit.

    Connectivity is a 21st century essential service,…like the postal service, public schools, water and sanitation services,…it should be totally Government funded.
    And not through any bond issuance either,…fully funded by the Printing Press!,… where’s the sovereign risk in this?
    Where would the inflationary breakout come from?
    If it did devalue our currency,…isn’t that a good thing for Our exporters?
    Why can’t we just do it, and keep it in the hands of our democraticly elected Governments?
    Could all be done by the stroke of a pen, with the same engineers, tradies and workers that are doing it now,…but without all the lawyers, bean counters and Marketing fuckwits that are stuffing up the process now.

    • migtronixMEMBER

      Mate you need to join the Fabians if you want any influence in the ALP, but when you do…

      • Maybe some might come to the conclusion that ideology is in a bubble…. the biggest of them all ev’a…

        disheveled…. once you start scratching… it never stops mig-i… dopamine is like that…

  10. What do people know about the FTTC ?

    it appears a number of areas have been upgraded from FTTN to FTTC

  11. You dont need subsidies to get on it, you need subsidies when you are on it to afford the mobile internet as you will spend most of your time tethered to your mobile just to get access to the internet. So far swapping to it has cost me thousands in lost productivity. I have had days where I just cant get a connection, technicians that just couldn’t be bothered turning up, arrogant b*stards who desperately needed a punch in the face when they did bother. Even then after having fixed the countless problems with the connection that should have been done on day 1 the speed is crap, if it rains it drops out, and the modem I am using was supplied by the lowest bidder and consequently crap. There is absolutely no accountability or desire to problem solve. To solve it strip the NBN completely of any service capability once the line is in. Put that in a different company that is allowed to problem solve the whole line and house internals. Then when a problem is identified the time is billed back to the company responsible (ISP or NBN) at a punitive rate. Oh and the other thing they need to do is prevent their CEO ever being allowed to speak in public, halt the entire thing and damn well do it properly.

    My advice, is stay off the liberals p*ss poor excuse for an internet solution, and get revenge at the ballot box. Actually no get on it now if its available, its so sh*t that I can assure you when you realise how much taxpayer money has been wasted you will never vote liberal again, and this weirdo perception that everyone seems to have that they are “Economic Managers” will be shot down forever. This bunch of inept, entitled, corrupt muppets has spent its term and our taxes on half baked solutions. And their next is $120m on a postal vote, on the off chance the christian right can stir up enough hate to knock same sex marriage on the head.

  12. ask your current internet provider to pay your install costs. mine did. switching over only cost me the postage to receive the new modem.

    whether nbn is better than adsl 2+ remains to be seen for me. Australia is still living in the dark ages with tv channels and streaming in low quality formats so I was certainly indifferent to switching over to nbn given happy with adsl 2+ which can stream HD on netflex no worries.

  13. “The NBN needs subsidies if it is to work”

    Lol. Didn’t see this coming. Another win for government procurement. When will people learn