Mounting Hyperfibre ONT

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Mounting Hyperfibre ONT

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

75 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 46

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3402449 13-Aug-2025 20:55

SirHumphreyAppleby:

Eventually, I hope to see the end of tiered pricing for the fibre connection and ISPs given more choice around what speeds to offer and how to differentiate between products.

Like ISPs extra data going over the Chorus network means Chorus has to invest more in that network, also the technology required to provide Hyperfibre (xPON) is more expensive than the technology for standard fibre (GPON). If Chorus could not charge extra for Hyperfibre (xPON) why would they have introduced it? So the tiered pricing eg charging more for faster connections helps cover the cost of the faster connections.

ISPs do differentiate and while most ISP offer the same products, ISP can choose speeds and various other options such as guaranteed bandwidth, but most ISPs don't, at least not for residential products.

As for ISP pricing, it does not directly correlate to Chorus pricing. A couple of examples all prices include GST.

Chorus charge $64.72 for 500/100 and my ISP charges $85, for 950/500 Chorus charge $76.12 and my ISP charges $105. The Chorus price increased 17.61% when moving from 500/100 to 950/500 while my ISP's price increased 23.53%.
Chorus charge $64.72 for 500/100 and my ISP charges $85, for 4000/4000 Chorus charge $104.59 and my ISP charges $175. The Chorus price increased 61.60% when moving from 500/100 to 4000/4000 while my ISP's price increased by 105.88%.

So clearly the ISPs have choice in how they differentiate between products, they are not just adding the same margin to each tier Chorus offer. ISP take less margin on the 'economy class' product and more margin on the 'premium class' product.

Godfrey
Auckland/Coroglen, New Zealand
Quic Broadband - 4G Hyperfibre

Referral Link:
Quic (use R71004E9PVBJ on checkout for free setup)

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#3402452 13-Aug-2025 21:35

Further to the points made by @godber

It is entirely fair higher speed should come with a higher price and personally I think UFB is a bargain.

I work in the internet industry and are privy to the dollar figures involved and its not just the fees paid to the LFC's (Chorus, etc) but also the following substantial costs:

Data Centre space, Power (lot higher cost per unit in a DC), international transit, staffing, equipment, all the LFC charges which are in addition to circuit costs, APNIC fees and the list goes on.

The fact we can deliver a gig service for not much more then $100 is quite frankly cheap. A gig of international transit costs considerably more then this.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

SirHumphreyAppleby

2938 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1860

#3402462 14-Aug-2025 06:52

godber:

Like ISPs extra data going over the Chorus network means Chorus has to invest more in that network, also the technology required to provide Hyperfibre (xPON) is more expensive than the technology for standard fibre (GPON). If Chorus could not charge extra for Hyperfibre (xPON) why would they have introduced it? So the tiered pricing eg charging more for faster connections helps cover the cost of the faster connections.

There is already a poor correlation between fibre speeds and usage, so charging a flat rate for network access would not necessarily lead to a need to invest further in the network or even an uptake in higher speed connections. Regardless, pricing would be set accordingly, allowing further investment.

It's reasonable to make a distinction on price at present because there is an additional hardware, training, deployment etc. cost running two different technologies. Eventually, however, and especially given our remoteness, the basic capabilities of the hardware chosen to do the job will exceed the rate at which we can consume data, making port speeds irrelevant to the cost of supplying the service.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2938 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1860

#3402465 14-Aug-2025 07:34

MichaelNZ:

I work in the internet industry and are privy to the dollar figures involved and its not just the fees paid to the LFC's (Chorus, etc) but also the following substantial costs:

Data Centre space, Power (lot higher cost per unit in a DC), international transit, staffing, equipment, all the LFC charges which are in addition to circuit costs, APNIC fees and the list goes on.

To be clear, I am only referring to the need to distinguish pricing between LFC port speeds, not the other costs. Most of the costs you mention are fixed, with the exception of international transit. Heavy users cost you more, not Chorus. Given the lack of correlation between circuit speed and usage which you have noted in previous posts, Chorus is taking profit you should be making from customers who are willing to pay for higher speed connections.

BMarquis

465 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 577

Trusted

Chorus

Lifetime subscriber

#3402479 14-Aug-2025 08:12

SirHumphreyAppleby:

MichaelNZ:

I work in the internet industry and are privy to the dollar figures involved and its not just the fees paid to the LFC's (Chorus, etc) but also the following substantial costs:

Data Centre space, Power (lot higher cost per unit in a DC), international transit, staffing, equipment, all the LFC charges which are in addition to circuit costs, APNIC fees and the list goes on.

To be clear, I am only referring to the need to distinguish pricing between LFC port speeds, not the other costs. Most of the costs you mention are fixed, with the exception of international transit. Heavy users cost you more, not Chorus. Given the lack of correlation between circuit speed and usage which you have noted in previous posts, Chorus is taking profit you should be making from customers who are willing to pay for higher speed connections.

Those same heavy users have the same data go across our network which absolutely means we need to grow our network.... that's not (understatement, as it is far from!) free and we do it proactively to prevent congestion.

MichaelNZ

1594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 485

Trusted

Net Trust Ltd

#3402532 14-Aug-2025 11:04

SirHumphreyAppleby:

To be clear, I am only referring to the need to distinguish pricing between LFC port speeds, not the other costs. Most of the costs you mention are fixed, with the exception of international transit. Heavy users cost you more, not Chorus. Given the lack of correlation between circuit speed and usage which you have noted in previous posts, Chorus is taking profit you should be making from customers who are willing to pay for higher speed connections.

To respond to this and support what @BMarquis said

In broad terms there is some disconnect between circuit speed and actual usage. But this point has limited application at scale. Put another way, if someone got a Gig UFB (920/500) connection from us at standard terms of $1xx and then proceeded to take the piss it would quickly become an AUP/T&C issue. In context this is very uncommon because most users fall within a 'normal range' commonly called "fair use".

But when a network has a lot of high bandwidth connections these are going to be biased to high users. People with Hyperfibre connections are far more interested in doing speed tests and posting the results up on Geekzone then those with 500/100 and 920/500 (which are by far the most popular options) and how to deliver multi-Gbps speeds to them becomes a real expense.

Networks don't really scale linear and ISP's are no different. They have standard steps which are 1*, 10, 25**, 40**, 100, 400 and 800Gbps***. Leaving aside link aggregation, the costs associated with going to the next 'step' can be considerable.

*1Gbps is not a common ISP core speed but its worth mentioning for perspective. **In the industry 25 and 40 are less common and the jump is usually 10 to 100Gbps. ***I know 800 is a thing but I don't know where its at the moment.

Additionally a more technical point if Chorus, etc, LFC's delivered one service level to the ISP and they had to perform QOS to differentiate plans - that in itself is more cost in gear and CPU.

However there is some application for what you have suggested and Chorus have already accommodated this with their recent speed boost which saw our clients on 300/100 now on 500/100 at no extra cost.

------

In a wider sense UFB is an absolute bargain and I say this as an IT person. If I didn't work at an ISP and had to pay I would still think it was a good deal.

I participate in some industry groups and I say without any national sentiments what we have is way ahead of Australia and the USA.

Stating my personal opinion of all the LFC's Chorus is the closest to what I think an LFC should be and I support their goal to get to 95% UFB coverage

I don't measure the value of having UFB by the last ~$10 but by what it does for me. The proverbial 2 cups of coffee price difference is money very well spent imho.

------

The last point I want to make is around incentives.

I am happy to see the average costs of internet connections increasing a few bucks a year. Its a modest amount so is affordable but is also a sign few players (incl LFC's) desire a race to the bottom. Working in this industry for over a quarter century I have seen a bit and one things is consistent. If a company does not have the right incentives in place it will go to the proverbial. Sometimes it takes a while before its startup capital runs out but one thing is certain. If its not well oiled it will trend to mediocrity and then crap.

In my role its always far better to work for a company who can say "yes" to the stuff we want so we can see our desires come to fruition.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers | ZL2NET

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3410653 3-Sep-2025 09:13

Hi all, here are pictures of the new Type 210 ONT. Its the same as the type 500 except for the 10G port.

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3410670 3-Sep-2025 10:24

This is such a tease..

Richard rich.ms

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#3410695 3-Sep-2025 12:13

I assume there must be a decent cost different, otherwise wouldn't it make sense to just install Type 210 for all new installs?

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3410712 3-Sep-2025 13:03

lxsw20:

I assume there must be a decent cost different, otherwise wouldn't it make sense to just install Type 210 for all new installs?

Yes, there is. The new Zyxel is purely a layer2 device. The Nokia has NAT/Wifi capability that is no longer offered as an available service. This being said, the Layer2 is no different in the new ONT so using up any leftover stock of the older devices before deploying the new devices makes perfect economic sense. There are Nokia devices in the same class as this new ONT but seeing as the XGS-PON/GPON transport is standardized the Zyxel can talk to the upstream Nokia OLT's without any issues. For those that are not aware Zyxel is a Taiwanese company that has been making telecommunications devices for many years, I remember using 9.6k Zyxel modems all those years ago.

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#3410716 3-Sep-2025 13:10

Sorry I was more meaning for all new UFB installs be it hyper fiber or say a 100/20 install why not just install a hyper fiber ONT rather than having the Type 210 and the Type 500.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

noroad

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 675

Trusted

#3410729 3-Sep-2025 14:21

lxsw20:

Sorry I was more meaning for all new UFB installs be it hyper fiber or say a 100/20 install why not just install a hyper fiber ONT rather than having the Type 210 and the Type 500.

Ah, so the XGS-PON optics are still a lot more expensive than standard GPON optics so all though the Type 500 and 210 ONT's are very similar there will still be a not insignificant cost difference.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#3410731 3-Sep-2025 14:26

lxsw20:

Sorry I was more meaning for all new UFB installs be it hyper fiber or say a 100/20 install why not just install a hyper fiber ONT rather than having the Type 210 and the Type 500.

Because the HF ONTs are an XGS-PON, not a GPON device. It's not just the ONT that is upgraded for HF services. The HF ONTs are able to still able to deliver standard retail Fibre services (100/500/max) but they do so over the XGS-PON network. There's no need to migrate all the existing GPON network out - and wwith current uptake levels of HF, there's no need to deploy XGS-PON services to everyone getting fibre.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.