Although no one has been forthcoming with a breakdown of costs I presume a large proportion will be to lay fibre to all those out of the way rural residents. As it stands the answer to my previous question seems to be that most of you lot would be happy to have our country cousins excluded from broadband. Actually most of you sound like youd be happy to leave us all without.

In 50 years time our kids will thank us for this. Well actually they will take it for granted but thats good too. I look forward to the creative use they make of such a vital tool of the future. Look what it has brought us so far.

Let's look at this another way.
Do we REALLY need to spend more money on a National Highway system?

It's already there and working.

Keeping it just the way it is should be just fine for the long term. Sure, the trips may take a bit longer but you will still reach your destination.

Maybe an improved car suspension system may come along in the future and make the need for continual road repairs obsolete too.

Realistically, telecommunications is an integral part of the entire economy and is far more than internet download speeds. It's also about accommodating rapidly increasing traffic volumes and coming growth in areas that are still in the planning stages. Relying on the copper CAN network (still a Telstra monopoly) will result in severe bottlenecks. Wireless broadband in metropolitan areas is a joke.

By the way, Telstra WILL be boosting its speed with the Next-G technology it's currently installing but only in the profitable Capital City areas, and only if it can be guaranteed that it does not have to provide it's competitors any access.

Provision of increased speeds in the rural areas (but NOT using Next-G but inferior technologies) will depend on even more government (ie taxpayer) subsidies. Keeping this model will end up costing the taxpayer as much in the years ahead but ending up with an inferior result.

Once upon a time Telstra (when it was Telecom) was fully self-funding. Another example of government short-term thinking that has produced the current circumstances.

“It's also about accommodating rapidly increasing traffic volumes and coming growth in areas that are still in the planning stages.”

Yes Wobbles. Now, if it this absolutely massive projection in growth wasn’t part of the plan, then I wonder how much the whole thing would cost? Many billions less for sure. Perhaps half the projected cost.

If this sort of project was undertaken along with efforts to take our society quickly towards a stable population and steady state economy, then I’d fully support it. But for as long as it is yet another plan to facilitate rapid and never-ending expansionism, it deserves to be condemned.

There is no doubt that our communications infrastructure must be brought into the 21st century.

It is the method that concerns me. 43b$ is an awful lot of money, part of what I like about the scheme (if I have understood it correctly) is that the basic infrastructure will remain publicly owned. That is good, we should never be at the mercy of private business for public necessities.

After reading Wobbles (Telstra was fully self-funding and made a profit once in a long ago time) and as Ludwig stated, making the upgrade part of a general move towards a steady and stable public infrastructure. How do we get the other utilities back under public control? With that umbrella over all essential services we could then apply a systematic approach to the affordability, environmental impact and sustainability of all. However, I agree if this plan is just another part of never ending "growth" then there are better ways to spend those billions.

I'm surprised by the hostility toward this proposal. I'm thoroughly supportive. Read Zwiggy Zwitkowski's piece in The Australian - given that he's ex-Telstra, I'd have thought his surprising support carries some weight and he'd know what he's talking about.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25325554-5015664,00.html

There are some key points here which are being overlooked:

1) It's in ten years, maybe more.

You may have what you 'require' now. In ten years, things will be very different. Plus, you need to invest in these things ahead of time. How about in 25 years hmm? It's no good building the damn thing then, we'd be way behind the 8 ball.

2) Our telecommunications are terrible. Honestly, go overseas. It's bloody awful here.

I recently spent a significant amount of time in China's poorest province. The connection speed was better than I could get north of Brisbane.

That's just shameful, and embarrassing. Our internet speeds in Australia are an absolute joke.

3) Breaking Telstra's stranglehold.

Telstra's monopoly has been terrible for Australian communications. This project will bring them under heel, or shut them out in the cold. Either way, they won't be able to dictate policy to us any more.

1.5 mpbs is fine?! Honestly. In 15 years we'll look back at these posts and compare it to people saying floppy disks are all well and good.
As another poster said, think about industry requirements. It's not just about music and surfing the net

TRTL

Considering that the majority of the net users are not prepared to pay for speeds much beyond dial up, the 1.5Mb is way in front.

In 10 years maybe 10% will be prepared to pay extra for the 100Mb but still the other 90% will settle for 10Mb or less. In that case most of the network will be unused.

I never said don't put in the back bone, but fibre to every house is a huge waste especially considering that copper can get 1000Mb and fibre is only really needed for 10 000 Mb or higher.

Fibre to each house is like building a highway to each property.