Ludwig,
"...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."

Now that's a wild stab in the dark for sure.

The bulk of the cost is going to be in the provision and physical installation of the fibres themselves. What's placed at either end is the thing that's going to be evolving and changing.

A Canadian company called Sasktel was planning to cable up the Hunter Valley some years ago and then move to the Woollongong area. The plan fell through due to local Council complications and their partner failing to come up with their share of the finance.
I was also involved in preparing a quote for a full-photonic solution (fibre-to-the-home) in China in the Shenyang province at about the same time.

Australia is different nationally because of the greater distances involved and the geographic spread of the population.

It's not some sort of wild unachieveable fantasy because it's been happening elsewhere for many years and waiting for "something better" will certainly not make it any cheaper.

Wobbles

Wouldn't a combination of wireless and fibre be the best solution depending on region to be covered?

I quite agree that the evolution of communications is going to be at each end of the infrastructure. Not something that is going to happen overnight and that's for sure. I also see an opportunity (and further expense) to place cables underground. For two weeks earlier this year I was without any communication due to bush fires - the isolation was palpable.

I'm reminded of the $1000 laptop argument argument of Perseus. The advance of technology can bring a great reappraisal of the existing infrastructure, as well as offer new options at less cost.

Of all Rudds proposals to stimulate things this has the most merit. I'm dead against some of his profligacy and the debt he is incurring on our behalf because there won't be any payback. But an efficient, fast Network will benefit everyone (assuming the right tech is introduced efficiently).

I'd like to see real money being spent on 'hot rocks' and a large scale trial of concentrated solar. I'd be very happy to see government work towards eliminating our dependence on oil imports. In exchange the govt. can stop telling us what to eat, how to dress, how to behave et bloody cetera.

“Now that's a wild stab in the dark for sure.”

Wobbles, the notion that the cost would be very much less if it was to be built for a population just a little larger than the current level, compared to one much bigger and still rapidly growing, is no stab in the dark.

The point is that if the projected population growth in Australia was small, with a stable population just around the corner, the cost of this proposed national broadband network would be a great deal less than if it has to be built to cater for the projected growth rate, which at the 2008 rate of 1.8%, would give us a national population 50% larger in only something like 24 years.

That’s a pretty enormous difference.

GrahamY wrote 11 April 2009:

"... dubious proposition (to any but tech-heads ..."

I am a tech-head, but dubious of the NBN. Apart from high cost, the NBN may be inflexible and obsolete before it is completed.

The proposal is for FTTH: Fibre To The Home. At present the fibre optic cable terminates in a telephone exchange, hundreds or thousands of metres from the home. Copper telephone cable carries the data from the exchange to the home. The shorter this cable, the faster the data.

Running the fibre into the home is expensive. Even if the government's new company does not need to make a profit, it needs to be cost effective.

The Australian Computer Society, which I am a member of, and which is pro-NBN, has called for "... a digital economy strategy that clearly articulates how we will use the new network": http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25329529-5013038,00.html

There are cheaper alternatives to FTTH. We can have FNTH: "Fibre Nearer the Home" (not an official term, I just made it up). The fibre optic cable can be run to within a few hundred metres of the home and then copper cable, or wireless, used for the last bit. This will reduce the bandwidth, but also the cost and was the approach used by Transact in Canberra: http://www.tomw.net.au/2001/sa/bauhaus/

There is a fibre optic cable ending in the basement of my apartment building, with copper cable from there to each apartment: http://www.tomw.net.au/links/20020501.html

This provides an excellent telephone, pay TV and Internet servcie. But after a few years I decided it provided more than I wanted to pay for and cancelled my Transact service. I replaced this with a cheaper wireless service, which is not as good but is adequate.

If mobile phones become the preferred way to use the web, then a fixed broadband NBN connection might look as old fashioned as a black Bakelite telephone screwed to the wall. High speed fibre optic connections would still be of use in businesses and community centres but of no use in the average home.

More on this on my blog: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/labels/NBN.html