Yuyutsu, I'm with you. I have never owned a mobile phone, or a sat nav, & have no intention of getting either.

I did carry both on a recent trip from Melbourne to Qld in a 32 year old car I had just bought. A mate insisted I take one of his sat navs, & an old mobile of his, for safety.

The sat nav was useful in finding my way out of Melbourne, [although I had to ignore it where it's map did not have a new road, & I did really value its ability to check the speedo of the car.

The phone was supposed to save me, if the unknown car broke down. It may have, if the thing had broken down in one of the few places it had a signal, rather than the long stretches where it didn't.

In the 60s I did 56,000 nautical miles around the pacific, in a yacht. My marine radio had a range of about 12 miles, & sat navs were far too dear for us mere mortals, back then. The fact that I'm here now proves you don't need all this stuff. I find it slightly funny that it is those who want us to reduce our carbon footprint that want all this stuff.

I would not be surprised if the whole network was superseded by a newer technology, before it was fully installed.

I was recently horrified to see a new big screen TV in my grand kids play room. They are 1 & 1/2, & 2 & 1/2 years old, I I felt they could probably survive with the moderately large older one they had, even if it was only a set top box powered thing.

It's not the cost of the fibre itself, it's the cost of hauling it through the existing pits and pipes and ploughing in even more.

There are complex access, heritage and environmental issues to consider for all new excavations.

Waiting for it to be somehow magically cheaper is like holding off on buying a house in case the cost of real estate may fall.

Despite the notion that copper is "the eternal metal" (look at your car radiator) the cost of maintaining it is extremely high. A lot is corroding badly and since maintenance was slashed years ago, much of it is failing.

What do all the major highways, the power stations and power lines, the railways and piped water have in common?

They were all utilities provided by governments because they are the only ones who can work and plan on such a large scale.

Likewise, before it was Telstra, it was a government Commission called Telecom. It's commission was "to provide a basic telephone service to 98 point something of the population at a reasonable and equitable cost" - which it did.

If it was still in government hands it would be building the NBN (or equivalent)on our behalf. Now that it's an independent corporation, the only alternative is for the government to sponsor its construction directly by creating a separate entity.

There's really no other practical alternative for a national system.

It's true that you don't have to use it just because it's there. You can hang onto your old analogue TV too but don't complain when they turn off the transmitters.

Ten years ago, even ADSL was a fantasy. What will we have in ten years time?

Beyond all the usual consumer arguments there is a significant advantage to business and national efficiency that most people just overlook.

Ten years ago I as working for a company in Texas who were actively acquiring TV bandwidth licences used to distribute paid TV signals and converting them over to wireless broadband internet services.

The technology was very very new, Cisco were involved ...

That was ten years ago and a lot has happened, technology wise, since.

So, I note spindoc’s reference to wireless technology and would comment, this would seem to be a more cost effective way to go than hardwired into every house, particularly since digitalised data allows greater concentration of signals than analogue (I am now watching myself as I step into areas beyond my understanding or capacity so will leave it there)

I would reckon on a couple of things

1 local wireless hubs connected, to intercity backbones could work as well as the proposed NBN and be alot cheaper per user hour.

2 why is the government investing in what is clearly not an essential service. By “essential” I mean, 20 years ago it did not exist but mankind did, so what did not exist 20 years ago cannot be claimed to be “essential” today?

3 if this is such a “good idea” why is the private sector not clamouring to supply it?

4 does this notion carry the stench of another “government-backing-losers” about it?

5 Does Conroy’s lust for monopoly control of a NBN, combined with a censorship program usher in a dark new paradigm in collectivist interference and curtailment of civil liberties, like China?

To my way of thinking, if

private enterprise, with its resources, expertise and commercial acumen cannot supply competitive high speed Internet services,

government, with its access to tax payers funds, bureaucrats and a history of backing losers will not either.

Wobbles, examinator et al,

Irrespective of my political affiliations, the technical facts are simple:

1- The major bottle neck presently is the back bone. For 10% of the NBN cost, the consumers can get an average of 10x increase in speed. With the average consumption requirements of broad band increasing st the way they are presently, this should meet Australia's needs for the next 8-10yrs.

2- Technologies are rapidly improving, for example for wireless, the technology is improving rapidly. In the plant I am building for example, the office block will have Cat 6 cabling, but the rest of the plant will have wireless. This wireless will be using new software that will enable multiple users, including security cameras to use the same bandwidth, and on top of that it will allow personnel to use mobile phone via VOIP that can revert to the usual GSM once off site.

If this technology progresses at the rate I expect, in 10 yrs the need for fibre to every house would be replaced by multiple nodes along the streets with overlapping areas and load sharing capability, and while presently limited to 54Mb/s with compression etc, is targeted for much much higher.

This could also be done at a fraction of the cost, and with the mobile telephony capability would render today's mobile phones completely obsolete.

As I said before, there is nothing stopping anyone installing fibre to houses if requested, but if I were to spend the additional $38bn I would rather spend it on infrastructure that is desperately needed today, such as roads and airports.

Typical short-sightedness on display here.

We're talking about keeping up with the rest of the world, and planning for the future at the same time so that we spend $43bn now rather than $100bn later. Why are you arguing for us to do a half-arsed job? Typical baby-boomer conservatives who don't give a toss about generations to follow. (the same people, I notice, arguing against action against climate change).

This is the only real issue that differentiates the two major parties for me, and as a result Labor win with a landslide.

And how many people against the NBN actually live in rural areas where this will benefit the most?

TrashcanMan, your post is typical of dumb young lefties, with little reasoning power.

If, as you suggest, it is baby-boomer conservatives who are against this waste of money, it is precisely because they have a real concern for future generations that they want it stopped.

If it does go in, & is actually working as planned, something which has not happened with any of this governments initiatives yet, we older ones will get to play with it free of charge. It is our kids who will be left to pay off a huge bill for yet another white elephant.

Instead of throwing insults around you should be glad that we are prepared to at least try to protect you from your most stupid ideas. There is nothing in it for us. However, as most of us are parents, we are used to trying to guide headstrong young folk away from bankruptcy, it just goes with the territory.