For a project that is the single largest infrastructure project in the history of the country, it is inconceivable to anyone in industry that an independent business study would not be done.

Given the vast difference between take up levels in Tasmania that were predicted in the original study, and what is occurring on the ground,
and the continuous appearance of new costs to the NBN such as the requirement for UPSs, and additional installation costs, there can be only one possible reason.

The NBN is slowly spinning into a financial disaster, and the Labor government wants to keep the knowledge away from the public as long as possible, preferable until after the next election.

It is becoming increasingly clear that:
- The installation costs are accelerating and will probably push way past $50bn,
- Whilst many think it is a good idea, fewer than 5% of people are actually prepared to pay for the full high speed network, most prefering to remain with the existing suppliers, or take the cheapest slowest options. This drastically reduces the revenue the NBN will achieve.
- The scrapping of the telstra network and the forcing of ISPs onto the NBN will eliminate all competition, and prices will rise, or the taxpayer will need to fork out the difference.

But as politicians, Labor has never shied away from buying votes. These will just be the most expensive ever.

STRANGE? there was no accompanying statement of what the point is here. Possibly just a computer error.

My thoughts are that this smells of conservative panic (possibly shadow minister or hasbeen). It would seem that now the public mood has been made clear that the NBN is wanted the libs and their lapdogs are trying the business route. No there has not been a cost Benefit analysis done on the NBN. We have a construction costing and the business plan to be released soon. The fact of the matter is that if you do the analysis it will come back negative, but this is hardly the point. This is Australia and if we want to give the economic power house and soul of this country anything that resembles services the cost benefit analysis will always look bad. Rural Australia and its population deserve good services. Currently we get high food prices, third world roads, second rate services and solidly ripped off by the city when something doesn't suit them.

As for the tunnels, they were always winners and will be into the future. The problem with all of them has been the business plan, but as with all infrastructure it will be there for many years to come and the cost will seem insignificant in twenty years. The BER is a product of state issues and is not the issue the lib's would love it to be. they will not get their investigation up because it is a self serving waste of money that leaves no infrastructure behind. As for the batts, yes big stuff up, but i lost all respect for Abbott and the current liberals when they used the deaths of workers under state based workplace laws to emotionally manipulate the population for their own political gain. This is about as low as one can get.

I must confess to be a complete ignoramus on the structure and operation of the NBN.

"NBN Co plans to provide an open-access wholesale-only broadband network that will enable a variety of wholesale or retail service providers to deliver multiple services to consumers"

So, if I understand this correctly, we are spending $50bn or whatever on a relatively modern communications capability. Ok.

And the $50bn investment is actually being spent on that brave band of fearless contractors, whose task it is to build "the best, most cost effective infrastructure across Australia using a combination of fibre, wireless and satellite technologies"

(I'm quoting from the NBNCo website, by the way)

Fair enough, I guess. So after we've spent the $50bn, the government-for-all-Australians then allows private enterprise to buy this capability at wholesale rates. Who then add their (tiny, I expect) margin, and onsell to businesses and consumers, in healthy competition with each other.

So we have an infrastructure owned-by-all-Australians, with services delivered at competitive rates by private enterprise. Seems to make some sort of sense.

The bit that I haven't quite grasped yet is what is the purpose of the wholesale charge? Does it simply cover the cost of maintaining the "fibre, wireless and satellite" technologies, or is it designed to make a profit, like Telstra does?

It does seem to me that since we are already seeing "sticker-shock" from the consumer, how come this maintenance cost is so high, already?

Or is it designed to recoup the $50bn, so that future generations of Australians can enjoy lower taxes? If so - and I have not seen this articulated anywhere, so I'm guessing - why so much emphasis on the upfront cost?

There's more to this than meets the eye, for sure.

Anyone here able to enlighten us on the revenue/cost structure, down the track?

Or are we supposed to take it all on trust?

nairbe:"i lost all respect for Abbott and the current liberals when they used the deaths of workers under state based workplace laws to emotionally manipulate the population for their own political gain."

So you've never had respect for Labor then?

labor governments are incapable of running anything.
They lack the management skills that enable us humans to count ,quantify and reason.

Infastructure is everything, So get on with it.