@Antiseptic: Not sure if I agree with that sort of reasoning.

I'm not sure if that is how it happened. The incumbents were perfectly happy to build a new network on government money - if they got exclusive access to it.

@Antiseptic: You seem to be saying in regards to need - correct me if I'm wrong - "build it and they will come".

Not really, because they are already there. The NBN only need to transfer the existing users to make its 7% return.

It will happen like this: one day your ISP will ring you and say: "Sir, the NBN has now passed your house. Would like like to switch over? The price will be the same (hopefully), but it will be faster. If you don't do it now, then in 18 months your house will be disconnected from the land line network, and it will cost you $300/$600 (not sure which) to get it connected". What do you reckon your answer will be?

@Antiseptic: The rail analogy

Not a bad analogy. Continuing the analogy, the only difference I can spot is the NBN is replacing existing rail network, with a faster and more reliable one, and it only needs to carry the same freight as was on the original network to make money. Seems like a much safer bet to me.

@Shadow Minister: Much of the ASDL copper and cable network is in good condition and delivers fast broad band.

I think the average is around 3 Mbit/sec Shadow, which is not my definition of fast. The NBN raises that to 12 Mbit/sec, minimum. Still not "fast", but getting there.

As we have been over before the sticking point with the copper was Telstra owns it. If you upgraded it you would either have to purchase it as a working system for far more than they did, or pay Telstra to upgrade it. Instead they got away with a trick - we will pay you $9 billion for your customers, and be grateful because after this your network is worth nothing anyway. We have been over this. FTTN wasn't ruled out by technology. It was ruled out by monopolies, self interest, and politics. In the end they matter just as much as politics.

@Shadow Minister: Which is why the low end packages don't differ significantly from existing wireless offerings.

But are currently identical to Naked, and I imagine phone + internet offerings. If you think wireless is the same standard as fixed line we are going to have to agree to disagree. One is uneven speed and is unreliable. The other "just works".

rstuart:"it will happen like this"

yes, I know that, what we're discussing is whether, if it didn't "happen like this" I or anyone else would choose it. I say no, so you say "yah boo sux to you, you can cop it sweet, who cares what you think".

I hardly think that's an approach that's going to lead to the best decision, do you? Really?

In fact, it seems to me that you can't actually provide a reason for the NBN at all.

Telstra and Optus are not known as soft-headed organisations. They bet on winners if they can. Why would they be prepared to give up a duopoly (effectively a monopoly) on fixed line? Why would they pin their corporate future on wireless? Are their technical people simply dumber than Mr Conroy? Are their beancounters a bit dimmer than Mr Swan?

The rail analogy is very apposite, because it is almost a directly parallel situation. An established but inefficient network was bypassed by a more responsive and efficient one.

rstuart, this is what I mean about new technology

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128225.400-will-lifi-be-the-new-wifi.html

"Visible light communication (VLC) uses rapid pulses of light to transmit information wirelessly. Now it may be ready to compete with conventional Wi-Fi."

Remember I mentioned that it seemed likely that the need for the wave-guides that are fibres will disappear?

"There are around 14 billion light bulbs worldwide, they just need to be replaced with LED ones that transmit data," says Haas. "We reckon VLC is a factor of ten cheaper than Wi-Fi."

Tying ourselves down to FTTH does the nation no favours, it merely gives the NBN a legislated monopoly on something that will be dead as a tech for domestic connectivity before it's even completed.

@Antiseptic: "Visible light communication (VLC) uses rapid pulses of light to transmit information wirelessly. Now it may be ready to compete with conventional Wi-Fi."

For pete's sake Antiseptic they are talking about visible light. You aren't seriously suggesting a frequency that can be stopped dead by a 0.1mm sheet of paper as something we use outside are you? Well if so you are not alone. http://www.metrocom.net.au/laser_links.htm I've avoid them myself. Like most people, my uses for them don't go away when it rains.

Here try this - 7Gbit/s, not long away from being a shipping product: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance Looks impressive, doesn't it? For the life of me, I can't see how it will be useful. The signal is stopped dead by a wall or cabinet. Probably glass as well. They try to get around that by using phased array antenna to pick up on the reflections, but by all reports you need network of then around the house just like your VLC thingy. As you should have picked up from the figures given here, give a 5GHz WiFi access point a 200 MHz block of spectrum and is should be able to push 1GHz fairly easily, and that won't be interrupted by the dog wandering by.

Why you even bring up such technology is beyond me. It is barely useful in a room. It will never, ever be useful for bring data to a neighbourhood. Unless of course you put your light signal in a glass wave guide - now you are talking.

@Antiseptic: In fact, it seems to me that you can't actually provide a reason for the NBN at all.

Oh, you don't know the reason behind it? The average speed in Australia is 2.6 Mbit/sec. http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/40744-australia-bombs-at-50th-for-internet-speeds They want to give everyone a minimum 12 Mbit/sec, and provide everyone in the country with the opportunity to get things like HD Foxtel, not just those in the capital cities.

There were going to use FTTN to do this, but that didn't work out for business reasons. It just so happens that fibre does work out.

Rstuart,

As per this article, there is no application other than live HD TV that requires more than 1Mb/s. That the average connection in Australia is 3Mb/s would indicate that for the vast majority, the upgrade to the NBN at best a nice to have. It also indicates that a significant number get far more. I for example get 8Mb/s with no problem. On the same contract that initially gave me 500k. As the back bone was upgraded, so was my capacity at no cost.

The restrictions are presently more to do with the major trunk cables between nodes, and the limitations here. This can be resolved by spending 10% of the NBN's budget, and for $4bn upgrade the average to close to 8Mb/s. At this point there is no need to price gouge the customers, and the cost of broad band will drop. Higher speeds can come with 24month contracts that include the cost of the fibre to the home, much as mobile phone contracts do today.