It seems to me it comes down to you can have maximum speed if you
wish to pay, or to be practicle, pay less and get a lower speed.
It would likely be a bit faster than what the average adsl2+ user has
now, but actual download speed are not set by what you pay but by the
servers at the other end.
So in fact with all this high quality copper in the ground why not use
it instead for the fire to the corner cabinet ?

That is the argument that the pollies don't want to hear.
They know best, they have the best advice they will tell you every time.
When push comes to shove how many of those web sites you use,
including government ones are going to spend enough so that they can
churn it out faster than the fibre can gobble it up.
Until those web sites have servers faster than the fibre with very
large numbers of users connected then you are wasting good money to
pay for the fastest speeds. All you get is longer wait times between
packets.

Pay less to get a lower speed. Lower speeds are being discontinued. ADsl 2+ will be the norm until the fibre optic arrives. Telstra has put in, what they call rim service that only supports adsl 1 , and now Telstra do not offer adsl 1 any more. If you can not find a provider that offers adsl 1 you have to move house to get internet. The only reason this rim service was done is it is a cheaper option. High rise and new sub divisions in the last twenty years have rim service.
Anyone more than 2 kms from an exchange can not access adsl 2 at full capacity if you do your speeds are no different than adsl 1.
That is why fibre optic has to individually connect to every business and home.

The politics involved in anything that Governments of any persuasion do is the biggest drawback for the project itself. Whichever side of Politics puts forward a project the other side of Politics will oppose it, purely for the fact that if it works then it's points towards the next election. It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's a good or bad project.

Is the NBN over priced. Of course it is. When giving Quotes for any Government Projects Private Companies; think of an outrageous figure then triple it. This is just normal practice, it’s just the way it is, but you get the best, not necessary the latest gear. However the alternate is; get the job done at the cheapest price with the cheapest as possible gear in order to maximise profits.

Do we need the NBN, yes we do. Copper tech is now 75 years out of date. Australia could stay with Copper and even get further behind. Fibre is 30 years old. The “Brand new, latest tech” that was introduced into Australia 30 years ago was second hand (ex London). A mate of mine packed it all into boxes in London, then came to Australia & found he had to unpack this new Communications tech when he started work for Telecoms in Sydney.

But still we’ll only be 30 years behind instead of 75 years & that’s a good thing. Australia seems to have a need to evaluate new tech for 20 odd years before it thinks about adopting it. Strangely Australia has always done this. I don’t know why but it always has.

The NBN is only slightly faster than the coalition's alternative but costs 5x as much, and 3x as long to build. On top of this by the time it is actually rolled out, it will be hugely loss making as many will be using wireless as they are in the USA.

Wobbles said;
The question should be whether you want a nationally integrated network or not.

That statement misses the point entirerly.
The network, no matter what its architecture is already integrated
nationally and indeed internationally by the protocols.

It is the activity needed in every street on both sides of every street
in the country that is costing the money.
The vast majority of the people connected to the NBN will not be paying
more than they are paying now as there seems to be resistence above
about $30. They will get the same effective speeds that they are now
getting as I have previously pointed out. Some will pay for higher
speeds, but they will be disappointed, except they will probably
get higher upload speeds.

Any of the any major communications companies could have built the
NBN with any architecture desired. Fibre down both sides of every
street would always be the most expensive option, no matter who did it.
Fibre to the street cabinet, much of which was already in place into
an area anyway, would have retained use of the copper cable.
For political reasons that was poo pooed as you have seen output on
port 579. The vast vast majority of copper cable in the streets are
in world standard condition or better. It is all in plastic sheathered
cable and with fibre to the end of the street speeds available will
be better than the $30 most are prepared to pay for anyway.

We will never know what could have been done for how much as tenders were never called.

You are missing something Bazz. Your desired speed limits are being discontinued.
What do you mean by a street cabinet.
At present if you are more than 2 kms from an exchange, ADSL 2 is no use to you.
Fibre optic delivers at the speed of light. Are you saying copper never depletes or wears out, or doesn't have restrictions.
It's a bit hard to fathom what you are saying.