On this occasion Yuyu, I'm with the nanny state. The NBN will quickly grow to be an essential, like glad-wrap, keeping Australia at the front of the pack. What is done should be done properly, all the way. Going cheap will further divide us into the haves and have nots.

Dear Luciferase,

I will leave the economic aspect of the discussion to others who are knowledgeable-of and interested-in economics.

Yes, I too am afraid that the NBN has the potential to quickly grow and become 'essential' - something one cannot do without, but is that a good thing?

"Keeping Australia at the front of the pack" assumes that:
1) We want to be part of a pack.
2) The pack as a whole is heading towards positive territory, thereby being at the front is an advantage.

I am not interested in being part of a pack; and I believe that the existing pack of humanity is heading blindly in a wrong direction straight over the cliff into a deep abyss.

I have a copper connection, which used to be fully-analogue and now, sadly, the only analogue part remaining is from my house to the exchange at the end of the street.

Now I want to retain my analogue phone, having a real phone that does not depend on digital technology, which allows me to somewhat keep that addictive technology away from my house. I am also happy to put my money where my mouth is, even if my analogue service costs more, and there are companies around that are happy to provide me with this service over the existing copper network. Yet the government says 'Niet' (that's Russian - how is it in Chinese?): companies are no longer allowed to provide me with this service and I am no longer allowed to enjoy it (well, at least before thankfully we get our reprieve in September). Instead they insist that this whole beautiful network be dug out of the ground. They will badly miss it once the pack is over the cliff and digital components and spare parts can no longer be produced.

BTW, I have no objection for those who so wish to have their fibre-optic run all the way to their homes, so long as they don't take my copper away. I understand that there are severe economic-implications, but that I leave to the economists among us to discuss.

Turnbull said:

“But for the bulk of Australia’s built-up areas, residential suburbs in other words, we will be taking fibre out into the field but not all the way into the customer’s premise. That saves about three-quarters, at least, of the cost and the reason it saves so much money is because the cost of this network is not in the electronics or in the fibres or in the cables, it is in labour. It’s very labour-intensive, digging holes and trenches and getting guys into cherry-pickers and drilling holes in walls and all that sort of thing. So it’s the civil works that rake up the cost here. So, this is a much smarter approach.”

What he is really saying:

I don’t want you the Australian people to have access to a superior universal system. I don’t want to create all those jobs to produce fibre to every premise. I don’t want that universal system owned by all Australians where the small can compete with the big. What I want is a fragmented system that small players will find hard to access because the last step is controlled by the big. If you do want to get fibre it will cost you a lot more because rollout is fragmented.

He is just looking after his parasite mates! It’s all about snouts in troughs.

Are Australians like bratish children, wanting everything now irrespective of how much it costs?

The coalition's plan will deliver a far superior broadband to everyone faster than the hugely labour intensive NBN presently. As needed later it can be expanded one house at a time. Of course those playing games want it all, but why demand it for many of us who will never need it?

Shadow Minister – Expanding one house at a time is inefficient, super expensive and really really dumb. It will give power to the big players stifling competition. If Australians want it and pay for it, which is clearly the case and it encourages competition, why would a coalition government not want to proceed. Clearly it does not favour their mates at big end of town and enables them to shift the cost from NBN Co. on to those who can least afford the vastly increased cost. It is a slight of hand Clayton’s reduction when there is in fact an increase to Australians to achieve the same result.

Might I suggest it is Mr Rabbott and his mob that are the brattish children who are playing games!

I hope Australians have the sense to hang both parties this election.

Democratic proportional representation is the only way forward.

Another thing the Kiwi’s beat us too.

Dear Producer,

<<Expanding one house at a time is inefficient, super expensive and really really dumb.>>

But who said that the NBN must be spread one house at a time?

If so many want this thing as you say, then what prevents those neighbours of the same street or two who want a fibre-optic connection from organising together and getting the work done at the same time?

To save costs, they could even shop around and contract a construction company of their own choosing to dig their street.

They could also save costs by electing to forego certain costly provisions which, if done by government, would have to be kept strictly, such as the requirement to maintain car-access to all houses at all times during construction.

To further save costs, whole families could even pull up their sleeves, pick spades and work along digging their own street. What a wonderful way to get to know your neighbours!

One doubt still, once people get to know and appreciate their neighbours as real people, once they had a good sweat out in the sun and fresh air of the real world, will they still want to go inside and re-hook themselves to the games of virtual reality?