Producer,

With the present NBN the expansion from the node to each house has to be treated differently, as for some trenches have to be dug, some can be pulled through in conduits, etc. The "efficiency" savings are marginal at best, which is the whole point.

The present NBN is super expensive and really dumb.

Yuyutsu & Shadow Minister - The reason the production line for cars was so successful is that it is a lot cheaper to build cars that way. To build then one at a time like Rolls Royce was and still is ultra-expensive. This same principle applies to the NBN.

Shadow Minister – I said “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.”

You have weaselled around the question of overall cost, as did Turnbull and ignored the question of competition and the big end of town contained in this comment!

If a small company in WA is able to offer a service that requires fibre to the home to a low income consumer in Sydney more efficiently, cheaper and offers a superior service that employs Australians rather than cheap offshore labour why shouldn’t they be able too. If the low income consumer in Sydney does not have fibre to the home because of Turnbull’s policy, how would Mr Rabbott’s mob resolve this?

This scenario is not an issue with the current model.

Shadow Minister try not to ignore, side step, no rhetoric or weasel words.

Hard isn’t it!

The provision of national infrastructure is ALWAYS done by government - private sources ares simply unable to do it.

Even New Zealand have admitted that provision of FTTN was a bad move and are now going with FTTH. The cost of going back and extending FTTN was found to be too wasteful.

It's like the dud railway that Howard built from SA to the NT. The cost of adding another line to make it usuable will be three times the cost of providing the original line. It would have been far cheaper to provide what was needed at the start.

Furthermore it's not just a matter of adding to what's expected to be there, it's also a matter of dumping a significant part of the infrastructure hardware. Those FTTN cabinets that will be installed everywhere will become redundant, not to mention retrofitting the hardware at various Points-Of-Interconnect.

Also, for the umpteenth time, wireless will NEVER be a viable replacement for fibre. Figures bandied about are for cell speeds, not individual speeds and the more people on the cell, the slower it gets.
The provision of sufficient backhaul transmission will also mean lots of extra fibres running to each Base Station and there will be hundreds of those needed to get any decent coverage. 3G sites alone need to be 1 km apart. 5G and above will be even closer. Want one in your backyard?

Dear Producer,

<<Yuyutsu & Shadow Minister - The reason the production line for cars was so successful is that it is a lot cheaper to build cars that way. To build then one at a time like Rolls Royce was and still is ultra-expensive. This same principle applies to the NBN.>>

But I was not mentioning prices.

At the moment it is (still?) not illegal for me to buy a Rolls Royce, but the existing government want to forbid me having an analogue copper phone line, which is the only product I am interested in and willing to have at home, even if I was willing to pay $1M for it. Fortunately, come September, this draconian decree will be overturned.

Producer,

I was waiting for someone to come up with a silly homilie about how installing lines in homes is a production line. No it is not. Every house is different, with different accesses, different trees, gardens, houses, different occupants with different placement demands etc. Each is a individual project.

The FTTN model will still have regular upgrades with fewer dedicated teams moving from one premise to another. While there may be some efficiency savings, from proximity of houses it is relatively small.

Shadow Minister – congratulations, you did it!

You ignored, you side stepped; there was lots of rhetoric and weasel words.

Let’s try again

If a small company in WA is able to offer a service that requires fibre to the home to a low income consumer in Sydney more efficiently, cheaper and offers a superior service that employs Australians rather than cheap offshore labour why shouldn’t they be able too. If the low income consumer in Sydney does not have fibre to the home because of Turnbull’s policy, how would Mr Rabbott’s mob resolve this?

This scenario is not an issue with the current model.

Now concentrate Shadow Minister this time there are no distractions. It might require a bit of independent thinking. Try not to ignore, side step, no rhetoric or weasel words