Aiden, we discussed tis previously. The curve rolls over so far that
below 7 it is almost verticle. BTW any sign of those higher output cells ?

Doog, I think it was always expected that for multi story blocks of
home units they would run fibre to the basement and run something else
up the risers to the premises on each floor.
Not sure what they are doing, it would be easy to connect to the phone
lines in the basement.
Very cheap way of getting a really high speed connection.
Office blocks would be more complicated because of PABXs.

Anyway, the real problem is the servers at the remote end.
All the NBN will do is provide faster packets with longer time between packets.

"Malcolm Turnbull sacked the NBN Co board because they didn't agree with him," he said. "A year and half later, Turnbull's hand-picked replacement has come to the same conclusion - his second-rate copper NBN is a dud.
Mr Turnbull has also previously said that his technology is designed as a stepping stone on the path to connecting more premises directly to fiber – a move critics say will cost more time and money.

We have a stepping stone technology wow what does that mean a second round of NBN at a later date.

No good trying to fool everybody is there. We have a dud.

Doesn't matter, as I said;

Anyway, the real problem is the servers at the remote end.
All the NBN will do is provide faster packets with longer time between packets.

Bazz, what curve are you referring to?

BTW ITYM lower input cells.

Aiden,
There are a number of papers on this, but here is one link I
kept on the subject.
As it goes over the knee of the curve there is a point of opinion as
to what point it beomes pointless.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625

Oh I see , Bazz — someone graphs a rather trivial mathematical relationship, runs the horizontal axis backwards and calls it a cliff, and you fail to notice that it isn't actually a cliff.

Meanwhile back in reality, energy invested is often a small fraction of value invested, so when comparing viability it's stupid to ignore this act in favour of a totally arbitrary EROEI threshold.

And of course the EROEI measure ignores energy consumed. When that's included, the figure for fossil fuels drops below 1. Why do you not see that as a more important limitation?