Aidan,

Given that the FTTH would require up to an additional $30bn and possibly an extra 5 yrs, the FTTN option was by far the cheapest and most practical solution.

My house got FTTN and I took the 25Mb/s option even though the line tested >50Mb/s and was still able to run upto 3 streaming channels simultaneously. The drop outs were at peak periods and were due to the bandwidth demand that the ISPs lacked the capability.

Considering that nearly 90% opted for the 25Mb/s option, the need for FTTH was political not practical.

Perhaps you could respond with technical issues rather than repeating labor talk lines.

The the reality is that when Labor got elected in 2007, mobile internet was not cost competitive. Mobile costs have since dropped to less than one sixtieth of what they were then. The profitability of a business does relate to the cost of the commodity it is selling.

Shadow,
>Considering that nearly 90% opted for the 25Mb/s option, the need for FTTH was political not practical.

On the contrary:
Firstly, the NBN should be built for future needs, not just present needs.
Secondly, FTTN is unreliable, and many people have suffered dropouts when it rains. And I don't just mean drops in speed - I mean the internet connection has actually dropped out.
Thirdly, FTTN has a significantly higher running cost due to the extra electricity consumed.
Fourthly, there is significant scope for further reductions in FTTH cost.

FTTN is sn absurd false economy, and the decision to build it was political not practical.

Bottom line is like most marxist ideology (big Government) schemes are overpriced, run inefficiantly and in many cases do more harm than good. The sooner the Liberal party rids itself of regressives messing in people's lives the better. They are only marginally better than Labour. Getting rid of Turnbull, Bishop and Pyne was a good start.

Aidan,

"Firstly, the NBN should be built for future needs, not just present needs."

As the future is largely 5G wireless, the FTTH is already partially obsolete. And FTTN can easily be transitioned to FTTH when needed, but the expense of doing so can be avoided until necessary. The occasional dropping out of the signal due to old connection deterioration would be such an example.

The additional power consumption is insignificant and largely balanced out by the huge savings of not needing a UPS at the home

Shadow,
>As the future is largely 5G wireless, the FTTH is already partially obsolete.
People were saying that about 4G a few years ago...

>And FTTN can easily be transitioned to FTTH when needed,
No, that's far from easy.

>but the expense of doing so can be avoided until necessary.
The total expense is much higher. Remember, to fudge the value for money test so FTTN passed it, they had to use a discount rate of 7% at a time when the RBA cash rate was less than half that and falling!

>The occasional dropping out of the signal due to old connection deterioration would be such an example.
As if NBNCo would upgrade your connection just because that happens!

>The additional power consumption is insignificant
Across Australia it's similar to the power consumption of Hobart! How much power consumption do you regard as significant?

>and largely balanced out by the huge savings of not needing a UPS at the home
Whether your connection is FTTH or FTTN does not determine whether or not you need a UPS.

__________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Government should be made more efficient - the question is how to do so. Many think the answer is to keep it as small as possible, and limit its resources, because they assume that will make it more careful about what money is spent on. But in reality that leads to short termism and absurd false economies, and FTTN is a good example of that.

The real way to make government more efficient is to remove the restrictions that prevent it from making long term decisions, and to increase transparency so the public can scrutinise every decision it makes.

I'm rather surprised you said...
> The sooner the Liberal party rids itself of regressives messing in people's lives the better
...because in another thread you opposed secularism and now you appear to be for it. What is it you want instead? Should the government mess in people's lives or not?