So Weeti, are you ready to listen to reason or not?
Firstly, in terms of future proofing of technology and the investment, fibre has a heap of long term evolution ahead of it. Certainly gigabit speeds can be achieved by just upgrading headend equipment now. Not so with copper. Ten years is probably the time frame for replacement. Then you will have to pay twice as much to do the work.
Secondly, the funding of the project is a capital investment, its not being funded by the tax payer. The money will be borrowed, the NBN will be built and it can then be sold. Its the same as if you build a house.
The other important point is that this is an investment in our kids. We build schools because we think that its worth investing in our kids future. The NBN will be the same sort of investment. Are we so selfish that we only consider our own current needs?
Is this not reason enough Weeti?
Well doing it for the kids is a nice emotive arguments but I thought you wanted me to listen to reason?
Certainly the government is pushing this as an off budget investment but that is based on an untested business case. I predict that we will see enormous write off's in the coming decade as the business case fails to stack up to the valuation.
And as the costs continue to blow out.
As for copper being redundant within a decade I've yet to see that demonstrated. It's like the argument that the world will run out of food in ... well the 70's and then every decade since. It's been made before - back in the 90's. But technology has improved the speed of cable well beyond what was imagined then. I remember a few years back that people predicted the net would run out of IP addresses.
One of the biggest issues with the government making a bet of this size that this technological solution is the best one for the next 30 years is that technological change in this area is so rapid and so difficult to predict. Few saw just how pervading wifi would be today a decade ago, never mind 20 years ago.
My issue with your argument Jack is that it is wholly based on an assumption that the market will inevitably go to FTTH in a way that is more expensive and slower than the government is doing it. It's probably going to end up a $70-100 billion bet. I'm not going to put you down because you think it's a reasonable bet - that's your prerogative. But I'm not going to jump on board because you throw some sarcasm and some half arsed arguments at me. I've kept an eye on this issue since it came up. I'm not an expert but I'm not ignorant either.
If the proposal is as good as you say then why did the government push it through without due diligence? I can't get a $1m project approved at work without doing the business case that demonstrates that I've considered all options, done my homework on costings and benefits and have a reasonable case that stacks up to analysis. For the government to approve $30 billion of our cash without a similar process is a disgrace in my opinion. Especially given we all know that it is going to end up costing way way way more than that.