freebo

Govt IT projects almost always fail and/or cost way more than they should

Taxpayers lead the world in funding Labor broadband bill

Amazulu

While I am not particularly against the NBN as such, I am against it it's current form. It's going to cost too much, and that money could be used for other things. It also needs more private sector involvment - they need to help pay for it.

Broad Shoulders

Except the report doesn't take into account a very important factor.

Sure, it is more expensive and slower than Singapore, South Korea and Japan. However, Australia is probably 50 times larger than those countries, therefore the cost to reach all of the people is much much higher. I'm sure if the NBN plan was to only reach 95% of the population residing in the densely populated areas then the cost of it would be a lot lower

Carbery

Seems like a lot of money to spend just to enable people in remote areas the opportunity to download their porn quicker. The money would be better spent on improving education, welfare, and increasing the life expectancy of indigenous Australians

Steve2009

Yes, but do we really need a few thousand kms of fibre going to populations of less than 5000 people? What is wrong with 95% coverage and cheaper alternatives for the 5%?

Vash the Stampede

They are helping to pay for it.

Pointless comparison.

Area of South Korea: 100,210 km2. Area of Australia: 7,617,9302. Gee, I wonder if it costs more to roll out fibre for 93% of the population in a country 76 times the size of South Korea? OH WAIT - I'VE JUST REALISED IT DOES.

The article says South Korea and Singapore will offer "faster services of 1 Gigabit a second." Er... faster than what? The NBN will also deliver 1 Gigabit per second. So it won't be slower at all.

Broad Shoulders

Nothing is wrong with that. All I am saying is that the report is not comparing apples with apples and so the conclusions drawn from it are unreasonable

Broad Shoulders

One might argue that such bandwidth improvement options will do exactly what you are suggesting. The internet has become a vehicle for good and bad over the last 20 years and more importantly the enabler of many of modern life's improvements. Who's to say that having such great bandwidth will not lead to more improvements in life in the areas that you mention?

I agree that the NBN is a very hefty price tag, however I think those who are opposed to it are rather short-sighted in their perceived potential uses of it (not aiming that at you Carbery). I keep hearing the same argument time and time again from the NBN-naysayers and that is "we can already watch TV in High-Def, why would we need it faster". That is a great example of the short-sighted opinion of the scheme

Amazulu

Then they need to pay more and the taxpayer less.

Vash the Stampede

In an ideal world, that would be the case. Unfortunately I see no chance of that happening without reducing the scope of the NBN.

You can't trust the private sector to build public infrastructure without government oversight.

ABCDiamond

Latest idea for the monthly costs for a household: "Customers should expect to pay at least $56 a month to access the NBN"

Many people may prefer to stay on the cheaper ADSL2.

Vash the Stampede

My ADSL2+ costs a lot more than $56, and my speed is 3.7Mbps on a good day. I can only dream of paying $56 for 12Mbps!

Amazulu

Works for me. Provide the full NBN for metro areas and a lesser service for rural. A much cheaper option.

Steve2009

How much is it subsidised by tax dollars?

freebo

Just moved into a FTTH property, I'm seeing 100Mbps

However its not cheap and I can only use Telstra - so every silver lining has a cloud...