As I said in my post, it was discussed in the UK a few years ago when the UK where rolling out Street Cabinets.
You will also note in my post I referred to the cheaper version of FTTN which was the issue in the UK.
The arguments put forward where that by using the cheaper version of FTTN, future broadband objectives would not be met.
Poor performance because of the type of FTTN being used and it still had poor upload speeds, meant the exercise would need to be upgraded within a very short time frame, possibly even before the initial construction was completed.
(A dedicated fibre from the telephone exchange straight to the home would offer broadband speeds of around 1Gb.)
Australia will be left behind economically by 2020 if we don't get this right now.
Remember what the issues are now, continuing with the current NBN or adopting the Lib's NBN at a claimed $15 billion less, but being an inferior network requiring upgrading within a relatively short period of time.
$15 billion extra over 8-10 years without the need for a costly upgrade seems to make more sense.
(Also the asset value will be greater for the planned sale of the NBN in 15 years by doing the job right in the first place.)
Some further links and info below from the UK.
24th April 2009
100Mb Fibre To The Home is what the government should be aiming for in the UK and not just accepting the 4Mb Fibre To The Cabinet that BT are going install
..minimum universal speed the government want everyone to have in the UK is just 2Mb..
