white elephant, page-4

Whether the NBN is the way to go or not, I am not sure.
But this article from The Australian is so full of bias that it looses all credibility and I would not put any value on this article. Just because this article uses half truths and ignores the other truths does not make it credible.

Some points that are made about the NBN being not being analysed for cost benefit and not subject to better planning are valid.
The cost to consumers argument because of equipment life and equipment cost of several hundred dollars are not valid. They ignore that this is similar to normal operating business that supply equipment that is covered in the business contract, (for example Foxtel set top boxes).

The article claims that Telstra already offers the same 100 megabits per second service to more than a million homes in Melbourne on a $269 a month two-year contract. I may be at the wrong end of town, but I do not know many people that can afford $269 a month on a two year contract, ($3,228 per year and $12,912 over the 4 year equipment life claimed in the article).

The previous government made a mess by the way they let go of Telsra, the current government is making a mess by the way they are handling things at the moment and Telstra has a vested interest in delaying any change that would affect their market position.

Australia needs faster Internet speed at an affordable price, Telstra alone cannot deliver this.

One of the main reasons or benefits of faster Internet is for commercial profit. Advertising, selling products and delivering products and services are why we need faster Internet, (the demands of delivering music, full length HD movies and Internet television will keep increasing).

I am a Telstra shareholder and believe that all will be sorted out in the end, it is just going to be painful along the way.