It depends on the growth rate you're using. If you are using a...

It depends on the growth rate you're using.

If you are using a growth rate that is only possible with growth capex, then that is less accurate than it could be, in my opinion.

It is a false dichotomy to separate capex into growth and maintenance.

You have repairing.
You have acquisitions.
You have running a new fibre because a fibre is full
- to extrapolate, I know total capacity is low, but certain strands eg in CBD Sydney, get full quite quickly. The capacity figure is an average.
You have running a fibre a short distance to a building it passes, or to a new floor within a connected building (this is ridiculously good ROI which distorts the overall figure).

Even with these 4 categories (not exhaustive), you have to wonder, what growth would be achieved with only maintenance capex. Without connecting those short distances, *fibre* revenue could only really grow a bit above CPI. I am focussing on fibre here as we both know that is the main game.

However, with connecting those short distances, but without the other stuff, significant growth is possible (your guess is as good as mine.)

I subtract maintenance capex and "no brainer growth capex" from operating cashflow, to get an entirely hypothetical free cash flow. I then plug in higher growth rates (assuming no acquisitions). The growth rates I use are therefore lower than the likely real growth rates. However in the long term, the acquisition should provide more opportunities for "no brainer" capex so in my opinion you are too bearish on them but hey I've been wrong before.

This is perhaps a bit jumbled, but it gets my point across if you have an open mind to different methodologies. I'm sure there are better ways to do it. You helped me with this company so I hope this is of some interest or even assistance.