Have heard very similar arguements from paul budde etc.NBN...

Have heard very similar arguements from paul budde etc.NBN estimated cost not included in budget is 34b,but currently in early stage of roll out ,it is over budget,behind schedule and low take up.With nearly all resource,govt,leighton etc infrastructure projects incurring enormous cost blow outs this would have to be potentially the worst particularly in such economic times.
I have no doubt a scaled down nbn will improve productivity but in my opinion its real benefits will be in the more populated areas this could have been proved if a business case was done.There is a point where nbn becomes extravagant(to use the term in yr post)and thats well before the 93% fibre to the premise figure,especially with copper and lte developments.
If nbn was scaled back imo there is a list of infrastructure projects of higher national importance than delivering fibre to 93% of premises.
Besides rail and ports,one example is ord 2,development cost around 400m,15000 hectares of prime all year round irrigated farmland on the doorstep of a couple of billion consumers possibly about to be sold to the chinese to utilise.Only now a list is being established of just how much agricultural land and agricultural business have been sold to foreign interests.Will ord 3 and 4 be sold of to .Sooner or later hard commoditiy boom will slow either due to economic conditions or oversupply,thats when i feel soft commodities will become very important to australia especially as our manufacturing is being destroyed due to govt decisions.WA and NT is prime cattle and crop production land and deserves more respect from this govt,it certainly should have priority over expanding nbn fttp to such a high 93% figure.
ps there would be a business case for fttp,but imo not to 93%,and that is why a business case was not made public due to its political importance.