wireless growth undermines the nbn plan

There have been several threads on the NBN, and I sincerely thank all participants, both those who agree and those who do not. I am sure everyone is genuine.

Can I summarise where we stand:

. That fixed line broadband is faster than wireless is not disputed by me.

. But not everyone needs "light speed" and possibly very few do, except for real time users such as in hospital diagnostic applications. .

. Very few private users really need real time capability (possibly, none), and would be well served with "any high speed, reliable broadband", including such options as wireless.

. I download 1-hour videos from the ABC Big Ideas programs, and while there is some buffering, I am very satisfied with the result.

. If people claim they "need" light-speed broadband, as distinct from "would like", then they should justify this uneconomic claim.

. Connecting Australia by a bundle of fibre, wireless and satellite technologies - which is very heavily weighted to fibre - IMHO, is something which should be reviewed, especially as it now has a $39 billion price tag.

. For example, if there is a modest reweighting to wireless - and even keeping it in the minority - this may save $10 billion dollars, which should not be sneezed at - it would fund 2 national disaster recovery programs. There may be further rationalizations.

. Then there is the actual growth of wireless broadband. This means that many more subscribers are on wireless, even if they are also on fixed broadband. This has 2 drivers, mobile connectivity and ?more convenient and universal access on a laptop?.

. This growth undermines the very economics of the NBN.

. In that light, it makes good sense and good goverance to review the mix of technologies in the NBN, and by that I mean the NBN plan.