Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don't support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:

<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>
The main reason I don't support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home </em>really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  Is it really government's role to divert scarce resources away from essential services (or take on more debt) for the purposes of improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.

<strong>2) Necessity</strong>
I believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have.  The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven't. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.

<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>
Places that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes require fast broadband, but not "super-fast broadband at any cost". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already doto benefit society. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked "What is the best solution?" Tehir answer? "The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.

4)

Korea
Surgery
Copper needs replacing anyway

While I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,

I fully understand the 'vision' of providing the very best to 

