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), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home 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?  And is it really government's role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.

<strong>2) Priorities</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 would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven't. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. 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 really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need "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 as a community than they already do. 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?" Their 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. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>'fit for purpose'</em>. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real, tangible benefits.

<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>
With the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg should be wireless. So the question again becomes economic; "How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?".    


Korea
Surgery
Copper needs replacing anyway
Education
Beware the 'build for the future'.

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

Latency is as important as throughput.

But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.

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

