there certainly are many reasons for business to benefit from high speed internet connections. the point is that business already have access to that, it's there for the asking. yes, at commercial pricing, which is fine - it's a commercial grade service. planning for the future is a laudable goal, but if a piece of infrastructure was scaled to its end-state from inception then it would never be built, because it would be too expensive. that's why freeways aren't built with 8 lanes from day one, they get built with 4 and are then augmented in a few years when there's (a) demand beyond 4 lanes, and (b) a few dollars in the bank to pay for the expansion. you just can't afford to have billions of dollars of outlay sitting unused for years, because there isn't that much spare cash. as you say, there isn't really a need for consumer grade high speed services at the moment. there's another thread going at the moment complaining about lack of consumer grade (i.e. cheap) 10Gbps networking gear. same reason, Joe Average doesn't need it, so they won't pay for it, so no manufacturer makes something they can't sell. even though every single user with FTTP can get 100/40 on demand right now, (I won't even go into the >100Mbps services that nobody sells... because there's no demand for them...) a large proportion of overall services are 12/1 or 25/5Mbps plans. why? because people don't have a use for more, and they don't pay for something they're not going to use. that 12/1 or 25/5 service can be delivered by a lot of technologies, so the user doesn't care how it's delivered, just that it is - their main concern is when can they get it, because they want it now - not in five or six years. someone will be along shortly to say that the "problem" is that the services are too expensive. yes, faster services cost more to deliver than slower services, because more capacity has to be made available to do so. if Ferraris were cheaper, we'd all be driving them too. but a Ferrari costs what it does because making something go that fast is more expensive than a Camry that a lot of people are driving... because it's adequate to their needs and the price is reasonable. yes, fibre is long-term better. yes, it has lower long term operating costs. but it's far slower to roll out, because you have to recable the entire country. the theory is that doing FTTN and reusing HFC is literally twice as fast to deploy (which is years), and adequate to need for the meantime. then you upgrade later, as necessary, when necessary. the analogy is very simple. let's assume you have just gotten your first job, and you want to move out of home into your own house. naturally you'd like a big house with all the trimmings, but you can't afford that. so your choices are: (a) don't move out of home until you can afford your end-state house, in which case you are unhappy for years (still living at home); (b) live in a tent to maximise your savings capacity, in which case you're at least out of your parent's house, but you are unhappy for even longer (takes longer to save for goal), or (c) buy a house you can afford, and save for a future upgrade (in which case it takes even longer to get to your end state, but at least you have an adequate solution for the meantime) the correct answer is (c), because you need an adequate solution now, because the world continues to turn. it's the same for FTTN. it's adequate now, and we plan for the future. yes, that means spending more than leaping directly to the ideal end-state, but it's no different to Joe Average's dreams of the house and car he'd like to own when he retires after 50 years of work - he can't afford them right now. HFC is another creature again, because it scales further again into the future than FTTN - DOCSIS3.1 and technologies beyond that will continue to extract adequate performance from that network for quite some time yet. not even close, sorry. the claims being made are political claims, which as usual can't be proven so the people making them take that as a licence to just make numbers up. just like every opposition that has ever been elected has, and then immediately regrets when they have to actually deliver on their promises, and can't. in the meantime, regardless of liking it or not, the reality is that no politician will ever do what they have just spent the last few years in opposition criticising the previous government as being the wrong way to go about anything. that means if Labor wanted fibre, the LNP was going to do something different. if it had been the LNP wanting fibre, Labor would have done something different too. that's how politics works. if we don't want that, then we should stop changing governments every couple of years. the problem there is that our two-major-party political system delivers a seesaw solution between two extremes of most points of view, so the only way to achieve some sort of averaging is to boot the incumbent lot out every couple of years after they have caused enough disaffection to lose public support. that's a thoroughly inefficient way of going about anything, but while a subject is politicised, that's a function of our model of government. and since the NBN just isn't a critical item to Joe Average (who only really cares that they can get what they need now, cheaply) it's not a factor in what mob gets elected next time. I'd be delighted to see a return to a full fibre rollout, although I'm glad I won't be the person at the end of the project who has to wait five or six years on their probably lousy existing solution - and there's always going to be someone at the end of the line who complains loudly about it.