Copper, fibre, nodes, how do we know best?
But history and experience tells most of us that you get what you pay for and false economies can prove very costly.
The good news is that the Coalition has provided some estimates on how much its scaled-down model will cost against what it provides and this can now be compared with the government's fibre-to-the-home scheme.
The bad news is that neither can be relied on. Massive infrastructure projects almost never go to budget - especially when budgets are set years earlier and rarely run to time.
Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull sits on solid ground when he asserts the NBN is already behind its promised rollout schedule. He is on weak ground if he promises that under a Coalition government there will be no similar hurdles.
For example, one issue not expressly addressed in the Coalition broadband policy statement is the cost of maintaining that part of the Telstra copper network that it plans to retain - the bit from the node to the home. Analysts estimate the copper network sucks up $1 billion in maintenance.
The Coalition plan still will be cheaper but questions arise over how much cheaper.
The real issue is - do we need the Rolls-Royce or would we be better spending less and building a network that is adequate, workable and a lot better than the one we operate with today.
The Coalition suggests this could be answered by a cost-benefit analysis.
In most respects these are useful exercises.
But when it comes to building a network whose uses and usage are unknown beyond a couple of years - placing a measurement on the benefits is near impossible.
The Coalition has taken a fair stab at it based on today's needs extrapolated to account for increased internet usage in the short term.
But they (and we) don't know what else will emerge even over the next five years that will require wider bandwidths.
This is why Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is so fond of using the one-lane harbour bridge analogy. In the 1920s this looked like an ample-sized road to cross the harbour but accommodations were made for future traffic needs.
Even Turnbull acknowledges that some users will want higher speeds (more bandwidth) than can be provided by the fibre-to-the-node home plan it is proposing and that upgrades might be needed.
Under this scenario, it has a plan to co-fund business or private investors to build a better service in particular spots.
Its not a perfect solution and neither is it the Rolls-Royce.
But then that will be reflected in the cost. The Coalition network will cost $20.4 billion - based on today's estimates against Labor's $37.4 billion. But just as the Coalition can rightly claim the NBN's broadband build has been riddled with problems and thus can't be trusted, the voters would be making a leap of faith to think this massive infrastructure project will be smooth sailing under a different government.
From a political perspective one has to question whether the public really cares. There is no ideology contained in choosing which network is better - it's just a matter of whether they accept the positives of being more financially prudent outweigh the detriment of an inferior network.
In a general sense the public just wants a network that works.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Based on the article, the Coalition’s scaled-down broadband model is estimated to cost about $20.4 billion, while Labor’s fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network (NBN) is estimated at about $37.4 billion.
The article notes that massive infrastructure projects almost never stay on budget or on time, and the NBN rollout has already fallen behind schedule. For investors, that means higher risk of cost overruns and delays when backing large communications builds.
The Coalition proposes retaining the copper run from the node to the home, but analysts estimate the copper network currently consumes around $1 billion a year in maintenance. That ongoing maintenance cost is a key consideration for anyone assessing the economics of a hybrid copper–fibre model.
The article warns that predicting future uses is difficult: while the Coalition’s fibre-to-the-node plan may meet near-term demand, some users will want higher speeds and upgrades might be needed. Future bandwidth requirements beyond a few years are uncertain, so the cheaper option may require additional investment later.
Cost-benefit analysis can be a helpful tool, but the article points out its limits: when future uses and usage patterns are unknown beyond a couple of years, putting a precise value on benefits is near impossible. That uncertainty reduces the reliability of any single analysis.
‘Rolls-Royce’ in the article refers to Labor’s fibre-to-the-home NBN — a high-quality, future-proof network. The piece frames the trade-off: pay more for a top-tier, more durable network or spend less on an adequate, workable alternative that may be inferior but cheaper.
The Coalition suggests co-funding with businesses or private investors to build better services in specific spots where demand requires higher speeds. For private investors and firms, this could create localized investment opportunities to deliver upgrades, though the article notes this is not a perfect or comprehensive solution.
Everyday investors should weigh the risk of cost overruns and schedule delays, ongoing maintenance costs (like Telstra’s copper upkeep), uncertainty about future bandwidth demand, and the possibility of phased upgrades or co-funded local projects. The article concludes that most people simply want a network that works, so practical performance and long-term costs matter as much as headline price tags.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
