Re: Govt. - "There's a problem, quick everyone, bury your head in the sand".
> I would figuratively kill to get a 100/40 connection (that would have been upgradeable to 1000/400?
So you expected to be in the <1% that Labor expected would be able to afford 1Gbps in 2026? If so then the cost of technology change shouldn't be of concern. To be on a 100Mbps plan puts you in the top 14% of Australia.
Does knowing that speed tiers have denied 84% on 25Mbps or slower the minimum recommended speed of 100Mbps for the eHealth & eLearning applications that Labor used as justification for building the NBN concern you? If you are happy with speed tiers then expect to move or pay more for the fast speeds that only a small minority can afford.
> We get congestion not due to insufficient CVC but due to insufficient bandwidth to the bloody Node.
Do you have actual evidence of this claim? Getting the balance right on building the nbn™ network states that for FTTP 3000 premises are served by 10Gbps, while for FTTN, 384 premises are served by 2Gbps and this could easily be upgraded to 20Gbps simply by changing the transceivers. NBNCo also state that only 15% of capacity is typically used and that the distribution links are upgraded well ahead of congestion..
> You keep blaming Labor for the CVC "debacle"
I think that Labor's CVC pricing was one of their smartest decisions related to the NBN, because as a usage charge it appropriately means that who use the NBN most pay the most. It also has the great benefit of providing increased revenue as loads on the network increase and incentive for NBNCo to run a congestion free network so that RSPs receive value from purchasing more.
The LNP reducing the price of CVC from $20 to $14 is actually going to make it significantly harder to reduce the price of AVC and hence it will suppress demand for higher speeds.