Ahhh … cost/benefit analysis. A neoliberal favourite.
Nobody will ever need more than 25/12/5/2 Mb/s.
good broadband connectivity is fast becoming an essential piece of infrastructure – like water, transport or electricity.
Most of those in both the satellite and fixed wireless areas also have copper 'phone lines. Landlines are therefore feasible. It’s just too hard for the current mob.
Which is probably where the problem lies. Governments these days fear ongoing responsibility for infrastructure. Privatisation is the easy way out (not to mention profitable for their mates/future employers).
Might be a valid point, if we had a viable alternative. Telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly. If we’re stuck with a monopoly, then experience shows that a public-sector monopoly works less-badly than a privately-owned one. Telstra being a case in point.
Nether more nor less so than overhead 'phone lines of old. Years ago I was told that, when the PMG took 'phone lines from poles to trenches, their damage bill went down by 75%. Service life of lines increased threefold. Lines just last longer underground.
Overhead fibre is an option, but an expensive, short-term one. I suspect economics will not support the overhead option; it just isn’t sufficiently more cost-effective than the shallow trenching common in the regions.
