TPG calls NBN a waste of money… is it? | Dirt Report

Why TPG is objecting to the rollout

The report discusses criticism from TPG, whose brands include Vodafone and iiNet, over NBN Co’s fibre rollout in Canberra. TPG argues that NBN infrastructure is being built in locations where its Vision network already provides service, creating what it describes as unnecessary duplication and a poor use of taxpayer funds.

The transcript says the cost of connecting a home in Canberra is around $6,600 on average, partly because of rocky terrain and backyard power poles. In some cases, residents could face connection costs of up to $10,000, while neighbouring properties may pay nothing. These figures are presented as part of the argument that Canberra is unusually expensive to service.

What the Vision network can - and cannot - do

TPG’s position is based on the claim that its existing Vision network can provide speeds of up to 1Gbps. However, the supplied notes add important qualifications. The TransACT network, referred to as the Vision network in the ACT, still has some copper, and not all lines can deliver 1Gbps.

Lines shorter than 200 metres can reach 1Gbps, according to the notes, while lines longer than 200 metres will operate at lower speeds. The network also does not cover every Canberra suburb. This means that the presence of Vision infrastructure does not automatically mean that every property has the same access, technology or performance.

The report therefore presents the Vision network as an existing private asset, rather than a complete replacement for a universal broadband network.

The broader NBN argument

Pat’s report places the dispute in the context of Australia’s earlier broadband problems. The transcript argues that private telecommunications companies historically focused on profitable metropolitan areas, leaving the country with a mixture of copper, coaxial and other infrastructure. The NBN was created to address that uneven access and provide a more consistent national approach.

The central question is whether public infrastructure should continue to be built when a private network already operates in an area. TPG describes the NBN as a large competitor that is damaging competition. The report counters that a private network is ultimately a commercial asset and is not designed to guarantee universal access to every household.

The transcript also discusses the Regional Broadband Scheme. It says the scheme applies to comparable fixed-line broadband networks and requires carriers to pay a monthly charge for each chargeable premise. TPG is described as objecting to an $8 monthly cost passed through the scheme. Pat’s argument is that this contribution helps support broadband access for people in rural and remote communities, including access to work, education, healthcare and online businesses.

Why the Canberra decision is difficult

The Canberra rollout illustrates the tension between avoiding duplication and improving long-term infrastructure. Building fibre in difficult locations can be expensive, particularly where terrain and existing poles create additional construction challenges. However, relying on an existing network may leave some properties with copper connections, slower speeds or no service if the network does not extend to their suburb.

The report does not suggest that the NBN rollout is free of flaws. Instead, it argues that the cost needs to be considered alongside the consequences of leaving parts of the country with inconsistent broadband infrastructure. It also notes that some Australians are turning to services such as Starlink, suggesting that gaps in fixed-line access remain relevant.