I wouldn't count your Mbps before they hatch. The australian plan was announced in a somewhat similar fashion. The original estimate soon blew out to 40 billi

I wouldn't count your Mbps before they hatch. The australian plan was announced in a somewhat similar fashion. The original estimate soon blew out to 40 billion dollars. The government admits that they don't have the money, and that there will be no commercial return for at least 20-30 years. They, so far, have spent $17 million dollars in studies and reports by consultants, and have delievered a pitifully low amount of Broadband to Tasmania, the smallest (by an order of 10) state (think Rhode Island vs Alaska). Already it is covered in scandals and rorts, the head of the project gets a $400k salary and is an ex-union hack who was given the job on the basis of being friends with the minister responsible. The main opposition party has promised to scrap the entire project for fiscal responsibility reasons and turn the market back over to private competitors, with government backing for rural areas, as was the original plan. The opposition are currently polling better than the government with under 6 months to go to the election. I think it is fair to say that the National Broadband Scheme in Australia is a dead project walking. Thankfully the overturn of the government will also spell the death of the proposed internet filter. These projects sound good in theory but are terrible in execution because Governments just cannot understand commercial returns, and as such are a giant sink hole of money and rorting. It's like the Concorde : neat idea and great tech, but an absolute financial disaster area.