Another case of "as I suspected"

The Sydney Morning Herald carries a short story on a New Zealand study indicating that super high speed broadband is not the economic powerhouse that governments like to pretend it will be:

The study found that while there were economic benefits in having ADSL rather than dial-up, there was little extra value in faster forms such as fibre-optic cable.

Motu Economic and Public Policy Research mapped data from a 2006 study on more than 6000 firms' internet services against administrative tax and employment data to measure productivity. It found those firms that took up the kind of slower broadband services that are readily available in Australia achieved a 10 per cent productivity boost by using it to enter new export markets and buy goods and services online, but there was ''no discernible additional effect'' gained from a faster service.

Ken Davidson in The Age recently wrote:

Telstra is obliged under the universal service obligation to offer telephone customers a basic telephony service for $30 a month. The Rudd Government wants to replace this with a new service - the national broadband network - which on the most favourable assumptions will cost customers $60 to $70 a month for a basic telephone service.

And to ensure customers will take up the new service, the Telstra copper wires that enable the $30 a month service will be ripped up.

Sure, very high speed broadband would be nice to have, but I remain far from convinced that it is essential, and certainly it should be done the cheapest way possible.