Honestly, what is your point here? To discount technical advances until they're commercialised? So tell me again why households require 100Mbps connections? Why has UHDTV been used as a justification since 2006, then spent 7 years in development before becoming commercially available this year in 2013.
Why, LTE was first proposed in 2004 (NTT DoCoMo), first launched in 2009 (TeliaSoneria) and by 2013 has become mainstream. Given the huge global demand for wireless services, these developing technologies will see the light of day before the NBN is even completed in 2021 (if on time).
Apples : Apples please. Optical fibre is the most fragile communication technology in the world. It's made of glass. The only reason it is "reliable" is because of the lengths taken to protect that optic fibre: kevlar shielding (protect from rodents: most of the time), underground rodent proof ducts, reinforcing to protect air hung fibre runs and so on. BTW commercial networks != household networks.
Each technology has it's Pros and Cons... don't fall into the trap that optical fibre is bulletproof... and dial before you dig.
Sure, so how do we proceed with that rollout? Roll fibre out, suburb by suburb, at $5,000 per connection only to realise 50% of the people are using the connection, and the NBN Co isn't profitable, so they stop the roll outs to subsequent suburbs creating a service gap?
Or do they roll out fibre closer to the homes (gotta roll it out in that direction anyway) via FTTN, immediately boost services with a better network (can't compare current performance of copper to a FTTN model), then allow the consumers to decide what level of service they want: utilise the FTTN with copper last-mile*, forego a fixed-line and stick to wireless-only, pay for a last mile FTTP connection if they seek the luxury**.
* where it already exists. Greenfield sites to have fibre rolled out anyway.
** Like Foxtel, 100Mbps connections (to service TV "needs") are a luxury item and should be categorised as such.