arguing that "strong competition" between the rival broadband infrastructure "is likely to provide the best outcomes for the country".
What rival broadband infrastructure?
HFC is nowhere with practically non-existent coverage outside of Sydney, and some small sections of Melbourne and Brisbane, and nobody is going to be laying any more of it - especially since laying more HFC is practically identical to laying the fibre network, but with an inferior bit of cable.
The copper network has almost reached the ceiling when it comes to speed and latency, and even then due to Telstra doing what any company does - look after the bottom line - copper is currently failing, and will continue to fail large sections of the community due to poorly maintained lines, the use of RIMs, and sheer distance.
Wireless is, as it always has been, entirely unsuitable within high density urban areas. Shared resource, too many people trying to use it at once turns the claims of 100mb into sheer fantasy, and wireless still remains unreliable and highly dependent on geography and atmosphere.
Face the facts, while you might be an ideologue when it comes to economic philosophy, and there's no way I'm going to debate you on that topic, you have about as much knowledge of technology as the Coalition front bench - which is to say next to none.
It's also hardly surprising that the director of AAPT, a company that primarily makes its money from mobile phones, is in favour of using the same technology to boost their internet business.