Bandwidth vs Speed . . . . . . They are the same thing
You can't even get the article title correct, so it isn't surprising that most of your arguments are lame as well.
The cost to an ISP of installing infrastructure in rural areas versus the return in income do not make sense. It is much cheaper and a faster return on investment to offer the easiest expansion to consumers and that is in download limits.
If ISP's could easily offer speed improvements I'm sure they would, but they can't. So by saying look they keep upping the download limit therefor we don't need faster speeds is just massively false synergy.
You mention ADSL2+ maximum speed of 24Mbps, yet on Internodes web site they show that nearly a quarter of their customers only connect at between 5-10Mbps. Which is less than half of the theoretical maximum. 58.9% of all of their customers are getting less than 15Mbps.
This doesn't even take into account the suburbs within 15km of Adelaide that still cannot get ADSL2+. I am sure that you would agree, that does not constitute as regional Australia.
Wireless is not the answer. It is a solution to niche need, which is mobility. Latency is high and user numbers affect speed. Not to mention the infrastructure cost of installing more towers for coverage which would still be back hauled via fibre.
To say that research would improve wireless speeds is silly as well, because research is also improving fibre speeds. Yet fibre is starting at a guaranteed 1Gb bandwidth versus Telstra's new wireless maxing at 42Mbps with limited users on the tower. How anyone can compare the two is beyond me. Or even compare it to ADSL 2+.
"Lets not get caught up in the speed hype". Maybe you should send a letter to Intel and AMD because they can stop all that spending on R&D for new chips and just release older ones. I'm sure they have warehouses full of them.