text:
Great articles on other sites
Great articles on other sites
- iiNet founder Michael Malone finally backs TPG Telecom takeover
- How and why the public sector must make friends with artificial intelligence
- Second anniversary of IT pricing report approaches - Computerworld
- Doctors spend 15 mins opening Fiona Stanley Hospital software
- What to expect from Abbott's national cyber security strategy
- ISPs need more time for data retention compliance
- TPG iiNet bid: major shareholders complain
- Qld emergency services payroll replacement on the rocks
- Victoria to wait another eight months for public IT dashboard
- Superloop CEO slams Australian govt tech policies
Renai's other site: Sci-fi + fantasy book news and reviews
Renai LeMay
- Kim Stanley Robinson's new book Aurora is due in July
- What's the future of "Grimdark" fantasy?
- An epic rant from Richard Morgan about nuance in writing
- Brandon Sanderson's Firefight: Review
- Get into Jeff VanderMeer's head as he writes the Southern Reach trilogy
- George R. R. Martin's next book The Winds of Winter won't arrive in 2015
- Alastair Reynolds' Poseidon's Wake launches 16 April
- Ann Leckie's Ancillary Sword: Review
- Ann Leckie finishes Ancillary Mercy
- Hannu Rajaniemi's The Fractal Prince: Review
Featured, News, Telecommunications - Written by Renai LeMay on Friday, September 27, 2013 11:45 - 169 Comments
Leak shows Coalition's NBN costings are wrong
news A leaked draft copy of NBN Co's latest corporate plan has provided further confirmation debunking the Coalition's claim that Labor's all-fibre version of the NBN could cost as much as $94 billion, as evidence continues to stack up that deploying fibre to the premises is not as expensive in Australia as previously thought.
In the six months before the recent Federal Election, it became common for senior Coalition figures to claim that Labor's FTTP version of the NBN project would cost dramatically more than Labor had been predicting. The Rudd and Gillard administrations, as well as NBN Co itself, had consistently stated that the total cost of constructing the FTTP version of the NBN would cost around $44 billion, although NBN Co was also projecting that it would make a financial return on its costs of around 7 percent over a thirty year period, meaning that the NBN would eventually pay for its own construction.
"It will be $94 billion to the taxpayer," then-Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull told 7:30 host Leigh Sales in April this year, after the Coalition released its rival policy. "… apparently they're ignoring the fact that it's going to cost taxpayers $94 billion," the Liberal MP told Sky News the same month. The claim was also repeated by a number of other senior Coalition figures such as then-Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, especially during the election campaign itself.
The veracity of the Coalition's claim in this area is critical, when considering the debate between the use of different technologies in the NBN's construction. If the Coalition's claim is accurate and a FTTP-based NBN will cost significantly more to construct than Labor had been projecting, then the case for the Coalition's much more modest, fibre to the node-based policy, which it has costed at $29.5 billion, is strengthened.
However, if the Coalition's claim is not accurate, then much of its argument that the NBN should be built on a FTTN basis becomes less persuasive.
The $94 billion claim is based on research contained in the Coalition's NBN background briefing document, available online in PDF format. The document states that for the $94 billion figure to eventuate, NBN Co's revenue must grow much slower than currently forecast, construction costs must be significantly higher than currently forecast, more households must pick wireless alternatives than is currently forecast, and the NBN must take 50 per cent longer to build (an extra five years) than currently forecast.
The Coalition's background briefing document states that according to NBN Co's most recent finalised corporate plan (PDF) published in August 2012, the average capital expenditure (capex) per premise involved in constructing fibre to the premises is around $2,400, plus some shared capex. However, the document argues, due to factors such as the complex work involved in getting FTTP to multi-dwelling units such as apartment blocks or other 'non-standard' premises, the cost would actually be might higher. Based on research from Macquarie Bank, the document estimates capex per fibre premise at $3,600. This adds $12.9 billion to the NBN's total cost of construction, under Coalition calculations.
However, new evidence has emerged showing that the Coalition's figures in this area are wildly inaccurate.
This week, the Financial Review newspaper published a leaked draft copy of NBN Co's latest corporate plan (PDF), which was provided to the previous Labor administration before the election. In the document, NBN Co makes it clear that one aspect of the per-premises cost of connecting fibre to customers' premises has dropped substantially.
"FTTP Customer Connect costs have decreased from an average of $2,400 per premises during the Initial Site releases to an average of $1,100 for more recent sites completed under the volume rollout," the document states. It also includes the following table:
This $1,100 cost, known as the 'FTTP Customer Connect' cost, is one cost input which goes into the overall per premises cost which the Coalition discusses in its background briefing document. It is the cost involved in connecting fibre from the street to a residential or business premise. The other cost, known as the 'FTTP Access Cost', is the cost of per premise of laying fibre down streets.
These real-world costing figures are consistent with similar data released by NBN Co in April this year, when the company provided a report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NBN (PDF). That report shows that when NBN Co first started rolling out fibre in early stage areas such as Tasmania, its costs per premise were as high as $5,000 to $7,000. Over time, however, this cost has come down dramatically. For new services, the total cost per premise (consisting of the cost of laying fibre to the street and then the cost of connecting individual premises to the NBN) had come down to very close to the $2,400 per premise cost which the Coalition's background briefing document mentions, because both cost inputs had gone down. This is illustrated in the following tables:
Furthermore, NBN Co also has some room to move with this figure. The company's initial budget actually contains a 10 percent contingency figure, amounting to around a billion dollars, to cover issues with the cost of construction. Recent media reports have highlighted that some costs with respect to NBN Co's cost of construction have indeed blown out — but NBN Co has also been able to find efficiencies with respect to its rollout which have kept its costs within its original predictions. This reflects the growing maturity of NBN Co's fibre rollout skills, as its per premises capex costs also show.
Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde wrote on his blog this week:
"When the company started its rollout in the first release sites the initial cost was A$2,400 per home passed and A$5,000 per connection. Those costs have now fallen to A$1,100 and A$1,100-1,400 respectively – so, in total, around $2,400 per home. This certainly will not lead to a cost blowout of $90 billion as was suggested by Mr Turnbull when he was in Opposition."
The 'per premises' costing claim which the Coalition made in its background briefing document is not the only aspect of its $94 billion costing claim which has been found to be questionable at the bare minimum. A significant analysis of the other claimed cost blowout aspects published by Delimiter 2.0 (paywalled) in early September, with assistance from senior Labor Party sources, found that the other aspects of the Coalition's cost blowout claims were also questionable.
Despite the fact that the Coalition went to the Federal Election promising a cheaper FTTN NBN rollout, debate has one again ramped up about the merits of the FTTP versus FTTN rollout style, as well as in-between alternatives such as Fibre to the Basement.
New Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week declared the Coalition was not wedded to its fibre to the node model and was "thoroughly open-minded" about the technology to be used in the network.
Turnbull pointed out that, once the Government had appointed a new interim board for NBN Co, the company was to deliver a strategic review into its operations within 60 days. The review is detailed in the Coalition's NBN policy document, and is to set to estimate the cost and time to complete the NBN under its current model, as well as evaluating how other models could potentially reduce that cost and time to complete the rollout.
Turnbull said he had made it clear to NBN Co's staff that he was "not interested in being given information that people may think will conform to my particular political agenda, whatever they may imagine that to be".
"The goal of the strategic review, as you know, is to ascertain what it will really cost in dollars, what it will really take in years and months, to complete the project on the current specifications. And then, to assess, what options there are to reduce that cost and time, by using different techniques, different technologies," the Minister added.
"As you know, as everyone knows, we've canvassed an example of that in our policy document, but let me say again, as I said to NBN staff today, I am, and the Government is, thoroughly open-minded, we are not dogmatic about technology; technology is not an ideological issue. We are completely agnostic about it. What we want to do is get the best result for taxpayers as soon as possible." This 'technology-agnostic' approach is also found in the Coalition's Statement of Expectations document, issued by Turnbull and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to NBN Co.
Telecommunications analysts such as Budde have immediately interpreted Turnbull's policy backdown as the Minister having given NBN Co "the opportunity to save the current NBN".
"For me the key issue was that the review that he has announced is, in his own words, 'not dogmatic'. He has first of all asked NBN Co to review its operations with the aim of coming up with changes that will see lower costs and a faster rollout within the current parameters of the project, this being mainly an FttH rollout," wrote Budde in a separate blog post.
"It is now up to NBN Co to make changes to its plan that would allow it to continue the project, under the existing specifications but in a much more effective and efficient way. And, according to the experts I talk to, this is possible. NBN Co should therefore be able to come up with a better plan, based on the new situation that has presented itself to them under the new government … It is now up to NBN Co to show that it is indeed able to build as much as possible of the original NBN, cheaper and faster."
Image credit (tables): NBN Co
169 Comments
The concern I have is the claim to technology agnosticism is not anything new for Mr Turnbull or the Coalition, in fact he's been saying that in the same breath that FTTP is a colossal waste and FTTN has largely superceded FTTP.
Look, if MT is being honest and NBN Co has real freedom to explore options which are then chosen based on the best outcome for Australians, I'm all for that. The problem is history has told a very different story about the reliability of statements out of the mouth of Turnbull, so I'd be an idiot to take him at his word.
This also isn't just an issue of technology, it is also one of policy and competition. If the Coalition slip through changes to infrastructure competition while everyone's busy waiting for the results of the 60 day review, it is game over for the NBN anyway. Telstra are already committed to a FTTN trial, TPG are positioning themselves for what they obviously consider the logical outcome, there are large companies with big dollars waiting at the starting line to begin carving up NBN Co's market, making the project economically unviable.
By all means, do the reviews, transparently and openly. But changing the fundamental competitive framework should be absolutely off the table permanently, and until the Coalition commit to that with some sort of legislative penalty for changing, I won't trust a word from them, because everything else is meaningless if the funding stops or NBN Co collapses as a result of such undermining.
Turnbull has been caught out telling porkies.
His credibility is once again gone and so too are his claims that he's technology agnostic (how can he be when he's spruiked FTTN for months?)
His claims that FTTN will be cheaper and built sooner are also in question now.
The best thing he can do is try to manage the FTTP rollout better.
With those sorts of costs Turnbull would have to be daft to put FTTN anywhere except in building basements.
That would be an interesting idea. Yo would have fiber to the node on the premise!
Fibre to the Premise-Node
quote: "It is now up to NBN Co to show that it is indeed able to build as much as possible of the original NBN, cheaper and faster."
And just how do they do that with the Quigley and the Board removed? Turnbull will have his yes men in there now…
so it basically on time and on budget yet the board was asked to resign because of cost blowouts and massive delays…
While the claim of cost blowouts has rather fittingly been blown out of the water, it cannot be denied that there have been some problems with the NBN, such as the whole debacle with contractors such as Syntheo and the initial missed targets.
While I still find it a little difficult to support the NBN board, I'm starting to think that the mass resignation may have been premature. Yes, they haven't managed the project as well as they should have, but the job they have done wasn't that bad at all. Turnbull's credibility now hinges entirely on his planned strategic review. These new numbers cast the FTTP deployment in a much more positive light – he ignores them at his peril. There's also a golden political opportunity for Turnbull here – he can keep the FTTP deployment as-is, sit on his fat arse and do nothing, and then claim that he "fixed" the NBN when the next election rolls along.
"there have been some problems with the NBN, such as the whole debacle with contractors such as Syntheo and the initial missed targets."
It is not the fault of NBNco if, in their eagerness to secure the contract, the contractor grossly under quotes and goes belly up. Refusing to accept the lowest tender for the job would have been near impossible legally.
Most of the initial missed targets were due to the significant, unexpected delay in negotiating a deal with Telstra. This will be a headache for Turnbull maybe more-so. If the Telstra board felt it was necessary to take the deal to the shareholders when NBNco simply wanted to lease access to ducts and exchanges, I cannot see any way that a deal involving the hand over of the entire copper based asset would not also be referred back to the shareholders.
Constructive dismissals :(
"evidence continues to stack up that deploying fibre to the premises is not as expensive in Australia as previously thought."
What a delightfully odd thing to say. Apparently those that knew as much are still being disregarded.
I'm waiting for fibroid and co to change tack again, and somehow turn this into a negative.
I'm sure somewhere in the world (probably the UK and the incumbent FttN roll out…lol) they will find some silly piece of vague bullshit to childishly nitpick…
Err, like always *sigh*
Well, who would have thought. The people building the FTTH know what its costing them, and a reported picked from many, for its high cost per premises figure, by someone whose has a political agenda is wrong.
Wow, amazing ;)
A question, for those more knowledgeable than I. Since FttP is showing to be cheaper than originally planned, does this mean that NBNCo could increase the number of premises in the footprint passed the 93% mark? If i recall, that was an arbitrary point based on economics, so wouldn't rolling it out cheaper mean more could be done for the same amount of money?
It really depends on the cost of doing 'difficult' properties with satellite, wireless or fiber… which is a bit different from the costs of the general bulk rollout.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the "cheaper" talked about here is not actually that much cheaper than what NBNCo estimated. Within their estimates more like. What it's actually cheaper than is the hyper-inflated very much "non-Agnostic" numbers Turnbull applied to FTTH pre-election to make his alternative palatable.
"Since FttP is showing to be cheaper than originally planned, does this mean that NBNCo could increase the number of premises in the footprint passed the 93% mark?"
The problem is that the cost rises exponentially as you approach 100%.
It would also be more appropriate to review any extention towards teh end of the project.
That said, given that the edge of the coverage area has always been a bit blurry, I expect a lot of people who were just slightly teh wrong side of the line may have found themselves just inside the line.
Sadly, I expect that the point is moot. Turnbull still seems pretty determined to kill it off with his later, costlier, inferior alternate.
Odd thing – Simon Hackett explains that all which is needed to get a household or business premises running on the fiber network is a fiber lead into that premises and a router/modem with VOIP capable of creating a wi-fi network in that location. At the moment, the hardware being put into premises being connected to the NBN fiber net is the best part of a grand, while the Billion BIPAC-7800VDOX, which retails for AU$250, is good enough to do the job. I'm sure that the salesmen at Billion would come up with a much cheaper wholesale price than that if they were asked to supply a very large number of units. Amazing how the people at NBNCo. have never heard of the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)…
Not odd at all. The NTU being installed has to be expected to do the job for decades, and when the contracts were signed there werent many options out there.
Now they ARE signed, its a bit hard to un-sign them…
Simon Hackett also works off a single connection to a premise, when the NTU's used provide 4 that can potentially be used for individual uses. While a single connection may be sufficient for today, in 10 or 20 years it quite possible wont be, so at that point having a largely identical NTU setup is going to pay dividends.
I'm wondering if the differences dont go deeper than that though. The NTU being used for NBN provides 4 distinct connection points, each one independant of the others. A modem doesnt work that way, but provides separated connections within the network. The Billion modem will probably be the link between the NTU and your home network.
Basically, the NTU in use gives 4 phone jacks for the Billion modems to plug into.
What makes SH's plan so relevant is the fact that the telecommunications needs of the vast majority of households and small businesses will be met by one single (and cheaper) device. All of the hardware you refer to, GongGav, is just there to 'split up' the line going into an individual premises – something that the Billion BIPAC-7800VDOX router is quite capable of doing automatically with either an existing copper PSTN line or a fiber connection.
I think you misunderstood me. When they signed the agreements to use the NTU's they are providing, there werent many options. Thats not complicated, and when you're dealing with a national infrastructure like this you want the support to be as simple as possible. So they are stuck with what they agreed to use, for better or worse.
On top of that, its already bad enough troubleshooting network issues when people BYOD their modems that an ISP doesnt officially support. Rather than create a user decides nightmare, give everyone the same device. It reduces that problem.
The needs of the majority of users TODAY might mean the Billion device is enough, but what about 10 years from now when everything will want to be jacked in? The FttH plan is looking to the future, not the present, and with future needs in mind the Billion probably doesnt go far enough.
Today, sure, but not 2025.
The NTU's allow NBN Co to precisely determine fault locations and perform diagnostics in the case of service issues. As soon as you move away from the NTU's as designed you lose that capability.
You also say the NTU is beyond the needs of the vast majority of households and businesses. Well no, not really – most businesses with a few dozen employees will make excellent use of a second port for dedicated voice comms. A compelling proportion of homes will be keen to consume TVoD via a dedicated service provider much like Foxtel today (only allowing for a competitive landscape and pricing, finally).
That's just one each, off the top of my head. Specific cases such as home medical devices will use a dedicated port, high resolution video communications could do with a dedicated port (imagine video conferencing in 4k resolution – an amazing possibility only realisable with ubiquitous fibre). Sure, such examples aren't going to apply to the majority, but they're only a possibility because of the standard availability of the NTUs.
Remember, Mr Hackett is looking at this from a purely commercial perspective. From the perspective of providing a level playing field for all Australians at an affordable cost (because, you know, the network is paying for itself), the NTUs are the best way to do this.
"At the moment, the hardware being put into premises being connected to the NBN fiber net is the best part of a grand…"
"At the moment, the hardware being put into premises being connected to the NBN fiber net is the best part of a grand…"
I'm going to call BS on this, because analysis of the premises connection cost at just $1,100 in total demonstrates the flaw in this figure. There's no way that's $1,000 for the NTU and $100 in lead in, termination and labour. More like 2-to-$300 for the NTU at absolute max. Which demonstrates the futility in changing or downgrading the NTU to a less capable device that will significantly weaken the ability of NBN Co to monitor and diagnose the network.
Maybe during initial testing in Tasmania when customer connections cost $8,000, but there's no way they cost anything like that now. Cite your references, please, because your statements appear to be baseless nonsense.
Although the Billion is described as a "fibre ready" router, this is because as well as suporting ADSL2+ one Ethernet port can be reconfigured as a WAN port, so it can connect to an FTTH ONT, but it cannot connect directly to a GPON fibre. To connect to the NBN you need both the ONT, provided by NBNCo, and a router, such as the Billion, to provide a network firewall, DHCP, NAT,WiFi and all the other services you need to run a home network.
SH was suggesting that the cost of the NBN rollout could have been reduced if they used an ONT that didn't have voice ports. This may save about $50 per premise but it would mean that a subscriber that only wanted phone service and not Internet would need an additional VoIP box
I just popped onto the news website and this was the head line – "Labor 'got every figure wrong' "
Sounds like Liberal just love making crap up.
I wish they had comments on that story, its so propagandist its not funny. Firstly and foremostly, Labor didnt get things wrong, Treasury and Finance did.
Then there's Hockeys line that the revenues were 'actually up $21b' rather than down. He knows as well as the next treasurer thats not how it works. Revenues are expected to increase year on year, by around 10%. Thats what they plan for. So if there is $400b this year, they plan on there being $440b next year.
If things change and it looks like its going to be only $430b, then yes, its $30b more than the previous year, but $10b down on expectations. And given that spending is based on there being $440b it creates a deficit. In this case, the increase was only 6% or something like that, rather than 9-10%
Thats how the budget works. They (they being Treasury and Finance) forecast how much will be there, and the Govt spend to that amount. When less comes in, things look bad. When more comes in, we get bigger surpluses (or smaller deficits), but neither of those are thanks to, or the fault of, the Government directly.
In this years case, its because the growth rate in China dropped a little more than expected (expected to drop from 12% to 10%, when it dropped to 8%) so exports were down. That flows on across everything.
I think you've made an factually incorrect statement there GongGav.
Based on previous examples of Hockeynomics I think its really stretching the truth to say that Joe knows "thats not how it works".
Hehe, fair point. In all seriousness though, Hockey & Abbott know exactly how it works. Its why the furphy came out about Labor "getting the figures wrong", and how revenues were up, not down. He knows that its based on predicted increases, and that they have overpredicted that years increased revenues. This isnt uncommon globally by the way, and the reverse can happen as well when they underestimate earnings in golden periods like Howard enjoyed in the 90's.
Been looking at pre-election forecasts lately, and the difference between this financial year now, and what was projected 3 years ago, is $25b less. Spending is largely the same, but revenues have dropped $25b, and thats something no Govt can plan for.
Hockey and Abbott know this.
As most people know, most costs usually involve labour.
As the costs per premise are coming down substantially, you can equate much of that to the labour involved decreasing also.
This would match up quite well with NBNCo's original expectations of ramping up the rollout into 2015.
It's not necessarily that you need more workers. It's that you needs the workers to work more efficiently at their jobs.
As a new project that is getting off the ground, it is starting to get those efficient work practices going.
Love your work Renai.
Though you could have made it a tad more concise, and avoided the $XXb figure over and over again….
I suspect the only major change that NBNco could make that doesn't destroy the project's intent is to allow FTTB in big buildings, and perhaps reduce some of the size of the FTTP rollout to the outback/bush cities.
I take odds with Turnbull's claim that there will be 16% of subscribers using wireless who won't want NBN. In the immortal words of Dad from "The Castle"- he's dreaming. Wireless is more expensive and less value for money than any form of ADSL atm, and that will most certainly be the case when NBN is available.
And the most hideously expensive is satellite. Certainly not value for money when you compare plans ADSL2 subscribers are offered. I don't expect that will change for the unlucky 7% when (if) Labor's NBN is rolled out.
My Adsl was bad and i recently switched to 4g. Yes it's a little expensive, but light years better than the copper.. I am not the only one .. others in my area have done or are going to do same.. Many are very upset that ftth won't coming and have no interest in fttn.. I would expect a larger number will switch to wireless as time goes on.
Precisely – a significant reason behind current uptake of wireless-only services is because there is no reasonable fixed line alternative available for many people due to either a lack of services or those that are available are of unacceptably poor quality. Don't you think that is likely to change once services are guaranteed 100% reliable? I don't expect people to drop their wireless services though – they are complementary to fixed line. But the idea that tens of thousands of people currently on wireless broadband because they can't get decent fixed line services won't take up fixed line fibre once it becomes available are in denial of basic logic.
'a significant reason behind current uptake of wireless-only services is because there is no reasonable fixed line alternative available for many people due to either a lack of services or those that are available are of unacceptably poor quality.'
How do you know this is a 'significant reason', as distinct from other 'significant reasons' like a residence being happy to use a mobile capped plan with a data allowance that is sufficient for their BB needs, and therefore disconnecting their landline altogether?
@ Fibroid:
Our house is the only one in our street connected to internet by landline due to lack of ports & we are seriously considering dumping it for wireless as it's condition has deteriorated to the point where a lot of the time we're struggling to maintain an audible conversation on any of our 2 phone lines (Telstra & Optus).
Everyone in our area who's computers I regularly service informs me they would immediately switch their present expensive, data capped wireless internet connection for an affordable & reliable fixed connection so please less of your conjecture. Just because many use mobile wireless it doesn't indicate they do so by choice or that they don't require both services.
Everyone in our area who's computers I regularly service informs me they would immediately switch their present expensive, data capped wireless internet connection for an affordable & reliable fixed connection so please less of your conjecture. Just because many use mobile wireless it doesn't indicate they do so by choice or that they don't require both services.
Everyone I know on a Wireless BB plan aren't really that happy about it (though I'm sure there's someone out there that thinks it's OK). The only reason they are on it is because it was the only option left to them…
"I would expect a larger number will switch to wireless as time goes on."
The problem with that is that, as time goes on and a larger number switch to wireless, the performance of wireless will fall in line with the growing numbers.
What happens when usage exceeds network capacity? Remember Vodafail?
Yes well contention will always be an issue unless telcos are allowed to install an infinite number of towers…
How unusual for the LNP to tell porkies.
My favourite is Abbott saying that he will go to Jakarta to repair the relationship with Indonesia that apparently was 'thrashed" by Labor.
Strange that, I thought the Indonesians were pissed off with his government's stance on refugees.
My second favourite is Hockey pleading with reporters not to feel good about the half a billion improvement in the deficit because, wait for it ….. the economy is deteriorating. By how much? Channeling Monty Python: Not much.
1. Malcolm doesnt believe these numbers
2. there is no policy reversal
3. keep dreaming
More lies from Turnball…..
Turnball didn't fire the NBN board, they quit, Turnball made up a story that he fired them to save himself from being embarrassed by their mass resignation.
And this is news ??
Malcolm, the liberal party village idiot, and the liberal party were lying ??
Oh the horror.
Just proves that a very large portion of the media did not have the intestinal fortitude to challenge and hold politicians accountable (which is the media's job.)
So if the media was truly to do its job and argue for the best possible outcome for Australia and Australia's long term future, now would be the perfect time for those in the media that have gumption to really turn up the heat on Turnbull and the liberal party,
Its about time politicians were placed under some real hard scrutiny regarding the lies.
Time for media to really give FTTP some support and hold Turnbull and the liberal party village idiot accountable.
But Im a realist – I know that will never happen.
You do have to feel sorry for Mr Turnbull.
He will go down in history as the communications minister who set back Australia decades in communications infrastructure by bowing to the liberal party village idiot, and implementing a second rate FTTN policy that is total garbage. (and he knows it)
To go down in history as the communications minister who personally knew FTTP is the best long term solution for Australia, but Mr Turnbull did not have the strength of character or intestinal fortitude to fight for it and implement it.
Mr Turnbull will go down in history as the politicians who failed to deliver Australia the best possible communications infrastructure it could for basically the same price, and allowed Australia to slip behind third world countries in internet speeds and telecommunications infrastructure for decades.
Let's call him a mult-millionaire village idiot shall we?
"Simon Hackett explains"
Simon Hackett has an agenda of his own. He wants the NTD to belong to his company making it a very expensive scenario to switch RSPs and requireing that ALL services to the customer by provided by his company.
The device chosen by NBNco can deliver four different RSPs to each and every customer connected, allowing the customer to choose separately who will supply his internet, his cable TV and whatever other service they want. Maybe the customer will need two separate accounts because they rent out a room to a lodger etc.
" the Billion BIPAC-7800VDOX, which retails for AU$250, is good enough to do the job. "
The BIPAC-7800VDOX is not an NTD, you cannot connect a fibre to it. It is designed to be plugged into one of the four Ethernet ports on the NTD. What you RSP chooses to provide you to plug into these ports is up to the RSP, NBNco doesn't particularly care.
"Amazing how the people at NBNCo. have never heard of the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)…"
In fact, that is what they have done.
> Simon Hackett has an agenda of his own. He wants the NTD to belong to his company making it a very expensive scenario to switch RSPs and requireing that ALL services to the customer by provided by his company.
The device chosen by NBNco can deliver four different RSPs to each and every customer connected,
Does having to supply an ADSL modem make it more difficult to change RSPs now? Many ISPs will provide a modem as part of a 24 month contract. It will be possible to use the same NTD when you switch to a different RSP.
Do you understand how expensive to the customer it would be to have separate services? $30-$40 month extra per service.
Simon has no issue with a 4 port NTD being installed where the customer requests it.
Simon has no issue with a 4 port NTD being installed where the customer requests it.
Which would really be not different to now where you can get extra phone lines if you request it(at install or latter). Only a lot cheaper as you only need to replace the NTD and not run new lines.
They were also looking at using one of the ports for government, health and education providers to deliver unmetered online services into homes.
I thought that was actually a great idea.
imagine being able to vote from home (with a AEC provide PIN) or have the unemployed be able to log on to Centrelink and check for jobs. People could access Open Universities online, and even being able to do a video conference with a doctor could help cut down wait times for appointments.
Heck, there's buckets of things they could do with it.
Well it's obvious that you haven't had a close look at the specs of the device I have mentioned…
Now, get it through your thick head that this device is all that is needed to supply internet, HDTV and PSTN to a wireless household. Do some research on the Digital Living Network Alliance before you come on here talking shit – you sound just like Malcolm…
Something else you should do – and I suggest this to everyone – watch Simon Hackett's latest video presentation for some in-depth analysis of what NEEDS to be done…
Hey DJ NeedASmackInTheMouth, how about you learn to be civil? You don't have some kind of monopoly on knowledge, in fact your superficial understanding of the topic and glaring ineptitude are clearly demonstrated by the comments you have provided on this topic.
I note with interest that you're capable of coming on and abusing someone about your perception of the capabilities of a particular device, and yet you failed to so much as attempt to address questions about your previous statements.
As for your assertion that Mr Hackett's presentation is the way forward for the NBN, Simon has himself admitted that his presentation presented what he considered to be a best case theoretical scenario of a commercial fibre network and is not directly applicable to the NBN project as we know it. In fact, some of his suggestions would significantly impact the financial viability of the NBN if adopted.
Personally I like Mr Hackett and have the greatest professional respect and admiration for him, but while some of his suggestions around the NBN have been good and have even been adopted, some of them are just plain wrong.
Time for you to stop shooting your ignorant mouth off and go and do your own research. Or maybe just STFU when it comes to topics beyond your comprehension or level of expertise.
You do not have the best record of being civil especially when you were in the wrong as well. You should practice what you preach.
Go the judge *sigh*
My civility is tested by those who persist in spurious arguments despite being adequately informed as to their errors by others… Over and over again. Please excuse me if I respond to constant insults to my intelligence (and that of others) and deliberate and repetitive misinformation, obfuscation of facts, obtuse avoidance of presented evidence and shrill demands for their unsubstantiated statements of fiction to be given credence, with exasperated disdain and intolerance at times. I lack civility when civility fails to be shown to me, and frequently the ignorant, intellectually dishonest statements coming from some people on here lack the simple civility of acknowledging the facts and arguments presented by others, people who have graciously taken the time to patiently explain things to people who can be doing nothing but deliberately trolling. Seriously, you take offence to people lacking civility when responding to trolls?
As for being 'wrong', yes, on one occasion for whatever reason I suffered from Mathew/Michael dyslexia and attacked you while frustrated by the ongoing idiocy that is Mathew. But I was corrected, admitted my error and apologised. Because that's what adults do when they are wrong – accept responsibility and apologise. I am wrong occasionally, I am fallible. I like to think it is a strength that I am not at all embarrassed by or shirk away from that reality – I admit my mistakes, when I make them. I would have thought my explanation to be sufficient to explain why that happened, but if you want to hold a grudge that's your business, Michael.
This is a closer look at what it actually costs to hook up a normal everyday house in an ordinary normal residential street –
and I haven't even included the costs to get the cable from the exchange to that street which would, of course, need to be
factored in to the 'cost-per-premises' price. Based on information I have obtained from a Project Estimator at Ampcontrol SWG
Pty. Ltd. (one of Australia's largest mining electrical manufacturing companies) their costings for a trades qualified
electrician and a trades assistant/labourer are $90 p/h and $60 p/h respectively. The task of leaving a fully operational
fiber optic network service connected from the street to inside a premises takes approximately six hours for these two men to
(Tradesman at $90 X 6) + (labourer @ $60 X 6) = $900
Okay, how do they dig the trench? Well, if they have a petrol-powered trenching machine you're looking at $15,000 to buy a new
one, but if you hire one Coates (and others) have them for $150 a day. Seeming though the workers doing this are going to be
at the one premises for the majority of the day, lets put the cost for digging a short-length trench at $35 ($5 to run the
digger for 30 minutes, half hour's labour by the TA is $30) – but that's pretty much irrelevant because digger hire for the day
is the main cost factor.
We're at $1050, and haven't even got inside the house yet…
So, what do you get when the NBN is connected to your home? NBNCo. supply one of each:
1 X Premises Connection Device (PCD) @ $20 each
1 X Fiber Wall Outlet (FWO) @ $10
1 X Network Termination Device (NTD) @ $100
1 X Power Supply Unit (PSU) @ $80
These prices come via a Project Manager for LendLease iPower, who have been part of the tendering process for sections of the
NBN installation throughout the Hunter Region NSW.
From Telstra's own customer brochure outlining 'what the NBN will bring to you', as part of a standard installation, in most
situations NBN Co will install up to 60 metres of fibre cabling from the boundary of the property to the FWO through to the PCD
and up to 40 metres of cabling from PCD to the FWO inside the home. The 'OM4′ multi-mode duplex fibre cable required to supply the services the NBN offers, and which is currently being used by NBNCo. contractors to go from the street to the home has a wholesale cost of $1250 per 100m roll. Lets assume the tradesman only uses half that (50m) for the job – there's $625 in cable. Put the terminations on each end of the three separate pieces of cable used to connect Street Box -> PCD (1) -> FWO (2) -> NTD (3) at $5 per termination, there's another $30. The PVC conduit that the fiber cable is drawn through costs around $10 for a 3m length, so assuming the install is subterranean and the distance from the street pit/box to the ingress point at the house is 10m, there's $40 in conduit.
Right then, add it all up:
900 + 150 + 20 + 10 + 100 + 80 + 625 + 30 + 40 = 1955
There you go, just shy of two grand.
Yes DJ, your costings breakdown could well apply to the LNP's fibre on demand option when done piecemeal by such as Telstra subbies but is quite unrealistic for a massive bulk roll-out by private contractors such as was the case with the now defunct FTTP setup.
Assumption failure:
NBNCo planned/plan to use existing lead in conduits where possible by pulling through the fibre using the copper. This reduces the time required on site and removes the need for trenching.
This is a closer look at what it actually costs to hook up a normal everyday house in an ordinary normal residential street – and I haven't even included the costs to get the cable from the exchange to that street which would, of course, need to be factored in to the 'cost-per-premises' price. Based on information I have obtained from a Project Estimator at Ampcontrol SWG Pty. Ltd. (one of Australia's largest mining electrical manufacturing companies) their costings for a trades qualified electrician and a trades assistant/labourer are $90 p/h and $60 p/h respectively. The task of leaving a fully operational fiber optic network service connected from the street to inside a premises takes approximately six hours for these two men to complete.
(Tradesman at $90 X 6) + (labourer @ $60 X 6) = $900
Okay, how do they dig the trench? Well, if they have a petrol-powered trenching machine you're looking at $15,000 to buy a new one, but if you hire one Coates (and others) have them for $150 a day. Seeming though the workers doing this are going to be at the one premises for the majority of the day, lets put the cost for digging a short-length trench at $35 ($5 to run the digger for 30 minutes, half hour's labour by the TA is $30) – but that's pretty much irrelevant because digger hire for the day is the main cost factor.
We're at $1050, and haven't even got inside the house yet…
So, what do you get when the NBN is connected to your home? NBNCo. supply one of each:
1 X Premises Connection Device (PCD) @ $20 each
1 X Fiber Wall Outlet (FWO) @ $10
1 X Network Termination Device (NTD) @ $100
1 X Power Supply Unit (PSU) @ $80
These prices come via a Project Manager for LendLease iPower, who have been part of the tendering process for sections of the NBN installation throughout the Hunter Region NSW.
From Telstra's own customer brochure outlining 'what the NBN will bring to you', as part of a standard installation, in most situations NBN Co will install up to 60 metres of fibre cabling from the boundary of the property to the FWO through to the PCD and up to 40 metres of cabling from PCD to the FWO inside the home. The 'OM4′ multi-mode duplex fibre cable required to supply the services the NBN offers, and which is currently being used by NBNCo. contractors to go from the street to the home has a wholesale cost of $1250 per 100m roll. Lets assume the tradesman only uses half that (50m) for the job – there's $625 in cable. Put the terminations on each end of the three separate pieces of cable used to connect Street Box -> PCD (1) -> FWO (2) -> NTD (3) at $5 per termination, there's another $30. The PVC conduit that the fiber cable is drawn through costs around $10 for a 3m length, so assuming the install is subterranean and the distance from the street pit/box to the ingress point at the house is 10m, there's $40 in conduit.
Right then, add it all up:
900 + 150 + 20 + 10 + 100 + 80 + 625 + 30 + 40 = 1955
There you go, just shy of two grand.
Aren't all the Labour and tools costs covered by the contractor?
So NBN co would be paying a flat amount per connection, not per hour.
The contractor would have said Labour will be X dollars, equipment Y dollars, so we will factor that into our contract equation.
So the cost of Labour and installation equipment couldn't be applied the way you have applied it.
It would actually just be a single cost per connection by contractor. THEN you add the other costs of distance, and actual equipment being installed (as opposed to the equipment used to do the installation.
There you go again, throwing about conjecture replete with false assumptions as though it were fact, all the whole completely ignoring the numerous comments others have already made about your factually baseless and spurious earlier arguments.
Seriously learn some manners – if you expect anyone else to take the time to read the tripe you're inflicting on the world the least you could do is pay people the courtesy of acknowledging when they are talking directly to you.
I am using that exact modem/router and I can assure you, it will not connect to fibre without an NTD, nor will it do VDSL. In the NBN world it's just an expensive wireless router with VOIP. If you don't need ADSL2 there are a lot of cheaper options.
Does the NBNCo Corporate Plan (2013) consider the impacts of issues with contractors building the network? Several sub contractors have complaining about loosing money or not being paid on time.
Then I guess they should have put in higher tenders.
They're not all going to sing praises, Mathew.
The contractors all bid; if they low-ball the number then that's their risk; it can impact the NBNco (if they have to step in to clean up the mess) but ultimately it's down to the contractor.
This would be no different in a FTTN world, where Telstra would have contracted out the works.
Looks like MT is getting his leotard ready. Political backflip time. Let's wait for the 'Turnbull goes rogue' News Ltd headline as they try and save Foxtel from the NBN. Enjoy the drama.
I'm not seeing anything to convince me that MT is looking to backflip. He is trying to defuse his opponents while going ahead and doing exactly as he pleases.
+1 This
What he actually might do is implement Coalition policy, the fact that MT doesn't implement Labor policy comes as a complete surprise to many here it seems.
Yet, another smart alec contribution.
The double screens blank, are they?
Including the editor…
But I expect MT to implement his dumb plan… (remember the one which will only save the government $900m, depends on obsolete copper, is vastly inferior and outdated/only really being rolled out by desperate incumbents elsewhere who are desperately trying to wring every last cent out of the obsolete copper) just because MT can't admit the others got it right…
The election is over, no need for emotive obsolete copper terminology, incorrect funding comparisons etc anymore, you really need to move on.
You made my day or should I say my morning. This would have to be the most comical things you have ever said (and that takes some beating).
Nevertheless, I have some bad news for you. This is not over. It is just beginning. The unraveling of this thing that passed as a "costed plan" is about to begin and I, for one, cannot wait to see where it finishes.
Why don't you follow your fearless leader (TA) and remain silent for a while and contemplate life with two blank computer screens?
Wow, the elusive one has decided to actually reply to me…but as Observer observed, with another smart alec comment :/
Err Fibroid, just because the election is over, it does not make the copper any less obsolete does it?
It also doesn't make the idiocy of of FttN any less idiotic (being only a saving to the government of $900m) does it?
So although I know it difficult, please at least try to refrain from further childishness and argumentative flames.
Thank you.
But… as you wish (and strangely as I have been urging you since the election, but to no avail, now the typical flip-flop) let's move on then, "both of us" shall we? Great…
Let's start with the topic at hand. These leaked incorrect (cooked books perhaps) figures… got anything to say?
No thought not… back to plan A) for more NBN bashing I'd guess.
As I liek to say: Now the election is over, let 3 years of (painful) comedy begin.
You think this was about the election?
You think all the comments on here have just been because it was Labor vs Coalition?
That is pathetic. It certainly explains why you could not see which was the better solution for the nation. The NBN should have been about the best solution, that meets the public need for the future, and costs the nation less in the long run.
Whether you support Labor or the Coalition or goddamn Palmer United. You need to engage and actually think for yourself. That is the whole point of democracy. Choice. Just because you support one or another side, doesn't mean you have to blindly agree with them every step of the way. If more of you actually questioned your party policies, then maybe, just maybe we would have a real workable bi-fucking-partisan solution, that everyone was happy with.
You disgust me Fibroid. You and the political ilk who can't see beyond the pandering of either party.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the NBN ends up looking like. What is important is that we end up with long term solution which does not create a digital divide and is affordable to end users.
The good ol' 'digital divide', is that defined as residences who are on a promise to get onto Labor FTTP but after three substantial rollout down grades since 2010 they won't be getting off ADSL when they thought?
Is the digital divide those that can get HFC and those that cannot, is it those that are in a wireless 4G footprint and those that are not?
So many definitions of a digital divide other than the one simplistic definition of those that are on FTTP and those that are not.
Yes there are, which is why we should strive not to create another one.
The election is over, no need for emotive digital divide terminology, incorrect and politically motivated comparisons etc anymore, you really need to move on.
I didn't bring up the subject of the 'digital divide' in the first place I only added a few more real world definitions for consideration, you must be for a totally open minded approach surely?
Wow twice in one day you've replied to me… pity you refuse to do so on the actual hot topics, where your inevitable absence is a given, but it's a start…
So since you're on a roll let's try for 3… because the new I'll answer that Fibroid must have overlooked this one…
…and revisit here (last 3 paragraphs)
"So many definitions of a digital divide other than the one simplistic definition of those that are on FTTP and those that are not."
WTF Fibroid, you want to nick-pick the concept of digital divide. It is none of the crap you waffle on about.
Digital divide is very simply that some have a given service when others can't get it. In other words, an uneven playing field. Your thinking is so corrupted by your political love affair that you are incapable of thinking or debating beyond political point scoring.
Why are so hell bent on showing us a limited your thinking is?
You seem incapable to accept that if an infrastructure provides what a large majority of people will need now and in the FUTURE (I am not yelling, just making sure you get the point which seem often beyond you), this will allow better services.
Anyway, I am still looking forward to see you try and adapt your arguments to suit Malcolm's changes of heart on his "plan". Maybe you could surprise me and eventually show that you can think for yourself. If your past behaviour is anything to go back, I have many reasons to remain pessimistic.
I don't care one way or the other if MT has a change of heart to the detail of Coalition plan, it was indicated as such in that plan where most of the outcomes depended on the post election review process, and I have always said well before the election that the FTTP component of Coalition policy will be higher than what they have stated.
The biggest benefit the change of Government brings is proper review of the current NBN FTTP extravaganza and its thrice missed targets by substantial amounts, and the constant 'oh and we will need more funding'.
Australia like the rest of the world (we are not peculiarly unique) needs a mix of infrastructure types provided by a mix of Government and private funding and this will provide the most cost effective and speediest solution.
True to form Fibroid
First you ignore my comment about you poor attempt at nitpicking the concept of digital divide.
Then, you try and tell us that you don't care whether MT has a change of heart. Not bad, for someone who has been repeatedly defending his "plan".
Whatever happens, I suppose you will remain true to your purpose: Defending the Coalition….no matter what.
"I didn't bring up the subject of the 'digital divide' in the first place I only added a few more real world definitions for consideration, you must be for a totally open minded approach surely?"
Wow, that's beautifully childlike. "I didn't do anything. I was just try to help."
That's right Fibroid. You didn't bring the subject of 'digital divide", you only tried to deride it. FYI, there is not such a thing as 'real world definitions'. You know very well what I was saying. You were just trying to bring it back to your usual nitpicking politically angled point of view
Furthermore, don't assume what I must be for. Even if I was for an open minded approach, it is doubtful that you could ever contribute in a meaningful way. I have little time for bigots, be they religious or political.
Future article:
60 day review shows Labor NBN costings wrong
Wow, a politician lying to get elected, never thought that would happen… The sad part is that so many people take their respective party's word as the gospel truth.
FTTN for NBN, would be an engineering faux pas.
If most Australian's had any idea what they were signing to, which they obviously did'nt, when they ticked the box, then there would have been a significantly less LNP boxes ticked.
You can take your glib analysis both ways in that they knew exactly what they were voting for (or against) and ticked the correct boxes.
Actually, considering the Libs didn't even mention the NBN on any of their handouts, it would be reasonable to think average "non tech" Australians expected them to leave it as it was.
I knew all about Coalition and Labor NBN policy and their differences, how come it escaped the attention of the majority of the electorate, or weren't they paying paying attention to the Labor campaign of ' it will cost ya $5K to get off copper' under the Coalition?
I hope you at least voted Labor because you didn't want to pay $5K to get off copper, otherwise their 'brilliant' campaign was a waste of time.
How much will it be then?
"The election is over, no need for emotive obsolete copper terminology, incorrect funding comparisons etc anymore, you really need to move on."
Why are you here then Fibroid? If all that mattered to you was the election why are you here?
Well for a start the pro Labor FTTP campaign continues on as if the election didn't happen, the same tired incorrect costing comparisons and the same tired 'old copper' routine is trotted out as if there is no new Government and there is no new NBN policy which will be implemented by a almost totally new NBN board.
The if-then-else scenarios is a waste of time, we will never know if Labor would have finished their rollout in 2021, we will never know if the costing predictions and funding requirements from the final NBN policy would have been met, what is somewhat amusing is the on going discussion as if we still have a choice.
The choice has been made, the Coalition won with a clear majority based on their policies one of which was a NBN policy released in April, but because it was not the Labor FTTP policy pro Labor NBN supporters state the election had nothing whatever to do with the NBN, but of course if Labor had won it would have had everything to do with NBN policy.
@ Fibroid…
Which incorrect costings are you referring to… link please?
Which old copper routine are you referring to and/or disputing… link please?
This is an evidence based forum, weher unfounded claims (read bullshit) is unwelcome, as another found out today.
I'd suggest it's your turn to put up, or face the music too…
What incorrect Funding?
Are you disputing that the Government funded element of both plans was actually quite close? We can't compare the total cost because of course the coalition didn't provide that. Which is not unreasonable.
What Copper argument?
Are you disputing the fact that a fibre based network is technically superior to a copper based network?
Please note also that whilst I am pro Labor FTTP policy. That is only when compared with the current Coalition policy. If the coalition were to change their policy in such a way that it was obviously superior, I would happily support it. My political leanings have little to do with this. Can you say the same?
"Why are you here then Fibroid?"
Well imagine this is a village (a digital one at that). Is it hard to work out Fibroid's contribution to the village?
I don't think so.
"otherwise their 'brilliant' campaign was a waste of time."
I always knew you could help yourself. Sooner or later the gloating would appear. You're so predictable.
So to try to find a dumb it down analogy to appeal to the before roads there were no roads and Ferrari for every household brigade… going by your analogy that FttN is best because the Coalition are more popular…
Does that make Justin Beiber the greatest entertainer now or ever?
"Faux Pas"?
Please nominate a task you currently cannot achieve using existing ADSL-II technology that you could achieve with FTTH?
Any task will do.
Would you think it to be a logical question to nominate a task that can be done by car that couldn't be done by horse and cart?
Please nominate a task you currently cannot achieve using existing ADSL-II technology that you could achieve with FTTH?
Any task will do.
You know, some of us actually live with other people in the family that access the internet at the same time, it's doesn't have to be "one task" for your network to grind to a halt and make something like movie watching or Skype next to impossible.
My wife complained all the time about "buffering" until I upgraded the HFC to 100Mbps (we were at 50Mbps), now everyone in the house can use it happily…
Quick recap.
Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy have downed many glasses of Merlot in first class when they formulate a detailed broadband plan on the back of a coaster. Fully costed at $4.7 Billion this would lead the nation into a bright digital future.
Fast Forward.
Let's build a monopoly, hire 3,000 highly paid employees and re-cost the project at nearly an exponential increase in cost of $37Bn.
This stupid ill considered plan can look to its genesis as the exact moment where it went off the rails.
Renai, you and your delusional fan boys can keep boosting the FTTH and manipulate numbers in any way you care too but Labor has always failed at delivering any complex project and thank god Malcolm Turnbull has reigned in a wasteful and ill considered disaster.
Ideas are a zac-a-dozen. It's the execution that counts.
Mike Ryan
Actually, Rudd/Conroys original idea was FTTN…it only changed because the expert panel (made up of industry, banks and academics, not Labor people) recommended they use FTTP. It's no wonder the LNP want to use FTTN, they have real problems listening to any "expert:" that isn't from the mining industry…
Sadly I tend to agree with you. Nobody in Labor caucus with the qualifications or intellect to assemble a plausible and considered business case. Trade Union logic doesn't count.
Be fair, tinman.
It seems they love to also listen to the 'experts' in the MSM.
Particularly any US citizens involved there – a mere hint and a wink from them, and they leap to obey.
"the exact moment where it went off the rails"
2013-09-18 11:05am
Thanks for stopping by!
Another highly informed LNP genius eager to provide his twisted (party line) wisdom.
Appreciate your "brave" stance hidden behind anonymity.
As a matter of interest exactly what task is it you will require Fibre versus ADSL over copper to fulfill?
Observer is clearly another Labor socialist happy to spend other people's money – until it runs out.
By that logic, why did we need to upgrade from dialup to ADSL?
Sorry, but you seem to have your head in the sand here. We need better services. Right NOW, that means 25 Mbps, guaranteed. We have so many devices connecting to our home network that what we have now ("up to" 24 Mbps) simply doesnt meet the needs of the masses. By the time we get that minimum, it wont be enough.
10 years ago people asked "why do we need ADSL2? Hell, we dont need what ADSL can deliver" and time proved them wrong. History has shown time and again that our needs increase at a very consistent rate. Why do people think that is going to just stop?
10 years ago could you have predicted needs for 25 Mbps guaranteed? Video was such low standard that ADSL was good enough to stream it. ADSL was good enough for emails, or VOIP for that matter. There were zero benefits to even the maximum that ADSL2 could deliver, yet here we are, in a world that globally is looking for these faster networks, and working towards ways to use them.
Are you that arrogant to think that you know better than the entire world? It seems so.
By that logic, why did we need to upgrade from dialup to ADSL?
You attribute logic where there is none, Gav. This statement alone proves he is emotive and illogical:
"thank god Malcolm Turnbull has reigned in a wasteful and ill considered disaster"
There is one major difference between you and me.
I make my judgement of you based on your repetition of (incorrect) Coaltion statements.
Your judgement of me confirms my judgement of you.
And yes, while this is not the case with the NBN, I am happy to see government use taxpayer money to provide infrastructure. Perhaps, you should use the refresh button because even your (no doubt) idol Tony also says he believe in spending money on infrastructure.
I have a question for you: Why do you think we pay tax in the first place?
I will give you a clue. It is not to give grants and subsidies to business so that the benefits can trickle down.
Finally, I am not a Labor socialist but I can understand that in your narrow conservative mind, there is only room for black or white.
Observer is clearly another Labor socialist happy to spend other people's money – until it runs out.The LNP will use precisely the same funding model to be paid back in the same way, so any problem you have with the FTTP NBN funding must necessarily be levelled at FTTN too. Also remember that the government debt only differs by $1bn, around 3% of the actual total, between the two. The $45bn for the FTTP NBN is peak funding. The actual capital construction cost is just $37.5bn. The LNP have given neither complete capital expenditure costs nor peak funding total; they haven't even provided financial modelling of revenue expectations, useful life of the network or how that will overlap with the payback period.
What we do know is Government debt raised is nearly the same, but because they intend to introduce infrastructure competition NBN Co will have less market share, thus lower revenue. We know under FTTN NBN Co will be unable to provide premium performance tier products, which slashes revenue per user (and thus average revenue per user and overall revenue). We know that powering nodes takes electricity, so operating expenses of FTTN will be higher, and we know that maintaining the copper network is expensive (in the realm of $1bn per year) which will contribute around 30% to NBN Co's operating expenses.
So it costs nearly as much to build, raises debt in precisely the same way, but has lower revenue and costs more to operate. Now you tell me why you believe the ALP FTTP NBN is fiscally irresponsible when the LNP FTTN plan is demonstrably inferior economically?
This is not a debate about FTTN which will be delivered in a quarter of the time for a 'fifth or sixth of the cost' (figures MT likes to throw about when talking about FTTN networks in other parts of the world). If the LNP were talking about a fully delivered FTTN network by 2015 for $10bn all up, I very much doubt you'd see a great deal of argument beyond lamenting the loss of the better long term solution.
But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a network that costs nearly the same and is not economically viable for a vastly inferior outcome.
As a matter of interest exactly what task is it you will require Fibre versus ADSL over copper to fulfill?
I think one of the biggest problems with this subject is the focus on technical minutiae – this is not a technical debate, it is an outcomes debate which must take all aspects of each alternative plan as a whole into account. Because the outcome cannot be separated from the competition and economic aspects of the rest of the plan. This is not 'FTTN vs FTTP' it is the FTTN plan vs the FTTP plan. Reducing it to technical arguments in isolation is merely confusing and unhelpful.
But, just because you asked, so you may not be aware of applications and uses beyond your own limited experience, fibre provides many benefits realisable today that aren't possible over ADSL. Stability is a big one – fibre is infinitely more reliable than ADSL. As for specific uses, cloud storage, cloud/remote backup, HD 30fps video conferencing (in the future realtime 4k and 8k photo realistic video conferencing), home Web server, remote desktop and Web access to home PCs and NAS, TV on demand services for multiple TVs in HD (in the future 4k and 8k content), from a services PoV smart grid electricity monitoring and realtime adjustment has the potential to save 100's of millions per major city per year – that alone could pay for the whole NBN construction in less than 20 years.
But as I said, it is unhelpful to get bogged down in technical minutiae – the important considerations evaluate the plans as a whole, and that shows just how damaging and irresponsible the FTTN plan is.
Hey Trevor,
While I have contemplated many methods to attack this fight, nothing has stood so glaringly in my face up until now. Considering the NBN is meant to "pay-for-itself" through user uptake, do we have the option to mass boycott FTTN and avoid purchasing services sold through it?
We have already demonstrated the user power of the original Choice.org petition, what kind of message what it send to the government that need to fund whichever NBN gets installed by user uptake, than to guarantee there is in fact much smaller predicted uptake.
This whole debate has been too much for me to handle, emotionally, to get to the roots of the details of the FTTN option, in the hopes I would never have to, but now with my limited knowledge, this seems like it might be a genuine option to dissuade and finally enlighten at least the "fiscally conservative" (what tripe) argument proposed by some LNP fanboys.
@Mike Ryan
Your problem with the NBN seems to be the perception that it was devised by idealistic politicians without the benefit of expert opinion. However, as has been pointed out, the fibre NBN direction was only taken after a panel of experts advised the government, after a detailed review, that FTTN was going to be too inefficient, costly and wouldn't be capable of realising the benefits to Australia that were key outcomes for the project. Following that, the NBN plan was devised by experts, and NBN Co was formed by recruiting many of the best, most highly qualified and experienced people in the country. Those experts compiled the Business Plans, which meet all applicable standards and regulations, which have been independently reviewed.
Contrast that with the LNP's proposed 'replacement' which has been devised by politicians and political staffers, with zero professional input that I've been able to determine. In fact, show me a sufficiently qualified ICT network engineer prepared to go on the record that the FTTN alternative is superior to the FTTP NBN and I'll show you someone who's just ruined their career. Likewise for professional economists and financial analysts.
Look, I get that your political ideology precludes you from 'trusting' the Labor party, but surely you must recognise the idiocy of ignoring reality or even fabricating facts to support your political beliefs. When that is a foundation for your argument it demonstrates just how truly baseless and tenuous the justification for your support really is.
Why do people think that by using what appears to be a "real name" they are any less anonymous than any of the rest of us.
I warrant you would find more information about me on the name "Woolfe" than you ever would on my real name. Which being that it is unusual most would probably think is fake anyway.
For all we know, Mike Ryan is a 1.5 metre tall Filipino lass called Susan.
I have been accused of "hiding behind my anonymity" when in fact my NightKhaos persona is both:
a) intimately linked to my real name in some databases
b) of value to me in terms of reputation, to the point where I have often registered it on emerging forums so someone else doesn't get it.
In other words I consider this moniker an extension of myself. I may be slightly more passive with my views IRL, but that isn't because I am hiding behind anonymity, it's because I'm a shy person.
Being anonymous on the internet is not when someone doesn't associate their actions with their real name; it's when they create throwaway personas, or don't give any value to the persona they're acting under. Fibroid, for example, if banned would probably come back under a new name. In fact many here suspect he already has. This leads me to believe that Fibroid is merely arguing for the sake of arguing, using his moniker to provide consistency of voice, but not with any emotional attachment to it's reputation. He may have multiple personas for different arenas, or a core persona which he uses in areas he wants to be taken seriously which he does have an emotional attachment too.
What's interesting on the other hand is Mathew, who clearly places value on his Mathew persona, yet continues to engage these forums by presenting an argument he rarely attempts to defend. His consistent persona tends to imply he passionately believes in what he's saying. However I believe he is under the mistaken impression that because he's anonymous what he says here cannot harm him. In other words I think he dissociates his online and IRL existences, rather than considering them a cohesive whole. I have always wondered if pointing out that I know who he is in real life and/or confronting him about what he says here IRL would make him weigh his words more heavily.
If I was someone doing a sociology course on how people behave on the Internet and use anonymity, Fibroid and Mathew would be two interesting case studies. I might be too come to think of it.
What's with the off topic going nowhere, no substance glib analysis of Delimiter posters NK?
Let's put all the names that contribute to Delimiter on NBN topics in a hat and pack two purely at random of course that require 'further analysis' on anonymity and conjectural musing as to why they contribute
Wow guess what, the only two names selected are virtually the only two in the minority of the whole that regularly argue against Labor NBN policy- ain't chance a wonderful thing?
"Wow guess what, the only two names selected are virtually the only two in the minority of the whole that regularly argue against Labor NBN policy- ain't chance a wonderful thing?"
The problem is not about arguing against anything. The real problem is the motivation for arguing and the contortions that are required to make it vaguely logical or relevant. You have previously stated that your main reason for being here was to defend the coalition. What you did say, but is pretty obvious, is that it will be at all cost.
A further proof that love (of the coalition) is blind.
"Let's put all the names that contribute to Delimiter on NBN topics in a hat and pack two purely at random of course that require 'further analysis' on anonymity and conjectural musing as to why they contribute…"
Wow once again even now the strawman appears from nowhere… point to where he mentioned the hat or said pack (sic) two purely at random…?
I'd say he picked the two posters who cause the most antagonism, because of their IMO, complete lack of logic, childish niggling/nitpicking, repetitive (groundhog day) disproved comments, refusal to acknowledge any point and most apparent motive…
"Wow guess what, the only two names selected are virtually the only two in the minority of the whole that regularly argue against Labor NBN policy- ain't chance a wonderful thing?"
Going by your claims the Coalition are more popular so FttN wins, guess what the equates to here?
Those 'two posters' were picked because they argue consistently and obviously effectively against the Labor FTTP policy, pure and simple.
Well Fibroid, the power of delusion.
I think you confuse needless nitpicking, cherry picking and smart arse comments with effective argumentation. Maybe these are the qualities that are highly valued in LNP circles. In the real world, however, you are way off the mark.
Actually I picked you two because I find you the most fascinating examples of anonymous Posters here.
The next most fascinating is Alex. He however only seems to exist to counter you. Not particularly interesting considering we all do that.
You're associating malice where there is none Fibroid.
I'm here simply to disprove extreme lies and absolute bullshit NK…
Being so, seems in essence you are right ;)
So you admit that you lied about the hat… great we are making progress at last.
@Fibroid You keep making the same mistake, over and over: post hoc ergo propter hoc
> What's interesting on the other hand is Mathew, who clearly places value on his Mathew persona, yet continues to engage these forums by presenting an argument he rarely attempts to defend. His consistent persona tends to imply he passionately believes in what he's saying. However I believe he is under the mistaken impression that because he's anonymous what he says here cannot harm him.
I acknowledge it wouldn't be hard to identify me. If you know who I am then you would also be aware that personally the speed tiers won't have any impact on me. I've expressed the same views here to colleagues. Send me an email if you want to have the same conversation in real life.
I think I've defended my position reasonably strongly. The fact that in April 2013, 47% of fibre connections were 12Mbps suggests that now my concerns cannot be dismissed as unrealistic. My two key points are:
1. Speed tiers are bad because they discriminate against the poor for no justifiable reason
2. Current wholesale prices are deeply discounted
Of course they're unrealistic, you want to force everyone on to more expensive plans (or the alternative, have the taxpayer subsidise the ongoing cost of it).
> Of course they're unrealistic, you want to force everyone on to more expensive plans (or the alternative, have the taxpayer subsidise the ongoing cost of it).
The first point is that fibre provides an abundance not scarcity. The second point is that the cost to NBNCo to deliver additional speed and data is small compared to the construction of the network.
I want to rebalance the wholesale charges so that those who transfer large amounts of data pay proportionally more, while those who barely use the network are given an opportunity to experience how it could benefit them.
I'm not against government subsidies for internet access, especially to government services. We have it now for water, power and telephones but not for 12Mbps connections. Have a read of Disadvantaged and disconnected in a digital divide to see where my concerns are coming from.
I want to rebalance the wholesale charges so that those who transfer large amounts of data pay proportionally more, while those who barely use the network are given an opportunity to experience how it could benefit them.
That is a drastically different proposal to providing 1Gbps to everyone, and honestly not an unreasonable one. If you wanted to achieve that, and then thought through the consequence of any proposals on how to do it, the solution you would come up with would probably look like this:
Minimum speed tier is upped from 12Mbps 50Mbps. Initial CVC cost is increased to around $30/Mbit, and AVC costs are reduced such that the minimum tier is $24 for 50Mbps. You would then realise that because of this you're going to have to provide a subsidy of some kind to reduce the CVC charges back to reasonable levels, which I'm glad to see you're not adverse too, because in that article you linked, the only way for that man to get access to modern telecommunications will be some form of subsidy.
You'll then realise that the billions in subsidy you'd have to spend to make this viable is not worth the cost. You would then, after this thought experiment, come to a solution pretty close to what NBNCo has gotten now, with some minor revisions. In an ideal world it would even include definite improvements like a reduction in the number of PoIs.
But ultimately, the solution you would come up with if you seriously considerably all the consequences of what you're proposing wouldn't be a 1Gbps for everyone nirvana, it wouldn't be a flat rate per Mbit charge of approximately $1. The reason for this is quite simple:
In order to justify 1Gbps you need a reason to use 1Gbps. You are prescribing to a fallacy that pro NBN users have often been accused of, yet paradoxically using it as the reason not to support the NBN, and that is "build them and they will come".
This is not how it works Mathew. You constantly fail to consider the expense of upgrading servers to provide 1Gbps might be prohibitive, in fact, getting a server in Australia that supports 1Gbps burst despite the fact we have a very competitive back-haul market is very expensive. You fail to consider how ISPs will probably engage in self shaping to reduce CVC charges in order to reduce back-haul charges. You don't even understand the principles required to manage large amounts of traffic on a network and think that having a burst-able network is a scalable solution (it isn't).
So in essence what I'm saying is that your high minded idealism of how networks operate and generate revenue, your stated reasoning for modifying the way NBNCo operates and reality are in conflict. I recommend that before posting on this topic again you attempt to reconcile this conflict.
Get back to Scala development Mathew, it's what you're good at. Managing a network to 10 million residences on the other hand is currently outside of your area of expertise.
NightKhaos has some interesting points about this. During the great NBN debate I have been accosted a few times for not using my real name as if it were important. It usually happens when their argument falls flat. Thing is they are using their real name by choice. They are free to use an alias just as we do so I don't see why this is an issue however I would challenge them to use an alias anyway. Seems to me it would be better to let their comments stand on their own rather than relying on "This is my real name, yours isn't, my comment is valid, yours isn't" logic.
As for my choice of username I picked this one simply because I enjoy Devonshire tea and scones.
Good points.
Furthermore, even if your name is Mathew, which Mathew are you? And even if we know that your name is Mathew Brown, which Mathew Brown are you….? In the end, who cares.
I think there's actually a couple of different Mathews that post here….and Michaels…
There are two Mathews but I think you can tell our comments apart.
"This is my real name, yours isn't, my comment is valid, yours isn't" logic.
It's from the Andrew Bolt School of Debating for Young Boys.
What about cucumber sandwiches HC…?
And what about if you use your real name 'and' you are a CIO, does that make every comment beyond contestation?
You know it's always been my lifelong dream to be the CIO of a cucumber sandwich cafe shop ;-)
In Argentina?
And what about if you use your real name 'and' you are a CIO, does that make every comment beyond contestation?
lol, I see what you did there ;o)
And what about if you use your real name 'and' you are a CIO, does that make every comment beyond contestation?
But it does allow others to form a judgement based on your reputation.
If people judge folks by their name, I'm not interested in anything they have to say ;o)
The important thing is to stick to the same "label"…
Oh you mean "internet reputation" … *sigh*
If one needs to chest beat (possible) qualifications to try to justify their comments, it just shows those comments fall short doesn't it?
BTW – if speaking about comms (as we are), do you think the CIO of say Maccas would have more cred than some of those here?
Even if it is kinda, sorta, a related field. Say if you invested some borrowed money in a startup ISP, let's say Ozemail. Now if you were losing money hand over fist and went broke you'd be a nobody. But if you lucked out, after years of trying to unload the bad investment. Found some sucker to buy the thing, just before you lose every penny you had. Well you could say that person virtually invented the internet in Australia ;)
The thought that a person must be right because of their position or reputation is based on the false premise that the position or reputation is the cause of the rectitude.
Similarily, the fact that many people agree is not guarantee that they are right.
> The thought that a person must be right because of their position or reputation is based on the false premise that the position or reputation is the cause of the rectitude.
But if a person has been shown to be a thought leader for a long period of time by clearly articulating issues and being shown to be correct then I will place higher value on that person's comments.
> Similarily, the fact that many people agree is not guarantee that they are right.
The opinions of Labor's NBN fanboi club are definitely evidence of that :-).
"But if a person has been shown to be a thought leader for a long period of time by clearly articulating issues and being shown to be correct then I will place higher value on that person's comments."
So if someone (a thought leader?) has been correct in the past, no matter how wrong that person maybe on a particular point, you will accept what they say as gospel. Ever heard of independent thinking?
"Similarily, the fact that many people agree is not guarantee that they are right."
"The opinions of Labor's NBN fanboi club are definitely evidence of that"
Likewise, it doesn't guarantee that they are wrong. Could you also dispense with the name calling? The major difference between those who support the NBN and those who oppose it, is that those in favour do not slavishly repeat Labor's mantra, they just feel that this is the right solution to our communication problems. The same can't be said about your lot, who for ideological reasons, think we should go for second best.
Incidentally, please name one major social reform in the last 50 years which can be attributed to the coalition?
That's the crux of the argument right there, HC – irrelevant claims to expertise, education or reputation are irrelevant if your argument can't stand on its own. That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if my name is Malcom Turnbull, Stephen Hawking, Simon Hackett or Albert Einstein – if my argument lacks credibility, logic, sound reasoning and analysis based on facts, if is pointless and irrelevant. If, however, my argument is sound, well reasoned and supported by facts and evidence, it doesn't matter if I'm a xenophobic bigoted paedophile, because what or who I am is not materially relevant. Only the argument is.
+ 1 and my name even reflects my real name; so that means its an even bigger +1 than an anonymous or pseudononymous +1!! ;)
Does anyone know what the current expenditure of the NBN has been to date?
How much it has cost, till now?
I'm looking for any figures from DBCDE reports to confirm this.
NBN Co's capital expenditure was $1.76 billion
Featured, News, Policy + Politics - Jul 28, 2015 14:17 - 0 Comments
Labor unveils strong Digital Economy push with top political support
More In Policy + Politics
- Back off: Optus, TPG tell Govt on Telstra pricing
- Unprecedented: Whole ICT sector combines to blockade TSSR bill
- Brandis "alarmed" over Labor's data retention review
- Labor pledges Data Retention policy review
- Wikileaks Party deregistered due to lack of members
Analysis, Enterprise IT - Jul 28, 2015 16:20 - 4 Comments
Microsoft wants to win you back with Windows 10
More In Enterprise IT
- Qld Govt Depts have no disaster recovery plan
- ASD releases Windows 8 hardening guide
- ASG picks up $35m CIMIC IT services deal
- Datacom completes mammoth Health ICT takeover
- Weather bureau gets $80m Cray supercomputer
Industry, News - Jul 28, 2015 12:37 - 0 Comments
ICAC to investigate NSW TAFE ICT manager
More In Industry
- iiNet shareholders vote 'yes' for TPG buyout
- iiNet chairman "proud" as TPG sell-out looms
- Kotaku alleges abuse, gross staff neglect at retailer EB Games
- Aussie software firm Marketplacer grabs $10m
- Expert360 pulls in $4.1m for consultancy 2.0
Analysis, Consumer Tech - Jul 28, 2015 15:59 - 0 Comments
Older Australians embracing video games
More In Consumer Tech
- Gasp … Qld will fuel electric vehicle charging stations with solar
- Oops … Tesla enthusiast charges car on Qld windfarm
- Netflix Australia: Review
- RAC builds electric vehicle highway in WA
- Three years later, Optus finally gets HD voice


text:
The 13th Annual KTVE-KARD Christmas Cheer Food Drive is underway. Louisiana Living's Nina Criscuolo talks to those behind the scenes and the sponsors about why this yearly event is so important to the Northeast Louisiana community.
Copyright 2013 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Starchy vegetables and fruits, yes. Leafy vegetables, no, because the carb content is negligible and I doubt I'd eat enough of them in one day to ruin my diet were I aiming for ketosis.
just wondering if you count all carbs including stuff in vegetables and fruit? im aiming for a low carb plan here and eating something like a banana or avocado seems to boost up my carb counter pretty quick when tracking online...
just wondering how it works.
Starchy vegetables and fruits, yes. Leafy vegetables, no, because the carb content is negligible and I doubt I'd eat enough of them in one day to ruin my diet were I aiming for ketosis.
F 28/5'4/100 lbs
"I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath; do your research."
I started using Fit Day to track my food, activities and weight. Been doing it for almost a month, and it's been helpful to me to control my intake (I've got a bunch of weight to lose). It's free, easy and does all the calculations for you. It's helped me make some minor modifications to my intake, and this month I've dropped 19 lbs so far!
ok cool thanks. im using cronometer. what levels do you guys aim for (protein/carbs/fats) in grams
I do not count non-starchy veges or berries. Or the carbs in cheese(but I eat a few ounces daily at most. If I was a total cheese fiend, I would have to count.), cream, or seafood. I DO count for starchy veges, other fruits, nuts, and any non-primal extras. This keeps me honest without turning every meal into a crazy counting game.
40p 40f 20c
ive been aiming for 200grm protein, 100-200g fat, and 30-50grm carbs. is this ridiculously messed up?
Under PB standard, count all carbs, even fiber.
I only count fructose, when I can be bothered to count.
I ballpark glucose only to make sure I eat enough. I don't count fructose or fiber.
ETA: Most veg except root veg are barely worth factoring in for glucose. I do factor in milk and yoghurt for glucose (inc galactose).
Last edited by paleo-bunny; 04-20-2012 at 08:13 AM. Reason: ETA
F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.


text:
Questions or Comments, please contact the Content Manager.
Note: issues older than August 2008 contain articles only. Dated materials such as the meetings of interest, job vacancies, and conference flyers have been deleted from older issues.
To request the issue in its entirety, please contact the
Clinical Support Center
Two Renaissance Square, Suite 780
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: 602-364-7777
This website may require you to download plug-ins to view all content.
Accessibility · Disclaimer · FAQs · Website
Privacy Policy · Plain Writing Act · Freedom
of Information Act · HIPAA · No Fear · Glossary · Contact
Indian Health Service (HQ) - The Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Ste. 400 - Rockville, MD 20852


text:
(909) 783-1394 12190 La Crosse Avenue Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Colton Area, 92324
A+ Rating
LIFETIME GUARANTEE ON MOST INSURANCE WORK** See shop for details
Hello My name is Terry, as General Manager of Blue Mountain Collision Center I would like to introduce myself, my management staff, and our auto body shop.
I have been in the auto body industry for over 34 years, and at this location for over 25 years, doing everything from bodywork to management. I've kept up with industry standards by not only using the hands on approach but with formal training including I-CAR classes, computer frame measuring, etc.
John Sharp as our manager, with over 23 years experience learning from the ground up, hands on, and I-CAR training, we have experience in all facets of the collision repair industry including insurance claims management and estimates. This understanding of collisions and the claims process has fostered close relationships with many major insurance carriers, and all high profile Direct Repair Programs.
Our strong commitment to always deliver quality repair work as well as maintain the highest level of customer satisfaction to make Blue Mountain Collision Center the repair shop of choice, for the Inland Empire.
Our employees receive training in I-CAR classes, Car-O-Liner Computer Measuring System, VeriFacts, & ADP estimating & digital imaging systems.
Once a trucking warehouse this center is now home to the most unique collision center in Southern California. The store not only paints and repairs Cars, Trucks and Vans but, also has the capability to paint RVs, Grummans, Box Vans and diesel tractor Cabs.
Our goal is to become the premier auto collision repair facility in the San Bernardino and Riverside County area. Our long history in the body repair and paint industry, combined with our staff of certified collision repair technicians and painters, place us in a unique position to offer you exceptional collision repair. Restoring your car to pre-accident condition.
We strive to repair your vehicle as quickly as quality repairs can be done. As we all know quality takes time, but our goal is to return your vehicle to you as quickly as possible.
Like the pictures illustrate, Blue Mountain Collision Center has very little in the way of limitations. Bring your car, truck, van, or one of the many other vehicle types we repair to our auto body repair shop to see what we have to offer. Our retail department handles everything from minor dings and dents to full-blown collision repairs. ADP, MITCHELL, CAR-O-LINER, CHIEF, SHERWIN WILLIAMS, 3-M, are just a few of the products we use on a day to day basis. Our resale department handles over 30 of the Inland Empire's auto dealers giving service seldom seen in this industry. Our fleet department handles accounts with 5 cars to 5000 cars. We paint for city, county, and state agencies, leasing companies, Fire and Police Departments, and all insurance companies.
Blue Mountain Collision Center
12190 La Crosse Ave., Grand Terrace, Ca. 92313
Phone: (909) 783-1394
Hours: Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 6:00 pm • Closed Saturday & Sunday E-mail: email@example.com
This store was blessed with freeway frontage on the Riverside (215) Freeway. Look off to the west as you approach Barton Rd. from the South, that's us, the big building with the red, white, and blue stripes around the roof line.
Grand Terrace is located in between San Bernardino and Riverside affording customers from both cities our services. Note also the easy access to the San Bernardino (10) Freeway and the Pomona (60) Freeway.
Click Here To Get Driving Directions
Blue Mountain Collision Center12190 La Crosse Ave., Grand Terrace, CA 92313Telephone (909) 783-1394
Auto Body Repair Shop in Grand Terrace, CaliforniaGet your vehicle back on the road in no time! Established in 1987, BLUE MOUNTAIN COLLISION CENTER in Grand Terrace, California, offers fast high-quality auto body repair services for your body needs, including collision repair and custom auto painting.The Blue Mountain DifferenceBe it body repair or custom auto painting, you can count on our professional staff to take care of all your needs with our affordable services. Your satisfaction is our priority, and it is our goal to make sure you are as happy with the results as we are. Experience You Can TrustAt BLUE MOUNTAIN COLLISION CENTER, we are a local family-owned-and-operated business with more than 35 years of experience in the body repair industry. Through formal training, including I-CAR classes and computer frame measuring, we make sure to always keep up with industry standards. It is our mission to offer fast and affordable services when you want and need them the most.
Collision Repair & Custom Painting in Grand Terrace, CaliforniaTurn to BLUE MOUNTAIN COLLISION CENTER in Grand Terrace, California, when you are looking for 100% committed and courteous collision repair and custom auto painting experts. When it comes to auto bodywork, we combine state-of-the-art equipment with skill, knowledge, and experience to bring you the finest quality repairs at unheard of speeds.
Collision RepairIn our 13,200-square-foot facility, you can count on us to restore your car to pre-accident condition. We have experience in all facets of the collision repair industry and, as the given repair facility for the most popular insurance carriers in the area, you get access to all high-profile direct repair programs, as well.
Computer SystemsTo assure your confidence and satisfaction, we have two of the latest computer estimating systems featuring digital imaging that records the damages and gives you an accurate estimate. For your convenience, our efficient staff handles insurance claims quickly and professionally.
Rely on our highly trained journeymen to return your vehicle to factory specs using our Car-O-Liner computer frame measuring system that produces precision repairs in all areas including frame, body, and refinishing. Additionally, our cutting-edge welding equipment lets us reproduce factory welds, making your vehicle look just like new.
Custom Auto PaintingWhether your body paint has been damaged in a collision, or if you simply want to give your coat an upgrade, our state-of-the-art paint booths—one regular and one extra large—enables us to produce quality paint jobs in record time.
Additionally, with the durability that comes with baking the paint, you can be sure your paint will last a lifetime.