Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Business

We develop leaders who transform
business, society & economies

NBN to buy TransACT’s FttP network off iiNet

By Barcham 22 May 2013 54

That title makes less sense the more you read it.

Instead of over-building and trying to compete with iiNet, the NBN are opting to buy TransACT’s network from the internet provider.

The TransACT network currently covers 8,500 premises, and a further 4,500 premises are planned or already under construction. iiNet announced that the deal would be settled over the next two months subject to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approval.

Under the deal, TransACT will also complete the construction of pit and pipe infrastructure in new estates until 2017 and then transfer ownership to NBN Co. NBN Co would also get access to ducts across the ACT as part of the deal.

iiNet had been looking to sell the network to NBN Co since the takeover of TransACT in 2011. In addition to the fibre network in the ACT, TransACT also owns a HFC network in Geelong, Mildura and Ballarat. Under legislative changes made as part of the implementation of the National Broadband Network (NBN) policy, iiNet would not have been able to expand these networks, and the company was concerned that NBN Co would overbuild in those areas.

In late 2012, iiNet CEO Michael Malone warned he would undercut NBN Co on prices in those areas if the company did decide to overbuild rather than buying out iiNet’s networks.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
54 Responses to
NBN to buy TransACT’s FttP network off iiNet
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
thatsnotme 4:09 pm 28 May 13

Grrrr said :

thatsnotme said :

Obviously things will be different in an NBN world, because we won’t have that land line any more,

Yes, we do – it’s just fibre instead of copper but it still offers PSTN voice. Your phone plugs into the Uni-V port on the NBNCo (or TransACT) ONT just like a regular phone line. This difference is you don’t have to have a phone service anymore.

I don’t know why TransACT are refusing to sell a Netphone service to someone on FTTH, because their website says it’s available to anyone using TransACT broadband. As pointed out, you can get a VOIP service from anyone if TransACT are stupid enough to refuse to sell the service to you.

Sorry, you’re right, and I should have been clearer. It will still be an option, but one that I certainly wouldn’t be taking up. As soon as i can ditch the landline and its associated monthly payment the happier I’ll be, and I’ll be more than happy to rely on VoIP completely.

Grrrr 3:57 pm 28 May 13

thatsnotme said :

Obviously things will be different in an NBN world, because we won’t have that land line any more,

Yes, we do – it’s just fibre instead of copper but it still offers PSTN voice. Your phone plugs into the Uni-V port on the NBNCo (or TransACT) ONT just like a regular phone line. This difference is you don’t have to have a phone service anymore.

I don’t know why TransACT are refusing to sell a Netphone service to someone on FTTH, because their website says it’s available to anyone using TransACT broadband. As pointed out, you can get a VOIP service from anyone if TransACT are stupid enough to refuse to sell the service to you.

Watson 2:54 pm 28 May 13

VoIP can be a confusing area, but there are really only a couple of things that you need to be able to sign up and use VoIP – and neither of them are dependent on your ISP, or the type of connection you have.

Firstly, you need a phone / modem combo that is compatible with VoIP. There are phones designed for VoIP, and there are modems designed to accommodate a normal analog handset. Basically, your phone needs to be able to connect to your internet connection, and talk over it.

The second is a VoIP provider, and this does not have to be your ISP. When you sign up, you’ll be allocated a new VoIP phone number, and you tell your modem to dial out using that number. It will route your phone calls via your new VoIP provider, whoever and wherever they are.

For example, on my ADSL connection at home, I have a Fritz!Box modem, and a Fritz!Box phone. All of our outgoing phone calls are sent through our PennyTel VoIP provider – for $5 a month, we effectively get free local and national calls, plus 5 cent/minute international calls to most of the world.

Ingoing phone calls come via our traditional landline. They come to the same phone handset – it just means that we didn’t have to tell anyone about a new phone number, they just use the old one.

Obviously things will be different in an NBN world, because we won’t have that land line any more, but for now, it means that despite us having to pay line rental, our calls are capped at $5 a month. I’d think this should be possible on TransACT fibre as well, with the right hardware – although if you’re on TransACT fibre, it’s probably worth waiting until the sale to the NBN goes through before doing much more.

Thanks! I’ve only ever had VoIP via my ISP. They provided the hardware and instructions so I don’t have any idea how it actually works.

I don’t want to be without internet or phone for too long after we move in, which should be in 3 weeks time. But I am not game to sign up for a 2 year plan with TransACT now either…

thatsnotme 2:18 pm 28 May 13

Watson said :

Very little to do with the OP but I’m going to continue anyway because it bugs me and it’s to do with TransACT’s stupid business model.

I called Transact back specifically to ask about Netphone and they said it wasn’t compatible with FTTP. I would have been willing to pay the extra $10 a month on top of the line rental charge (what line, I ask?) for VoIP so I could avoid their excessive landline charges. And at least I would be able to call overseas at a cheap rate, which I like to be able to do.

I also checked the iiNet rates, but you cannot get their VoIP without signing up for a data package, and they are considerably more expensive than the TransACT data packages. It would’ve cost me an extra $30 something a month to go that route.

I cancelled my TransACT account for now while I try to figure out what to do.

VoIP can be a confusing area, but there are really only a couple of things that you need to be able to sign up and use VoIP – and neither of them are dependent on your ISP, or the type of connection you have.

Firstly, you need a phone / modem combo that is compatible with VoIP. There are phones designed for VoIP, and there are modems designed to accommodate a normal analog handset. Basically, your phone needs to be able to connect to your internet connection, and talk over it.

The second is a VoIP provider, and this does not have to be your ISP. When you sign up, you’ll be allocated a new VoIP phone number, and you tell your modem to dial out using that number. It will route your phone calls via your new VoIP provider, whoever and wherever they are.

For example, on my ADSL connection at home, I have a Fritz!Box modem, and a Fritz!Box phone. All of our outgoing phone calls are sent through our PennyTel VoIP provider – for $5 a month, we effectively get free local and national calls, plus 5 cent/minute international calls to most of the world.

Ingoing phone calls come via our traditional landline. They come to the same phone handset – it just means that we didn’t have to tell anyone about a new phone number, they just use the old one.

Obviously things will be different in an NBN world, because we won’t have that land line any more, but for now, it means that despite us having to pay line rental, our calls are capped at $5 a month. I’d think this should be possible on TransACT fibre as well, with the right hardware – although if you’re on TransACT fibre, it’s probably worth waiting until the sale to the NBN goes through before doing much more.

Watson 12:52 pm 28 May 13

Grrrr said :

Watson said :

Funny. I’ve just come off the phone with iiNet. … I asked about TransACT’s “Netphone” and was told that it wasn’t compatible with FTTP.

Did you call iiNet, or TransACT? The sales departments are still different groups.

iiNet Netphone may not be offered on TransACT’s network because it’s an iiNet product, not a TransACT product. The two networks are still separate in almost every way.

If you called TransACT and they didn’t want to tell TransACT Netphone – well, that’s a bit odd. I’d try calling them again.

Note that there is no way to purchase FTTP from TransACT without effectively paying for the regular phone service, though.

You might as well pick any Australian VOIP provider that you like the look of.

Very little to do with the OP but I’m going to continue anyway because it bugs me and it’s to do with TransACT’s stupid business model.

I called Transact back specifically to ask about Netphone and they said it wasn’t compatible with FTTP. I would have been willing to pay the extra $10 a month on top of the line rental charge (what line, I ask?) for VoIP so I could avoid their excessive landline charges. And at least I would be able to call overseas at a cheap rate, which I like to be able to do.

I also checked the iiNet rates, but you cannot get their VoIP without signing up for a data package, and they are considerably more expensive than the TransACT data packages. It would’ve cost me an extra $30 something a month to go that route.

I cancelled my TransACT account for now while I try to figure out what to do.

rosscoact 12:18 pm 28 May 13

Re the Actew/Better Place issue

I’m not in the finance industry but I would have thought that not receiving expected earnings of $60m over ten years, completely contingent on another party, would not constitute a $60M loss in any accounting standard.

Could a CPA confirm either way?

dungfungus 9:29 am 28 May 13

JC said :

So what exactly does that have to do with Transact, other than proving that you have an irrational weed on over ACTEW. Did they turn you down for a job or something?

What does Better Place have to do with TransACT you ask?
I thought that would be a no brainer. Better Place is almost a carbon copy of TransACT; surely you can see that.
And they didn’t turn me down for a job because I have never applied for one with them. Mind you, if I did I wouldn’t last long there because they wouldn’t like my management style.

JC 10:02 pm 27 May 13

So what exactly does that have to do with Transact, other than proving that you have an irrational weed on over ACTEW. Did they turn you down for a job or something?

dungfungus 9:39 pm 27 May 13

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I give up – please continue the difference of opinion with Noel Towell from the Canberra Times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/taxpayers-lost-55m-in-transact-sale-20111222-1uvmu.html
By the way, Actew not only tipped in extra monies to keep TransACT afloat, they also provided standy facilities which as far as I could tell were not shown as contingent liabilities in their balance sheet. Then again, they got someone’s salary wrong as well and that was forgiven.
While you are “hot”, would you care to explain your theory on how much Rhodium Asset Solutions made for the ACT Governmnet as well?

You just don’t get it. Writing down assets is very common in the business world and is considered a paper loss. The article you linked to says as much.

You are also carping on about the ACT taxpayer loosing out, which is not the case either. ACTEW Corp put money obtained through commercial means (ie not from the Government) into Transact who built infrastructure that is still in use today again not using not taxper payer money. Over the course of 5 years or so they wrote the value of that infrastructure down, which as mentioned is very common, especially in the IT area where most equipment is on a 5-7 year depreciation cycle.

They then sold up to iiNet. That is not a $55m loss of real money no matter which way you look at it. Saying that is like buying a car for $50k then 5 years selling it for $20k. The paper loss is of course $30k, but that doesn’t factor in the benifit you got during those 5 years.

The following is an extract from an ABC News report of 30/1/13 at 11.54am regarding the problems with the Better Place project:
“Canberra power retailer ActewAGL has a $60 million 10-year contract with Better Place to supply electricity for the network.

ActewAGL’s Diane O’Hara says the contract has just been delayed and will go ahead.

“At this stage it will delay the Australian operations, which is obviously very disappointing, but there has been a decision to consolidate some of their overseas operations and that may well slowdown some of their planned deployments in Australia,” she said.

Ms O’Hara says ActewAGL remains confident its electric car dreams will be realised.”

Now that Better Place has totally failed (details elesewhere on this blog), please explain to our readers how ActewAGL is going to convert the $60 million dollar loss they are facing into one of those amazing paper products that actually turns a profit without the ACT Ratepayers losing a cent?
Sure, they have created “valuable infrastructure” like a few recharging stations for the half dozen electric vehicles in Canberra.

thatsnotme 6:41 pm 27 May 13

dungfungus said :

thatsnotme said :

dungfungus said :

steveu said :

Personally I think TransACT was a pretty gutsy and innovative move, 10 years ago it gave residents who had power poles in their backyard to VDSL technology which was a leader at the time (you know, the thing that a political party thinks is hi-tech). Now of course it’s old hat however it did put Canberra on the map for a little bit. Disappointing that their sales force people were telling outright lies to people etc. which didn’t help the reputation of the company. Not delivering through Telstra conduit didn’t help either (though I think they very well knew it was never gong to happen). Dreams of an transact intranet were ambitious as well (though never happened). I’m sorry to see TransACT go this way, as it could have shown up the rest of the country if we had a high speed broadband network before everyone else etc. but glad to see that it got snapped up by iinet and now nbnco.

Makes sense to use their infrastructure with NBN co, last thing we want is a repeat of when installation of cable was privatised and you had Telstra and Optus running their own cabling infrastructure side by side in certain parts of Sydney…

The NBN is a nation-building infrastructure program of work – which never should have been the subject of political debate. Shame on our politicians for not recognising this and just getting on with the job in the best interest of the country.

The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

Worth nothing in 10 years time? How do you figure that?

The TransACT experience.

That’s like saying that Telstra’s mobile broadband network will be worth nothing in 10 years time, because of the Vodafone experience.

A better comparison is ‘The Telecom / Telstra experience’, where their aging copper network, despite being woefully out of date and crumbling, is still worth something. That’s what the NBN is replacing. The TransACT experience was a small network in a comparatively small city. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

JC 5:59 pm 27 May 13

dungfungus said :

The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

Whilst 4.5B sounds like a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things it is still only 5%, which is a hell of a lot lower than the debit carried by the individual citizens of this country.

JC 5:48 pm 27 May 13

dungfungus said :

[The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

Of course you need to factor in the benefit to the community and the fact that the current Telstra system needs replacing. Or maybe you believe that 4G is the answer and we should have that instead. It is much cheaper afterall.

JC 5:46 pm 27 May 13

dungfungus said :

I give up – please continue the difference of opinion with Noel Towell from the Canberra Times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/taxpayers-lost-55m-in-transact-sale-20111222-1uvmu.html
By the way, Actew not only tipped in extra monies to keep TransACT afloat, they also provided standy facilities which as far as I could tell were not shown as contingent liabilities in their balance sheet. Then again, they got someone’s salary wrong as well and that was forgiven.
While you are “hot”, would you care to explain your theory on how much Rhodium Asset Solutions made for the ACT Governmnet as well?

You just don’t get it. Writing down assets is very common in the business world and is considered a paper loss. The article you linked to says as much.

You are also carping on about the ACT taxpayer loosing out, which is not the case either. ACTEW Corp put money obtained through commercial means (ie not from the Government) into Transact who built infrastructure that is still in use today again not using not taxper payer money. Over the course of 5 years or so they wrote the value of that infrastructure down, which as mentioned is very common, especially in the IT area where most equipment is on a 5-7 year depreciation cycle.

They then sold up to iiNet. That is not a $55m loss of real money no matter which way you look at it. Saying that is like buying a car for $50k then 5 years selling it for $20k. The paper loss is of course $30k, but that doesn’t factor in the benifit you got during those 5 years.

dungfungus 4:21 pm 27 May 13

steveu said :

NBN funding is off money borrowed overseas, based off our AAA credit rating. Yes it’s not going to make money strait away, however in the long term there will be benefits that will recoup the cost. And like it or not, telecommuting is going to the the big business “saving” in the next few years. Savings on commercial rent + the fact bosses will relish the thought of making joe worker put more time in as they can do a lot of work from home I am sure will be a big driver.
Anyone who thinks the 100 year old copper in the ground at the moment is going to last us, and support us in the global market perhaps is a little short sighted.
I don’t think transact was such a failure as people made it out to be, I think it was managed poorly as a company, and there was some great technical expertise used to build (what I found anyway) a stable network, and a welcome move away from the ridiculous infrastructure that Telstra built for itself over the last few decades.

I was quoting the interest rates based on overseas rates but no one knows (apart from the government exactly where the NBN money is coming from as it is “an off-balance sheet investment”).
If you believe in the global credit agencies you will also believe in the tooth fairy. These agencies gave Lehman Bros. an AAA rating too, remember?.
What you say about Telstra is true (in hindsight). I can remember in the 1970’s when it was called Telecom and they were still developing and trying to market teletype machines (young people should refer to Wiki) when everyone was ditching them and buying faxes.
The irony is that Telstra and their shareholders are going to be the major beneficiary of the NBN no matter which governmnet is in power.

dungfungus 4:11 pm 27 May 13

thatsnotme said :

dungfungus said :

steveu said :

Personally I think TransACT was a pretty gutsy and innovative move, 10 years ago it gave residents who had power poles in their backyard to VDSL technology which was a leader at the time (you know, the thing that a political party thinks is hi-tech). Now of course it’s old hat however it did put Canberra on the map for a little bit. Disappointing that their sales force people were telling outright lies to people etc. which didn’t help the reputation of the company. Not delivering through Telstra conduit didn’t help either (though I think they very well knew it was never gong to happen). Dreams of an transact intranet were ambitious as well (though never happened). I’m sorry to see TransACT go this way, as it could have shown up the rest of the country if we had a high speed broadband network before everyone else etc. but glad to see that it got snapped up by iinet and now nbnco.

Makes sense to use their infrastructure with NBN co, last thing we want is a repeat of when installation of cable was privatised and you had Telstra and Optus running their own cabling infrastructure side by side in certain parts of Sydney…

The NBN is a nation-building infrastructure program of work – which never should have been the subject of political debate. Shame on our politicians for not recognising this and just getting on with the job in the best interest of the country.

The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

Worth nothing in 10 years time? How do you figure that?

The TransACT experience.

steveu 3:51 pm 27 May 13

NBN funding is off money borrowed overseas, based off our AAA credit rating. Yes it’s not going to make money strait away, however in the long term there will be benefits that will recoup the cost. And like it or not, telecommuting is going to the the big business “saving” in the next few years. Savings on commercial rent + the fact bosses will relish the thought of making joe worker put more time in as they can do a lot of work from home I am sure will be a big driver.
Anyone who thinks the 100 year old copper in the ground at the moment is going to last us, and support us in the global market perhaps is a little short sighted.
I don’t think transact was such a failure as people made it out to be, I think it was managed poorly as a company, and there was some great technical expertise used to build (what I found anyway) a stable network, and a welcome move away from the ridiculous infrastructure that Telstra built for itself over the last few decades.

thatsnotme 3:48 pm 27 May 13

dungfungus said :

steveu said :

Personally I think TransACT was a pretty gutsy and innovative move, 10 years ago it gave residents who had power poles in their backyard to VDSL technology which was a leader at the time (you know, the thing that a political party thinks is hi-tech). Now of course it’s old hat however it did put Canberra on the map for a little bit. Disappointing that their sales force people were telling outright lies to people etc. which didn’t help the reputation of the company. Not delivering through Telstra conduit didn’t help either (though I think they very well knew it was never gong to happen). Dreams of an transact intranet were ambitious as well (though never happened). I’m sorry to see TransACT go this way, as it could have shown up the rest of the country if we had a high speed broadband network before everyone else etc. but glad to see that it got snapped up by iinet and now nbnco.

Makes sense to use their infrastructure with NBN co, last thing we want is a repeat of when installation of cable was privatised and you had Telstra and Optus running their own cabling infrastructure side by side in certain parts of Sydney…

The NBN is a nation-building infrastructure program of work – which never should have been the subject of political debate. Shame on our politicians for not recognising this and just getting on with the job in the best interest of the country.

The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

Worth nothing in 10 years time? How do you figure that?

dungfungus 3:32 pm 27 May 13

steveu said :

Personally I think TransACT was a pretty gutsy and innovative move, 10 years ago it gave residents who had power poles in their backyard to VDSL technology which was a leader at the time (you know, the thing that a political party thinks is hi-tech). Now of course it’s old hat however it did put Canberra on the map for a little bit. Disappointing that their sales force people were telling outright lies to people etc. which didn’t help the reputation of the company. Not delivering through Telstra conduit didn’t help either (though I think they very well knew it was never gong to happen). Dreams of an transact intranet were ambitious as well (though never happened). I’m sorry to see TransACT go this way, as it could have shown up the rest of the country if we had a high speed broadband network before everyone else etc. but glad to see that it got snapped up by iinet and now nbnco.

Makes sense to use their infrastructure with NBN co, last thing we want is a repeat of when installation of cable was privatised and you had Telstra and Optus running their own cabling infrastructure side by side in certain parts of Sydney…

The NBN is a nation-building infrastructure program of work – which never should have been the subject of political debate. Shame on our politicians for not recognising this and just getting on with the job in the best interest of the country.

The “best interest of the country” as far as funding the NBN is concerned is about 3% p.a. at the moment.
If the price blows out to $90 billion and interest rates go up to 5% p.a. then Australia will be forking out $4.5 billion a year for something that will be worth nothing in 10 years time and we will still have a $90 billion debt.
It never was the subject of political debate either as it was thrust on us without even a business plan.
Another TransACT on a grand scale.

steveu 1:29 pm 27 May 13

Personally I think TransACT was a pretty gutsy and innovative move, 10 years ago it gave residents who had power poles in their backyard to VDSL technology which was a leader at the time (you know, the thing that a political party thinks is hi-tech). Now of course it’s old hat however it did put Canberra on the map for a little bit. Disappointing that their sales force people were telling outright lies to people etc. which didn’t help the reputation of the company. Not delivering through Telstra conduit didn’t help either (though I think they very well knew it was never gong to happen). Dreams of an transact intranet were ambitious as well (though never happened). I’m sorry to see TransACT go this way, as it could have shown up the rest of the country if we had a high speed broadband network before everyone else etc. but glad to see that it got snapped up by iinet and now nbnco.

Makes sense to use their infrastructure with NBN co, last thing we want is a repeat of when installation of cable was privatised and you had Telstra and Optus running their own cabling infrastructure side by side in certain parts of Sydney…

The NBN is a nation-building infrastructure program of work – which never should have been the subject of political debate. Shame on our politicians for not recognising this and just getting on with the job in the best interest of the country.

dungfungus 4:16 pm 26 May 13

JC said :

dungfungus said :

To use a terrible pun, you are “papering over” the real issue here given that you use the real world as the domain this all happened in.
Actew didn’t own TransACT either; they were a shareholder and if you are trying to tell that they borrowed money privately to buy that shareholding you are totally wrong. In fact, it was Actew who kept loaning money to TransACT to keep them afloat – there is no financial information available on TransACT except the ACT Government auditor did qualify Actew’s Annual Report once referring to the fact that TransACT’s financial returns had not been audited. Your analogy of a building being depreciated is wrong as well.
At the end of the day, Actew invested $55 million dollars into an ill-judged equity venture which had nothing to do with the charter they have of supplying essential utilities to the ACT. They sold their equity for $4 million and however they handle that on their balance sheet still means the ratepayers of the ACT lost the benefit of that $51 million net being returned to the Government as a dividend.
Next thing you will be saying is that the Skywhale was an “investment”.
As I said, it is no wonder this country is on the skids.

The taxpayers of the ACT did not loose $51m. As you said yourself ACTEW Corportation as major shareholder put funds into Transact, but you fail to mentioned that those funds were not ACT government funds but funds borrowed elsewhere (in fact a bit like NBN who despite what the Liberal party are saying are not getting funding off the government).

So the ACT taxpayer didn’t loose the money, Transact did and it was a paper loss. Is it really that hard to come to terms with?

I give up – please continue the difference of opinion with Noel Towell from the Canberra Times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/taxpayers-lost-55m-in-transact-sale-20111222-1uvmu.html
By the way, Actew not only tipped in extra monies to keep TransACT afloat, they also provided standy facilities which as far as I could tell were not shown as contingent liabilities in their balance sheet. Then again, they got someone’s salary wrong as well and that was forgiven.
While you are “hot”, would you care to explain your theory on how much Rhodium Asset Solutions made for the ACT Governmnet as well?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site