Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


1761 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 396

Trusted
Subscriber

Topic # 195402 19-Apr-2016 12:56
Send private message

It's clickbait, but I still find this funny:

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/79037983/sparks-slow-response-to-phone-crisis-costs-nelson-cake-company-thousands

 

 

 

I feel for the business though - that disruption is just bullsh*t - and they would be right to claim money in court for loss of business. They won't be able to afford it, Spark's offer will be light ("how do you prove how much business is lost"?) and so on...

 

 

 

VOIP is easy, especially when you automate... right Mr Biddle?





________

 

Antonios K

 

 

 

Click to see full size


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
4466 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 849

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1535591 19-Apr-2016 13:15
Send private message

I chuckled when I saw this news earlier.

I feel sorry for the chorus guy especially if he's there for other job.





Banana?
4488 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1073

Subscriber

  Reply # 1535593 19-Apr-2016 13:19
Send private message

Yep, feel sorry for the Chorus guy, not his fault by the sounds of it. He could have called Police I suppose if he was being held against his will.

 

Spark dropped the ball big time there by the looks of it - how come Chorus contractors don't have a number they can call which bypasses the queues? Also, not sure why the diversion failed after two days - that would have been the obvious solution.


1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 1535595 19-Apr-2016 13:20
5 people support this post
Send private message

Not a good situation for the end customer, but I can't help but wonder what we're not being told...

 

 

 

 


2750 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 548


  Reply # 1535625 19-Apr-2016 13:57
Send private message

There is a terrible chasm between the ISP/Telco and Chorus.

 

Its really easy for them to blame each other as well - with the poor consumer stuck at the end of the chain.

 

The way Chorus was set up was for them to appear to be largely invisible and not something the customer would/should deal with directly. The Telco/ISP is supposed to manage the relationship entirely.

 

As the Telcos etc seem to frequently drop the ball (as in this case) Chorus (or some other regional competitors to Chorus) ends up looking exceptionally bad.

 

"If" the problem had been something Chorus needed to fix you would have hoped that Spark would have done their best to expedite the issue - surely they must occasionally have to put 'urgent' jobs through Chorus? Clearly Spark didnt do this.

 

So in this case Chorus got a kicking for Sparks stuff up.

 

That said - when something does clearly get passed into Chorus land I have found it to sometimes a huge PITA because you just cant follow up with them at all - you always return to the Telco/ISP and have to start again from the beginning with an apparent information vacuum.





Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

3455 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1918

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1535635 19-Apr-2016 14:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

It's often the other way around, I've seen/heard of numerous cases of people blaming things on ISP's that are blatantly Chorus issues.

 

E.g. "Spark are useless, my internet always loses connection when it rains" as an example.

 

That and I just don't trust Chorus, I genuinely think most of the institutional evil of the old Telecom went to Chorus with the split, and we won't see the end of that while we have a for profit monopoly. Time to take Chorus back off the shareholders, and make it customer owned with all profits either being rebated to consumers or going to community groups ala WEL Networks, Electra and various other lines trusts.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 1535645 19-Apr-2016 14:39
One person supports this post
Send private message

robjg63:

 

There is a terrible chasm between the ISP/Telco and Chorus.

 

Its really easy for them to blame each other as well - with the poor consumer stuck at the end of the chain.

 

The way Chorus was set up was for them to appear to be largely invisible and not something the customer would/should deal with directly. The Telco/ISP is supposed to manage the relationship entirely.

 

As the Telcos etc seem to frequently drop the ball (as in this case) Chorus (or some other regional competitors to Chorus) ends up looking exceptionally bad.

 

"If" the problem had been something Chorus needed to fix you would have hoped that Spark would have done their best to expedite the issue - surely they must occasionally have to put 'urgent' jobs through Chorus? Clearly Spark didnt do this.

 

So in this case Chorus got a kicking for Sparks stuff up.

 

That said - when something does clearly get passed into Chorus land I have found it to sometimes a huge PITA because you just cant follow up with them at all - you always return to the Telco/ISP and have to start again from the beginning with an apparent information vacuum.

 

 

 

 

With all my many, many dealings with Spark and Chorus, I'm pretty sure there is more to this story and that you can't so easily point the finger in Spark's direction like you have - unless you have facts about this story that the rest of us don't.

 

 

 

There is a very good reason that Spark has Escalation Mangers assigned specifically for dealing with Chorus. The number of times we've been let down by Chrous and have had to have Spark escalate things. Don't get me wrong, Spark is not perfect - but at least when Spark are at fault they usually admit it and get the issue fixed... I cannot remotely say the same thing about Chorus!


27146 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6579

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1535789 19-Apr-2016 16:31
3 people support this post
Send private message

There are so many assumptions and missing facts in this story that it's pretty hard to lay blame at either party without knowing a lot more.

 

Clearly some aspects such as a divert to mobile not working are nothing to do with Chorus.

 

 


4482 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2477

Trusted

  Reply # 1535834 19-Apr-2016 17:05
2 people support this post
Send private message

^^^

 

Yeah but it makes for a good headline and photo opportunity and that's all that matters, right?


511 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 1535871 19-Apr-2016 17:49
Send private message

Unfortunately, it's typical of the reporting on stuff at the moment; sensationalised and missing key facts, but designed to generate as much revenue for them as possible.


3621 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1343

Subscriber

  Reply # 1536073 19-Apr-2016 21:51
Send private message

I feel like Spark could have done a lot more quite easily but probably just wanted to follow normal protocol - which would simply be divert to a mobile, something that has Chorus has zero to do with.

 

If I was Mr. Spark I would have provisioned a new number on the ONT and diverted to that one, would mean the tech could just simply get it all wired up and just the outbound CLI would be messed up short term. But the whole thing of 'the divert worked stopped working after two days' makes me think the porting got messed up. Even though its going from Spark PSTN to Spark VoIP I assume it still follows a normal number port procedure of some description.


4466 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 849

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1536077 19-Apr-2016 21:56
Send private message

One thing that came to my mind - I wonder if it would have been better if they don't split?





1543 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 596


  Reply # 1536300 20-Apr-2016 10:01
Send private message

nakedmolerat: One thing that came to my mind - I wonder if it would have been better if they don't split?

 

Yeah, like what would happen if Vector and the other lines companies won the UFB contract, and Telecom is still in one piece?


882 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 778

Trusted
Chorus

  Reply # 1536550 20-Apr-2016 13:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

One of the problems we have is that there is no "failed install" process for UFB with Chorus. Should a connection fail after the tech leaves the site, or if it never worked at all, we cannot get Chorus to send the tech back to the site to fix it (like we can with copper). It MUST be logged as a fault, and a faults technician organised.

 

The other issue we have is that in quite a few scenarios, fibre installation technicians are assuming that the customer is migrating their copper voice service over to fibre at the same time that their fibre broadband is being installed, and carrying out the necessary wiring work for that. Unfortunately this is not always what business customers are requesting. The result is that the copper voice service stops working as the jackpoints onsite are rewired by the tech to only work off the fibre ONT, when no such work has been requested.  It's a known problem which does happen from time to time, but it takes a long time to reverse the damage from a provisioning perspective.

 

I assume somebody at Spark faults arranged the temporary mobile diversion mentioned in the media article, and that they set the expiry for that at 48 hours which is a standard leadtime for most copper faults to be resolved. Unfortunately fibre faults do take longer, so that diversion expiry should have been set for a much longer timeframe sto avoid the diversion ceasing to function

 

I have no direct knowledge of the subject case, so I cannot say for sure what went wrong - all the above comments are my assumptions based on my knowledge of handling Spark Digital fibre orders that go belly up in very similar circumstances from time to time. It's unfortunate that the right people do not seem to have been engaged quickly enough - if at all - in this case. It's also unfortunate if the original Chorus tech has completed wiring work onsite that was not ordered, causing the copper voice service to stop working.





The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer Chorus NZ Ltd


1984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 133

Trusted

  Reply # 1538438 22-Apr-2016 21:35
Send private message

robjg63:

 

There is a terrible chasm between the ISP/Telco and Chorus.

 

Its really easy for them to blame each other as well - with the poor consumer stuck at the end of the chain.

 

The way Chorus was set up was for them to appear to be largely invisible and not something the customer would/should deal with directly. The Telco/ISP is supposed to manage the relationship entirely.

 

As the Telcos etc seem to frequently drop the ball (as in this case) Chorus (or some other regional competitors to Chorus) ends up looking exceptionally bad.

 

"If" the problem had been something Chorus needed to fix you would have hoped that Spark would have done their best to expedite the issue - surely they must occasionally have to put 'urgent' jobs through Chorus? Clearly Spark didnt do this.

 

So in this case Chorus got a kicking for Sparks stuff up.

 

That said - when something does clearly get passed into Chorus land I have found it to sometimes a huge PITA because you just cant follow up with them at all - you always return to the Telco/ISP and have to start again from the beginning with an apparent information vacuum.

 

 

Its not urgent unless theres a SLA being paid for (a contracted agreement governing reliability of the service, ie compensation) or Chorus gets notified of a medical requirement for the service.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be suprised if the ISP had ordered the phone service to be moved to fibre, and told the customer it was being retained. Obviously some customer may not realise being retained means you have to plug the phone into the new modem, ISP may have neglected to inform them and may have put the number porting through as a separate provisioning order, so the fibre installer may have not moved the phone cable if his job order showed copper being retained.





Qualified in business, certified in fibre, stuck in copper, have to keep going  ^_^

Linux Systems Admin
940 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157

Trusted
Integrity Tech Solutions
Subscriber

  Reply # 1544967 1-May-2016 18:14
Send private message

Not a very well thought out move by Chocolate Velvet. They could piss off their ISP and go elsewhere but piss of the local Chorus techs and....?


 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.