Telecom seeks court ad ban against Vodafone

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom seeks court ad ban against Vodafone

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#871305 3-Aug-2013 18:20

I am just wondering why they don't let the com com or advertising standards handle it, I mean isn't that what they are there for?

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#871306 3-Aug-2013 18:21

NonprayingMantis:
PaulBags: Here's Crown Fibre Holdings take on UFB speed.

So I was traveling past Bexley in Christchurch today, looking at all those "telstraclear" overhead cables, and to all the empty red zoned land beyond them... wondering just exactly who vodafone were marketing supernet to anyway.

Interesting definition

"For the purposes of the New Zealand Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative, having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps Downstream (from the Internet to the user) and a minimum of 50 Mbps Upstream (from user to the Internet)."

Interesting. By that definition vodafones cable service is not ufb since their upload is only 10Mbps.

Of course also by that definition the entry level UFB plans (30/10) are also not UFB.......... So I'm even more confused.

As per the first half of the paragraph that you missed in your quote, The network meets UFB status, Just not UFB initiative work status.

Broadband is defined by the International Telecommunications Union as a
service which provides transmission capacity in excess of 2.0 Megabits
per second (Mbps). Ultra-Fast Broadband is generally defined as services
which deliver much faster speeds, in excess of 25 Mbps. For the
purposes of the New Zealand Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband
initiative, having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the
availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps
Downstream (from the Internet to the user) and a minimum of 50 Mbps
Upstream (from user to the Internet).

Side note, It also looks to refer primarily to capacity of the network rather than plan availability, I'm unsure of how many upstream channels are used on the network but under the DOCSIS 3 standard could easily meet this criteria.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#871307 3-Aug-2013 18:29

lucky015:
NonprayingMantis:
PaulBags: Here's Crown Fibre Holdings take on UFB speed.

So I was traveling past Bexley in Christchurch today, looking at all those "telstraclear" overhead cables, and to all the empty red zoned land beyond them... wondering just exactly who vodafone were marketing supernet to anyway.

Interesting definition

"For the purposes of the New Zealand Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative, having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps Downstream (from the Internet to the user) and a minimum of 50 Mbps Upstream (from user to the Internet)."

Interesting. By that definition vodafones cable service is not ufb since their upload is only 10Mbps.

Of course also by that definition the entry level UFB plans (30/10) are also not UFB.......... So I'm even more confused.

As per the first half of the paragraph that you missed in your quote, The network meets UFB status, Just not UFB initiative work status.

Broadband is defined by the International Telecommunications Union as a
service which provides transmission capacity in excess of 2.0 Megabits
per second (Mbps). Ultra-Fast Broadband is generally defined as services
which deliver much faster speeds, in excess of 25 Mbps. For the
purposes of the New Zealand Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband
initiative, having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the
availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps
Downstream (from the Internet to the user) and a minimum of 50 Mbps
Upstream (from user to the Internet).

Side note, It also looks to refer primarily to capacity of the network rather than plan availability, I'm unsure of how many upstream channels are used on the network but under the DOCSIS 3 standard could easily meet this criteria.

Sorry, misread the first definition is a global one and the second specifically for NZ.

But that first definition would play even more into telecoms hands, since it would also include vdsl as ufb, which means vodafones current footprint for ufb is considerably smaller than the footprint for any ISP that sells vdsl. Can't really claim your network is superior when it's availability is considerably smaller than any other ISP

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#871321 3-Aug-2013 18:36

NonprayingMantis: Sorry, misread the first definition is a global one and the second specifically for NZ.

But that first definition would play even more into telecoms hands, since it would also include vdsl as ufb, which means vodafones current footprint for ufb is considerably smaller than the footprint for any ISP that sells vdsl. Can't really claim your network is superior when it's availability is considerably smaller than any other ISP

Yes and No, VDSL is a variable speed service, Which technically can meet those criteria but its marketed primarily as a service capable of 20Mbps+, Which means it may not always meet that criteria, Cable like fibre is more of a static speed, This is sync/line rates ofcourse not actual throughput, But it is what is defined under the statement.

The whole thing is simply providers leapfrogging over each other and Telecom throwing a fit because they decided to be cautious and use the tag line Ultra VDSL rather than going the whole hog and calling it UFB where VF decided to go the whole hog.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#871323 3-Aug-2013 18:39

lucky015:
NonprayingMantis: Sorry, misread the first definition is a global one and the second specifically for NZ.

But that first definition would play even more into telecoms hands, since it would also include vdsl as ufb, which means vodafones current footprint for ufb is considerably smaller than the footprint for any ISP that sells vdsl. Can't really claim your network is superior when it's availability is considerably smaller than any other ISP

Yes and No, VDSL is a variable speed service, Which technically can meet those criteria but its marketed primarily as a service capable of 20Mbps+, Which means it may not always meet that criteria, Cable like fibre is more of a static speed, This is sync/line rates ofcourse not actual throughput, But it is what is defined under the statement.

The whole thing is simply providers leapfrogging over each other and Telecom throwing a fit because they decided to be cautious and use the tag line Ultra VDSL rather than going the whole hog and calling it UFB where VF decided to go the whole hog.

The article says it is more about Vodafone claiming their network is superior, not that they are claiming that it is ufb.

"The advertising describes Vodafone's infrastructure "as the best fixed-line network"."

Pretty sure you can't do that unless you can categorically state it as objective fact in every way, which, IMO, is not possible to do for fixed line, especially when VF have yet to launch vdsl or fibre
Vodafones 'UFB' has very small footprint, and the upload is definitely slower than the UFB 100Mbps product which has 50Mbps upload speed. So there are two factual aspects where their network is clearly not superior right now.

It's a slam dunk for telecom IMO on tht aspect.

The ufb claim is by the by. They can claim it is ufb if they want, and telecom could equally turn around and claim their HSPA mobile network is 4G since it does actually meet the ITU standards for 4G.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#871359 3-Aug-2013 19:47

NonprayingMantis:
PaulBags: Here's Crown Fibre Holdings take on UFB speed.

So I was traveling past Bexley in Christchurch today, looking at all those "telstraclear" overhead cables, and to all the empty red zoned land beyond them... wondering just exactly who vodafone were marketing supernet to anyway.

Interesting definition

"For the purposes of the New Zealand Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative, having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps Downstream (from the Internet to the user) and a minimum of 50 Mbps Upstream (from user to the Internet)."

Interesting. By that definition vodafones cable service is not ufb since their upload is only 10Mbps.

Of course also by that definition the entry level UFB plans (30/10) are also not UFB.......... So I'm even more confused.

"having access to Ultra-Fast Broadband is taken to mean the availability of broadband services at a minimum speed of 100 Mbps Downstream and a minimum of 50 Mbps Upstream"

The definition of 'availability' is important. Just because someone opts for 30/10 doesn't mean that 100/50 isn't available on the line, if they choose to switch up.

hamish225

1418 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#871371 3-Aug-2013 20:03

richms: Ultrafast should mean 100 meg or higher, the lesser plans should be called moderately fast.

hahaha yes 'MFB'

*Insert big spe*dtest result here*

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

plambrechtsen

1948 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#871405 3-Aug-2013 21:28

When I saw the ad what sprung into my mind (and in no way refects my employer) was an ip supernet like a /23 or /22. Which is just a subnet by any other name. ;)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#871415 3-Aug-2013 22:10

mattwnz: I am just wondering why they don't let the com com or advertising standards handle it, I mean isn't that what they are there for?

I could be wrong, but I beleive advertising standards only take action if a complaint is made - which is what telecom is doing.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#871475 4-Aug-2013 06:17

@ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

plambrechtsen

1948 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#871476 4-Aug-2013 06:45

KiwiNZ: @ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

Chorus are no longer part of Telecom. They are the people doing the ufb build and run the copper network. If they are rejecting a connection request there would normally be a reason given. Do you know what that reason was as your RSP (Telecom or any other Retail Service Provider) gave you as to the reason why Chorus rejected the connection? If you didn't get a reason then pm me and I can find out.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#871478 4-Aug-2013 07:01

plambrechtsen:
KiwiNZ: @ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

Chorus are no longer part of Telecom. They are the people doing the ufb build and run the copper network. If they are rejecting a connection request there would normally be a reason given. Do you know what that reason was as your RSP (Telecom or any other Retail Service Provider) gave you as to the reason why Chorus rejected the connection? If you didn't get a reason then pm me and I can find out.

I know Chorus is separate to Telecom they are however part of the chain to get it done. Persistence and resubmitting the same information will eventually bring progress but it is time consuming, irritates the hell out of clients, costs money and pushes opportunities into the hands of the competition. There is no logic to it and when I see petulant litigation like this when business opportunities are being lost makes my very angry.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#871491 4-Aug-2013 08:39

KiwiNZ: @ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

Pretty sure if you asked the lawyers to help out with getting your connection done it will make things worse not better.

Let the lawyers do the lawyery thing and the techs do the techy thing.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#871516 4-Aug-2013 10:15

NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ: @ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

Pretty sure if you asked the lawyers to help out with getting your connection done it will make things worse not better.

Let the lawyers do the lawyery thing and the techs do the techy thing.

Not my connection they are for clients. It is a nightmare, if you talk within the industry it is widely known that you will thrice decline for no logical reason. Submit the same info and ALL the info you then get approved. It's ridiculous, Gen-I blames Chorus, Chorus blames just about everyone and is a hmmm so I don't fracture the FUG, a pain to deal with.

plambrechtsen

1948 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#871521 4-Aug-2013 10:35

KiwiNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
KiwiNZ: @ Telecom/Gen-I/Chorus

Instead of silly court cases put your efforts into rolling out your network and actually connecting people, and for Pity's sake stop the two and three times declining of connection requests.

Pretty sure if you asked the lawyers to help out with getting your connection done it will make things worse not better.

Let the lawyers do the lawyery thing and the techs do the techy thing.

Not my connection they are for clients. It is a nightmare, if you talk within the industry it is widely known that you will thrice decline for no logical reason. Submit the same info and ALL the info you then get approved. It's ridiculous, Gen-I blames Chorus, Chorus blames just about everyone and is a hmmm so I don't fracture the FUG, a pain to deal with.

The offer still stands for you to contact me "pl at telecom.co.nz" to assist. As Gen-I are a retailer like Telecom an we rely on Chorus. But I know enough people throughout the company to get these things sorted if they can get sorted.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6