Vodafone takes Telecom to courts over interference of new network

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Vodafone takes Telecom to courts over interference of new network

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

28263 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

# 213052 7-May-2009 09:21

bbman:
You cannot deny that there are still serious problems with Vodafones network at the moment some caused by Telecom many caused by Vodafone, I think this whole issue has highlighted some of them. Atleast Telecom wont be responsible for them come end of May which is good for all concerned.

I agree entirely. Vodafone's network has been poorly engineered in some respects and could be better. There are also other factors that have caused call dropping recently including their failed attempt to roll out AMR on their GSM network.

The issue here has nothing to do with that though - it's simply that Telecom publically denied causing interference and said they were doing nothing wrong. That's proven to be totally untrue.

Really makes you wonder whether yet again marketing, lawyers and PR people got in the way of engineers who obviously had been working for some time to resolve these issues and obviously had plans on how this would be done. How ironic that in the end it's the engineers who will be solving the issue?

VFNZPaulBrislen

970 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Vodafone

# 213054 7-May-2009 09:23

Hi there,

we asked Telecom to stop interfering and they've agreed, so the proceedings come to an end. This was never about delaying the launch, stopping the launch, blocking Telecom launching or any of the other nutbag theories I've read over the past few days, it was about doing what's right for our customers.

Cheers

Paul

Paul Brislen
Head of Corporate Communications
Vodafone

http://forum.vodafone.co.nz

sinner

35 posts

Geek

# 213055 7-May-2009 09:23

Don't see the egg on faces for Telecom. The out of court settlement proves nothing. Yes, it has been acknowledged that Telecom was affecting Vodafone's service. However, this doesn't equate to liability.
Vodafone, to me, come out of this looking like chumps.
Why the court case? NZ Comms and Telecom settled.
Why bring up the 111 service? They were not concerned about it from Nov-08 till now.
This could have (and should have) been settled before it went to the courts.

bbman

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 213056 7-May-2009 09:24

sbiddle:
bbman:
You cannot deny that there are still serious problems with Vodafones network at the moment some caused by Telecom many caused by Vodafone, I think this whole issue has highlighted some of them. Atleast Telecom wont be responsible for them come end of May which is good for all concerned.

I agree entirely. Vodafone's network has been poorly engineered in some respects and could be better. There are also other factors that have caused call dropping recently including their failed attempt to roll out AMR on their GSM network.

The issue here has nothing to do with that though - it's simply that Telecom publically denied causing interference and said they were doing nothing wrong. That's proven to be totally untrue.

Really makes you wonder whether yet again marketing, lawyers and PR people got in the way of engineers who obviously had been working for some time to resolve these issues and obviously had plans on how this would be done. How ironic that in the end it's the engineers who will be solving the issue?

Yep your right there, dam I hate being wrong!

I think it was said pages back, marketing not talking to networks again!

I do wonder if Telecom have used this to ramp up exposure? Intending not to launch to later in the month, its entirely plausable when you look at things. Its painful for those who have affiliations with them when this happens!

www.ultimatebroadband.co.nz
Delivering better broadband services

UFB fibre, Rural fibre on EA networks, RBI wireless, Ruralnet & Ultra wireless, wireless networks

wtf

38 posts

Geek

# 213057 7-May-2009 09:26

OK, now that Telecom and Vodafone are sorted out that just leaves us with the guy with the stereo and the wifes phone. Last mention, it sounded like you were planning to swap out the wife to deal with the problem. While this might work, it is a radical solution and could have unwanted side effects, especially since the nights are getting colder at present. Also I can't see the search for a replacement going well if the first question you ask is what sort of phone they have. You might come across as some sort of geek. Plus at present I suspect you won't know whether or not the phones for Telecoms new network have a similar effect so you would be operating blind.

So what I would suggest is similar to the solution for Telecom and Vodafone, deal with the problem where it is occurring. The phone is most probably operating within spec, the amplifier is not. In fact a nonlinearity in the amplifier is rectifying the phone signals and then amplifying the envelope, which is in the audible range. The nonlinearity is probably inherent, all amplifiers are nonlinear for a sufficiently large signal, and probably you cannot change this, so the solution is to exclude the unwanted signal from the amplifier. Most probably you can acheive this by getting some of those toroidal ferrite cores. (rings of magnetic material) Pass each loudspeaker lead, each input lead, and the mains lead through these. (one for each cable) You can loop the leads through a couple of times if you like. This is usually enough to make a difference, and will not make any difference to the normal operation of the stereo. Well, unless you are the sort of person who believes that wooden control knobs make an audible difference too.

The connection with the current case is of course that they are doing essentially the same thing, but since it would appear that the intermodulation is taking place at the transmitting end, the filters have to go there. Filters at the receiver would only help if the unwanted interference signal was being generated there. In the stereo case it is demodulation rather than intermodulation, but then they are really much the same sort of process, eg multiplicative mixing.

A comment on masthead amplifiers....these are used to improve the noise performance of the system. If your receiver is at the bottom of the pole with a given noise floor, it will have a certain minimum signal level that gives the minimum workable signal to noise ratio. Now if you put a lossy feeder ahead of it, the required signal level will be higher by the amount of loss in the feeder. At higher frequencies the feeder loss can approach the height gain, eg you are not gaining anything. So what you do is put a low noise amplifier up the mast close to the antennae. This should have enough gain to make up the loss in the feeder, and a little more so the front need end noise of the actual receiver is not too significant. You can also compensate for the loss in any needed filters in this way, by placing them after the amplifier, but the limitation is that if the amplifier does not have some filtering ahead of it, it may get swamped by unwanted signals, causing blocking or intermodulation as was discussed above. This is of course a pretty basic introduction, if you need to know more there are whole books on the subject.

KiwiME

147 posts

Master Geek

# 213061 7-May-2009 09:36

sinner: Yes, it has been acknowledged that Telecom was affecting Vodafone's service. However, this doesn't equate to liability.

Of course it does - that's the point of a lawsuit.

catapulter

10 posts

Wannabe Geek

# 213063 7-May-2009 09:39

sbiddle:

The issue here has nothing to do with that though - it's simply that Telecom publically denied causing interference and said they were doing nothing wrong. That's proven to be totally untrue.

I fail to see how anything has been "proven" here.

Telecom admitted that there was interference when they said that there was dispute over who pays for filters (unless I have that quote wrong).

I believe there were discussions between the two companies so there was no denial of interference issues.

An out of court settlement "proves" nothing.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 213066 7-May-2009 09:42

sinner: Don't see the egg on faces for Telecom. The out of court settlement proves nothing. Yes, it has been acknowledged that Telecom was affecting Vodafone's service. However, this doesn't equate to liability.

Vodafone, to me, come out of this looking like chumps.

.

Yeah Telecom are going to spend a huge amount of money to install filters and delay their network launch because they are in the right and are only doing it because they are nice guys.

Anyone for a Tui?

BiggusDoggus

346 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 213067 7-May-2009 09:42

I really can't see how this is bad for Telecom at all.

Here's why (and maybe this was all planned - no idea, but just a thought).

They were orginally going to launch at the end of May anyway.
They decide to bring it forward to 13 May knowing that there were still interference issues (which, BTW, they have never denied).

There was then going to be 1 of 3 scenarios:

a) Voda doesn't do anything, Telecom launches, nice little coup.
b) Voda challenges in court, all the dirty laundry comes out about poor service/reception etc, they lose and Telecom launches on 13 May. Voda looks bad, Telecom gets a nice little coup and priceless publicity for XT.
c) Voda challenges in court (dirty laundry etc etc) and wins. Voda still has aired their dirty laundry, XT still gets priceless publicity, and Telecom launches around when they were originally going to anyway.

It's more than likely the judge was going to go for option c) regardless.

Can't see a downside for Telecom in any of that.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries

Indio

153 posts

Master Geek

# 213068 7-May-2009 09:44

catapulter: Hmmmm...

Nonetheless I will be interested to see what the press make of the whole thing in the next couple of days.

Fascinating...

I wouldn't hold my breath for any intelligent commentary from the usual suspects in the popular press. At some level, I'd like to believe that some suit at Telecom made the smart call that the cost of drawing Vodafone out was worth the risk of court action.

I believe Telecom gained priceless publicity for their XTN, and I suspect they knew all along that the launch date was closer to June than May 13th.
I'd like to think someone as Telecom has a sense of occassion: 13th May (1995) was the day we won the America's Cup off San Diego Yacht Club with Black Magic

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 213072 7-May-2009 09:59

I still fail to see how anything has been "proven". We don't know the type of interference, or why it was causing problems. Both are necessary for any fault to be shown.

What we do know is that TNZ decided that it was cheaper to put a rush on adding more filters and delay a week than to argue about it.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Old Grey Geek

140 posts

Master Geek

# 213076 7-May-2009 10:03

"Maybe some of the Telecom fanboys shouldn't have publically criticised Vodafone so quickly.."

I don't think either companies have fans, more a question of which one you despise the least.

I made a point up thread about Vodafone now being seen for what it is, a multinational, a very big multinational. Whereas Telecom are a small player in comparison.

By taking Telecom to court Vodafone was always going to win, it has the bigger legal budget, it could have dragged this out for months, all at Telecom's expence.
fanboy is such a juvenile term and belittles the discussion.

Indio

153 posts

Master Geek

# 213077 7-May-2009 10:04

jpollock: I still fail to see how anything has been "proven". We don't know the type of interference, or why it was causing problems. Both are necessary for any fault to be shown.

What we do know is that TNZ decided that it was cheaper to put a rush on adding more filters and delay a week than to argue about it.

It was a publicity stunt by Telecom which has worked out nicely for them. Hasn't cost much more than the $700/hr for at best 10 hours work (if that) for their legal beagles.
The filter installation programme was already rolled out, and the Vodafone injunction was the icing on the pr cake...

JonC

425 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 213078 7-May-2009 10:08

walt12: The history of the Telecom-Vodafone relationship in this space is that there is very rarely only one side to blame. People should remember that for future reference before jumping to conclusions.

Neither side come out of this looking very good. Telecom because they brought forward their launch before the interference issues were finally resolved, and Vodafone because they ran to Court when clearly continued dialogue was the best way forward. In that sense, shame on both of them, another sorry chapter in NZ telecommunications.

Lets just all look forward now to the arrival of the new network, to some real competition once NZ Comms get off the ground, and the the ComCom driving termination rates lower ...

Exactly - there are parallels with school-yard spats and running to the teacher in this whole thing - neither side looks terribly flash.

brentbart

137 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

# 213079 7-May-2009 10:10

There is a saying I like ... "its better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt". Perhaps some need to learn that on this forum.

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30