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

428 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Reply # 213081 7-May-2009 10:11

"There is no such thing as bad publicity"

I was a geek before the word was invented!

sbiddle

27279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6709

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 213082 7-May-2009 10:16

Old Grey Geek: 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.

I disagree entirely. Some of the arguments, statements and comments made by Vodafone's legal team were nothing but laughable. On that basis Telecom could have easily won points by presenting solid facts.

I can see a huge irony in that while the expensive lawyers are in court trying to claim Telecom had no issue that the engineers were busy nutting out a technical solution - a solution that they already seemed to be aware of as they had already set targets of the end of May to install filters on affected sites.

Expensive lawyers FTW..

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Reply # 213083 7-May-2009 10:17

kiwitrc:

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?

You've never been sued before, have you? Divorced? Obviously not.

Being "right" has nothing at all to do with it. Deciding that it isn't worth (too expensive) arguing over does.

Every day in the launch date has an actual dollar value attached to it, so it becomes some pretty simple math. If you consider that post-launch, TNZ would conceivably expect to end up with 50% of the market after 2 years. So, going from 30%->50% means....

TNZ 2008 mobile revenue = NZ$201m/30*50 = 335m, or an additional 135m/yr.

Therefore, a days delay is ~NZ$360,000.

Even without knowing how much a filter costs, it's pretty easy to see that the benefits of just "getting it done" outweigh the cost of litigation.

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

Talkiet

3761 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2275

Trusted

Spark NZ

Reply # 213086 7-May-2009 10:21

jpollock:
kiwitrc:

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?

You've never been sued before, have you? Divorced? Obviously not.

Being "right" has nothing at all to do with it. Deciding that it isn't worth (too expensive) arguing over does.

Quoted For Truth. +1 insight for this man.

Cheers - N

keewee01

1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

Reply # 213087 7-May-2009 10:24

It will be particularly interesting to see if the filters solve all the issues. I suspect they won't, at which point Vodafones equipment will be shown up for what it is... I wonder how they will stop the exodus from their network from continuing then? And who will be blamed next? Any way you look at it Telecom keeps on winning - again and again and again.

Decimate

120 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 213088 7-May-2009 10:26

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

.

Gold!!

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 213089 7-May-2009 10:28

Telecom admitted their network was causing interference (both in court and prior to the court case in the CEOs press release) so I'm not sure why anybody would say that they claimed otherwise. (the extent of the interference and who was responsible for fixing it was the matter in dispute)

The main contentious issue for Telecom was their claim that if Voda have been aware of the interference for so long, as they claimed, why wait until only 10 days before launch to bring it up? and why go straight to court when a mediation would have been more sensible? Going to court just makes them sound childish and petty (as if they knew that mentioning the extent of the interference sooner would give telecom time to implement fixes long before launch, whereas saving it up for a few days before launch forces Telecom to delay their network and look bad)

It does seem a little odd to me that voda rejected mediation just a couple of days before the case (from the herald) "Vodafone spokesman Paul Brislen said it was too late to keep the matter out of court with mediation",
and then proceeded to settle out of court in the end, that has basically the same result as the mediation would have done (i.e. the sensible result).

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Reply # 213092 7-May-2009 10:32

Telecom caused interference but are within the limits allowed according to their spectrum licence (according to them - did MED ever say this?) so aren't liable from that perspective.

So the injuction is over-and-above the spectrum licence rules. Therefore even though they are ok by their licence, Telecom agrees that they are causing interference and agrees to install filters to avoid losing the injunction and being forced to pay damages and costs. (Can't have Vodafone's customers not being able to call 111 now can we?)

If this is the case then perhaps the licence conditions aren't sufficient for such close proximity (frequency wise) of PMP TXs and RXs.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user

Reply # 213093 7-May-2009 10:34

w2krules: "There is no such thing as bad publicity"

The directors of San Lu Milk Powder may disagree.

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Reply # 213094 7-May-2009 10:35

NonprayingMantis: Telecom admitted their network was causing interference (both in court and prior to the court case in the CEOs press release) so I'm not sure why anybody would say that they claimed otherwise. (the extent of the interference and who was responsible for fixing it was the matter in dispute)

The main contentious issue for Telecom was their claim that if Voda have been aware of the interference for so long, as they claimed, why wait until only 10 days before launch to bring it up? and why go straight to court when a mediation would have been more sensible? Going to court just makes them sound childish and petty (as if they knew that mentioning the extent of the interference sooner would give telecom time to implement fixes long before launch, whereas saving it up for a few days before launch forces Telecom to delay their network and look bad)

It does seem a little odd to me that voda rejected mediation just a couple of days before the case (from the herald) "Vodafone spokesman Paul Brislen said it was too late to keep the matter out of court with mediation", and then proceeded to settle out of court in the end, that has basically the same result as the mediation would have done (i.e. the sensible result).

They have been working on this since the start of the year. Vodafone wanted to get it resolved before the launch. Telecom didn't. When Telecom brought the launch date forward Vodafone believed that the only way to get it resolved was to go to court to get more time.

paradoxsm

3000 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 213120 7-May-2009 11:30

I have not noticed any degradation apart from usual outage stuff with Vodafones network either in good coverage or fringe rual coverage at either 900MHZ umts, or 2100 MHz and I have a few things reliant on the 3G system. Running a spec analyser OTA showed nothing unusual either though that is hardly scientific. I wonder if Vodafone have filters on their network?

I'm usually the first to open my mouth when it starts to fail.

coffeebaron

5290 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2318

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 213126 7-May-2009 11:55

paradoxsm: I have not noticed any degradation apart from usual outage stuff with Vodafones network either in good coverage or fringe rual coverage at either 900MHZ umts, or 2100 MHz and I have a few things reliant on the 3G system. Running a spec analyser OTA showed nothing unusual either though that is hardly scientific. I wonder if Vodafone have filters on their network?

I'm usually the first to open my mouth when it starts to fail.

I believe the issue only affected Vodafone's 900GSM. Which would also have appeared to effect 3G as phone switch between the two.
I typically have my phone locked to 3G, and have not noticed the impact of this interference.

Chorus has spent $1.4 billion on making their xDSL broadband network faster. If your still stuck on ADSL or VDSL, why not spend from $150 on a master filter install to make sure you are getting the most out of your connection?
I install - Naked DSL, DSL Master Splitters, VoIP, data cabling and general computer support for home and small business.
Rural Broadband RBI installer for Ultimate Broadband and Full Flavour

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com