![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
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?
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.
Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.
I don't think either companies have fans, more a question of which one you despise the least.
.
w2krules: "There is no such thing as bad publicity"
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: 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.
Rural IT and Broadband support.
Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally
Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |