Vodafone extending the Cable network?

Forums › Vodafone New Zealand › Vodafone extending the Cable network?

Dairusire

194 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

Topic # 128688 20-Aug-2013 10:39

Hi guys, So I'm curious.

With Vodafone still not offering UFB and opting to instead keep carrying on with their own network (cable). So I'm wondering will Vodafone be extending their cable network into auckland and the like? Considering the telstra-cable network has not really been developed much recently, are there any plans at all to expand it?

1 | 2 | 3

1442 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 502

Trusted

Reply # 881438 20-Aug-2013 10:42

No plans at present as far as I'm aware.

Product Manager @ PB Tech

https://pbtech.co.nz/smartphones

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 881442 20-Aug-2013 10:49

iirc Auckland didn't want HFC. They didn't want lines on the power polls, they only want under ground cables, which is really expensive to install (read 10 times the cost).

Chorus will be putting fibre in eventually.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Dairusire

194 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

Reply # 881445 20-Aug-2013 10:52

DonGould: iirc Auckland didn't want HFC. They didn't want lines on the power polls, they only want under ground cables, which is really expensive to install (read 10 times the cost).

Chorus will be putting fibre in eventually.

If thats the case, thats a real shame really :( tbh it's kinda a silly move by auckland counsel if thats the case

cws82us

734 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6

Reply # 881449 20-Aug-2013 11:03

I think maybe they just going to use fibre now on.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 881450 20-Aug-2013 11:05

extremely unlikley they would do this.

They would be spending hundred of millions of dollars to build a network to compete against a superior, and government subsidised UFB network. why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

Dairusire

194 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

Reply # 881452 20-Aug-2013 11:08

NonprayingMantis: extremely unlikley they would do this.

They would be spending hundred of millions of dollars to build a network to compete against a superior, and government subsidised UFB network. why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

If thats the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them delivering skyTV etc over fibre. That would be absolutely epic if they where to try to do that.

EDIT:

Would delivering TV over fibre even be possible?

Inphinity

2528 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 939

Subscriber

Reply # 881453 20-Aug-2013 11:08

Dairusire:
DonGould: iirc Auckland didn't want HFC. They didn't want lines on the power polls, they only want under ground cables, which is really expensive to install (read 10 times the cost).

Chorus will be putting fibre in eventually.

If thats the case, thats a real shame really :( tbh it's kinda a silly move by auckland counsel if thats the case

Why is it a silly move? Many areas don't have overhead power lines anymore, and it makes little financial sense to fund deploying a cable network, with FTTH happening (which imo is superior).

Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 881456 20-Aug-2013 11:10

Dairusire:
NonprayingMantis: extremely unlikley they would do this.

They would be spending hundred of millions of dollars to build a network to compete against a superior, and government subsidised UFB network. why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

If thats the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them delivering skyTV etc over fibre. That would be absolutely epic if they where to try to do that.

what would be the point in that? I'd rather have on-demand, better content, than expensive and crummy linear scheduled sky stuff shoved down my throat, besides which I can already get that via satelite if I want it, which has 100% nationwide coverage.

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 881457 20-Aug-2013 11:11

NonprayingMantis: why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

The reason you bother over building layer 1 networks is so that you can't end up with a captured network as easily.

Yes it might cost a billion dollars to put a second network into Auckland, but that's chump change in the big picture and well worth the investment.

Same argument can be said for another cable to Australia.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Dairusire

194 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

Reply # 881462 20-Aug-2013 11:19

NonprayingMantis:
Dairusire:
NonprayingMantis: extremely unlikley they would do this.

They would be spending hundred of millions of dollars to build a network to compete against a superior, and government subsidised UFB network. why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

If thats the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them delivering skyTV etc over fibre. That would be absolutely epic if they where to try to do that.

what would be the point in that? I'd rather have on-demand, better content, than expensive and crummy linear scheduled sky stuff shoved down my throat, besides which I can already get that via satelite if I want it, which has 100% nationwide coverage.

To me I see sense in it, because to brings in a single bill. I for one do like the fact they deliver a TV service over cable as cable does not get affected by rain fade and other ways which deminish the signal. Just saying as it's deffinately not a silly option if the ability to do it is there.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 881468 20-Aug-2013 11:28

Dairusire:
NonprayingMantis:
Dairusire:
NonprayingMantis: extremely unlikley they would do this.

They would be spending hundred of millions of dollars to build a network to compete against a superior, and government subsidised UFB network. why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

If thats the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them delivering skyTV etc over fibre. That would be absolutely epic if they where to try to do that.

what would be the point in that? I'd rather have on-demand, better content, than expensive and crummy linear scheduled sky stuff shoved down my throat, besides which I can already get that via satelite if I want it, which has 100% nationwide coverage.

To me I see sense in it, because to brings in a single bill. I for one do like the fact they deliver a TV service over cable as cable does not get affected by rain fade and other ways which deminish the signal. Just saying as it's deffinately not a silly option if the ability to do it is there.

you can alreayd get sky on the same bill with VF, but its delivered via satalite. But I don't see why it is such a big deal for it to be on the same bill. Does anyone realy care that much about having one bill for TV and broadband? I certainly don't care.

yes the rain faid (or lack of) would be a benefit, but it is thinking much too small. the benefit of TV over broadband is that there is no need for Sky at all creating shcedules to force you to watch shows at times you may not want to watch them. Netflix etc is vastly better. much rather ISPs did something like that than the same old repackaged BS linear rubbish.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 881469 20-Aug-2013 11:29

DonGould:
NonprayingMantis: why bother when they can just buy the inputs from their LFC like everyone else.

The reason you bother over building layer 1 networks is so that you can't end up with a captured network as easily.

Yes it might cost a billion dollars to put a second network into Auckland, but that's chump change in the big picture and well worth the investment.

Same argument can be said for another cable to Australia.

lol, $1bn is not chump change for Vodafone NZ.

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 881470 20-Aug-2013 11:32

NonprayingMantis: lol, $1bn is not chump change for Vodafone NZ.

Agreed... but it is for a government committed to open uncaptured networks.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 881474 20-Aug-2013 11:37

DonGould:
NonprayingMantis: lol, $1bn is not chump change for Vodafone NZ.

Agreed... but it is for a government committed to open uncaptured networks.

and is our government one of those?

Coil

6417 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2045

Trusted

Reply # 881494 20-Aug-2013 12:07

Hi,

Giving the roll out of UFB and HFC is a ageing technology it wouldnt be an efficient network to roll out. We are still running the UFB trial and if you are in an area that is Fibre capable you can definitely apply for the trial. Check here: http://www.chorus.co.nz/maps If you are not Fibre capable, VDSL would be the next best option. Refer to teh map: http://bcc.telecomwholesale.co.nz/# to see VDSL capabilities.

I kind of went too far into options that you can have but its good information anyway.

Quotes form replies.

"
If
thats the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them delivering skyTV etc over
fibre. That would be absolutely epic if they where to try to do that.EDIT: Would delivering TV over fibre even be possible?
"

IP TV is definitely a future possibility, With the introduction of fibre all these new technologies are at our finger tips.

1 | 2 | 3