Pretty sure contract law in nz is set up in a way that damages can only be recovered for the portion of services not provided. 

Therefore if the subscriber actually used the fiber-x service then the portion of that usage for the data delivered would be still payable to vodafone. 

So i would only be expecting vf to issue a token gesture refund of 1-2 months of service, since they actually did deliver a comparable service which was accepted and used by the subscriber.  

Although we compete against vodafone i have to agree with them on this matter. Vodafone should be under no obligation to sell a UFB product in a territory they dont want to - there are costs such as handovers and exchange space they must endure to run a UFB product that they dont want to sell. 

In the UK (and many parts of the US in AT&T territory) if you ask for fibre, its just VDSL (sometimes bonded) and fed by fiber-to-the-cabinet. 

In australia its illegal for a company to build a fixed line network to compete against the NBN and subscribers just buy a speed package and dont get an option of how its delivered (vdsl, g.fast, adsl2, fiber to the home, satelite, 4g, HFC cable and each of those has its own varying contention ratios)

If the network has a significant portion as fiber then its a technically correct term. xDSL is another one that describes a product which everyone accepts as a correct name for that product. And a significant portion of that product is NOT DSL

Their address checker doesn't seem to have changed. Still says FibreX is my only option when I put my address in there.

ChrisVodafoneNZ:

 

Lias:

 

Good, long overdue, it's utterly misleading. When you throw in them also refusing offer UFB services to customers in HFC areas, it looks even worse. I hope they get a record fine, and it's a shame that the executives who signed off on it can't be thrown in jail for a few years.

 

 

 

 

By definition, FibreX and full fibre are both ultra-fast broadband.  It is not a registered trade mark and it is not specific to the Government’s UFB Initiative. 

 

I don't get it, fibrex is a fibre connection so surely you have the right to use the word fibre in the product name? 

Are they saying FibreX is breaking the rules because it is confused with the official NZ rollout for UFB? 

Sorry if i misunderstand anything here, I only skimmed some of the replies. 

surfisup1000:

 

I don't get it, fibrex is a fibre connection so surely you have the right to use the word fibre in the product name? 

 

Are they saying FibreX is breaking the rules because it is confused with the official NZ rollout for UFB? 

 

Sorry if i misunderstand anything here, I only skimmed some of the replies. 

 

The "last mile" is coaxial, not fibre. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fibre-coaxial#Final_connection_to_customers )

and the fibrex plans also differ in speed to those of proper fibre

stinger:

surfisup1000:

I don't get it, fibrex is a fibre connection so surely you have the right to use the word fibre in the product name? 

Are they saying FibreX is breaking the rules because it is confused with the official NZ rollout for UFB? 

Sorry if i misunderstand anything here, I only skimmed some of the replies. 

The "last mile" is coaxial, not fibre. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fibre-coaxial#Final_connection_to_customers )

Jase2985:

 

and the fibrex plans also differ in speed to those of proper fibre

 

If you knew the details then why not make it clear for anyone reading this topic?

As it is, there are only two available FibreX plans and only one differs in speed but that difference in upload speed is significant:

FibreX 200/20 = UFB 200/20

FibreX Max 700-900/90-95 ≠ UFB 900-950/400-500

Its time the 20 mbit upload was abolished and the minimum fibre became 100 down/100 up

@surfisup1000:

 

I don't get it, fibrex is a fibre connection so surely you have the right to use the word fibre in the product name? 

 

Are they saying FibreX is breaking the rules because it is confused with the official NZ rollout for UFB? 

 

Sorry if i misunderstand anything here, I only skimmed some of the replies. 

 

Fibre X is not a fibre to the home service. It uses the same old cable network available in Wellington, Kapiti and Christchurch. Yes, the same one that used to be TelstraClear, Saturn and Chello before that. From the late 90s (yes, well, with upgrades since then).

But it's not fibre.

FibreX is a confusing name. Call it UFB, but it's not fibre.

This is no different than Theresa Gattung and Telecom's "confusion marketing", from back in 2006.

BarTender:

 

It's exactly the same if Chorus marketed VDSL as FibreV as the DSLAM is fed by Fibre. I know people really close to the DSLAM would get 100/30 or faster. Yes it's copper for the last 200 Meters but you are getting UFB style speeds on the 100/20 plan.

But you shouldn't because it's not fibre to the home.

Same should apply to Vodafone.

That reminds me of the good old days.

Yeah, I told Cooke and Wheatstone that they shouldn't call it a "telegram" because the last mile is by messenger. They took my advice because it should only be a "telegram" as far as the electrical telegraph cable. But those damned Americans weren't so particular and next year they were calling them telegrams without regard for the fact the cable ended at the railway station.

As long as there's fibre somewhere along the line, High Court judge reckons it's fine to flog it as 'fibre' broadband

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/15/asa_cityfibre_fibre_broadband_judicial_review/ 

Interesting they went in the complete opposite direction

So did this court case finish in the end, or is it still in progress?

quickymart:

 

So did this court case finish in the end, or is it still in progress?

 

Was put off till Apr 3 to head to court so probably still throwing stones across desks