Landlord forbids fibre installation

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Landlord forbids fibre installation

1 | 2

nztim

4012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2710

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3074840 10-May-2023 22:39

Thanks @Wheelbarrow01 check your DM

Any views expressed on these forums are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of my employer.

openmedia

3449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 878

Trusted

#3074986 11-May-2023 12:33

nztim:

If I was a landlord I would demand where and how its installed (e.g I would not let it get tacked to a fence or a shallow bury across a driveway)

But adding fibre to my property increases its value.

Ahead of fibre install in our rental we installed a distribution cabinet in the garage on an external wall with easy access for the fibre run.

We provided an install plan to Chorus and the tennant - and then the Chorus tech turned up and refused to install unless it was to the furthest corner of the lounge on the opposite side of the house, including running the fibre along a fence to avoid trenching. Thankfully our tenant rang us and we spoke to the installer, and then their boss. Ultimately they agreed our install plan was easier and much much shorter, but the tech told me that 99% of his installs run along fences. ARGH.

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#3074991 11-May-2023 12:55

We had this issue with our rental property. The installation option offered was grey conduit up the street side of the house. This, on the street facing side of a painstakingly restored (by me) Edwardian Villa. I spent hours recladding, filling, sanding and painting that wall and relocating down pipes to give it a clean look from the road. There was no effing way it was having conduit run up it. It was also to be a 'back-to-back' installation, with the ONT in one corner of the house in an unhelpful location for WiFi. The guy that came to the house was very helpful, but clearly had limited flexibility available to him.

In the end I agreed to pay extra for different wall penetration location, with a longer run, beside a bunch of other services on the side of the house. And then I paid for a guy to run some internal Ethernet cabling to a suitable location for a WiFi router. Expensive and PITA job (I had to partially deconstruct a fence) but the tenants were happy and the installer was happy. My back account wasn't but at least the house still looks good from the street.

There can be valid reasons to reject an installation proposal. Not all landlords are a-holes.

Mike

nztim

4012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2710

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3075044 11-May-2023 15:52

MikeAqua:

There can be valid reasons to reject an installation proposal. Not all landlords are a-holes.

A proposal / plan yes, not a flat out no to have fibre installed I am with you on this one.

Any views expressed on these forums are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of my employer.

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3075135 11-May-2023 18:38

If the landlord rejected the free plan then it's up to them to get someone to install one that they're happy with. At the landlords cost.

Richard rich.ms

everettpsycho

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 270

#3075238 11-May-2023 19:58

Always interesting reading @wheelbarrow01 responses on this, I was lead to believe that you guys didn't use core logic data and that was very much used to tie the LFC datasets together via their unique ID, so hearing you do use it goes against a lot of what I was told.

Not sure on chorus network structure of rules but there is options to resolve capacity that isn't that invasive but it will entirely depend on the areas make up and how much overhead the initial design had for growth and how much growth has happened. Taking a fibre tube and feeding multiple properties can be achieved with either a pedestal or wall mounted distribution panel to use one tube to reach multiple properties with their own fibres. The issue is up stream at the cabinet that would have been designed for X properties, say 150. Designers would have likely left some capacity for growth and mistakes based on what they could see but it only takes someone like Williams corp to replace 1 house with 10 town houses and that growth buffer can be eaten up very fast. Remedying overloaded cabinets gets very expensive very fast and that's where developers pay for their subdivisions.

In my time I rarely denied service to additional address points in these scenarios, the primary reason for saying no was usually if they were dubious and obviously illegal and therefore likely to be torn out and as a result no return gained on the outlay.

1 | 2