Any ways to push Chorus to wire for free?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Any ways to push Chorus to wire for free?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#3194816 13-Feb-2024 19:15

There are plenty of areas where fibre simply isn't available through no fault of the landlord, and the cost to provide service could be approaching the cost of a new house. It seems excessive to ban renting these properties out.

Banning new construction of individual homes in areas with no fibre likewise seems excessive.

However, requiring fibre for new subdivisions with more than n homes (and possible more than a certain density of properties) seems fairly reasonable, as does requiring landlords and developers to provide fibre connections where fibre is fairly trivially available.

nztim

4013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2711

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3194820 13-Feb-2024 19:36

Goosey: What do you mean by “register” the houses.
Did they mean code compliance for each dwelling or is there a plan for seperate unit titles for the allotment that’s been subdivided ?

DM Me (offered earlier)

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

nztim

4013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2711

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3194823 13-Feb-2024 19:41

SomeoneSomewhere:

There are plenty of areas where fibre simply isn't available through no fault of the landlord, and the cost to provide service could be approaching the cost of a new house. It seems excessive to ban renting these properties out.

We are not referring to a rentals where there is no fibre in the street, but if fibre is in the street, the landlord should be compelled to pay for in-fill to get the additional dwellings connected.

SomeoneSomewhere:

Banning new construction of individual homes in areas with no fibre likewise seems excessive.

Chorus now won't provide copper to new addresses even in non fibre areas, all developers outside the fibre footprint must pay however many 100s of 1000s of dollars to get fibre to them.

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

nztim

4013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2711

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3194839 13-Feb-2024 19:46

Jase2985:

search digital divide in New Zealand.

Everyone should have the opportunity to be able to connect to fibre broadband.

estimates range from $500millon+ to get from 87% to 95% coverage

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

Jase2985

13734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6209

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3194850 13-Feb-2024 20:30

nztim:

Jase2985:

search digital divide in New Zealand.

Everyone should have the opportunity to be able to connect to fibre broadband.

estimates range from $500millon+ to get from 87% to 95% coverage

yep but in this case they are in town with fibre on the street but the developer didnt connect them.

Should be a requirement in fibre zones

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9679

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3194857 13-Feb-2024 20:55

SomeoneSomewhere:

There are plenty of areas where fibre simply isn't available through no fault of the landlord, and the cost to provide service could be approaching the cost of a new house. It seems excessive to ban renting these properties out.

Banning new construction of individual homes in areas with no fibre likewise seems excessive.

However, requiring fibre for new subdivisions with more than n homes (and possible more than a certain density of properties) seems fairly reasonable, as does requiring landlords and developers to provide fibre connections where fibre is fairly trivially available.

I think the landlord is the wrong person to blame.

It should be a condition of getting final CoC for the developer that fibre is laid to the ETP if it is in a UFB area.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#3194871 13-Feb-2024 22:02

Handle9:

SomeoneSomewhere:

There are plenty of areas where fibre simply isn't available through no fault of the landlord, and the cost to provide service could be approaching the cost of a new house. It seems excessive to ban renting these properties out.

Banning new construction of individual homes in areas with no fibre likewise seems excessive.

However, requiring fibre for new subdivisions with more than n homes (and possible more than a certain density of properties) seems fairly reasonable, as does requiring landlords and developers to provide fibre connections where fibre is fairly trivially available.

I think the landlord is the wrong person to blame.

It should be a condition of getting final CoC for the developer that fibre is laid to the ETP if it is in a UFB area.

Yes, or even require the ONT to be installed.

I read the previous comments as wanting a blanket ban on renting out any property that didn't have fibre installed - regardless of whether it's new build or existing, and whether it's in a UFB area.

The obvious question being whether a new farmhouse out the back of Ekatahuna needs a fibre connection, although that would likely be owner-occupier.

In this case though it seems like the developer and landlord are the same person.

quickymart

14940 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13954

ID Verified

#3194872 13-Feb-2024 22:08

@gunpowder how are talks going with the landlord?

gunpowder

22 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#3194874 13-Feb-2024 22:22

quickymart:
@gunpowder how are talks going with the landlord?

No updates so far :-) i will let you know how the story will end :-)

Jase2985

13734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6209

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3194880 14-Feb-2024 05:19

quickymart:

@gunpowder how are talks going with the landlord?

stop asking every day/second day

raytaylor

4076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1296

Trusted

#3194885 14-Feb-2024 07:12

richms:

It amazes me with how much the govt has put into the fiber network they do not mandate a connection inside any tenantable property for it to legally be allowed to rent out like they do with running water, a sewer or septic system and having power and an oven.

The government only loaned money to build the fiber networks. It wasnt a grant.

However,

They have made it so a landlord cannot practicably prevent a tennant having fiber installed into a house.
And most council district plan rules for subdivisions require that when a property is subdivided, utilities including telco must be bought up to the property boundary ready for an occupant of that new property (not dwelling) to be able to place an order for service.

So the requirements are there.

What the government cannot do is compel those telco companies to preinstall services without a subscription order. I know chorus does this with their in-tact ONT programme but the government cannot force them to do it.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#3195034 14-Feb-2024 12:32

The government/councils don't currently force them to do it. It is not clear that that is the same as can't.

And most council district plan rules for subdivisions require that when a property is subdivided, utilities including telco must be bought up to the property boundary ready for an occupant of that new property (not dwelling) to be able to place an order for service.

What's the distinction between property and dwelling here and is it relevant?

If there's a requirement for telco lines to be brought up to the boundary, should there be a requirement for this to include sufficient lines for the number of units being built? It sounds like that's the problem here.

Not running the green conduit in the trench when it's open on a 100m long driveway also seems like one of those cheap-out moves that could be forbidden by planning rules but isn't.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#3195059 14-Feb-2024 13:59

I know a Landlord who bought a property that turned out to be in this situation.

To do right by the tenants, he simply shared the single existing connection. People are often uncomfortable with this arrangement, but it is financially win-win. Fibre is plenty fast enough, tenant gets 1/2 price internet, L.L. gets 1/2 price internet. I'm sure there is something in the T&C's, but no one will lose sleep over that.

(Edit: the 2nd unit eventually got a proper connection but tenant didn't want to active it as the existing arrangement was highly satisfactory to them).

nztim

4013 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2711

ID Verified

Trusted

TEAMnetwork

Subscriber

#3195085 14-Feb-2024 15:34

tripper1000:

I know a Landlord who bought a property that turned out to be in this situation.

To do right by the tenants, he simply shared the single existing connection. People are often uncomfortable with this arrangement, but it is financially win-win. Fibre is plenty fast enough, tenant gets 1/2 price internet, L.L. gets 1/2 price internet. I'm sure there is something in the T&C's, but no one will lose sleep over that.

(Edit: the 2nd unit eventually got a proper connection but tenant didn't want to active it as the existing arrangement was highly satisfactory to them).

The account holder is liable for any irresponsible use (torrenting)

Also in that arrangement I would expect each unit to have a separate VLAN, otherwise people will be casting to each others TVs

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

Jase2985

13734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6209

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3195086 14-Feb-2024 15:43

@raytaylor:

However,

They have made it so a landlord cannot practicably prevent a tennant having fiber installed into a house.

Yep but then who pays for it, if its infill housing? bit different if its an existing place with a fibre drop already there.

@raytaylor:
And most council district plan rules for subdivisions require that when a property is subdivided, utilities including telco must be bought up to the property boundary ready for an occupant of that new property (not dwelling) to be able to place an order for service.

So the requirements are there.

Please show where it states that from the council? Might be true for a green fields new build, but this is brown fields' infill, which i suspect wouldn't be the same as the original property meet all the requirements.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5