Are you business or residential?

id say the economy is contributing to the slow rollout.  If not enough business demand then it’s hardly self funding right? 
Enable needs to make a return on investment (and I certainly hope they make cash given I live in Christchurch and Enable (the last time I checked), was still majority owned by the local council and I certainly want them to keep pumping cash into the council to reduce rates burdens on residents! 

For consumers 
- hyperfibre requires a lot of investment on upgrading to suitable routers, cables and devices capable…. I’d say the appetite isn’t there at the moment for a lot of businesses and even less for Jo average householders.   (Seems to be limited consumer options (none)  for routers under $500 and if you think about it….most people get by with current offerings.

@melted Why do you need Hyperfibre?? Gb connection is plenty for 99% of home users

Have you contacted them more recently than 31 months ago? What was the response?

https://help.enable.net.nz/hc/en-us/requests/new 

@melted  I have Rang, even subscribed to Enable multiple times through there email updates and yet nothing 

kinda frustrating really. I'm super excited for hyper Fibre for Christchurch and greater Christchurch to get it 

Hopefully very soon we will get information with the rest of the roll out :) 

I saw some news on their website recently about expanding their network around Kaiapoi and rangiora area, My guess is they're focused on that for now Extending our network | Enable

Nothing for Pegasus though?

quickymart:

Nothing for Pegasus though?

What I am seeing working in the industry and hearing from my industry peers is the demand for Hyperfibre in the general population is low. 

By far the most common connections are 300/100 and 950/500.

Therefore its just good commercial sense for the LFC's to focus on extending network coverage.

MichaelNZ:

 

What I am seeing working in the industry and hearing from my industry peers is the demand for Hyperfibre in the general population is low. 

 

Even outside the general population, the use cases for needing it that aren't "bragging rights" or "because I can" are few and far between. 

Also working in the industry, and with a lot of businesses, I do see a lot of them will have business-grade hardware which will support 2.5Gbps so in some aspect I can see it being useable for larger businesses, but SMB and residential can easily get away with your standard Gigabit connection. 

I worked with an ISP last year that rolled out 2Gbps and 4Gbps hyperfibre as soon as Chorus made it available and there were lots and lots of issues. I'd like to see hyperfibre stay out of the consumer space for the moment, but that's just me.

Chills:

 

I worked with an ISP last year that rolled out 2Gbps and 4Gbps hyperfibre as soon as Chorus made it available and there were lots and lots of issues. I'd like to see hyperfibre stay out of the consumer space for the moment, but that's just me.

 

In support of the above, I note there are complaints on this forum where the posters believe they are getting short changed because Speed Test didn't give them the number they wanted for bragging rights.

MichaelNZ:

 

What I am seeing working in the industry and hearing from my industry peers is the demand for Hyperfibre in the general population is low. 

 

By far the most common connections are 300/100 and 950/500.

 

Therefore its just good commercial sense for the LFC's to focus on extending network coverage.

 

I'd imagine adoption would be far greater if they just offered a 1000/1000 plan.. not everyone wants to invest in 10gbit networking to have 4000/4000 internet..

dfnt:

 

I'd imagine adoption would be far greater if they just offered a 1000/1000 plan.. not everyone wants to invest in 10gbit networking to have 4000/4000 internet..

 

On the money, I would be one to purchase this plan.

Chills:

 

On the money, I would be one to purchase this plan.

 

I'm a cynic, but IMHO the LFC's have little motivation to do this, wanting uplink over 500 is still a relatively niche thing. I'd argue the price gap between 1000/500 and 2000/2000 is small enough that there's not really much room to add yet another plan in between them, so that leaves replacing 1000/500 with 1000/1000. I can't see them doing that to appease a small minority of users who'll probably upgrade to 2000/2000 if they really need the extra uplink.

Lias:

 

I'm a cynic, but IMHO the LFC's have little motivation to do this, wanting uplink over 500 is still a relatively niche thing. I'd argue the price gap between 1000/500 and 2000/2000 is small enough that there's not really much room to add yet another plan in between them, so that leaves replacing 1000/500 with 1000/1000. I can't see them doing that to appease a small minority of users who'll probably upgrade to 2000/2000 if they really need the extra uplink.

 

I do see your point, and you aren't wrong. I guess the point that's being made is that (most) hardware rated for Gigabit will support it up and down so you're getting that proper Gigabit on Consumer hardware that you already have. 

It would probably need to be trialed within the market to see if it's a thing that would be picked up by enough people, but I could see it replacing 1000/500. 

In a perfect world. I'd see the plans as:

Starter: 50/10

Middle: 300/100 

Ultra: 1000/1000