Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


4 posts

Wannabe Geek


Topic # 201386 16-Aug-2016 18:20
Send private message

Im hoping someone at Chorus sees us. I have applied for UFB via Vodafone and they are stuck on the "requiring consent" issue because we have a shared driveway.

 

1) Our neighbors are away all the time, and are quite elderley so doing things via email is difficult for them, so I have not been able to obtain their signature on a consent form yet.

 

2) They have signed up for UFB and have had a site visit, yet we have not been required to sign a consent form for them.

 

3) Both of our properties have easements attached for the "Right to convey telecommunications" (among st other things), meaning consent is not required. 

 

No one at Vodafone or Chorus can seem to understand that consent is not required for us to install broadband. I have attached a copy of the easement (which I have sent to Vodafone. I asked them for an email address to send it to and they told me www.vodafone.co.nz but thats a story for another day!)

 

I am hoping someone here can connect me with the right people to move this forward. We already have telecommunications ducting in place so it should be an easy install. 

 

It would also be interesting to find out, given the fact we are 2 identical townhouses (connected together) why they did not require consent but we do? 

 

Click to see full size 

 

 

 

 


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
26956 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6402

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612643 16-Aug-2016 18:45
Send private message

UFB is not an essential service like copper so things are treated didfferently.

 

Chorus don't handle the consent process, so while they may be able to help they're not the ones actually processing these.

 

 


515 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Subscriber

  Reply # 1612654 16-Aug-2016 18:56
2 people support this post
Send private message

sbiddle:

 

UFB is not an essential service like copper so things are treated didfferently.

 

Chorus don't handle the consent process, so while they may be able to help they're not the ones actually processing these.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since phone service is now delivered over fiber would that change the implications of essential.

 

i see it as essential infrastructure.






4403 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2405

Trusted

  Reply # 1612655 16-Aug-2016 18:57
5 people support this post
Send private message

As usual, legislation hasn't kept up with technology.


'That VDSL Cat'
8474 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1825

Trusted
Spark
Subscriber

  Reply # 1612656 16-Aug-2016 18:58
Send private message

phantomdb:

 

sbiddle:

 

UFB is not an essential service like copper so things are treated didfferently.

 

Chorus don't handle the consent process, so while they may be able to help they're not the ones actually processing these.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since phone service is now delivered over fiber would that change the implications of essential.

 

i see it as essential infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

Agreed, hopefully it will catch up eventually.... 





#include <std_disclaimer>

 

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.


6270 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612661 16-Aug-2016 19:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

phantomdb: Since phone service is now delivered over fiber would that change the implications of essential.

 

i see it as essential infrastructure.

 

 

On the other end of the scale, with it now being common to not have a landline, should a copper phone service still be "essential"?

 

Back to the topic at hand, if your neighbour has ordered UFB themselves then it should be "deemed consent" for you to get it too.


7717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2544

Subscriber

  Reply # 1612662 16-Aug-2016 19:12
Send private message

easements dont cover UFB, as others have mentioned it requires some legislation change


21397 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4339

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1612663 16-Aug-2016 19:13
Send private message

We had to give concent for the neighbor at mums old place because even tho there are 2 serparate titles for drives, the concrete runs down the middle of the 2 titles so chorus consider it to be shared.

 

Was an epic drama too, they send a thing to do it online, and then pester you by phone to send things back after doing the online thing.





Richard rich.ms

468 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612673 16-Aug-2016 19:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

I think there is a bit of confusion in this thread - there is no legislative change required for telecommunications easements to apply to UFB. It will just come down to the wording of the easement itself. My guess is that most telecommunications easements are worded widely enough to also apply to future services such as UFB.

 

That begs the question why Chorus requires this consent as a standard step, because most properties on a shared driveway will have an easement for telecommunications, or some other means of having telecommunications services legally provided to the house.

 

My assumption has been that it is just easier for them to ask for consent in each case as a blanket policy, rather than looking into the legal rights already attached to the properties.

 

 

 

 


7717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2544

Subscriber

  Reply # 1612675 16-Aug-2016 19:43
Send private message

froob:

 

I think there is a bit of confusion in this thread - there is no legislative change required for telecommunications easements to apply to UFB. It will just come down to the wording of the easement itself. My guess is that most telecommunications easements are worded widely enough to also apply to future services such as UFB.

 

That begs the question why Chorus requires this consent as a standard step, because most properties on a shared driveway will have an easement for telecommunications, or some other means of having telecommunications services legally provided to the house.

 

My assumption has been that it is just easier for them to ask for consent in each case as a blanket policy, rather than looking into the legal rights already attached to the properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont believe that is correct

 

http://tinyurl.com/hu4onzn

 

Page 9 and 10

 

hence the GOVT undertaking the "Land access changes to streamline UFB rollout" process


468 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612710 16-Aug-2016 20:00
One person supports this post
Send private message

Jase2985:

 

 

 

I dont believe that is correct

 

http://tinyurl.com/hu4onzn

 

Page 9 and 10

 

hence the GOVT undertaking the "Land access changes to streamline UFB rollout" process

 

 

Can you be more specific about which part you don't think is correct? The main issues in the easements section of that discussion document seemed to be:

 

- There may be no easement in place.

 

- If there is an easement in place, its terms may not be suitable for UFB.

 

Those are both valid issues, but they aren't issues in cases like the OP's where there is an easement in place that is apparently wide enough to cover UFB. The discussion document doesn't seem to have quantified the issue, which would likely be difficult to do. But, I suspect the bigger issue would be the administrative time and cost involved in downloading and reviewing each title and easement, rather than a lack of legal rights in a significant proportion of cases.

 

Interestingly enough, Chorus' consent form actually contains a confirmation that they can exercise the rights under the customer's easement:

 

 

 

 

 

"Chorus may exercise rights as my licensee (for the purposes of the Land Transfer Regulations 2002) in respect of any existing telecommunications easements granted in favour of me or my property."

 

 

 

 


7717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2544

Subscriber

  Reply # 1612714 16-Aug-2016 20:05
Send private message

"apparently" that is the problem, its not a clear yes or no

 

hence the air on the side of caution approach of gaining consent


1264 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 964

Subscriber

  Reply # 1612716 16-Aug-2016 20:07
Send private message

On the face of things, I agree that the easement looks wide enough to cover UFB. However, you can't be sure unless you know that there is (or isn't - as the facts may be) a definitions section where the word "telecommunications" is defined. If it is defined and it references, say, some legislation (for example) that clearly contemplates copper lines only, then you'd have a problem. Of course, the definition section may also define the word very widely.

 

As a lawyer, I wouldn't make a definitive call without seeing the whole document. Actually, in my case I would probably defer to a property specialist since I hate property law but that's another matter yell


1730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 386

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1612753 16-Aug-2016 20:29
Send private message

alt0174:

 

 

 

2) They have signed up for UFB and have had a site visit, yet we have not been required to sign a consent form for them. 

 

 

 

 

So, are they getting UFB installed by Chorus, in the same fashion you require and are not getting???

 

 

 

This comment confuses me. How can they get it and you not, unless their install is not going via the driveway?





________

 

Antonios K

 

 

 

Click to see full size




4 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 1612756 16-Aug-2016 20:34
Send private message

OK, so I just got an update from my neighbors. They sent the consent form off last Monday. Im guessing its in the lost forms pile.

 

It would appear that the entire UFB signup process has been designed from Choruses viewpoint. ie lets make it as difficult as possible for people to sign up and put obstacles in the way, rather than designing a process to encourage signups and assist users where possible.

 

As long as they think their processes and customer engagement is adequate nothing is going to change.

 

I guess I will ring Vodafone again tommorow and speak to a guy who will tell me "dont worry, well sort it, just email me at www.vodafone.co.nz ).

 

At least I have my health (although I feel a headache coming on)

 

 

 

:)

 

 

 

 


468 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1612797 16-Aug-2016 21:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

Good that it sounds like the issue is sorted.

 

"apparently" that is the problem, its not a clear yes or no

 

hence the air on the side of caution approach of gaining consent

 

The reason for my "apparently" is that the OP hasn't posted a copy of the whole easement, and as dejadeadnz said, you would need to look at other parts of the easement to give a yes or no. Note that I'm not suggesting the OP or anyone else post an entire easement on here, as they can be used to determine the property address.

 

That's not to say that every easement will be completely clear one way or the other, and I agree with your point that Chorus may have made a conscious choice to be cautious and obtain the consents regardless.

 

For anyone interested, newer telecommunications easements will often use the "default" terms and conditions from the regulations referred to in the paragraph from the Chorus consent form above- see Schedule 4 of the Land Transfer Regulations 2002. The definition of "easement facility" in those regulations for telecommunications is very wide.

 

Older easements won't have any default terms specifically for telecommunications, and it will just come down to the wording of the easement. Hopefully though, it will be clear whether or not the easement is restricted just to copper

 

One other issue that occurred to me is the practice of granting an easement to the utility supplier directly, rather than to the neighbours. There will be a lot of easements out there granted to Chorus "in gross", which would be fine in Chorus areas, but wouldn't be much help to other LFCs in their areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.