Self serving crap from Vodafone

March 7th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Government has rejected a call by New Zealand chief executive Russell Stanners to scrap the roll-out of -based ultrafast broadband in much of Wellington and Christchurch.

Stanners said the cost of the UFB scheme could be cut by $500 million and taxpayers could save $145m if people instead used its cable networks in the two cities.

Vodafone was all in favour of the UFB. Then it buys the Telstra-Clear cable network and suddenly it is all no, no we don’t want UFB – use our cables instead.

InternetNZ said earlier today it strongly opposed Stanners’ proposal.

“This suggestion by Vodafone begs the question, why would Kiwis choose to make use of a second-class network when we are already on our way to having a first-class network?” chief executive Jordan Carter said.

Fibre is a future-proofed investment.

UPDATE: Also if Vodafone really wants their cable network to be used instead of fibre, then they should do what Telecom had to do, and separate it out into a separate company with open access requirements to all retailers.

Tags: ,

23 Responses to “Self serving crap from Vodafone”

  1. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (785 comments) says:

    By the time we get Fibre in this third world country it will be year 2250…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mobile Michael (411 comments) says:

    I use it because the third world copper network alternative is even crappier. But when UFB comes we will have a price war jn Lower Hutt.
    Begs the other question – why doesn’t Vodafone open their network up now?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. CJPhoto (213 comments) says:

    Vodafone can wholesale their Cable network when ever they want. They dont need to wait for protectionist legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    By the time we get Fibre in this third world country it will be year 2250…..

    Great parody of Clare Curran.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    I have fibre in a provincial city so stop moaning Sir Cullen’s Sidekick. Anyhow looks like Vodafone made a dud investment, which Stanners will need to explain to his Board/Shareholders.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Craig (21 comments) says:

    I’ve just dug a services trench for a new build in Chch. Telecom was $69 to put their cables in, Enable put in a fibre lead in cable for free, Vodafone wanted $1200. Told them to sod off.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lastmanstanding (1,204 comments) says:

    More self serving from one of the group that captured the Commerce Commissioner with their drivel and drove off shore investors to quit Chorus and also ensured that Gen X and Gen Y wont have a bar with direct investment into NZX even though most of them and the bleaters about Chorus are Chorus shareholders because……………………… they are in a K/Saver fund whose manager holds Chorus shares along with most of the other Top 50.

    Even the business MSM didn’t get it that unless you are in a cash only fund or an offshore only fund you too will be a Chorus shareholder so dissing Chorus was dissing your own investment.

    The problem is the retail telcos and their ignorant customers want FREE UFB and want Chorus shareholders to pay for it without getting any return whatsoever on their investment.

    That moron Brislen said so. He said Chorus shareholders shouldn’t get ANY dividends Idiot. Bet he expects a return on his investments 2 faced arsehole.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. BeeJay (69 comments) says:

    Tried to get Vodafone to provide UFF to our complex, they actually lied and said: 1) the fibre hasn’t been laid past your property yet!! (Had been installed months before our request!) then, 2) the fibre that has been laid belongs to Telecom, we would have to wait until Vodafone had laid their fibre cable!! (Yes, I know, it’s unbelievable!) A local ISP had the job done within weeks of our request, the broadband package is 50% cheaper than the Vodafone package. What is it with these people?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,435 comments) says:

    BeeJay –

    I think you’re supposed to be happy for the opportunity to pay a premium to use Vodafone’s services, because… Vodafone’s “cool”…. :neutral:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Fentex (859 comments) says:

    I was an early adopter of cable when it was first laid down my street (as I was with ADSL when first released). Now I am frustrated by a decision to not roll fibre down my street because the cable is already there.

    In the first deployment for Christchurch fibre will pass two houses away from, but not to, my home.

    Mutter, mutter, mutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,734 comments) says:

    David, I am surprised at you, in the Tech world, calling something future proof ? A fibre backbone is probably a good idea but don’t get hung up on “future-proofing”, the only certainty is change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. James Stephenson (2,018 comments) says:

    @Ed – so what would you call laying infrastructure to a house, which is capable of carrying as much data as the core currently does? In my world, that’s proofed quite a long way into the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ed Snack (1,734 comments) says:

    James, and when the next disruptive technology comes along ? Right now, it would probably be cheaper to use high capacity radio to deliver the last link to houses at least, and you may get a high speed to the NZ core, then 512K outside NZ. Not everything is cached locally.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. James Stephenson (2,018 comments) says:

    I don’t buy this “wireless is everything” malarky. It’s not just a fluke that PON technology has won for last mile access.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (9,392 comments) says:

    I thought vodafone was only for teenage brown people?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. brucehoult (188 comments) says:

    UFB is available 50m to the east of me, 50m to the west of me, 100m to the north of me.

    http://hoult.org/bruce/ufb.png

    Purple is UFB. Blue is not UFB until at least 2016.

    Guess which street(s) have cable. You got it right.

    The previous commenter was correct that if Vodafone really wanted to wholesale their cable network to other ISPs then they could do it yesterday. Or last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. peterwn (3,148 comments) says:

    All things equal it would make sense for UFB rollout to take account of areas served by ‘cable’ and do these areas last in the UFB rollout. If TelatraClear/ Vodafone wanted this proposal taken seriously, they should be looking after their customers better. A significant problem with internet over cable is the aggregate bandwidth within a relatively small neighbourhood is finite and capex is needed to increase it by shrinking the ‘neighbourhood’ sizes and there is no assurance that this would happen especially if there is an internal capex squeeze. My attitude with Vodafone is ‘jump in the lake’.

    As soon as UFB is available I am telling Vodafone where to stick it. I just hope that the few SKY channels we need can be delivered via UFB somehow to save the bother of having a dish installed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. slijmbal (1,210 comments) says:

    This whole area is full of dirty deeds.

    When Saturn, since bought by Clear, since bought by Telstra, since bought by Vodafone, installed cable in Wellington Telecom went in to major prevention mode. They were allowed to do different pricing of the same services (sometimes in the same street) to prevent the competition’s cable being further developed. Effectively, the rest of us subsidised Telecom stopping the competition. This type of activity is illegal in most countries.

    Telecom then also installed fibre in various areas in Auckland under the fiction of being a trial but the real purpose was to stop Saturn’s plans to lay fibre in Auckland. It was a good investment as they never really provided a real service but stopped being forced to drop their prices they could charge in Auckand if a competitor arrived. A win-win as it also meant they did not have to invest in cable and cannabalise their own revenues.

    I even have cable to the top of my drive, implemented by Telecom, which I cannot get Telecom to let me use.

    Calling it 2nd class is somewhat disingenous – it is fibre optic and decent and better than copper. If Vodafone had any sense they would offer to wholesale their cable as DPF points out.

    VF seem to be following in Telecom’s footsteps but the real issue is that Telecom’s in NZ have been able to do cartel/monopoly like activities for too long and I’m still suspicious that this will continue courtesy of the Chorus rollout.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    If it makes you feel any better slijmbal, when Citylink first put fibre in Wellington in the ’90s they strung it over the trolley bus wires. There was/is a council bylaw limiting the number of cables over trolley bus wires to two, so that it didn’t make the streets feel dark etc. So Citylink strung rope alongside their fibre to stop competitors (in particular the big T) being able to string fibre over the trolley bus wires too, so Telecom had to go the more expensive route of putting their fibre underground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. slijmbal (1,210 comments) says:

    @rightnow

    That makes me feel worse :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jack5 (4,571 comments) says:

    DPF writes fibre is a future-proof investment.

    Fibre-to-the-home is an expensive blunder. It will take years if ever to be necessary.

    Smart phones and tablets which link by WiFi to wireless modems or the cellphone network, don’t need the capacity of fibre to the front door. ADSL is adequate for the link to wireless modems. Fibre capacity is wasted. And with the cellphone network, of course, fibre-to-the-home isn’t needed.

    In Christchurch (and presumably Wellington), the Vodafone cable network, as it is or converted to fibre, is a good alternative to the present fibre to the door plan. This is because the cable in many or most parts of the city uses overhead connections, which are cheaper to run and maintain. Also, it would be Vodafone shareholders stumping up the capital for expansion, or at least carrying debt raised for this.

    An intelligent Government would slow down the fibre-to-the-home rollout to confirm the wireless trend from smart phones and tablets is permanent, then if it is rethink the whole multi-billion spendup on fibre.

    Why is InternetNZ so dogmatic on the issue? Are they all locked into PC’s (probably running Linux)? Do they represent the handful of home-businesses in the country who may benefit from fibre to the home? Do they represent the media and film interests who see fibre as a new lifeline for their businesses, dreaming of fat couch potatoes piping six videos into the home simultaneously?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. brucehoult (188 comments) says:

    I don’t know about Jack5, but my iPhone has been known to do over 70 Mbps on WIFI according to speedtest.net.

    While 4G is getting quite quick, there is nearly two orders of magnitude price difference between wired and wireless data.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Jack5 (4,571 comments) says:

    Re Brucehoult at 8.07:

    That’s fast, Bruce.

    But what would you want to download at 70MBs on to an iPhone?

    Surely only a person the size of a rabbit would want to watch video on a smart-phone screen. At that speed you could download a few movies. How much storage does a rabbit-size person need on his or her iPhone?

    Cellular wireless data is dearer, but most data for smart phones, and probably for tablets, is fairly light, and the convenience of access from most city and town areas balances cost in many cases.

    Yes some people will want to watch video on their tablets, but at that screen size the resolution and data volume can be low. And they will likely download for watching later. ADSL generally is sufficient for these purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.