Talk:Telecom New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Telecom New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV ?

Let's try not to bash excessively ? We are meant to be mature adults ya'know. --2mcmGespräch 07:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's some real negativity there. I don't like monopolies myself, but there's no reason to have things like hacking attempts in the Telecom timeline. ie:
  • "Telecom's mobile customers find out that their privacy and security is not safe on the Telecom network, when a phreaker named ^god releases an exploit to the media allowing access to almost anyone's voicemail."
It seems insignificant (every company gets hacked...), and could easily be put under criticisms. Similarly, the "we deliberately confuse people" link would fall under "effects of a monopoly" wouldn't it? Greg 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You cannot blame a monopoly for seeking profits from the monopoly. The government creates the monopoly. Not the company. --Wikismile 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends. Certain practices are illegal. One could argue it's wrong for a company to break the law regardless of whether the government takes action against said illegal practices (not that Telecom appears to have done much that is illegal but my point is just because a company does something and get's away with it doesn't intrinsicly mean that the company can't be blamed to a degree). On a more practical sense, whether or not a company should be expected to have a degree of ethics is an unresolved issue. Also, one could argue as part of doing business in NZ, there are implied requirements for a company to meet. In Telecom's case, there were definitely some directly implied requirements by the government as well as some explicit requirements (remember that as part of the UBS decision, Telecom has to meet a quota which they didn't meet) which Telecom did not meet hence the need for further regulation. I.E. From one point of view, any company which requires regulation, especially when what was expected of them had been spelt out, has failed their responsibility as a company operating in that community. Note that this is not to say the government wasn't stupid to expect them to meet their requirements without regulation simply that just because the government was stupid doesn't mean that Telecom can't be blamed as well. Also even from a business standpoint, there is great debate about whether what Telecom did was really the best thing for their business. Many people suggest it would have been much smarter for Telecom to look to the future and recognise the need to adapt so they will succeed as a company in the long term rather then taking the short term maximum profit POV which may result in onerous regulation and a greater loss of business then they would have achieved were they to choose a long term stratergy. This isn't simple since a company needs short term growth to maintain their shareprice obviously. But a resonable argument can be made that Telecom concentrated too much on short term growth rather the considering long term growth Nil Einne 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Loss

Does anyone know where that figure of $50m-$250m loss came from? --Nzhamstar 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got the cite (wasn't really worried about it at the time), but it was an NZ treasury finding, that much is correct : ) porges 09:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T3G

Is it really 3G? --202.36.252.2 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It uses the CDMA 2000 connection which is listed on the 3G page. So yes it does seem so. --2mcmGespräch 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The 3G network uses EVDO Rev 0 and Rev A not CDMA 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.77.20 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expensive Internet costs

I added the figures for data costs, they are correct as of 9/4/2006. http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,8763,205170-203090,00.html

[edit] employees

Number in infobox appear to be incorrect. See [1] - SimonLyall 10:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The figure you link to is from 2005, but I think our figure is probably much older, so I've adjusted it and done some necessary maintenance to the article.-gadfium 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CDPD in 1987?

The timeline indicates that in 1987, "Telecom launches its 025 mobile network and CDPD mobile data network." In fact, CDPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDPD) was created in the US in the 1990s and wasn't commercially deployed until sometime between 1993 and 1995 (depending on what you call "commercial"). I have no idea what kind of mobile data network Telecom NZ deployed, or when, but my knowledge about CDPD comes from joining one of the first companies to build CDPD subscriber device and base station pioneers (Pacific Communication Sciences, Inc in San Diego, CA) I joined them in 1994 and recall the talk about preparations for Comdex in 1993 being a real bear because they were rushing frantically to get the first CDPD base station and subscriber devices ready for demos at that trade show.

[edit] The regulation announcement

I thought this was leaked wasn't it? Or was it leaked on the 1st then announced officially on the 3rd? --Nzhamstar 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was leaked to Telecom. The Telecom people who received it called up their lawyers and I believe they decided they would have to tell their shareholders and informed the government. The government then brought forward the announcement from it's planned date of during the budget Nil Einne 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-word?

The selling price is still considered by many to be extremely low, given that Telecom had a monopoly of all phone lines in New Zealand at the time. Others consider that the capital requirements to modernise the network were better provided by private enterprise than the government.

This may need to be reworded. There's obviously no reason why one can thibk the selling price was low but also think privatisation per se was for the best because of the capital requirements 203.109.240.93 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] xtra as a sub-heading of telecom nz

a lot of the media coverage applies to both telecom and xtra, and the two are seen as one and the same in the public eye. i propose merging the two, with xtra as a sub-heading within Telecom New Zealand Inzy 10:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While their business practices are linked to some extent, they have different businesses and different competitors (although the difference between broadband and telephony does get more muddled as time goes by with many ISPs now offering telephone services). Xtra has a substantial article of its own. I oppose a merge.-gadfium 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In the eye of an antipodes (the Netherlands) they are not the same. As opposed to telephony, in Internet terms New Zealand is just as near as the next town. Erik Warmelink 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
They are two notable entities that although strongly linked are best represented by separate articles. In addition, merging them would create a long article that would no doubt result in calls for it to be split into two. Given the consensus of opinion I will remove the merge tags from both articles.--Mendors 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A sub-section for Xtra has been added, even if only as a place-holder for the Xtra article. It may be worth expanding on the new 'Local loop unbundling' sub-section to take into account the increasing importance of Chorus (the new infrastructure division). Deepred6502 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I've put on a contradiction template, due the said market share not quite adding up. Vodafone says that they have 55% market share, and Telecom says that they have 49%. It doesn't take a mathmatical genius to realise that this adds up to 104%, and this doesn't include other companies. Laydan Mortensen (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a contradiction in the sense that Census data on ethnicity doesn't ever add up to 100. Many people have both a Telecom and a Vodafone. The market is technically 'over saturated'. -- Greaser (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a fair enough reason to remove the contradiction template, unless anyone else has a problem with it Matt (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed.-gadfium 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Number availability as an "advantage"

How is it an advantage to Telecom for them to have 10 million numbers available to Vodafone's 3.4million when the country only has a population of just over 4 million? Also what is the source for this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.66 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)