Aardvark

[Bruce Simpson]

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0128.shtml

Hi-fives all round at Vodafone HQ?

What the hell is wrong with Telecom that the've built a network so frail that the smallest hardware or software failure takes out service to three-quarters of the nation?

Have they done XT on the cheap and overlooked key network elements such as redundancy and backup?

What form should compensation take for the huge numbers who lost service yesterday for the second time in as many months?

Is a weekend of free calls really enough?

Were you affected?

Are you considering jumping to Vodafone?

Do you carry two phones on separate networks simply because you have to?

[Hopefulone]

While I hesitate at jumping to Telecom's (or any other carrier's) defence, it has been a fact of life that any new network has initial stability problems. This sad fact also applies to any new technology including our dearly-loved (!) Windows. When Vodafone's predecessor, Bell South, first turned on their GSM network it was absolutely horrendous, causing all sorts of problems in other communications equipment and running its users's batteries flat in just minutes of use.

Sure you can make anything 'bombproof' but it usually takes a few iterations to get there and it usually involves cost. The people who complain most usually have the shortest arms and the deepest pockets.

[Bruce Simpson]

The problem is that Telecom have pitched this as a "state of the art" network, not one that's "currently undergoing final testing".

Also, why should customers have to pay (by way of losses incurred through the loss of service -- ie: Telecom's failure to deliver the promised service levels) for the company's rush to get this thing to market?

If you bought a car that broke down every couple of months and as a result was off the road for a day or two, would you say "that's okay, it's only natural that a new product will have a few issues"?

Hell no, we expect manufacturers to sort the "issues" *before* they start demanding money from us -- don't we?

[mal]

I wonder how many people are tied into contracts and are stuck with their XT phones. Could these outtages be enough for business users of the XT network to demand early termination of their contracts?

I'm still on a very old CDMA phone - it rings, I can make the odd call and send/receive txts. thats all I need my phone to do.
No rush to upgrade

[Simon]

A little off topic sorry but has anyone else on Telecom broadband been rung by them trying to get you to sign up for a years contract (with massive early termination fee) in exchange for a free wireless mouse/keyboard or Sennheiser headphones?

[barryl]

[tonyr]

"instantly converting customers' cellphones into little more than very expensive MP3 players"

Not quite, thanks to an unusual rush of blood, at least the XT network is GSM compatible so a simple SIM switch will revitalise the phones. And if a user is on a term contract there would be a strong case to terminate, something about consumer legislation and fit for purpose....

[keewee01]

I remember the old Bell South days - outages were not uncommon.

It is a major disruption to business users (and a major inconvenience to personal users) for the network to go out like this. And when it did come back up it was dodgy for quite some hours. Telecom are getting a bit better at informing people though... so they're slowly learning.

It is not unreasonable for people (business customers especially) to expect a month free out of Telecom for this. Otherwise Telecom may find a lot of business customers seriously considering moving. Have heard a lot of personal customers talking seriously about 2degrees.

[Sophocles]

[zkarj]

[Peter]

[thrashcardiom]

[Perry]

[zkarj]

[thrashcardiom]

[roygbiv]

I think I would wait for the full post mortem from Telecom or the independent investigator promised (and not the MSM version) before casting any judgement and just keep those knives sharpened.

I certainly sympathise with those affected but have previously thought through how to manage without my cellphone. And I can, it is a minor inconvenience and I intend it to remain that way.
But, to be honest, if my livelihood depended on being immediately contactable or being able to immediately contact somebody ie. using a cellphone then I would sure as hell have some contingency in place. Two phones or dual SIM with a prior agreement with Telecom/Vodaphone to divert calls from one to the other.

[barryl]

[Hopefulone]

[paulw]

Interesting that people south of the Bombays are bleating on about this. Most likely the same ones laughing on Tuesday after Auckland's power outage.

[mikebartnz]

Quote"I'm still with the Vodafone network and, despite being in plain sight of their celltower all day (about 3kms away) I still find I get SMS messages telling me that I've just missed a call, even though my phone never rang"
I have found that a quality phone makes all the difference as I used to get a similar thing with a previous phone.

[Bruce Simpson]

[zkarj]

[Bruce Simpson]

[mikebartnz]

[kanedavid]

You have to remember that this issue isn't to do with the fact that Telecom had a piece of critical hardware that has failed - We all know (and have to accept) that sometimes *beep* happens.

BUT, the real issue is one of a PR matter.

In business, PR is a big issue. Because it often isn't so much about what you deliver, its how you deliver and the expectation level that you are setting in your customers mind pertaining to that delivery.

When Telecom XT was launched with much fanfare, we were spoon-fed truck loads of guff about how great their new network is etc. This instantly gives the average customer an impression that when they sign up, they are getting to use a completely infallible mobile network - wrong.

OK, I'm not suggesting that Telecom lame themselves out in a TV ad either - but clearly a common theme missing from most telecommunication sales blurbs is the detail about reliability expectation levels.

When any customer signs up with Telecom (or Vodafone), the mobile operator should clearly point out the promised 'level-of-service' and what the arrangement is if the mobile operator fails in that service level.

There are two benefits in this:

For the mobile operator, they can easily say "Sorry, when you signed up, you were told that the network was only 99% reliable and that single outages up to 2 days in length may occur" - This is a get out clause for Telecom which CLEARLY places the risk element onto the customer. It also means that for outages up to 2 days, they don't have to pay a single bean.

For the customer, they know and understand the limits, and it would be 'their' choice whether to risk running their business on a service that might have outages. If they don't wish to take that risk, they can then either look for alternate providers (whose service guarantee might be better), or look to ways that they as a business can mitigate the effects of an outage before one actually happens.

The trouble with Telecom (which I have proved to them before) is that they have little regard for their customers TIME.