Talk:Spark New Zealand

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

message: Telecom has launched its dedicated 3G network back in 2009 called XT. It runs on WCDMA 850/2100.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.58.14 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  T3G 

message: Number in infobox appear to be incorrect. See  - SimonLyall 10:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  employees 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The regulation announcement 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Re-word? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  xtra as a sub-heading of telecom nz 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removed.-gadfium 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Every SIM needs a number, including ones people aren't using at the moment and ones that are in stores waiting to be sold.Glenn Anderson (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea but there's no barrier for Vodafone or anyone to extend their numbers to 11 digits or beyond, and it's not like either of them are running out of numbers anyway. I don't think this is very relevant at all. --antilivedT | C | G 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number availability as an "advantage" 

message: Is this relevant considering it's not been used? Also, the overall feel of this document has an anti-Telecom tone. Mattcohen1 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean "it's not been used". Are you saying that the subheading "Xtra (ISP)" has no content at present? It should have a summary of Xtra (ISP). This article overall needs reorganisation. Much of it is a timeline and should be rewritten as prose. The criticisms of the company need to be better integrated into the article, balanced and sourced.-gadfium 06:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xtra ISP page? 

message: Hi guys, just looking over this article and there are several statements/assertions made that have no references to back them up. The second paragraph of the lead, for instance, is full of weasel words, but no citations (should this paragraph even be in the introduction?). In other places it is more a general vagueness which is the problem, such as in this passage in the Local Loop Unbundling section: Then, in early-June, the Commission announced that calls between a landline and a mobile phone within a geographically defined boundary could be connected free of termination charges. The ruling allowed Vodafone to establish a mobile phone product which could also provide free local calling, in direct competition with a product for which Telecom had long had a monopoly (the government, when it sold Telecom, enshrined free residential local calling as something it must continue with). Reading this, I am left with no idea whatsoever of what the product was that Telecom had which Vodafone's vaguely outlined product competed with, and the result is a borderline meaningless paragraph. Furthermore, given the heavily media-exposed subject matter of the article, I have no doubt that citations for any given part of the article would be easily found. I will attempt to reorganise and find references for some of the material, as suggested by other editors above, although I'm not sure what to do with the example passage given. Genedecanter (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again. I haven't looked at this article for quite some time, but can see that there has been very little change in the past few years. As an overall piece, there seems to be a general POV issue with some writing coming from a clearly anti-Telecom stance. In particular, I feel that the Criticism section should be disestablished entirely, and relevant and referenced aspects of it probably absorbed into the History section. If anyone disagrees with this appraisal let me know; otherwise, I intend to start re-working the page in the next few days. Genedecanter (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness, weasel words and lack of citations in this article. 

message: Missing, would appear to be mention of the purchase of Computerland & Gen-i ???
146.171.254.97 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purchases? 

message: I'm surprised no one has written anything on the high profile outages yet. I've made a rudimentary attempt on adding a section in the criticisms section, feel free to expand it. --antilivedT | C | G 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Telecom_New_Zealand#XT_Network_Outage|XT outage]] 

message: It is announced Chorus will be split off into a new company with its own shares. Should we split this article as well? F (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Recommended - as the precise nature of the split is not yet known, it would be best to hold off on deciding whether to split the article, or to create something new which links/refers back to historically accurate information here.Greyskinnedboy  Talk  05:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut feeling would also be to start a new article from scratch. After all, this article might as well describe what the situation was up to the point the company was broken up, and what has happened since. So the Chorus article should stand on its own and not just be a split from this article. In fact, I'll remove the tag - feel free to put it back if you feel strongly about this, but come back here for further discussion. Schwede66 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off chorus section 

message: I'm in the process of doing an overhaul of this article, in particular from a structural point of view. The biggest thing I want to tackle is the History section, which is much too unwieldy. So what I am planning to do is reduce this thoroughly, leaving it as more an overview of the history from a company perspective. Then, details like broadband and mobile points of interest can be transferred to their relevant sections. Genedecanter (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restructuring 

message: Should all mentions of Telecom New Zealand be changed to Spark New Zealand? I've started on the pages, below, but I don't want to continue just to be reverted.
Ollieinc (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think whenever we mention what Telecom did before the name change, we should still use the name Telecom. 166.179.71.15 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If a sentence talks about what the company did when it was called Telecom, leave it as Telecom (so "Telecom introduced the XT Network in..." stays as-is). pcuser42 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spark New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118210433/http://www.med.govt.nz:80/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____4213.aspx to http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____4213.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified