Chorus launches gigabit broadband across New Zealand


news New Zealand telco Chorus is to extend its 1Gbps residential and small-to-medium business fibre broadband service across its entire ultra-fast broadband (UFB) footprint from 1 October.

The gigabit broadband service will run at the “maximum speed the network electronics allows today”. In practice, this will provide customers with download speeds between 900Mbps and 970Mbps and upload speeds of up to 500Mbps, according to the firm.

This is the equivalent to downloading 25 MP3 files in a second or streaming ultra-HD movies to 40 different devices simultaneously, it added.

Currently, the average download speed across Chorus’ networks is 30.5Mbps.

The residential wholesale gigabit broadband service will be available to broadband retailers at an introductory price of $60 per month until 30 June 2017, at which time it will increase to $65 per month.

The business service will be priced at $75 per month from launch. Existing fibre customers looking to upgrade to a gigabit plan will not require a Chorus technician to visit their home.

The telco’s UFB service currently reaches cities such as Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. A full map is available on the company’s website.

Chorus led the introduction of gigabit services in New Zealand, launching the service in Dunedin in February of last year.

The moved proved “both the demand and the technical viability” of gigabit broadband, Chorus said.

The company has long had national gigabit broadband services on its product roadmap and from October will make them available on any UFB connection.

“We are delighted that other fibre providers have joined Chorus in championing gigabit residential and business services,” said Mark Ratcliffe, Chorus CEO.

“Making New Zealand a true ‘Gignation’, beyond the 5,000-plus connections we have in Dunedin, should see us catapulted up the league tables of broadband speed rankings and reinforce the high quality of the broadband infrastructure we’re rolling out,” he said.

Chorus added that it is working with Crown Fibre Holdings for approval of the gigabit service pricing. If approval is not obtained by the end of September, the firm will launch the service on a trial basis.


  1. The rollout was the work of private companies collaborating together.

    Seriously if they can keep the fees competitive , a consortium private rollout absolutely to every building would have still worked.

    But private only half bake hence why HFC only got a patchy rollout.

    Now we just get trash still run by a Telstra monopoly and holding everyone back with their faulty DSL.

  2. Over 5,000 users with Gigabit speeds in ONE NZ City, but apparently in Australia we don’t need those types of speeds.

    Thanks for nothing Malcolm and Morrow.

    • Thanks for nothing Malcolm and Morrow.

      Nonsense. We can thank the imbeciles for providing the rest of the world an example of what not to do.

      • Indeed HC…

        We previously showed the world what to do and how forward thinking Ausies “were”.

        Now some years on, we are showing them the complete opposite..


    • @q the two market use a very different model for cost recovery. Chorus NZ maintains the competitive model operating in Australia pre-Conroy’s NBN.

      Chorus offers a far greater number of broadband products and this reflected in their avg customer 30mbps v NBNCo’s 33mbps down speed. I’ll restrict my discussion to Chorus products under NZ’s UFB policy.

      Chorus & NBNCo wholesale bitstream services. Unlike NBNCo you can also purchase P2P dark fibre, a discussion for another time.

      Chorus offers two traffic classes CIR (committed information rate) & EIR (excess or peak information rate ). NBNCo offer 3 (4 on GPON) traffic classes (TC1-TC4). Chorus’ CIR equivalence is NBNCo’s TC-1, EIR is TC-4.

      CIR|TC-1 is guaranteed end-to-end capacity (read expensive), EIR|TC-4 is best effort. Total EIR capacity of all users is much higher than physically provisioned, the ratio reducing today as customer demand shifts video (sustained capacity more important than peak).

      Chorus terminates connections at 33 v NBNCo’s 121 PoI. RSPs are responsible for their network operations beyond these points of presence (eg backhaul, IXP, international capacity, etc).

      So far so good. Let’s look at pricing.

      Both companies have a range of charges (eg PoI equipment co-location fees, …) , however bandwidth capacity dominates revenue (as in any market). Both companies apply an access virtual circuit (AVC) charge with rates for CIR & EIR speeds significantly different (though offered as bundles, with additional paid capacity available).

      Chorus has fewer speed tiers, and from the above announcement is moving towards a single / best available tier. From a business point of view this makes sense as their prices are regulated (max is best). Chorus (sensibly) prices their business and residential products differently.

      Example pricing:
      Chorus Residential 30/10 (2.5/2.5 CIR) NZD37.50 / mth
      NBNCo 25/10 (0.15/0.15 TC1) AUD30 / mth

      NBN applies an additional CVC charge at their PoI. This charge is significant @ $17.50/mbps/mth (Quigley $20, soon dropping to $15.50). There is no equivalent Chorus charge.

      RSPs hate the CVC, but would also hate it if the equivalent cost was transferred to AVC (see AVC pricing differential above). Also makes sense from their business perspective, the cheaper they get their wholesale service the better.

      However, for the majority of customers (ie non-enterprise) RSPs don’t provision their networks beyond PoI to handle the full AVC capacity ordered (aka 100% CIR end-to-end). Costs for such a network would be prohibitive (available revenue not available to recover costs), therefore they offer contended networks. ACCC data shows NBNCo per customer AVC of 33mbps has CVC of 1.09mbps (contention 33:1).

      Chorus AR16 was released last week and discussed here:

      NBNCo’s AR16 expected shortly.

      • @ Richard,

        ”…the competitive model operating in Australia pre-Conroy’s NBN.”.

        The competitive model pre-Conroy’s NBN was to anyone with two eyes and sans ridiculous Rand-esque, cultist brainwashing, a shambles, almost as shambolic as MTM (yes the very same MTM you could have written – as opposed to what you are doing here, re-writing history).

        In fact, competition in fixed line pre-Conroy’s NBN was for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

        It comprised of a vertically integrated Telstra who had monopoly ownership of the CAN but as well as being the wholesaler they were also the largest retailer too. No conflict of interest to see here, move along *sigh*

        So in essence when you bought services from a smaller retailer, you were simply buying rebadged Telstra.

        Then we had the larger retailer, who fitted DSLAMS into err, “Telstra’s” exchanges and then accessed (you guessed it) “Telstra’s” network and some cultists have the audacity to call this competition at the network or infrastructure level…lol.

        Of course Telstra didn’t want others in their exchanges and at times said, we have no space (which they were fined for when it was found there was space) some $18m iirc.

        This accesser/retailer vs owner/retailer shambles, meant that that there was forever ACCC intervention needed and the inevitable continual trips to the courts to sort out the incessant bickering.

        It was anything but the “free market” nirvana you describe (read: lie about) Dick, it was at best a shit fight and something everyone on these blogs used to complain about.

        All the while we had sub-standard products…FFS we didn’t even get ADSL2+ until 2008… some 9 years after Japan started FTTP roll out (and actually by that time fibre customers had eclipsed ADSL customers, iirc, in Japan) because Telstra said no to ADSL2+ switch on. Ironically it was your most hated Conroy, who managed to convince Sol to actually flick the ADSL2+ switch, Dick…

        So competition was actually rancid pre-NBN.

        However, for all their bickering in public, Telstra the owner/retailer kept ADSL prices high to ensure maximum profits, at our expense. The accessers liked this because it meant they could marginally under cut Telstra and also lock in large profits and look like the good guys (still at our expense)… We paid top dollar for slow antiquated products (just as we will again with MTM, but I digress)…

        In private I’d bet they were slapping each other on the back for being able to dupe everyone (especially cult, extremists) and keep the status quo of ADSL BS.

        And we all remember the HFC debacle in the 90’s, where Optus decided to roll out HFC in profitable areas where Telstra didn’t have their own HFC. So Telstra then said fuck you, we are the bosses (monopolists) here… and followed Optus down the street with their own roll out… Some $2.5B in losses between them and Optus stopped the roll out and as a consequence, so did Telstra… There was Dick’s free market stupidity, greed and power, in it’s glory.

        Conroy’s NBN put an end to this sham and evened the playing field by over building the problem aging and/or obsolete copper/HFC networks, compensating the owners by agreement, for their over built assets (to avoid legal action) and to secure immediate patronage of their customers and immediate profits for NBN.

        The NBN was also a wholesaler only, retailing (as is the case in most business areas, there’s a sole wholesaler and/or importer who then supplies retailers) to RSP to resell…

        It was also designed to repay itself over time…

        It was a win for us, win for Telstra/Optus being compensated for their assets, win for small retailers who would no longer have to compete with the asset owner, win for tax payers, win for the previous government. But not for the opposition/now government.

        So no…

        Once the current government’s MTM was introduced, with the CAN/copper/HFC factor again coming into play, Telstra again have their claws back into everything, the obsolete copper is again being brushed off and patched up as is the HFC and we now have an MTM plan (which all say will need to be FTTP as the “end goal” anyway – yes the same FTTP we would have still been rolling out) which is some $24.5B in the red and 4 years behind schedule, for a totally inferior product.

        What idiocy.

        So keep writing idiotic, shambolic MTM plans and re-writing history Dick…

        But your MTM is a failure beyond compare and no matter how many times you repeat your BS, your blind, cultist blithering will never change actual history.

        You’re welcome.

      • Richard what happen to Turnbull fttn price of $16 a mth. Remember from you
        “Costs also lower, less to recover (hence lower wholesale price). In addition rollout much faster. “

  3. Thanks for your comprehensive data. I’m still not clear on the advantages and disadvantages of the networks though.
    Of course all networks have contention. 33 to 1 is pretty good for individual users. Of course, if it’s a business link with 1000 users behind it, then it’s a different story but businesses will pay for a superior service in terms of guaranteed bandwidth.

    • @b practically the two pricing alternatives aren’t that different; the total wholesale price the factor as it determines retail pricing.

      The alternatives will impact the point of contention from the PoI handover to further into RSPs network. However the same must contention exist; the cost of a real end-to-end gigabit connections impracticable.

      2 v 3-4 traffic classes also not an issue. A committed & best effort all that required for customers. RSPs can tailor additional services on top as required.

      The NZ model of competitive tendering by experienced private suppliers is used in many markets (including here; water, power, etc) and been shown to deliver considerable cost benefits and had bipartisan support in Australia pre-Rudd and is used in most developed countries. Lower cost means lower price required to recover the costs, important to shareholders (ie taxpayers for NBNCo).

      NBN pricing also includes a cost subsidy component to pay for services in non-commercial areas (eg regions), the NZ model uses direct govt subsidies. Free marketers (like myself) prefer the later primarily because of its transparency.

      Overall it’s silly promoting gigabit peak when sustained bandwidth is in the very low megabits.

  4. Stupid Kiwis! What would they know? If we don’t have any need, they’ll certainly never need silly things like Fibre or fast internet connections. They should have asked the Aussies first – we know best. We’re experts at this stuff.

    • Exactly Greg…

      We have experts here in Shtraya (like there’s one right here with us now.. we are privileged just ask him) who support MTM copper based obsolescence with $24.5B cost blow outs, 4 year holds ups and giving us in 2020 and beyond blistering speeds of 25mbps or even 50mbps.

      Unbelievable eh?

Comments are closed.