This complaint is about the withdrawal of landline phone services delivered over Customer Multi-Access Radio (CMAR), a local access radio-based system designed primarily for use in remote low density rural situations. Chorus is retiring services from this outdated technology and transitioning customers to an alternative solution. While case studies and decisions are usually anonymised by TDR, as the sole wholesale provider of CMAR, we have named Chorus in this decision with their consent.

Jurisdiction

This complaint is about changes to the delivery of a landline service to the Customer’s bach in the Marlborough Sounds. Chorus is the relevant scheme member. Chorus states that this dispute is about the absence of a suitable electricity supply to the home. From the Customer’s perspective it is about the withdrawal of what they say is a reliable landline connection. Whether and how a code applies is a decision for the practitioner allocated to consider the merit of this matter. There are also allegations within this complaint that the customer service provided by Chorus has fallen below expected standards. Therefore, this dispute is within jurisdiction, and the merit of the complaint can be assessed by a practitioner.

Dispute outcome

  1. The Customer’s complaint is Not Upheld.

Dispute

  1. The Customer owns a remote bach in Marlborough Sounds. The property is “off the grid” with no access to power, mobile phone signal etc.
  2. The bach previously had a phone service via copper line radio service known as CMAR (Customer Multi-Access Radio). This has been described as an antique service to rural areas where conventional, physical lines are impractical to install.

  3. This diagram illustrates a typical CMAR topology. It shows a local copper loop linking houses, an outstation linking the loop to a radio tower, and a radio linking network connecting the system back into a regional centre with fibre optic network access. 

    Diagram depicting a typical CMAR setup
  4. Chorus have withdrawn the CMAR service to the Customer’s bach due to the age of the system and the increasing cost and difficulty to maintain it.
  5. Chorus have offered various alternatives to the CMAR service so that the Customer can keep a phone service of some kind, but all replacement services require electrical power which the Customer’s bach doesn’t have.
  6. The Customer submits that Chorus should provide reasonable alternatives to the CMAR service, noting that the alternatives suggested so far (including Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) require electrical power to run. Chorus submits that electrical service is a customer responsibility, and it is not obliged to assist with power supply issues. 

Final determination

  1. In making this Final determination TDR have considered the information provided by the Customer and service provider and:
  1. Having initially emailed the Customer during September 2024, TDR discussed this matter with the Customer on the phone. TDR also discussed this matter on the phone with Chorus. It was clear from these discussions and the file that this matter would not resolve by agreement. TDR therefore make the following Final determination:

Dispute outcome

  1. The Customer’s complaint is not upheld. For the reasons given below, TDR find that the withdrawal of CMAR services are not covered by the 111 Contact Code or Copper Withdrawal Code and that Chorus and the retail provider are not in breach of those or any other codes.
  2. While the removal of the CMAR service is no doubt frustrating for the Customer, Chorus and the retail provider have not breached any duties owed to the Customer and their processes and communication have been up to an acceptable standard.
  3. The alternatives offered by Chorus have been reasonable in the circumstances and Chorus are not responsible for reliable power supply to the Customer’s property. 

Positions of the respective parties

Customer’s position

  1. The Customer submits that Chorus have unilaterally withdrawn their copper-based landline without providing an affordable and functional replacement. The Customer says that they expect the end user to bear the majority of the costs associated with transitioning to an updated technology that would provide a modern equivalent of a landline. While the Customer accepts that Chorus are prepared to fund the installation of a satellite-based VoIP solution (satellite dish, modem, router), they have not provided a necessary power supply to operate this system. The Customer submits that Chorus’ assertion that the power supply (solar) is "beyond their scope" is wholly unsatisfactory.
  2. The Customer told TDR that their property is particularly vulnerable as it is not connected to the national electricity grid, and that they lack cell phone, television, and radio coverage. Additionally, there is no road access, and the nearest reliable cell phone coverage requires a 90-minute return walk (2.5 km each way). They rely entirely on the landline for communication, including emergency calls and without a power supply, they have no means to operate Chorus’ Final solution.
  3. The Customer’s relationship has been with the retail provider as their service provider. However, since the notification of the removal of the CMAR system, Chorus has taken over communication with the Customer. The Customer is critical of that communication with Chorus, saying that it “lacked comprehensive information, and they have been slow to respond to our inquiries throughout this process, significantly limiting our ability to seek solutions and reach an agreement”.
  4. The Customer informed TDR that the CMAR system was reliable and largely fault free, so they do not agree with the conclusion reached by Chorus that the system was unreliable.  
  5. The Customer also told TDR that they have made enquiries into a suitable solar power supply to run the suggested VOIP system, presumably for continuous power supply to the system so that the bach can receive as well as make outgoing calls.
  6. The Customer was also concerned around what happens in an emergency, with their closest neighbours (who all have some form of power supply) some walk away. The conclusion is that the bach is vulnerable in an emergency, although the Customer accepted that that they likely are not a “vulnerable customer”.

Scheme member and service provider positions

Retail provider

  1. The retail provider provides the service to the Customer, but this is dependent on the infrastructure provided and maintained by Chorus. The retail provider does not maintain the CMAR radio signal and the decision to withdraw the service was not made by the retail provider.  

Chorus (wholesale scheme member)

  1. Chorus tells TDR that it made the decision to retire the CMAR and CountrySet systems towards the end of 2023 and notified all its RSP partners in November 2023, including the retail provider. They knew that there are some sites that are challenging to provide services to, and that included the Marlborough Sounds, but that was not the genesis of the decision to retire CMAR.
  2. Chorus have submitted that the CMAR service is old and difficult and costly to maintain. This is supported by their website page on CMAR which notes that “The technology supporting these systems is failing, we haven’t been able to source parts for some systems for years relying on the repurposing of decommissioned equipment, and the expertise able to service them is also diminishing”. That page also notifies customers that CMAR services will be withdrawn, with Chorus engaging with remaining customers over a transition to an alternative solution.
  3. Specifically with regards to the Marlborough Sounds, they submitted that power failure was an inevitability. Chorus says that they were notified by Marlborough Lines Company that in June 2024 it would be decommissioning the power supply that supplied Chorus’ radio link. They say that this meant that they prioritised this site to retire first before retiring other CMAR systems elsewhere in the country. They say that radio systems are old technology and are failing, and that Chorus have been unable to source some parts for years and the ability to service these systems is becoming more and more challenging.
  4. Chorus submits that the 111 Contact Code and the Copper Withdrawal Code do not apply to the Customer’s situation and that Chorus are not responsible for power supply to a property. They submit that power supply is the responsibility of customers.
  5. In our phone discussion, Chorus accepted that the matter is complex, particularly around alternative provision of phone services for houses like the Customer’s that are “off the grid”. Chorus also suggested another alternative of a Starlink or similar satellite connection which Chorus can purchase at its cost, which is designed to operate with low power usage. This may have the benefit to the Customer that the plan can be paused when not in use and is specifically designed for remote situations. Chorus noted that any satellite option is not Chorus equipment, and they cannot guarantee any hardware or its installation or that this option would be fit for the Customer’s purposes. Chorus are willing to work with the Customer on a satellite option, including the funding of hardware and installation, but the Customer must do their own research and take their own device as to the appropriateness of this solution for their specific needs. 

Customer’s feedback on the proposed determination

  1. While the Customer did not agree with the conclusions of the proposed decision, they said that they were left with no option other to move forward with the option of a satellite phone option as mentioned in para 24 above. 

Chorus’ feedback on the proposed determination

  1. Chorus corrected some of the technical details from the proposed decision, with appropriate changes made to paras 22, 24 and 31 in this final decision. 

Reasons for the decision

  1. In TDR’s view, TDR need to determine whether:
  2. Chorus or the retail provider have breached any of the published codes
  3. Chorus or the retail provider have breached any other duty to the Customer including via communication and consultation or whether their conduct should warrant some other intervention from TDR.
  4. In TDR’s view, there has been no breach of any of the codes. TDR deal with each in turn:

111 Contact Code

  1. The 111 Contact Code applies where vulnerable customers need to be able to contact 111 emergency services during a power failure. In this case, TDR do not consider the Customer to be vulnerable within the meaning of the Code. Furthermore, the Customer’s situation is not akin to a “power failure” in that that they do not have any power supply in the first place.
  2. In this regard, TDR accept Chorus’ submission that it is not responsible to supply power to the Customer where there is no existing power supply to the Customer’s property that may be interrupted. For customers with power supply to their property, the usual way power failure backup is provided is by way of a battery backup that is constantly recharged by the existing power supply. In this situation, there is no power supply to keep a battery backup charged. 

Copper Withdrawal Code

  1. The Copper Withdrawal Code applies where Chorus removes copper services with the rollout of ultrafast fibre services. CMAR services are not covered by the Copper Withdrawal Code as they are based on radio signal converted into copper signal for the last distance of delivery, but are not part of the nationwide copper infrastructure covered by this Code.
  2. However, Chorus told TDR that they used the Copper Withdrawal Code as a basis for communication timeframes as that Code sets out a reasonable structure for communication and consultation. 

Customer Care Code and TDR Terms of Reference

  1. In TDR’s view, the providers’ communication with the Customer has been appropriate. While the removal of old services will never be welcomed by the recipient, the customer service was appropriate, and the information provided was accurate and detailed.

Providers’ broader conduct

  1. The situation of this case is one where the Customer feels as though their reliable and only service is being removed, with no replacement that they feel is suitable and adequate. Chorus is removing a service which it is difficult and costly for them to continue to provide. The retail provider is simply the retail service provider.
  2. For the Customer, the removal of the CMAR service has left them with no suitable alternative, but TDR is limited in considerations to the Codes underlying the TDR service and the providers’ actions in communicating with the Customer.
  3. In this regard, TDR find that there has been no breach of the Codes and their actions have been reasonable in the circumstances. The resolutions offered by Chorus have been reasonable and while in the specific case of the Customer, these haven’t suited them, this does not mean that the actions of Chorus have been unreasonable or unlawful.
  4. TDR accept Chorus’ submission that it is not responsible for customers’ power supplies and even if a contribution might be reasonable, the options put forward by the customer starting at $12,000 are not reasonable or proportionate. 

Future actions

  1. Chorus agreed to continue working with the Customer to arrange a suitable alternative phone system and to examine funding this. As detailed above, one option might be a satellite option similar to the Starlink service, with the hardware and installation being arranged by Chorus. Chorus will continue working with the Customer, but I make no orders in this regard.
  2. As TDR have found that there is no breach of any Code, TDR do not order future actions to be performed.