 TLS2000Crazy CanuckPremium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to LazMan
Re: Rogers Buying WIND Mobile? said by LazMan:Problem is, consumers want their phone to work everywhere... A user may live in a glass tower in the 'T.dot' - but they're driving to visit their buddy in Winnipeg; and expect, even demand, that their cell coverage works the whole way around the north shore of Superior...
Population density and geography are two of the biggest issues for any carrier; incumbent or new entrant.
That's one of the worst examples you can provide. Rogers doesn't work on the north shore of Superior. That in fact, is proof that they don't even cover areas where people are to the fullest extent.
--
Tom |
|
TLS2000Crazy CanuckPremium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer:perhaps you weren't getting ripped off by Rogers and Bell then??...perhaps you were actually paying a price relative to what it costs to provide the services and allow the company a profit...and making 25 cents per customer doesn't pay the bills, as evidenced by their inability to make money.
Perhaps overpaying for the wireless spectrum and paying way too much money to build their network is the real reason they're not making money. Once the network is in place though, service costs are relatively low.
Also take into account that they're servicing a fraction of the users that Rogers and Bellus do, which makes the servicing cost much higher per user.
That said, the person you were asking the question of spewed a lot about how he was being ripped off and never provided proof of it.
--
Tom |
|
TLS2000Crazy CanuckPremium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to shaner
said by shaner:Look at all the empty territory in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that IS covered. There are very few people actually living outside of Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg. Yet the network coverage in those provinces alone is extremely extensive with a lot of build cost and a long term ROI. That coverage is there because big corporate energy customers demand it, but seriously, some of the towers in the boonies may go DAYS before they're actually connected to a device.
One of the advantages of the prairies is that they don't actually need a lot of towers to cover the whole map.
That said, I had major problems with reception on the Trans Canada through Manitoba and Saskatchewan with Rogers.
--
Tom |
|
|
|
 dirtyjefferAnons on ignore, but not due to fear.Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON | reply to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:
Perhaps overpaying for the wireless spectrum and paying way too much money to build their network is the real reason they're not making money. Once the network is in place though, service costs are relatively low.
therein lies the rub..."overpaying" for spectrum is simply a byproduct of spectrum auctions...highest bidder gets it...the larger the company, the more spectrum they need to expand and improve their network...should they not spend the money on their network, they will get ripped for "sitting on the cash" and not improving services...Rogers also likes to be "first to market" on as much as they can...being first also costs money...yes, they could have sat back, be last to market, and likely save a fair amount of money on hardware and infrastructure costs, but being last has its penalties as well...lost customers/acquisitions, reduced availability of supply (hardware, land for cell sites, etc), all these play a role into how a company invests in itself.
quote:
Also take into account that they're servicing a fraction of the users that Rogers and Bellus do, which makes the servicing cost much higher per user.
well, it might not be that much higher...while they have less subscribers, they also have significantly less overhead and capital expenses that go with an increased subscriber base...they also do next to nothing in handset subsidies, which is a MASSIVE expense for the big carriers (which in turn have contracts).
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell |
|
 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:That's one of the worst examples you can provide. Rogers doesn't work on the north shore of Superior. That in fact, is proof that they don't even cover areas where people are to the fullest extent.
Rogers coverage is the best of the big 3 going over Superior; The new entrants didnt work in Barrie until late last year, let alone past Sudbury... |
|
GBerry
join:2011-06-12
Guelph, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer:said by GBerry:If that point were true, how do you explain MTS and Sasktels offerings?
Both cover large areas where there is limited population, yet they have offerings better than the big 3 in Ontario. When I moved from Manitoba to Ontario I was told by the rogers rep that I had a 'small market plan' and would have to pay more in Ontario. This makes no sense at all if you think about it. More players in the market and more customers should allow them to offer a lower monthly price. They don't because they are to busy gouging and colluding.
there are two parts to wireless coverage...one is the actual geographical portion (towers located to provide coverage) and the second is capacity...while Manitoba and Saskatchewan have to cover their respective provinces, for the most part, they cover the southern parts of the provinces (where most people live) and a few corridors that run north...so, they don't really have that much to cover (Robellus have to do the very same, nationwide)...as well, with the lower populations and customer base, network capacity is likely a non-issue (outside of major cities)...these same things are also applicable to the new entrants...not only do they benefit from the latest hardware and infrastructure, but also benefit from lower entry prices for it (it is less costly now than it would have been when it was brand new technology several years ago)...they also don't require the capacity and tower density that the larger carriers require...Wind Mobile might only need a tower every 2 km in the GTA, whereas Robellus may require 50 in the same radius...that's 50x the hardware costs...50x the installation costs...50x the operating costs...50x the land/site leasing costs. Robellus wouldn't need more towers but they might have more equipment on each tower. In the GTA Rogers and Bell/Telus have about twice as many towers as Wind. From what I've read at Howardforums from people who were with wind since the beginning, Wind needs more towers. Too many dropped calls or over capacity towers.
The rub about capacity is that if you need more, it is because you have more customers. More customers equals more money. While it is true that covering nationwide is more challenging, you also get customers nationwide and don't need to peer with other providers for roaming (like MTS and Sasktel do).
Our cell phone plans, like our internet plans, like our tv plans, are rip-offs. |
|
dirtyjefferAnons on ignore, but not due to fear.Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON | said by GBerry:Our cell phone plans, like our internet plans, like our tv plans, are rip-offs.
that depends where you live.
»promo.orderrogers.ca/bundle99/?c···-_-slot2
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell |
|
| reply to GBerry
At the moment the talk of Wind selling out to one of the big three is purely based on speculation by some bank analyst. There isn't anything set in stone that Vimplecom will want to get out of Canada as soon as that date next year arrives.
However if the sale does happen it will be a big blow to the telco industry in this country. The average consumer in this country is too addicted to the big 3 that they don't want to try out something new even if it means paying less (probably the same reason why people still shop at places like Metro and Dominion when cheaper alternatives are available).
The fud about Wind, Moblicity etc having bad service is still being pushed by robellus salesman and the people just lap it up without doing any research. Add to that the fact that Wind and Moblicity can't sell their services through Best Buy, Futureshop etc and you have a situation where they can't win.
The whole thing about the country being too big and not densely populated is BS made up by the big 3 to excuse their high prices. Other countries (less technologically capable than Canada) have cheaper service available in rural parts of the country.
The sad thing is that places like Howard Forums and other boards are full of shills for the big 3 that keep spreading their anti-wind nonsense all over the place. I wonder how many shares they own.
Sometimes I think there is no hope for telco in this country. We are going to be stuck with being ripped off until we leave this place. |
|
| reply to GBerry
said by GBerry:said by dirtyjeffer:said by GBerry:If that point were true, how do you explain MTS and Sasktels offerings?
Both cover large areas where there is limited population, yet they have offerings better than the big 3 in Ontario. When I moved from Manitoba to Ontario I was told by the rogers rep that I had a 'small market plan' and would have to pay more in Ontario. This makes no sense at all if you think about it. More players in the market and more customers should allow them to offer a lower monthly price. They don't because they are to busy gouging and colluding.
there are two parts to wireless coverage...one is the actual geographical portion (towers located to provide coverage) and the second is capacity...while Manitoba and Saskatchewan have to cover their respective provinces, for the most part, they cover the southern parts of the provinces (where most people live) and a few corridors that run north...so, they don't really have that much to cover (Robellus have to do the very same, nationwide)...as well, with the lower populations and customer base, network capacity is likely a non-issue (outside of major cities)...these same things are also applicable to the new entrants...not only do they benefit from the latest hardware and infrastructure, but also benefit from lower entry prices for it (it is less costly now than it would have been when it was brand new technology several years ago)...they also don't require the capacity and tower density that the larger carriers require...Wind Mobile might only need a tower every 2 km in the GTA, whereas Robellus may require 50 in the same radius...that's 50x the hardware costs...50x the installation costs...50x the operating costs...50x the land/site leasing costs. Robellus wouldn't need more towers but they might have more equipment on each tower. In the GTA Rogers and Bell/Telus have about twice as many towers as Wind. From what I've read at Howardforums from people who were with wind since the beginning, Wind needs more towers. Too many dropped calls or over capacity towers. The rub about capacity is that if you need more, it is because you have more customers. More customers equals more money. While it is true that covering nationwide is more challenging, you also get customers nationwide and don't need to peer with other providers for roaming (like MTS and Sasktel do). You also have to account for the fact that the Big 3 have a lot of 'prime'* spectrum in their networks which they didn't have to pay up-front for - unlike the new entrants.
Remember the early days of cellular in Canada? There really *was* a government access fee tacked onto your bill each month - a fee that was essentially a straight passthru 'rent' paid to the Feds. Then that gov't fee was dropped, but the Big 3 kept it on the bill each month - with a slightly different name - and the Big 3 pocketed the money.
Then we come to the 2008 AWS auction. Spectrum had to be bought and paid for up-front. The new entrants had to have piles of cash to not only build their network & operations, but the also had to fork over wheelbarrows of cash directly to the feds - versus the long history the Big 3 had with what was effectively was a convenient monthly payment plan for spectrum.
Now we come to the matter of *'prime' spectrum. 1700/2100MHz spectrum is not 'prime', whereas the spectrum below that - in particular anything below 1000MHz - is prime.
Why?
1) Because the lower the frequency the greater the distance a useable signal can travel. This means that fewer expensive cell tower sites can cover a larger footprint. This is especially useful in rural areas where the population is sparse....it lowers your cost/subscriber. 1700/2100 requires more cell sites to cover the same area with useable signal, hence costs are higher.
2) Lower than 100MHz frequencies also penetrate into buildings better, which in urban areas means that you get coverage deep inside buildings and not just near the windows. This increases customer satisfaction, and it can (but not necessarily) also mean that you need fewer cell sites....which also lowers costs/subscriber. 1700/2100 requires more cell sites to cover the same area in order to penetrate deeper into buildings/basements, hence costs are higher.
3) There is less signal degradation with lower frequencies due to reflections and multi-path issues impacting voice quality and data transmission issues. This generally means higher customer satisfaction, and again a tendency to require fewer cell sites to support the same number of subscribers - which leads directly to lower costs/subscriber. 1700/2100 requires more cell sites to cover the same area with les multi-path, hence costs are higher.
All the foregoing is why the upcoming 700MHz auction is so important to the new entrants. Rogers has a TON of 850 MHz spectrum - likewise Bell & Telus own a lot of sub-1000MHz spectrum. The new guys own exactly zero (0) sub-1000MHz spectrum. If the upcoming spectrum distribution were fair, the government would exclude the Big 3 from the process entirely and offer the 700MHz spectrum to just the new guys on a "pay-as-you-get-subscribers basis" - just like they did for the Big 3 years ago. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| AWS can be considered prime spectrum for urban/suburban areas the same way as 1900MHz is, as you can run those towers in a densely packed area with a lot of capacity for the small area you need to cover. Density should make in-building penetration a non-issue due even on AWS, so long as you're in an area with more than a few dozen people were square kilometer.
Like 1900MHz, AWS is not ideal for for rural coverage though where distance and long-range in-building penetration becomes more important than capacity. As someone who was a Rogers GSM subscriber when first launched with only GSM 1900 (as 850 simply didn't yet exist) I can attest to the fact that a rural 1900MHz GSM network using towers laid out for an 800MHz AMPS and IS-136 network was best described as swiss cheese. When they finally launched GSM 850 it was a world of difference once you got anywhere away from a city.
2600MHz is rather interesting, though. Rogers claims to have 2600 LTE anywhere they do AWS, but people who actually have the Optimus G which only does LTE on 2600 have been bitching about coverage compared to different phones on AWS. Density due to capacity should be far higher than the bare minimum as far as 1900MHz and AWS go in an urban area. I have to wonder if it's merely lack of experience tuning for 2600MHz handsets in North America. |
|
| reply to DKS
said by DKS: Could be.
quote:
Orascom is reportedly “anxious” to cut its losses in Canada (they said to have ‘regretted’ entering the Canadian wireless market) and looks to sell WIND Mobile to either Bell, TELUS or Rogers, with the latter cited as the most frequently mentioned buyer:
haha hehe haha thanks for that man
the most expensive cell phone rates nearly on earth and WHAT ARE YOU SAYING
that cant be it its more like the others are wanting to buy him out so they can put rates back up even higher then before
THANKS FOR COMPETITION right? BAN THE CRTC AND FOREIGN OWNERSHIP RUELS they want to come and compete ROFL....lol
haha hahaahaahaha
mark my words they sell and rates will go up a fair bit |
|
| reply to monsoon66
said by monsoon66:At the moment the talk of Wind selling out to one of the big three is purely based on speculation by some bank analyst. There isn't anything set in stone that Vimplecom will want to get out of Canada as soon as that date next year arrives.
However if the sale does happen it will be a big blow to the telco industry in this country. The average consumer in this country is too addicted to the big 3 that they don't want to try out something new even if it means paying less (probably the same reason why people still shop at places like Metro and Dominion when cheaper alternatives are available).
The fud about Wind, Moblicity etc having bad service is still being pushed by robellus salesman and the people just lap it up without doing any research. Add to that the fact that Wind and Moblicity can't sell their services through Best Buy, Futureshop etc and you have a situation where they can't win.
The whole thing about the country being too big and not densely populated is BS made up by the big 3 to excuse their high prices. Other countries (less technologically capable than Canada) have cheaper service available in rural parts of the country.
The sad thing is that places like Howard Forums and other boards are full of shills for the big 3 that keep spreading their anti-wind nonsense all over the place. I wonder how many shares they own.
Sometimes I think there is no hope for telco in this country. We are going to be stuck with being ripped off until we leave this place.
ya considering i was told THAT WIND ISNT SELLING and in FACT WILL BE EXPANDING CELL TOWERS
am i lied too, cause i wont bother getting the phone then...i dont want rogers or bce phone and would rather go totally without a phone |
|
