Canadian Chat → Re: Rogers Buying WIND Mobile?

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.

that depends where you live.

»promo.orderrogers.ca/bun ··· -_-slot2

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.

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.

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.

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