dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1004

BGB
Wants moar interwebz
Premium Member
join:2009-07-09
Waterloo, ON

BGB

Premium Member

Domestic Roaming

So a while back they were talking about lowering domestic roaming fees, but I haven't heard much about it in a while. Does anyone know what happened to that?
hosedagain3
join:2008-02-18
Canada

hosedagain3

Member

who is they? link?

BGB
Wants moar interwebz
Premium Member
join:2009-07-09
Waterloo, ON

BGB

Premium Member

The Govt. Google Bill C-31

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
Not much so far.
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings to BGB

Premium Member

to BGB
said by BGB:

So a while back they were talking about lowering domestic roaming fees

Do domestic roaming fees really matter much anymore? AFAIK Bell, Rogers and Telus all provide nationwide roaming with their newer plans (usually combined with nationwide free long distance and texting).

It seems to me that this only matters to Wind Mobile customers, because the Wind network is so small. And that's fair enough, although I might ask why the government is using its might to favour a single company, but either way it's hardly a large slice of the market / the population.

If we were talking about US and international roaming, I would get that - total rip-off, although the US situation has eased a bit with new alternatives such as Roam Mobility.

Just asking ....
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr

Member

said by ings:

said by BGB:

So a while back they were talking about lowering domestic roaming fees

Do domestic roaming fees really matter much anymore? AFAIK Bell, Rogers and Telus all provide nationwide roaming with their newer plans (usually combined with nationwide free long distance and texting).

It seems to me that this only matters to Wind Mobile customers, because the Wind network is so small. And that's fair enough, although I might ask why the government is using its might to favour a single company, but either way it's hardly a large slice of the market / the population.

Because the government is trying to create competition in the wireless market. Carriers like Wind cannot be viable without competitive wholesale access to larger networks. Also this opens the door for more potential MVNO competition as well.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

1 recommendation

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Wind's problem is two fold
1) Access to Capital to build out
2 Onerous roaming charges by the incumbents.

When they can offer UNLIMITED roaming in the US for less then they can in Canada, you know there is something wrong.

They can we discuss the roadblocks thrown up by Robellus for access to their towers , along with an indifferent IC.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by elwoodblues:

....When they [WIND] can offer UNLIMITED roaming in the US for less than they can in Canada, you know there is something wrong....

 
VERY wrong !

And sometimes, even setting up a cell account with a US carrier (and getting their phone or SIM to use) can cost less for a Canadian person who roams much within Canada.

I have heard (not confirmed, though there is circumstantial evidence such as what I said above) that Robellus offers Canadian roaming to US carriers for less than they offer it to WIND.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to BGB

MVM

to BGB
This matters to both WIND (who, if they don't get bought out, can't survive without it), and Videotron (who, if they really intend to go national, will find it invaluable).

eeeaddict
join:2010-02-14

eeeaddict to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere
why wouldn't they offer it for lower rates? At&t (or whoever) isn't competing or doing anything that would be a threat to robellus (hell the user would be here a few weeks max) wind is directly competing with them AND some people would switch away since long term roaming with wind would probably be cheaper
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to BGB

Premium Member

to BGB
Wind ought to cut a deal with Eastlink for reciprocal roaming rights. That would give Wind roaming in Atlantic Canada (major areas anyway).

But the roaming deal Wind has with Rogers is an exclusive deal, meaning Wind can't partner with anyone else anywhere in Canada. Rogers really roped Wind in - I think Rogers was the ONLY carrier willing to sign a deal, so Wind got hosed.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

This matters to both WIND (who, if they don't get bought out, can't survive without it), and Videotron (who, if they really intend to go national, will find it invaluable).

Here is the interesting part, PKP has not put his interests in Quebecor and QMI in a blind trust, yet he is still looking to be come head of the PQ.

So the Feds are going to help the head of a political party that wants to separate from Canada? i can just see the headlines.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to BGB

MVM

to BGB
He should absolutely put his interests in a blind trust if he's in government. In fact, I think that isn't enough, because he still gets profit in that scenario, which means he still has an incentive to play favouritism. If he's in government, he should have to sell off all his shares. Harsh to have to sell the company your family founded, perhaps, but he doesn't have to go into politics.

However, he's not in government... and so doesn't have any power to play favouratism. So as long as he's not in government (and I hope he and his party never are again), I don't see how his ownership of Quebecor matters.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by Guspaz:

He should absolutely put his interests in a blind trust if he's in government. In fact, I think that isn't enough, because he still gets profit in that scenario, which means he still has an incentive to play favouritism. If he's in government, he should have to sell off all his shares. Harsh to have to sell the company your family founded, perhaps, but he doesn't have to go into politics.

However, he's not in government... and so doesn't have any power to play favouratism. So as long as he's not in government (and I hope he and his party never are again), I don't see how his ownership of Quebecor matters.

He's an MNA isn't he? Once he "heals up" he can certainly argue in favour of his companies.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to BGB

MVM

to BGB
He's an MNA, but do MNAs in opposition against a majority government have any clout?

chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH

chip89 to BGB

Premium Member

to BGB
WOW you guys still pay Domestic Roaming? It's all gone here & has been for years even on prepaid.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

said by chip89:

WOW you guys still pay Domestic Roaming? It's all gone here & has been for years even on prepaid.

You don't get charged for it because you can't do it at all, not because it would be free if you did it. When was the last time your AT&T phone connected to the Verizon network, or vice versa?
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings to chip89

Premium Member

to chip89
said by chip89:

WOW you guys still pay Domestic Roaming?

As I noted above, if you use one of the three largest providers, all of whom have a nationwide network, this is a non-issue. The discussion is about the smaller / regional players who don't have a nationwide network.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

So the Feds are going to help the head of a political party that wants to separate from Canada? i can just see the headlines.

»Separatist want to own Canada's 4th national carrier

BGB
Wants moar interwebz
Premium Member
join:2009-07-09
Waterloo, ON

BGB to ings

Premium Member

to ings
said by ings:

said by chip89:

WOW you guys still pay Domestic Roaming?

As I noted above, if you use one of the three largest providers, all of whom have a nationwide network, this is a non-issue. The discussion is about the smaller / regional players who don't have a nationwide network.

And it's not a issue paying for roaming. I would gladly pay for roaming onto Rogers from Wind, it's just crazy that they charge insane roaming rates to do it. They can easily charge 5 cents a MB to roam and still make a profit. As of right now, with the rate being $1/MB to roam onto Rogers, no one can reasonably afford it. In fact, I got a pre-paid fido SIM last time I was out of a wind zone for a extended time because it was a lot cheaper.

chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH

chip89 to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
Yes we can I have a Verizon phone it can use US cellular. & Sprint phones use Verizon. & more. »Roaming?
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:

Because the government is trying to create the illusion of competition in the wireless market.

Fixed it for you.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to chip89

Premium Member

to chip89
said by chip89:

Yes we can I have a Verizon phone it can use US cellular. & Sprint phones use Verizon. & more. »Roaming?

 
What some folks refer to as 'roaming' is what other folks call 'long distance'.

There ARE some similarities, but also differences.

The term 'roaming' is more used when discussing cell service (because the phone itself is portable), and 'long distance' applies more to landlines, because the incumbent telcos still are trying to milk us for any calls which are to/from more than a few miles away.

Landlines do not offer true roaming.

The closest equivalent to 'roaming' on a landline might be 'calling card' calls, sponsored by your own telco, such as Verizon or AT&T, or possibly a 'collect' call could also be considered to be 'roaming'.

But at the same time, each of those would usually also be regarded as 'long distance'.

On cellular, true roaming means to use another provider's network to make or receive a call, no matter how near or far from your home location, but that term often gets blurred with long distance, because a long distance call is often also a roaming call.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to chip89

MVM

to chip89
said by chip89:

Yes we can I have a Verizon phone it can use US cellular. & Sprint phones use Verizon. & more. »Roaming?

Fair enough, but you can bet that US Cellular is charging Verizon for that, which is what we're talking about here too. The government wants to set the wholesale rates that telecom providers can charge eachother for roaming.

The reason why a provider like WIND would charge you more if you go off-network is because the current wholesale roaming rates are so ridiculously out of control that they don't have much choice. The new law on roaming rates should improve that, by setting roaming rates to a reasonable enough level that providers wouldn't necessarily need to charge more.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by Guspaz:

The new law on roaming rates should improve that, by setting roaming rates to a reasonable enough level that providers wouldn't necessarily need to charge more.

No matter what's 'decided', if the roaming rate is set by the CRTC at even 1 cent less per minute than the incumbents currently charge their roaming 'partners' (based on their current contracts negotiated in "good faith" - cough, cough, bullshit, cough), there WILL be a petition to the GiC, a suit launched in Federal Court, and every other avenue open to the incumbents to obstruct/rescind the decision.

This won't be over for years.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Sad but true Mr Krebs, look what it took to get them to share the towers during the initial rollout, they fought over every single tower.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to BGB

MVM

to BGB
The rates are going to be based on carrier revenue for their own customers, calculated by dividing the total number of minutes used by the total revenue for voice minutes. This takes unlimited plans into account by ignoring the plans that users have entirely.

Of course, how you separate voice revenue from data revenue when all carriers now have integrated plans is a whole other can of worms, and since this stuff is all happening in secret, there's no way to know how it's being resolved. C-31 restricts what rates carriers can charge for roaming, but it doesn't require them to disclose those rates publicly.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

But they rip off their own customers, so what the hell does that accomplish?

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

It accomplishes a dramatic reduction in price, because they rip off their wholesalers enormously more than they rip off their own customers.

chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH

chip89 to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
We don't have cell long distance anymore to.. It's been like that since the early 2000s.