 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Fido / September 2004Rogers bought us
In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: <http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/09/20/rogers_040920.html> I certainly hope City|Fido stays in tact, as does Fido's current voice mail with instant reply. I have Roger's vm system. I'm guessing if this gets finalized this year, not a lot will change in the first half of 2005, but then, who knows? :( Maybe Rogers will change over some of their system's to Fido's plans and vm, which would be good for us and them. .:. tony Go Go Gadget tony <tfortony@yahoo.com>: > In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: > <http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/09/20/rogers_040920.html> Argh. And I just bought a new phone! (Unlocked Nokia 5140, very nice) I'd stick with a Telus-owned Fido, but probably jump ship because of Rogers. Too bad, too -- Telus would have brought fresh capital to the GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's base and brand.  SignatureRob.Russell@Canada.Com, Unicorn of Usenet & Bastard of Bandwidth "If my son wants to be a pimp when he grows up, that's fine with me. I hope he's a good one and enjoys it and doesn't get caught. I'll support him in this. But if he wants to be a network administrator, he's out of the house and not part of my family." Steve Wozniak, http://www.woz.org Rob Russell <colonel@engsoc.org> wrote in alt.cellular.fido: > I'd stick with a Telus-owned Fido, but probably jump ship because of > Rogers. Too bad, too -- Telus would have brought fresh capital to the > GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's > base and brand. I'm considering going back to alphanumeric pager and payphone again. Cheaper. Guess we'll see what the outcome of the offer is. SignatureMason Storm --------------- Remove "dogface" to reply in email. --------------- Think your pop-up blocker works?? Try this: http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html --------------- Unlimited local calling anywhere in Canada $70/month. http://www.fido.ca/portal/en/packages/monthly.shtml#unlimitedcanada --------------- > Rob Russell <colonel@engsoc.org> wrote in alt.cellular.fido: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm considering going back to alphanumeric pager and payphone again. > Cheaper. Guess we'll see what the outcome of the offer is. Find a way to get a Rogers corporate plan. Rogers is about to have urban coverage as good as Fido's (and theoretically better because it can overlay Fido's towers with GSM 850), rural coverage that blows Fido away, and if you can get a corporate plan you can get rates that are similar to or better than a lot of Fido's plans. I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant, SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did. Jim > I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and > billing by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, > Bell, Aliant, SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did. no chance. the only reason Fido is so interesting to other cellphone companies is because the pricing scheme is so low that it's not letting the other companies gouge without repercussions. rogers buying fido means one thing - higher prices for all services, and fixed-length service contracts. don't forget idiotic customer service, too. i guarantee there won't be a single benefit to current Fido customers. people say 'oh the coverage will expand'... but have any of you actually TRIED Rogers' GSM service? 'crappy' is not a descriptive enough term. also, i'm sure all my grandfathered services (FidoData) will also finally get axed. >> I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and >> billing by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because the pricing scheme is so low that it's not letting the other > companies gouge without repercussions. Right, that's all it's about... > rogers buying fido means one thing - higher prices for all services, and > fixed-length service contracts. don't forget idiotic customer service, > too. Yes, the sky is certainly falling... > i guarantee there won't be a single benefit to current Fido customers. > people say 'oh the coverage will expand'... Really, you guarantee? How much is your "guarantee" worth? Nothing, exactly... > but have any of you actually > TRIED Rogers' GSM service? 'crappy' is not a descriptive enough term. Yup, use it all the time, it's incredible. When I was with Fido I always kept checking my phone to see if I had coverage when on the road, since I've been with Rogers I've stopped checking, their coverage is some many times better then Fido there is no comparison. While the quality of the network may not be as high, have a usable signal, even if it isn't 100% in quality is FAR better then the no signal Fido offers. > also, i'm sure all my grandfathered services (FidoData) will also > finally get axed. Boohoo, Fido has proven their prices couldn't keep them going. >> the only reason Fido is so interesting to other cellphone companies >> is because the pricing scheme is so low that it's not letting the >> other companies gouge without repercussions. > > Right, that's all it's about... um, that is about it. yes, their frequency has some value, but virtually all financial analyses point to Fido's low-cost rate plans as being a very severe thorn in other cellular companies sides. >> rogers buying fido means one thing - higher prices for all services, >> and fixed-length service contracts. don't forget idiotic customer >> service, too. > > Yes, the sky is certainly falling... how's your Rogers customer service been? and you didn't have any qualms about signing with a company for two years instead of no contracts at Fido? i don't know about you, but the Rogers organization frightens me. they are awash in ridiculous debt (especially if this goes through).... and once push comes to shove, you'll be paying their debt down until your contract is through, whatever the rate. the fact that cellular companies even have fixed-length contracts is absolutey astounding considering the technology is far from perfect. imagine if your cable, telephone, internet and services were all based on signing a two-year contract? it's total BS. customers deserve the right to choose. >> i guarantee there won't be a single benefit to current Fido >> customers. people say 'oh the coverage will expand'... > > Really, you guarantee? How much is your "guarantee" worth? Nothing, > exactly... okay, you got me. i won't be handing out cash or rebates if my prediction falters. >> but have any of you actually >> TRIED Rogers' GSM service? 'crappy' is not a descriptive enough >> term. > While the quality of the network may not be as high, have a usable > signal, even if it isn't 100% in quality is FAR better then the no > signal Fido offers. I have no Fido signal issues. When I swap my friend's Rogers sim-card into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop offs. >> also, i'm sure all my grandfathered services (FidoData) will also >> finally get axed. > > Boohoo, Fido has proven their prices couldn't keep them going. that's not true at all. they're in a great place financially, completely turned around from even just a year ago. this rogers 'friendly' takeover was only offered because of Telus' hostile one. Fido would have happily been continuing if Telus didn't start their drive. if anything, Fido proved that the OTHER companies cannot run profitably - hence the need to take Fido out of the picture, raise rates (all companies rates will be raised within a year), and start trying to climb out of debt. >>> the only reason Fido is so interesting to other cellphone companies is >>> because the pricing scheme is so low that it's not letting the other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all financial analyses point to Fido's low-cost rate plans as being a very > severe thorn in other cellular companies sides. Oh please. How many subscribers does Fido have? Their low cost plans may have had a small impact, but NOWHERE near as large as you are trying to portray. Fido is, for Rogers, a great way to get the books to look a little better, plus it boosts their subscriber numbers a little. If anybody has a thorn in their side when it comes to Fido it's Telus, Telus has been quite nasty to Fido for a LONG time. >>> rogers buying fido means one thing - higher prices for all services, >>> and fixed-length service contracts. don't forget idiotic customer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > how's your Rogers customer service been? Not bad. No worse or better then Fido. > and you didn't have any > qualms about signing with a company for two years instead of no > contracts at Fido? You don't have to get a contract with Rogers. Everybody seems to think this for some reason. > i don't know about you, but the Rogers organization > frightens me. they are awash in ridiculous debt (especially if this goes > through).... and once push comes to shove, you'll be paying their debt > down until your contract is through, whatever the rate. I'm not on contract, so I can jump ship whenever I want. > the fact that > cellular companies even have fixed-length contracts is absolutey > astounding considering the technology is far from perfect. No, what's astounding is that people are willing to SIGN contracts, can't blame a company for doing something if people are daft enough to fall for it. > imagine if > your cable, telephone, internet and services were all based on signing a > two-year contract? it's total BS. customers deserve the right to > choose. Actually most other services these days ARE trying to go contract, i.e. Bell Sympatico will gladly lock you in a contract, as does Bell Expressvu. >>> but have any of you actually >>> TRIED Rogers' GSM service? 'crappy' is not a descriptive enough term. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop > offs. I'd have to say that's rare in my experience. My brother has Fido, I have Rogers, suffice it to say that whenever we go on a trip outside of the GTA he doesn't even bother bringing his phone. >>> also, i'm sure all my grandfathered services (FidoData) will also >>> finally get axed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > companies rates will be raised within a year), and start trying to climb > out of debt. It's amazing how "religious" some people take this whole thing. Rogers isn't "getting back" at anyone by doing this, they see a clear financial benefit of absorbing Fido, and they're taking it. I see nothing wrong with that. The banks (which own Fido) certainly prefer this sort of end to Fido, hence the lack of resistance. This is the business world, the real world, live with it. And to Fido: good riddance. You had a great start, you mucked it up, and now you're gone, you won't be missed. > > I have no Fido signal issues. When I swap my friend's Rogers sim-card > > into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop > > offs. The poster probably has a 1900 MHz phone. Rogers isn't that great on a 1900-only phone, but it's extremely good on an 850/1900 phone. Since Fido has no spectrum at 850, it *has* to be good at 1900 only. Jim >> > I have no Fido signal issues. When I swap my friend's Rogers sim-card >> > into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1900-only phone, but it's extremely good on an 850/1900 phone. Since Fido > has no spectrum at 850, it *has* to be good at 1900 only. Hmm, never thought of that, you're of course absolutely correct, without 850 coverage Rogers network doesn't look to great outside of major urban centers. TTYL > Hmm, never thought of that, you're of course absolutely correct, without > 850 coverage Rogers network doesn't look to great outside of major urban > centers. TTYL Nobody has a decent 1900 network outside urban areas. 1900 happened well after Cantel and Mobility had built up their 850 analogue networks. They weren't going to expand 1900 to all of their existing 850 covered areas since they chose their phones to be dual frequency so there was no gain to put additional capacity in rural areas. And they started with beeper networks in the 1980s and analogue phones in early 1990s so had plenty of time to roll out coverage. Fido and Clearnet started from scratch with only 1900 in the late 1990s, and had a mandate from government to cover X% of population, so their priority was to roll out cities due to that government requirement. > Nobody has a decent 1900 network outside urban areas. Telus does in Alberta. A friend has an old Clearnet analog/1900 CDMA phone (I told him to upgrade :) ). He gets analog only in Saskatchewan (as one would expect) except in Regina and Saskatoon, but gets full digital everywhere in Alberta. Telus must have CDMA 1900 implemented province-wide. Jim >>> the only reason Fido is so interesting to other cellphone companies >>> is because the pricing scheme is so low that it's not letting the [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > companies rates will be raised within a year), and start trying to climb > out of debt. Good thing I'm locked into a two year contract, because when all the companies raise their rates, as you claim. I will still be getting my 50 day, and unlimited evening and weekends at $20/mth with Bell Mobility. There are benefits to locking in, and since I see no need in leaving them it suits me fine. BTW, I CHOSE to lock in, nobody forced me. G M > i guarantee there won't be a single benefit to current Fido customers. > people say 'oh the coverage will expand'... but have any of you actually > TRIED Rogers' GSM service? 'crappy' is not a descriptive enough term. The quality of the Rogers GSM network has gone from quite inconsistent to quite consistent over the past three years or so. It sounds like you haven't used Rogers with an 850/1900 phone, which makes all the difference. Jim > I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing > by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant, > SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did. If Rogers chose not to have per-second billing, it is because it felt it had no competitive need to do so, and buying Fido will even further reduce this small need. Roger's purchase of Fido will end up the same as Telus' purchase of Clearnet, if it is allowed to go though: Fido's brand will disapear, Rogers may integrate some of the former marketing )for instance the dog theme) into its own ads, but Fido rates will no longter be offered to new customers and little by little, Rogers will stop grandfathering existing ex-Fido customers' rates. If this is allowed to go through, within 1.5 years, expect to start getting nice letters giving you some sweet deal to move to a Rogers plan with the first couple months at reduced reate, and following months at the good old expensive Rogers prices. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in alt.cellular.fido: > If Rogers chose not to have per-second billing, it is because it felt > it had no competitive need to do so, and buying Fido will even further [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > plan with the first couple months at reduced reate, and following > months at the good old expensive Rogers prices. I think this is very well put. I totally agree with you. SignatureMason Storm ----------------------------- Remove "dogface" to reply privately in email. ----------------------------- http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html ----------------------------- I find it interesting that the media seem to believe Roger's claims that it will keep the Fido brand. How naive can they be ??????? Considering Fido still have a fair percentage of its customers without contracts, loyalty will become totally 0 the minute Rogers buys Microcell. Will be interesting to see how Rogers handles the issue of locked FIDO phones. JF Mezei said: > I find it interesting that the media seem to believe Roger's claims that it > will keep the Fido brand. How naive can they be ??????? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Will be interesting to see how Rogers handles the issue of locked FIDO phones. ---------------- I read that Rogers could actually use Fido as a brand. They would use it against Virgin, which is getting ready to invade the market aggressively, and use City Fido to steal as many customers from Bell and Telus as they could. Nothing says that it is guaranteed, but those two reasons seem to make sense. Munger SignatureRead about my travels: http://travels.munger.ca/ > I read that Rogers could actually use Fido as a brand. They would use it > against Virgin, which is getting ready to invade the market > aggressively, and use City Fido to steal as many customers from Bell and > Telus as they could. Look, if Rogers had wanted to do this, they could have simply offered competitive packages with the Rogers brand. Rogers is just saying it will preserve Fido a a way to make the elimination of Fido more palatable to the competition bureau. Once all is said and done, approved, signed, sealed and delivered, Rogers will quickly integrate Microcell and you'll fairly quickly stop seeing any new packages offered under the Fido brand, start to see Rogers issued bills, and start to gets service offers sent to ex Fido customers for Rogers branded packages with some convincing argument to push Fido customers to opt for per-minute billing as something which is much better. It will not be any different from Telus' purchase of Clearnet. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in alt.cellular.fido: > Rogers is just saying it will preserve Fido a a way to make the > elimination of Fido more palatable to the competition bureau. Once all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > customers to opt for per-minute billing as something which is much > better. Better start stocking up on vaseline. We're going to need lots of it. This country should get their sh.t together. Makes me sick to see all these great ads about the cellular companies in the states. How about the one where you can buy one picture phone and get another for free? Rogers will destroy what Fido has done to improve competition and affordable decent rates for wireless consumers in this country. I've looked at the rate plans of the other 3 loosers and they all suck. Big time. They rape you. Extra $5. just to be able to start your evening plan at 6 pm?? See how much they are charging for so little minutes in a plan?? Sickening when I see the plans Fido is offering. Ahhh, I just want to scream. Let's buy Fido so we can kill it off because they are offering what consumers need and what consumers feel is fair pricing. Aww, boo hoo, it's cutting into their big fat profits. Just like the banks. Bend over and take it 'cause there is nothing you can do about it. Oh yeah, let's charge a $6.95 per month fee and call it something believable. Don't tell the customer what it is really for. Sure, Telus charges me $2.95 per month to be on THEIR long distance plan. I have to pay them!!! What the hell for?!?! Shaw here, charges a "Digital Network Access Fee" of $3.98 per month. What the hell for?? I bought 3 of their freaking digital boxes and spend $100 per month. When will the consumer unite and stand up together and say ENOUGH!!! Look at my gawd damn hydro/power bill. "Administration Charge" of $5.65 and "Fixed Service Charge" of $9.00, "Delivery Consumption Charge" of $6.44 and "Local Access Fee" of $2.01. Total of $23.10 worth of additional charges. I only used $32.70 worth of electricity this month. Is this a joke or what!!!! Jeesh, I sure and ranting and rambling here. I'm just pissed with all this. Am I blowing this all out of proportion or do I have a valid bitch here? SignatureMason Storm ----------------------------- Remove "dogface" to reply privately in email. ----------------------------- http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html ----------------------------- >Rogers is just saying it will preserve Fido a a way to make the elimination of >Fido more palatable to the competition bureau. So what you're saying is Rogers is lying, eh? Do you work for Rogers so you know that they couldn't possibly be telling the truth? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > So what you're saying is Rogers is lying, eh? Do you work for Rogers > so you know that they couldn't possibly be telling the truth? Again: If Rogers wanted to be competitive and drive prices down, they would have offered no contracts, per second billing, city fido equivalent under the Rogers brand. You don't need to buy another network to be competitive, you just need to update config files in your billing software. Rogers is buying Microcell for a couple of reasons: -pressure from its bankers so the later can offload their MCELL shares -access to Microcell's spectrum -cheap way to acquire Fido customers. Fido won't disapear overnight. It takes time to integrate 2 networks, billing software, accounting etc. Ted Rogers may have said it takes just a minute to enable roaming. Perhaps. But he isn't spending 1.4 billion to do just that. He's going to see cost savings potential by merging call centres, merging administrative functions, eliminating duplicate software licences and support costs in IT and network equipment etc etc etc etc etc etc. Consider that Rogers has just spent megabucks buying back the stock from its former parent AT&T, it had no choice since Cingular didn't want to hold on to it, and nobody else was there to buy those shares. Rogers will spend an extra 1.6 billion to get Microcell from its own cash reserves as well as money borrowed from banks (one more reason banks are happy to have Rogers buy Microcell since they not only get their money back from sale of Microcell shares, but will collect interest on Roger's higher debt). All this to say that Rogers will be under tremendous pressure to make this merger pay a good dividend. And this means streamlininng operations to the max, and certaintly no incentives to lower prices. Rogers may retask "Fido" to be used as a pre-paid product name, with Rogers used for post-paid services. But in the end, Rogers will eliminate Microcell from the picture and will force Fido customers to move to Rogers price/contract schemes. While Fido may complete some promotions/projects already in the pipeline, expect to see very few new projects actually start from now on, especially if the merger is approved shortly. Big question mark is whether Fido will spend megabucks to upgrade Ottawa and Montreal to have City Fido. From what I had heard, Montreal was to have had City Fido by mid 2005. > Big question mark is whether Fido will spend megabucks to upgrade Ottawa and > Montreal to have City Fido. From what I had heard, Montreal was to have had > City Fido by mid 2005. The above comment proves you don't know what the hell your talking about.. If you had pin pointed the timing correctly, well.. that would have added some weight to your comments, but ya didn't.. BTW, i looked at both www.sec.com and www.sedar.com (canadian equivalent) and all that has been officially listed so far are the press releases from rogers/microcell encased inside legalese SEC filing data. The real stuff is supposed to be available within 10 business days of the announcement. Also, Rogers needs 2/3 of Microcell shares to be tendered for this to go ahead. I don't expect to see an increase in front end prices, but I do expect to see an end to a gradual drop in prices. We used to see Fido pushing prices steadily down, so that it was reasonable to expect for the average consumer (No, not each consumer, so maybe not you) to see a drop. I think the current price plans will stay, but there will not be new lower prices. I also expect to see that backend prices going up, like international roaming, international long distance, so they nickle and dime you. Cheers all Andrew >>I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing >>by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > first couple months at reduced reate, and following months at the good old > expensive Rogers prices. > I don't expect to see an increase in front end prices, but I do expect > to see an end to a gradual drop in prices. Which is interesting since the media seem to believe that by buying Fido, Rogers will be able to continue to push price down adn be good for customers. Again, the media are so naive. From an accounting point of view, It could be a good deal for Rogers since it will acquire bandwidth, infrastructure as well as a lot of customers. Big question is how much rationlisation can be made in terms of towers. I am very disapointed that the Microcell board has already recommended acceptance. It is a very sad day. With Fido about to disapear, I will request that they give me unloack codes for ALL my phones, including my old 2190 in case I ever need those again years from now when we'll have Rogers SIMs and Fido will be long gone. > With Fido about to disapear, I will request that they give me unloack > codes for ALL my phones, including my old 2190 in case I ever need those > again years from now when we'll have Rogers SIMs and Fido will be long > gone. You can request all you want, I don't see any reason Rogers would do that. More likely they'd offer a swap to a Rogers phone. TTYL If my memory is correct, Fido was the first company in Canada to offer billing by the second. After awhile the other companies followed suit but one by one they went back to billing by rounding up to the next minute (and for almost all of them, the time actually starts when your phone rings, not when you pick up your phone for incoming calls while for outgoing calls the timer starts after you hit "send" and get a connection as long as the person on the other end picks up). I believe that Rogers' billing by the second when they actually had it, started after the first minute. I'm not sure if this was because they had an option for the first incoming minute free. I hope that Fido stays around because consumers need more competition and not less. Let's not forget that one of the main reasons why Telus and Rogers want to buy Fido is to reduce the number of players on the market especially when that player (i.e. Fido) is the one that is offering innovative plans like unlimited incoming, CityFido, unlimited GPRS, billing by the second, etc. /Jim > > I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing > > by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > first couple months at reduced reate, and following months at the good old > expensive Rogers prices. > If my memory is correct, Fido was the first company in Canada to offer > billing by the second. SaskTel Mobility (then SaskTel Cellular) had billing by the second in 1988-89, as did Rogers (then Cantel). It did go away for awhile, though. My current Rogers plan has billing by the second, although there is a one-minute minimum. Jim >Telus would have brought fresh capital to the >GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's base >and brand. And what makes you think that Telus would not disassemble Fido's GSM network and put all Fido's customers on their CDMA network? It's not as if that's never happened before. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.cellular.fido: > And what makes you think that Telus would not disassemble Fido's GSM > network and put all Fido's customers on their CDMA network? It's not > as if that's never happened before. Any of the current cellular operators would eventually kill Fido if they aquired it. They only want to gain control of it because right now Fido is killing the market for these other loosers with their great rate plans. Look what happened to Clearnet when Smelus bought it! Wish we had competition like in the USA. They have great plans too. SignatureMason Storm --------------- Remove "dogface" to reply in email. --------------- Think your pop-up blocker works?? Try this: http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html --------------- Unlimited local calling anywhere in Canada $70/month. http://www.fido.ca/portal/en/packages/monthly.shtml#unlimitedcanada --------------- It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. > In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > .:. tony > It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. and new minimum service contracts to sign, terrible customer support, and higher monthly prices! >> It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. > > and new minimum service contracts to sign, terrible customer support, and > higher monthly prices! Odd, considering my move to Rogers actually resulted in my spending LESS per month then I did with Fido, fancy that... > Odd, considering my move to Rogers actually resulted in my spending LESS > per month then I did with Fido, fancy that... My time with Rogers cost me about 1.5x as much as Fido, and for an inferior package. This is very bad news, although probably better than a Telus deal. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. The coverage of fido is enough for my need. If I want better coverage (and higher prices) I wold go with Bell/telus. They go where rogers didn't like up from Rimouski, quebec. I don't see any advantage for Rogers. The custumer service is awful with syntetic voice and acadians CSR impossible to understand. The network acts bizarre with calls that not go though (I have a Rogers SIM and tried it with a lot of phones and 850/1900 too and I prefer Fido). But at least, if Fido is to be bought it's better to be Rogers than Telus (with their CDMA-robotic-voice-american-only-go-direct-voicemail system!) >> It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. >> > The coverage of fido is enough for my need. I thought the same, until I moved into a building in the GTA with ZERO Fido coverage, yet Rogers coverage. For me that was the final straw. > If I want better coverage > (and higher prices) I wold go with Bell/telus. I don't know. My parents have a Bell phone and while they do have signal in most places I do, it's FAR harder for them to get a call through. That and it's analog in many places with Bell, with Rogers their GSM850 coverage is as good as their analog in almost every place I've tried, and I'd much prefer GSM over AMPs no matter where I am. > They go where rogers > didn't like up from Rimouski, quebec. Yes, that is one area I lost coverage, along with New Richmond and Gaspesie area, but hey, when you're in such beautiful scenery you don't really need a cell phone! > I don't see any advantage for > Rogers. For me the number one advatange is GSM. I HATE the codecs Bell and Telus use. They sound so horrible to my ears I actually pray for a Bell or Telus phone to switch to analog. I just can't stand it. That and the SIM card, an amazing feature. Just the thought of having to get permission from my cell provider to change phones is laughable in my mind. > The custumer service is awful with syntetic voice and acadians > CSR impossible to understand. In my experience no worse then Fido. I know that isn't much of an excuse, but hey there it is. > The network acts bizarre with calls that > not go though (I have a Rogers SIM and tried it with a lot of phones and > 850/1900 too and I prefer Fido). What do you mean by "strange"? I've actually encountered less problems with calls going through then I ever did with Fido. > But at least, if Fido is to be bought > it's better to be Rogers than Telus (with their > CDMA-robotic-voice-american-only-go-direct-voicemail system!) Agreed. TTYL >It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. And dropped calls, and higher prices, and by the way repatch your just a dick and a troll. >> In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> .:. tony On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:50:36 +0000, yoyo wrote: >>It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. > > And dropped calls, Haven't had any more dropped calls with Rogers then I did with Fido, except of course during the big blackout last year (when I had Fido), but I don't count that... I did have one night where I kept getting crossed lines on Rogers, very weird, every call I tried to make ended up being connected to another call in progress, very weird. The effect disappeared after I switched towers. > and higher prices, That depends on your usage and features you want. For me Rogers actually turned out to be cheaper by a very small amount. > and by the way repatch your just a > dick and a troll. Oh, that hurt, I think I'm going to go cry now... Listen, if you're not capable of having a debate like an adult then maybe you should hang out with people your own mental age. Elementary school "name calling" is laughable during elementary, imagine what it is in your later years... >On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:50:36 +0000, yoyo wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >with people your own mental age. Elementary school "name calling" is >laughable during elementary, imagine what it is in your later years... There's no debate here, all you do is cut up services you don't have and praise the ones you have, weather you right or not you think yours is the final truth. Enough said, I hate feeding trolls. > There's no debate here, all you do is cut up services you don't have and > praise the ones you have, weather you right or not you think yours is the > final truth. Hmm, so you're saying that the moment one stops using a service they loose all right to complain about the service? Very interesting position. But fine, yes, MY phone isn't on Fido, but my brother's is, and I use his enough, so there, I'm still using the service, happy now? Do I have your permission now? > Enough said, I hate feeding trolls. I don't, I love feeding trolls, I consider it a sport, seeing them slither back and forth at my whim, very fun. TTYL > And dropped calls, and higher prices... Since Rogers will own the Fido towers, and can take advantage of them, Rogers' new amalgamated network should be at least as good as the better of Fido and Rogers at the moment. I see this merger as win-win as long as some of the plan advantages that Fido has get retained post-merger (low-cost long distance, etc.). Rogers could remove some of Microcell's towers and redeploy them (in certain places, that might make sense - Rogers probably doesn't need two GSM towers at Davidson, Saskatchewan, for example) but I would think most if not all of the urban towers will stay right where they are. Jim > Since Rogers will own the Fido towers, and can take advantage of them, > Rogers' new amalgamated network should be at least as good as the better of > Fido and Rogers at the moment. Rogers will be hard pressed to reduce any duplication in towers. They cost money to operate (and pay land owners for use of their land/buildings). This is especially true in cities. Consider that Rogers never quite got its network properly tuned in Toronto. Consider that Fido is working hard to fine tune its network in Toronto/Vancouver to cope with CityFido. Amalgamating the 2 networks will be tantamount to building a totally new one in terms of studying the ikpact of removing one tower or the other and seing how coverage in that area is impacted. Consider that Rogers's quality standards are also lower. So any changes to the Microcell network from now on will probably be done to Rogers' lower standards. > I see this merger as win-win as long as some > of the plan advantages that Fido has get retained post-merger (low-cost long > distance, etc.). You are dreaming if you think that Rogers will keep Fido's advantages. Rogers is getting Fido's customers and Fido's spectrum. The rest is just necessary baggage. It will be most interesting to see how the Québec government reacts to this one. Last time Rogers tried to buy a visible Québec firm (Videotron) the government got the caisse de dépot to force Québécor to buy Videotron in order to prevent it from falling into foreign hands. (it was the PQ in power at the time). > Rogers could remove some of Microcell's towers and redeploy them I am not even sure of that. Does Microcell have any equipment that is the same brand/compatible with Roger's network ? >> Since Rogers will own the Fido towers, and can take advantage of them, >> Rogers' new amalgamated network should be at least as good as the better [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ikpact of removing one tower or the other and seing how coverage in that > area is impacted. Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure when that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900 coverage then they seperately currently have. > Consider that Rogers's quality standards are also lower. So any changes to > the Microcell network from now on will probably be done to Rogers' lower > standards. True, but in my experience Rogers' network is pretty decent as it is, so adding Fido will only make it better. > Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure when > that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900 coverage > then they seperately currently have. Spectrun does not affect coverage. It affect capacity only (number of channels available from one tower). Signals won't go further, and weak signals won't suddently become stronger. What Rogers will probably do initially is to reduce the number of channels available on Fido towers so it can use those channels on Rogers towers. So Fido customers may start to see "system busy" signals more and more often. While Rogers will likely allow Fido customers to roam on Rogers network at no cost. In areas where there is no fido coverage, this is not a problem since the Fido phones will roam on whatever network accepts them. In urban areas where the fido signal is generally stronger and where fido phones are programmed to have Fido as prefered network, those phones will still want to lock onto Fido towers. However, for Rogers customers, Rogers will still want those customers to really have Rogers as prefered network, and allowing them to roam onto Fido won't give anything since phones will already have locked onto Rogers network which is present wherever Fido is present. >> Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure >> when that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > channels available from one tower). Signals won't go further, and weak > signals won't suddently become stronger. Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely design to not go as far as urban sites. The reason is if a site throws it's signal too far it'll start to interfere with the nearest site using the same channels. More channels (i.e. spectrum) means those same sites can cover more since the next site with the same channels is theoretically farther. While I've tremendously simplified things I hope I got my point across. This isn't to say that Rogers WILL do this, only that they can. > What Rogers will probably do initially is to reduce the number of > channels available on Fido towers so it can use those channels on Rogers > towers. So Fido customers may start to see "system busy" signals more > and more often. Very possible, chances are they'll start a phone+sim swap pretty soon after acquiring Fido. > In urban areas where the fido signal is generally stronger and where > fido phones are programmed to have Fido as prefered network, those > phones will still want to lock onto Fido towers. Yes, but that can be overridden by the customer, annoying, but possible. There is no doubt that Fido customers will want to get on the Rogers network. Is OTA programming of SIM's preferred carrier lists possible? (much snippage) > Very possible, chances are they'll start a phone+sim swap pretty soon > after acquiring Fido. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is no doubt that Fido customers will want to get on the Rogers > network. Is OTA programming of SIM's preferred carrier lists possible? Ted Rogers has been quoted as saying it's just a matter of flicking a switch: > Under the proposed deal, Rogers would maintain Microcell's popular Fido brand and customers using the service won't need to change handsets or phone numbers because both wireless providers operate on global system for mobile communications (GSM) networks. > > "That [joining the two networks] will be done by a switch turning roaming on," Rogers president and CEO Ted Rogers said. "It's not complicated at all. I think it could be done in an hour, but we'll say a day just to be safe." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040920.wroger0920/BNStory/B usiness > Ted Rogers has been quoted as saying it's just a matter of flicking a > switch: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040920.wroger0920/BNStory/B usiness Yes, but that will just allow Fido phones to roam on Rogers, if I understand things correctly the phone will still try to "lock" onto "home", home being Fido. Now, if Rogers simply changed the provider ID on every Fido tower to BE Rogers, and allowed Fido phones to "roam" on Rogers, then every Fido phone would not see "home" and simply roam onto Rogers. In fact, if it were up to me, that's probably how I'd go about it anyways, seems the easiest way. TTYL > Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense > coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely design > to not go as far as urban sites. The reason is if a site throws it's > signal too far it'll start to interfere with the nearest site using the > same channels. But this means that Rogers will have to retune all its antennas to increase signal propagation. Retuning antennas all over the place is a big project. >> Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense >> coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > increase signal propagation. Retuning antennas all over the place is a big > project. Not really, it's mostly just an output power deal on many towers these days, a software setting. While there will certainly need to be SOME retuning (i.e. in VERY dense areas where the antennas are basically pointing almost straight down), but in less dense areas (i.e. Markham) it's likely they'll just "turn up the juice" a little, after changing channels around. Of course, we are all speculating, who knows what will really happen, I'm just saying the potential for better coverage is definitely there, and pretty easy to accomplish. >I am not even sure of that. Does Microcell have any equipment that is the same >brand/compatible with Roger's network ? Roger? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JF Mezei said: > It will be most interesting to see how the Québec government reacts to this > one. Last time Rogers tried to buy a visible Québec firm (Videotron) the > government got the caisse de dépot to force Québécor to buy Videotron in order > to prevent it from falling into foreign hands. (it was the PQ in power at the > time). --------- The Caisse de dépôt doesn't take orders from the government, so the PQ or the liberals have nothing to do with it. Don't forget that the Caisse is now regretting that move. Videotron is a really bad investment for the institution. And there are differences between the transactions. Videotron was a bigger symbol of success for a Quebec-based company and Quebecor was a local buyer for the company. As Telus is from the West, don't expect the same reaction. Munger > The Caisse de dépôt doesn't take orders from the government, so the PQ > or the liberals have nothing to do with it. Actually, they did take "strong suggestions" from the PQ government very often. Remember that the Caisse is the Québec Govt pension fund. However, since the debacle a year or two ago, the Caisse has made it very clear that it would n longer make "politically motivated" investments. # Note that the Caisse didn't actually invest into Videotron. They invested in Québécor which then wasted money in Videotron to ruin the company. The Caisse should have invested in star choice and ExpressVu to profit from Québécor's ineptitude in managing Videotron. > And there are differences between the transactions. Videotron was a > bigger symbol of success for a Quebec-based company and Quebecor was a > local buyer for the company. As Telus is from the West, don't expect the > same reaction. Forget Telus. Fact remains that Videotron and Microcell were flagships of Québec's high tech potential. Granted, Videotron was a far more visible enterprise and perhaps more worthy of political interference, and especially sicne this happened at a time the government was the separatists PQ for whom Ontario was to Québec what the USSR was to the USA back in the 1960s. The current government which lacks backbone, is perhaps more likely to not even notice the change in hand and loss of a valuable québec high tech company. > It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage. If Fido's call quality and coverage drops to the level of Rogers, I will be leaving. Rogers may have wider coverage in more areas, but at least in BC their coverage is extremely shallow. Dropped calls and poor quality are the name of the game with Rogers. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." > Rogers may have wider coverage in more areas, but at least in BC their > coverage is extremely shallow. Dropped calls and poor quality are the > name of the game with Rogers. At what frequency? If you have a GSM 1900 (or 900/1800/1900) phone, this wouldn't be surprising. If you have a GSM 850/1900 phone, this would be surprising indeed. Jim > > Rogers may have wider coverage in more areas, but at least in BC their > > coverage is extremely shallow. Dropped calls and poor quality are the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't be surprising. If you have a GSM 850/1900 phone, this would be > surprising indeed. To be honest, I'm not sure. It was the phone Rogers sold me, a Sony Ericcson T68i. SignatureSteven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net "Morituri Nolumus Mori." Here's a good article worth reading: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cellphones/> .:. tony It will be to Rogers's advantage to keep the CityFido product (with perhaps just rebranding). Think about it: Rogers has no landline telephony. So by keeping CityFido, it can hurth both Bell and Telus without hurting its other businesses. And consider that with a recent decision by the government to lift certain bandwidth restrictions imposed on the legacy carriers (Bell/Telus/Rogers), if Rogers is able to use all of the bandwidth from Fido, it may be able to do interesting things. If Roger's standards are lower, it will also be able to fit more customers than Fido would have in the same bandwidth. > And consider that with a recent decision by the government to lift certain > bandwidth restrictions imposed on the legacy carriers (Bell/Telus/Rogers), if > Rogers is able to use all of the bandwidth from Fido, it may be able to do > interesting things. This is a good point. By having more spectrum, Rogers' costs to let people use it drop. Unlimited plans encourage full networks, which annoy customers who can't get on the network. Having more spectrum means that CityFido-like plans (and even unlimited evenings and weekends plans) become cheaper for Rogers to offer and less likely to cause spectrum congestion issues for subscribers. Jim >> And consider that with a recent decision by the government to lift >> certain bandwidth restrictions imposed on the legacy carriers [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > become cheaper for Rogers to offer and less likely to cause spectrum > congestion issues for subscribers. On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase capacity in dense areas. It even helps in rural areas since adjacent sites have more "choices" of what channels to use (i.e. more widely spaced apart), increasing SNR. TTYL > On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and > not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase > capacity in dense areas. Yes. But this assumes that you are completely redesigning your coverage. If current antennas are located such that there is limited interference to maximise channel reuse, then Rogers would need to redesign location of antennas to make them closer to each other and each antenna use different channel ranges. If Rogers is smart, it will use the Microcell network infrastructure as a base for a 3G network. Think about it: shift Fido customers to the Rogers network, then you can convert the microcell network to 3G and then start to sell Rogers branded 3G services while your old customers are on the 2.5G Rogers network. >> On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and >> not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase >> capacity in dense areas. > > Yes. But this assumes that you are completely redesigning your coverage. Yup, which is what Rogers will do, they've already done it once. > If current antennas are located such that there is limited interference to > maximise channel reuse, then Rogers would need to redesign location of > antennas to make them closer to each other and each antenna use different > channel ranges. Not necessarily, it is far more complicated a situation, and antennas are rarely in the prime place these days anyways. > If Rogers is smart, it will use the Microcell network infrastructure as > a base for a 3G network. Think about it: shift Fido customers to the > Rogers network, then you can convert the microcell network to 3G and > then start to sell Rogers branded 3G services while your old customers > are on the 2.5G Rogers network. Interesting idea, never considered that. TTYL so i just read this entire thread and i don't think this question came up... for customers who are locked into a Fido contract, will they be able to to cancel after Rogers takes over? Signature-justin > so i just read this entire thread and i don't think this question came > up... for customers who are locked into a Fido contract, will they be > able to to cancel after Rogers takes over? Only when the contract expires. If Rogers buys all obligations, assets, liabilities of Microcell, then your contract is still valid because Microcell's obligations to you will continue to be fulfilled. The one time contracts could have been cancelled was during Microcell,s trip to bankrupcy protection, but you would have had to go to the bankrupcy judge to have him void your contract. > > so i just read this entire thread and i don't think this question came > > up... for customers who are locked into a Fido contract, will they be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > liabilities of Microcell, then your contract is still valid because > Microcell's obligations to you will continue to be fulfilled. Since you'll be able to keep the plan until your contract expires, and you'll have coverage at least as good as you have now, there is no reason why you should want to change providers mid-contract, unless you really have a Rogers bee in your bonnet. Jim Is there a possibility that a foreign GSM company can outbid Rogers? Or does CRTC have regulations against that too? > > so i just read this entire thread and i don't think this question came > > up... for customers who are locked into a Fido contract, will they be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to bankrupcy protection, but you would have had to go to the bankrupcy judge > to have him void your contract. > Is there a possibility that a foreign GSM company can outbid Rogers? Or > does CRTC have regulations against that too? I believe that foreign ownership caps are still in place. and it is Industry Canada, not the CRTYC which regulates cellular service. CRTC only imposes stuff like the 911 fees. >so i just read this entire thread and i don't think this question came >up... for customers who are locked into a Fido contract, will they be >able to to cancel after Rogers takes over? Probably not. When a company takes over another company generally they take on all encumbrances and liabilities. That would apply to the end user as well I'd think. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >.:. tony I really don't like that !! Call me a pessimistic paranoiac but my guess is that it's gonna be double the price and bye bye customer services hello salesmen ! :S I already ran away from roger once didn't think I would have to do it again !? I also approve the pager/pay phone alternative ! :) -- EDgAr H. DPTLC.biz I guess that means that it is the end of lower priced plans, billing by the second and unlimited GPRS plans within a few years after Rogers has actually taken over Fido. I've had my problems with Rogers (they over billed me a few times and when I complained, they informed me that they would investigate it and get back to me). Of course they investigated it and got back to me (in my favour) but it was a constant overbilling of under $5.00 each month and I had to call them each month to complain about this. They told me that it was because my plan was no longer offered and their billing system was having problems billing me under my plan. This happened for the last 5 months that I had their "special" plan and happened over 5 years ago (before they switched to GSM). Once my contract finished, I cancelled and switched to Fido. Between the Telus buyout and the Rogers buyout, even though I've had negative experiences with Rogers and have never experienced Telus, I'll take Rogers. With the Rogers buyout at least I'm certain that I can keep using my unlocked GSM Treo 600. With the Telus buyout, they would probably try to migrate me to a cheap CDMA phone since there are no guarantees that they will maintain Fido's GSM network. /Jim > In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > .:. tony >With the Telus buyout, they >would probably try to migrate me to a cheap CDMA phone since there are >no guarantees that they will maintain Fido's GSM network. There are no guarantees in life except that you'll eventually die! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.