http://canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=C0A58102-B4E9-4D93-8B10-1A68D5394FBA

whoop d f'n do.. senility must be nice. Like the reporter said.. Rogers
couldn't do it profitably.. FIDO can.

I think that the big piece of information in there is that Microcell has spare
capacity in its network whereas AT&T doesn't, so for AT&T to offer unlimited
calling, it would need to spend big bucks to increase capacity.

In this area, does Microcell benefit from having been granted, as an upstart,
a much bigger chunk of available bandwidth  with the old established firms
limited in how much bandwidth they have ?

I remember Steve Punter stating that Microcell had significant amount of
unused bandwidth in most areas. But this was before GPRS and before CityPhone.
Perhaps he could update us on this situation ? Does Microcell really still
have plenty of unused channels or has it begun now to configure its
towers/network to make full use of all its available bandwidth ?

http://canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=C0A58102-B4E9-4D93-8B10-1A68D5394FB
A

Quoted from the article:

Rogers went further, calling the Microsoft plan an "ill-conceived offer made
by a smaller, financially challenged competitor that recently emerged from
bankruptcy."

When the **** did Microsoft start doing wireless phone service??   I think I
will wait for service pack 1 for my phone.....  :-)

There's some funny stuff in this.

Random thoughts:

- 93% coverage? Gosh. I guess Aldergrove is part of the other 7%,
then.
- Like others here, when I cancelled my Rogers AT&T service, they
offered me six months unlimited local calling to change my mind. So
perhaps they are willing to compete after all...
- I wouldn't care if Rogers was half the price of Fido, I wouldn't go
back. Terrible service, random decisions, unreliable data service,
marketing calls when I'm trying to sleep in... fsck yourself, Rogers.