My friend's rebuttle not mine:
It isn't what the article says about Microcell that is of interest, it is
what
the "analysts" representing various banks are saying. (Funny how Royal
Bank
analysts are so quick to start saying bad things about microcell,
including "takeover".
Ted Rogers talks about pioneering and innovation. He is not in a position
to
talk about that. Is is just a good lap dog to its master AT&T, following
Not exactly true. GSM is simply an extension of the TDMA system. Rogers
had TDMA in operation long before ANY other North American cellular system.
With the original TDMA system, 3 users could share a standard 30KHz analog
channel. For GSM, the bandwidth per channel was widened to 150KHz, and the
TDMA time slice increased to support 8+ users per channel, with extra space
left over for non voice data packets (GPRS and SMS)
GSM was first deployed in Europe, but only because the FCC was slow to
alocate the 1.9GHz band plan to north american carriers. The GSM used in
europe is 900MHz and 1.8GHz, but in north america 1.9GHz.
Rogers deployed an interm 1.9GHZ almost 6 years ago in Canada called
IS130. It used a band plan identical to GSM, but operated with fewer
channels, and did not use a SIM card. (My last phone used this dual band
format)
These phones are still in use today. The standard TDMA phones are all dual
band 800/1.9 phones. This allowed Rogers to add capacity in 1.9GHz and build
the network getting revenue while the 1.9 GSM towers werre being installed.
Then once the 1.9 towers were installed and tested, GSM data stream was
added to bring the channels to capacity. I read a good article regarding
this system a few years ago. The dual mode phones uses 30KHz when on 800MHz
and switched to 150KHz on 1.9 and were 100% compatable on the GSM voice
channels (but limited to only 25 or so channels (with 8 users per channel)
whereas the GSM towers have 100+ channels per tower, but used a dedicated
control channel on the 800MHz band. In other words, the phones were
operating on the 800MHz control channel, buy when 800MHz voice channels were
filled, the phone would switch to 1.9GHZ where service was available.
It was quite an interesting article, but it showed how Rogers Cantel
(which was their name at the time) was a pioneer in the devolopment of
digital cellular. They did it first, long before anyone else, and the system
they devoloped was TDMA, the same format used by GSM.
technological decisions taken by AT&T. And who pioneered GSM, SMS, DATA,
GPRS
in North america ? Who had done G3 trials in north america ? Not Rogers.
It
was Microcell.
They only did this because they wanted a different platform. They did not
want a platform compatable with Telus and Rogers at the time. This is to
slow the churn rate. One of the primary reasons that Telus and Rogers use
completely different technology, and the same reason that Dish and Directv,
and Starchoice & Bell use incompatable technologies. To stop people from
switching and keeping the hardware.
Clearnet was the same. They launched with CDMA1.9, incompatable with Telus
CDMA800.
Rogers was smart overlaying their network with a GSM compatable system,
and then launching GSM, as they are poised to take over Fido customers with
the dog finially gets put out of it's misery.
This shity fido plan is doomed for failure. You guys may think it is a
great dead, and it is in the short term, but as they add all these new
customers, soon the network will be overloaded, and they all you will get is
system busy messages, and your calls will not go through. Then it will be
too late.
Incidentally, Rogers is offering the same type of packages now. I was
offered 350 weekday minutes, unlimited evening and weekends and free local
calls for 6 months for 40.00 a month. Just got a notice today in my rogers
bill.
Don't know if I will take it or not. Hate to give up my plan. Right now I
get 150 weekday/evening minutes and 250 weekend minutes for 20.00 billed by
the second.
New plans I am ure they will round up to the minute. I didn't check on
that, but telus no longer offers per second billing, so I am sure rogers
will be quick to revoke that privelege too. As long as I stay on my plan
they can't touch me though.
I find it most interesting that the telcos are really scared of
Microcell's
cityfido plan and are generating so much press that predict doom for
Microcell.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031021.gtrvoxx21/BNStory/Te
chnology/
> It isn't what the article says about Microcell that is of interest, it is what
> the "analysts" representing various banks are saying. (Funny how Royal Bank
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I find it most interesting that the telcos are really scared of Microcell's
> cityfido plan and are generating so much press that predict doom for Microcell.
mistaroboto - 24 Oct 2003 15:27 GMT
> Rogers was smart overlaying their network with a GSM compatable system,
> and then launching GSM, as they are poised to take over Fido customers with
> the dog finially gets put out of it's misery.
I just don't get the above comment, where is the foundation for this? Your
interpretation? FUD FUD FUD.. that'll keep Rogers with their content
sub-base staying around.
> This shity fido plan is doomed for failure. You guys may think it is a
> great dead, and it is in the short term, but as they add all these new
> customers, soon the network will be overloaded, and they all you will get is
> system busy messages, and your calls will not go through. Then it will be
> too late.
Just because Ted can't offer this type of program indefinately doesn't mean
that a competitor of his couldn't. You and Rogers just don't seem to get it.
But then you go on to say...
> Incidentally, Rogers is offering the same type of packages now. I was
> offered 350 weekday minutes, unlimited evening and weekends and free local
> calls for 6 months for 40.00 a month. Just got a notice today in my rogers
> bill.
So.. Rogers can offer this program? I thought it was a shity fido plan?
The fact is that Rogers and Telus are miffed at this being offered in
Vancouver (or any other Canadian city for that matter.. why isn't Bell
complaining though.. anyways.. leave that one open for conjecture..) and
attracting their higher revenue subscribers to this new plan. It affects
their revenue stream and destroys Telus' plan for market domination on 3
fronts.
Too bad for them.. Good for the customer.
If you think it'll go away any time soon, think again. If you think it won't
go to other cities, think again. If you think FIDO is branding themselves as
THE urban carrier.. then you might have it right. Take your home phone
mobile :-)
JF Mezei - 24 Oct 2003 20:00 GMT
> > Rogers was smart overlaying their network with a GSM compatable system,
> > and then launching GSM, as they are poised to take over Fido customers
> with
> > the dog finially gets put out of it's misery.
Rogers wasn't "smart" about it. It had no choice. On the one hand, their AT&T
master in the USA decided to move to GSM, so Rogers's franchise of AT&T in
canada had to follow. On the second hand, TDMA (IA136) was dead with no
upcoming GPRS equivalents, no 3G. So if Rogers wanted to have a mobile phone
franchise that offered modern services, it needed to move to a platform that
was still evolving and give it an easy migration to 3G. And GSM was the only solution.
Group Special Mobile - 24 Oct 2003 17:39 GMT
> New plans I am ure they will round up to the minute. I didn't check on
>that, but telus no longer offers per second billing, so I am sure rogers
>will be quick to revoke that privelege too. As long as I stay on my plan
>they can't touch me though.
So, are you on the inside track that Microcell is giving up per second
billing? And big deal that Rogers will be nice to you and give you a
nice plan for six months and *then* stick it to you!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
JF Mezei - 24 Oct 2003 20:02 GMT
> > New plans I am ure they will round up to the minute. I didn't check on
> >that, but telus no longer offers per second billing, so I am sure rogers
> >will be quick to revoke that privelege too.
Telus never really offered per second billing. Clearnet did. Clearnet was
purchased by Telus, after which the Telus per-minute plans fairly quickly
quashed the clearnet plans, although Clearnet customers were grandfathered.
Super Dave - 25 Oct 2003 03:24 GMT
> Telus never really offered per second billing. Clearnet did. Clearnet was
> purchased by Telus, after which the Telus per-minute plans fairly quickly
> quashed the clearnet plans, although Clearnet customers were grandfathered.
Actually Telus did offer per second billing before they acquired Clearnet.
When Telus launched their own CDMA service in Alberta they had per MINUTE
billing when everyone else had per SECOND billing. Not only was Telus the
LAST carrier to launch digital service, but they were so arrogant that they
initially billed by the minute. Market forces dictated shortly thereafter
they they moved to per second billing. Until they took over Clearnet and
convinced the rest of the shysters to join them in ripping off Canadian
consumers by switching back to per minute billing.
JF Mezei - 24 Oct 2003 19:56 GMT
> Not exactly true. GSM is simply an extension of the TDMA system.
I'll stop you right there. TDMS (IS-136) uses time division multiple access
methodology for the air interface. GSM uses time division multiple access methodology.
Both using "tdma" (lowercase) is akin to stating that a truck and a luxury car
both have an automatic transmission. Same concept, but totally different implementation.
Secondly, Microcell was first with a workable digital mobile phone system.
Yes, Cantel had experimented with an early digital system which failed
miserably. Its current incarnation of IA136 (TDMA in uppercase) was available
to customer after Microcell.
Bell and Clearnet came later because IA95 (CDMA) systems arrived later.
Note that the next generation of GSM will use a cdma (lowercase) air interface
that, like the current GSM is different from TDMA, will also be different from
the 3G version of IA95 (CDMA2000)
Jimbo - 25 Oct 2003 20:10 GMT
> My friend's rebuttle not mine:
> It isn't what the article says about Microcell that is of interest, it is
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> left over for non voice data packets (GPRS and SMS)
> GSM was first deployed in Europe, but only because the FCC was slow to
alocate the 1.9GHz band plan to north american carriers. (snip)
I don't believe this statement is accurate. GSM was a European initiative
to develop a trans-European cellular service. It was well supported by all
of the operators, manufacturers, regulatory bodies and the European
Commission. It was viewed as a major threat to US business interests in all
emerging countries
Group Special Mobile - 26 Oct 2003 00:15 GMT
>GSM was a European initiative
>to develop a trans-European cellular service. It was well supported by all
>of the operators, manufacturers, regulatory bodies and the European
>Commission. It was viewed as a major threat to US business interests in all
>emerging countries
And just exactly *how* was this viewed as a major threat to US
business interests? Because they couldn't communicate with them on
their compatible standard?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
mistaroboto - 26 Oct 2003 01:18 GMT
> >GSM was a European initiative
> >to develop a trans-European cellular service. It was well supported by all
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> business interests? Because they couldn't communicate with them on
> their compatible standard?
CDMA originally started out as a US military technology. It has been
endorsed and pushed by the US govt over the last decade or so, around the
globe (do you remember the US senator or representative who pushed to use
CDMA in Iraq for the rebuild of the telecom infrastructure..?).
Jimbo - 26 Oct 2003 20:53 GMT
> >GSM was a European initiative
> >to develop a trans-European cellular service. It was well supported by all
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> business interests? Because they couldn't communicate with them on
> their compatible standard?
It meant that their control of the industry was weakened. Hence the CDMA
vs. GSM battles in China, Iraq, etc.
JF Mezei - 29 Oct 2003 04:59 GMT
> And just exactly *how* was this viewed as a major threat to US
> business interests? Because they couldn't communicate with them on
> their compatible standard?
GSM is an open standard. CDMA is a proprietary standard belonging to Qualcomm
to whom you must pay hefty royalties for the use of their technology.
Widespread adoption of gsm in north america would have killed Qualcomm's
wireless revenus.