My fear on this is the fact that Verizon can afford to run at a loss to build out their network and carrier base. That's bad, and almost unfair for Canadian companies. They can't afford to do the same in the US.

On the flip side, just like with long distance, the current carriers aren't doing enough to make it that canadians don't WANT another carrier to come in.

You shouldn't have to have a propaganda campaign if your customers didn't think they were getting raw dogged.

wind mobile pretty much has the Tmobile Full monty and more for $40 cdn.

Who said anything about cheaper rates?

All I'm asking for is a shake up, if you read any of my other posts on here, I even went further and said that it won't be cheaper (not by much, at least). It would give Robellus a wakeup call after decades of ignoring and price gouging Canadians. Now they're starting to shit their pants.

They shouldn't be allowed to bid on WIND/Mobilicity. They have more spectrum than they ever need to expand. That would defeat the purpose of having WIND and Mobilicity. If any of the Big 3 buys them out, it would be the same as pre-2008. Pointless.

I suggest that you look up Clearnet and Microcell, which were bought out by Telus and Rogers, respectively that put us in this situation for the longest time prior to WIND and Mobi.

Most wireless telecom's don't generate a ROI for at least 8-10 years upon establishing their company and building out their network. The Big 3 has gone through that phase, all other wireless telecoms have gone through that, with the only exception that, those companies overseas don't price gouge their customers after turning a profit.

Also, for those who keep saying that it's acceptable for Canadians to be paying through the roof because we live in the 2nd largest land mass with the lowest population density should really get their facts straight.

80% of the Canadian population live within 50KM of the U.S. border stretching 6000KM across from Victoria to Nova Scotia (300,000km²)

To put this into perspective, the state of California is 410,000km². It takes less towers to serve MOST Canadians than it takes to cover ONE STATE in the US.

So this rubbish that the incumbents can rightfully charge us for what they can is utter BS.

But California has a bigger population base than all of Canada.

Not significantly more, so shouldn't be night and day difference in offerings.

But then they still need to provide relatively reliable connection with the rest of the remaining percentage of the population throughout the country. Sure, it's all good and great if you get coverage travelling between Vancouver and Whistler, but what about going up the Canyon Highway to Ashcroft or up the Coquihalla or Hwy97 up to Kelowna? Satellite phones aren't exactly cheap. And for those that actually live North of the 49th parallel, are they not entitled to decent cellphone coverage?

That's why it takes these companies a lot of money to install decent infrastructure to support the rest of the country.

This would only be relevant if the Cdn carriers ONLY served in those areas. However...

Bingo. These are Telus' coverage maps for Western Canada:

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/719/9403165240.jpg
View Screen Capture

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/719/9739401681.jpg
View Screen Capture

Here's Bell's

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/719/6130867505.jpg
View Screen Capture

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/719/6484525448.jpg
View Screen Capture

And Rogers':

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/719/7667574514.jpg
View Screen Capture

So while 80% of the population may be in a little narrow strip, they're still servicing people FAR outside those areas (note that NONE of the major prairie cities are anywhere close to 50km from the US border: Calgary is over 300km to the nearest border crossing; Regina is 250km; Winnipeg is over 100km).

That 80% number gets trotted out regularly, but it's also skewed by the fact that Canada's three largest cities are also within 50km of the border. In fact, according to StatsCan, "In 2006, nearly half of all Canadians, 13.9 million people, were living in the country's three largest urban areas: the Montréal census metropolitan area, the Vancouver census metropolitan area, and the Greater Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario."

They are entitled of decent coverage, but I don't think it cost as much money to serve non-urban communities as much as Robellus makes it out to be to justify the cost they charge consumers, unless there are some facts available online to suggest otherwise.

If you don't like the Big 3, get Wind and enjoy the mediocre service and roaming fees. If you don't like the Big 3, but like their service, just buy their stock and use that as a hedge on any rate increases. Win-win.

Canada is small potatoes. We're not Europe, we're not Asia, we're not the US. Accept it and your life will be much more calm.

I don't work for the Big 3, but like most Canadians, I probably have shares and I have friends and family who work for them. They dump gobs of money into community events, so they may be robbing you, but they do put money back into the community.

I find that conversations around wireless service are usually contradictions. Companies are allowed to make a profit, but not obscene profits. If they make obscene profits, the government should step in! The government should foster competition, but step in when one company gets too big because large profits are bad.
Posted via RS Mobile

You want facts to support it, google "how cellular phones work" and learn how a wireless network in built. It's not like at home where you can just drop a $40 router in the middle of your house and the whole neighborhood gets free WiFi.

I understand how cellular network works, that's why I am even in this discussion. I was referring to the facts of establishing a rural wireless network and its related costs.

For instance, I know it cost the carriers $0.10-$0.12 cents to deliver 6GB of data to each wireless consumer. However, carriers charge $30 for 6GB data, so I know the profit margin is 250x.

That is the cost now, as the infrastructure is built. I think it's perfectly reasonable that a company should receive a return on its investment after the costs to build that infrastructure over decades.

Ultimately, carriers are charging what the market will bear. One could argue that wireless service is essential and that our country's productivity depends on it. I would consider it essential, but what people want in terms of service far exceeds essential needs. I use a Blackberry at work and I probably send/receive up to 100 emails a day. Do I need 6 gigs of data? No - 500MB is sufficient. Why would I need 6 gigs? So I can watch a Youtube video on the go? Is that essential to my productivity as a professional?
Posted via RS Mobile

It costs, on average, between $150,000 and $200,000 to build a single tower. It may be significantly less if they can piggyback off an existing building in an urban setting, or it may be far more if they have to build in the middle of the Rocky Mountains where there's no existing power sources. But that's the average cost. Now, click on the following link and check just how many towers there are in Canada.

Canadian Cellular Towers Map

That's a lot of money. Sure, the cell companies didn't necessarily shell out all the money required to build all of those, and some towers are shared between companies... but that's still a lot of money invested in building and maintaining towers. They need to make their money back some how.

Think of it as going to Future Shop and buying a laptop, along with some accessories. Future Shop doesn't make money on the laptop (just as Rogers wont make money selling an iPhone5); where they make their money is with the marked up printer cables and reams of paper (in Roger's case, data plans). No, it doesn't cost FS $100 to buy a 10' Monster Cable, but that's where they make their profit in order to continue selling all those unprofitable products and special items for customers.

I agree, as a corporation, their due diligence is to maximize profit for their shareholders. But a line must be drawn somewhere, when a company makes so much profit that their products and services are so grossly inflated that consumers don't have another alternative choice (aka. price fixing). Currently, WIND and Mobilicity are not that alternative, and their number of subscribers speak that. Verizon is that clear choice, they have that potential to either break that oligopoly, or they will join in on the action, but at least there is a chance that things will be better, and thats a risk that I think most are willing to take. WIND and Mobi was never a threat to the incumbents to begin with.

When the internet was first commercialized in the early 90's, most of us were surfing on 14.4, 28.8 and 56K modems, and were happy with what was offered then. However, DSL and Cable eventually took place with 1.5Mbps connections and with 300GB caps, the internet evolved and required more intensive data throughput (Streaming Music, HD Movies, etc). Even though 1GB of wireless data might suffice now for most, who's to say that 10-20 years from now, it will meet the needs then? As technology evolves, it requires better hardware, that's no different in cellular technology. If our battery life on our phone was better and that we didn't have 6GB caps, I bet most people would be streaming HD videos and music more frequently on their phones while commuting.

All of those towers on that map, the GSM towers from Rogers, were funded by the government (aka. taxpayers). Rogers did not spend much money at all initially to invest in building out towers as they were supplied with the frequency and equipment (1900 Mhz for free). From that point on, since they already have the tower space, it does not cost them much money to upgrade from GSM to HSPA+ to LTE (850Mhz, 1900Mhz, 2100Mhz, 2600MHz). It's just adding new equipment to existing tower space, so it doesn't cost Rogers 150K-200K for each tower for most of their towers, excpt for the deadk spots, here and there.

In theory, one would think that since Rogers didnt spend much money in the beginning to invest in infrastructural, should be charging the least of the three. However, that's exactly the opposite, they are the one that usually charges the most in the last few decades.

I understand your point, but FS and BB doesn't grossly jack up their price, and even if they do. There are tons of other options to get my Monster Cable, or printer cable (NCIX, The Source, online, etc.). Keyword here is alternative. We have three national wireless carriers here that offers the same price and services, leaving consumers with zero choice (WIND and Mobilicity are NOT national carriers).

Stables does. I was setting up a hall were I was DJing and needed aanther USB cable. The dollar store was out so I went to staples and there cheapest USB cable was $27 bux. I almost died of shock when I saw the price.

Having worked for Telus Mobo, I say screw em and let Verizon come in. While they're at it, let Hutchison come in too, and anyone else that has the dollars to rape the big 3.

Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions

People thought with the introduction of 2 year contracts, consumers will get new devices faster with cheaper monthly bills. -> Nope

People thought with the entrance of Verizon into the Canadian marketplace, it'll provide a platform for more competition and cheaper prices. - > Repeat?

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

More choice is better. Seriously.

If Verizon's potential Canadian coverage extends into their US coverage, I'm sold as I do spend some time in the US each month.

This is exactly it, they got way too greedy and fcked themselves over. People just have a hate on for these guys.

I remember when you could have do a Hardware Upgrade if you have 6 months or less remaining on your contract. Now you have to wait until 1 month (for Fido anyways).

Also, i tried to switch to the $39 plan, which has more data and everything than my current plan and they wouldnt switch me. I tell them, so some new customer is getting more data, more minutes, and is paying cheaper than me, and I've been with you guys for years? and you wont let me pay the same amount as that new customer? Also they said the minimum cancellation fee is $200 because I have data, even if I were to cancel my contract 31 days remaining until contract expiry. WTF?

shiet like that just pisses me off. I don't want to spend an hour with retentions going over contracts and haggling. If I wasn't around SFU area once in awhile, I would have switched to Wind already.

FCK YOU ROGERS AND FIDO. I do not feel bad for your companies profits decreasing. you deserve it!

^ it's called corporate social responsibilities and ethics. these fuckers have zero.