Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Government News

Canada Opens Wireless Industry To Competition 116

Posted by samzenpus from the free-the-waves-eh dept.
FreeKill writes "The Canadian government on Wednesday paved the way for new cellphone companies by announcing new rules for an auction of radio airwaves designed to spur competition in the wireless industry. About 40 per cent of the spectrum will be reserved for new entrants with the remainder open to all bidders, including Canada's big three providers — Rogers, Bell, and Telus. The government will also mandate roaming area agreements which will force existing carriers to share their networks with newcomers for five years, plus another five if the new entrants can build up their own networks nationally."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Opens Wireless Industry To Competition More

Canada Opens Wireless Industry To Competition

Comments Filter:

  • if this were Australia... (Score:5, Funny)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @02:57AM (#21515465)
    ... Telstra would complain that they are providing free air, and that it's giving competitors a free ride. they would at the same time propose that the the government pay them to provide the air and that it also be allowed a monopoly on the air.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by cheater512 ( 783349 )
      God I need mod points.

      That just made my day. :)

    • Not very different (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Rog7 ( 182880 )
      Telus, Bell and Rogers don't really act that much different than what you've just described, these are companies that have transformed from the traditional local monopolies of phone & cable.

      These sort of enforcements to make them "share" have happened before and they've become very clever at finding ways to discourage competition anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kypper ( 446750 )
        Usually they either undercut it or buy them out. Worked on Fido...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chrish ( 4714 )
          Bell's not faring too well at doing that with DSL service; I switched (due to crappy reliability) from Rogers cable to DSL with TekSavvy.com and it's a bit over $20/month cheaper than Bell Sympatico High-Speed for exactly the same service.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by aonaran ( 15651 )
            Actually Bell's making out nicely on that.
            TekSavvy.com is paying bell a wholesale rate for the DSL and providing you support with whatever they have left over.

            Bell still gets a nice cut of the pie and they don't have to deal with support issues.
            • Shittier support than Bell? Wow there's a sell.

              I'm praying for some new entrants to the cell market. I've used every carrier available in my area other than Virgin.

              I've used Telus (worst service of all but they did expand their data network in BC this September). IIRC telus was under review by the CRTC for their horrendous wait times on their call in lines. I recently waited 45 minutes on hold dealing with an issue on an inlaw's new cell.

              I'm on Bell right now. They piggyback Telus's network in BC. I c
              • That was an awesome plan! I signed up under Fido when they were Rogers. I found the service quite alright. I have a Blackberry on Telus right now though as I found rates to be more competitive than Bell or Rogers cell or otherwise. I'm not a heavy data user, but I find the data rates are absurd. I'm not a cell phone techie, but when you are making a call on a digital network and transfering bits and bytes across different cell networks how is that any different than downloading data off the Net? Why the hug
                • I'll check out TekSavvy. Thanks for the infor on that. I won't need a provider until May as I did a prepaid deal offered to students (basic cable and highspeed cheap, telus only started matching Shaw's student rate recently). For the price I pay for internet connectivity I am satisfied, but if I had to pay full price I'd be pissed. I had better connectivity for the same price as current retail when cable internet was first available in Victoria.

                  I just checked out TekSavvy. Both the 3Mbps and 6Mbps only ha
                • Chances are TekSavvy is going to be a TELUS CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier), so it will still be TELUS ADSL service. If I'm not mistaken, this is how TekSavvy works out east, except running on Bell. TekSavvy likely has better customer service than any of the incumbants, but the actual service itself will be identical.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by kypper ( 446750 )
              Rogers gets that too with 3web. It's a great deal, and when the tech support begins to suck, people switch back to Rogers.

            • Re:Not very different (Score:4, Informative)

              by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @02:26PM (#21522331)
              Not exactly. TekSavvy does pay bell a wholesale rate ($20.50 per customer), but Bell doesn't give them a complete service.

              That $20.50 pays for Bell's service of maintaining the last-mile connection between the customer's modem and the DSLAM in the CO.

              The ISP (TekSavvy) must pay for a connection to Bell's ATM network in order to get the traffic from the CO to the ISP's network ($1300 for a GigE). From there, the ISP is responsible for internet connectivity. TekSavvy's primary transit is through Peer 1 (premium customers) and Cogent (unlimited customers) with various other things in the mix (TorIX, Teleglobe, etc). I know they recently purchased some InterNap hardware, but I'm not sure if they're using them for transit too.

              As you mentioned, the ISP is responsible for providing technical support. However, many issues require TekSavvy to open trouble tickets with Bell (who provide pretty bad service to TekSavvy) in order to get problems resolved. This is because many problems with DSL involve incorrect settings made by Bell techs at the CO, a constant annoyance for TekSavvy.

              Anyhow, that base fee only provides the last-mile. The ISP themselves pay to get the traffic from Bell to themselves, and from there it's entirely through the ISP's own network.

              The end result is that TekSavvy can provide far better customer service and performance at lower prices than Bell. This is why they're signing up 1500-1800 customers per month. That figure, BTW, comes directly from TekSavvy themselves, who post on DSLReports a lot of information that most ISPs keep secret.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by aonaran ( 15651 )
                I'm not sure I understand what I said that you are objecting to.
                Techsavvy, like you said pays Bell $20.50/customer plus GigE or other backbone services, and the only support Bell has to deal with is real internet connectivity issues forwarded to them by the smaller ISP.

                Techsavvy fields all the calls that relate to the end user wanting software recommendations, or someone to hand hold them through installing something, or not knowing how to clear cookies, update software, plug in the keyboard, etc. And no, I

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mnmn ( 145599 )
                The fact that Bell owns the last mile everywhere in itself is a monopoly. That should be the government, laying down fiber for the last mile and allowing open competition by ISPs. They could also just provide very fast and cheap government Internet service (voted for and paid for by the masses) but that's a different issue.

                I'm liking my new Teksavvy account very much. Peer1 is fast. But the last mile (and Bell fees) are still bottlenecks and I can only get 5mbit in Burlington. France and Korea get much fast

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Oopsz ( 127422 )
          Actually, similar rules were instituted on the last auction sale (the PCS 1900mhz band). Clearnet and Fido (Microcell Connexions) were the newcomers, and built out for a few years before being bought outright by Telus and Rogers. I would guess something similar will happen with the next set of entrants.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      Sorry we dont need the air, just the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
    • Take off, eh?

      -Bob & Doug McKinzee

  • This makes me happy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @03:09AM (#21515509) Homepage
    Canadian Cellphone companies make Satan look like a Buddhist Monk.

    They are THAT evil.

    Anything to force them to compete on merits and features must be a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh but come on, $6 for caller id, $5 for voice mail, $0.10 per SMS, $3/min from France, etc... Rogers is definitely "competing" ... :-)

      I have the cheapest plan they offer [without any of the addons]. So now when people call me, I have no idea who it is, and they can't leave voice mail. Totally le awesome. And I still pay like $30/mo after taxes, and only really talk for ~45 mins per month.

      Anything to force Rogers and Bell to relinquish their license to print money would be nice.

      • Re:This makes me happy! (Score:5, Informative)

        by fosterNutrition ( 953798 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @06:18AM (#21516229) Journal
        Dang, your plan sounds fantastic! Too bad Rogers wasn't an option for me: $6 bucks for caller ID as well, $6 for voice mail, $0.25 per SMS, $0.20 per MMS + outrageous data transfer fees, $7 or something monthly "system access fee," $1 monthly 911 access fee... and it goes on and on

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Phisbut ( 761268 )

          Dang, your plan sounds fantastic! Too bad Rogers wasn't an option for me: $6 bucks for caller ID as well, $6 for voice mail, $0.25 per SMS, $0.20 per MMS + outrageous data transfer fees, $7 or something monthly "system access fee," $1 monthly 911 access fee... and it goes on and on

          About that system access fee, you can sign up on the class action lawsuit against cellular providers. See the Merchant Law Group [merchantlaw.com].

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ced_Ex ( 789138 )
            Rarely do you ever see anything come out of a class action lawsuit. The first judge has to let that case through to start, and even then, that's no guarantee of seeing anything returned to you to recoup your excess charges.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Phisbut ( 761268 )

              Rarely do you ever see anything come out of a class action lawsuit. The first judge has to let that case through to start, and even then, that's no guarantee of seeing anything returned to you to recoup your excess charges.

              Rarely do you ever see anything out of people sitting on their ass and just waiting. I don't care if I can recoup the excess charges. I'll just be happy if the carriers get fined a whole lot of money and then stop their shady practices. It might not right the past wrongs, but it will ma

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ced_Ex ( 789138 )
                It's not to say I'm not on that class action lawsuit, but I'm just being realistic about our chances of ever getting the case heard.

                I would totally love to see resolution to this lawsuit, whether it be we receive our "system access fees" back, or that the future service is better.

                Just so you know, outside of the named litigants and the law firm handling this, the rest of us are doing exactly that, sitting on our collective asses waiting for a payout.
        • Spend the extra 5-10 minutes to compare options and plans and you can get more value. Everyone is so hard on the Canadian cell industry, but personally I have no real big complaints. I've been with Fido for 4 years now, still paying less than $40 a month and I have every calling feature, unlimited text, etc. My girlfriend is with Bell, she's under $50 a month and has unlimited data transfer, satellite radio, unlimited local calling... (and when I say under $40 or under $50, I mean, including all of the B
      • I think the answer is to give up GSM for a while and go with Virgin. All that stuff that Rogers/Fido nickel and dimes you for is free and their pay-as-you-go is really pay-as-you-go as in you pay for your air time, not pay some everyday and then pay 30 a minute on top of that. Only drawback is the lack of GSM. Oh well.
        • Actually, from looking around it just seems that CDMA in general, not just Virgin, is cheaper for people who aren't on the phone so much.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
          Personally, I've always liked CDMA more than GSM. I find the audio quality quite bad on the GSM cellphones, and they don't have a wider coverage area either. Maybe GSM is better for data services or something, but I want to use my phone as a phone, and I find that CDMA works much better for voice calls.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ced_Ex ( 789138 )
            Exactly... I switched from Telus to Rogers for a corporate plan (which by the way is much cheaper than what I was paying while at Telus for the same plan), I noticed the call quality was horrible with Rogers.

            With Telus, when I initated a call, it would call immediately, with Rogers, I would have to wait till my phone finds a channel, which could take several tries. Also, on Telus, the sound quality was amazing, clear, crisp, on Rogers you get static and particularly with the loaner piece of shit phone I ha
      • In Europe, Romania
              Using Vodafone
        $11 for a plan with 50 free minutes, 20 minutes bonus from plan signup, 30 minutes for old customer. $0.07 for SMS, free voice mail (but I've disabled it), free caller id, free to receive calls and messages. I don't use MMS, so I don't know about their price.
              I have months when I use double the minutes, and months when I use half of them. They roll on the next month :D

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ctrl-Z ( 28806 )
        Does that include a $6 "network access fee"?
      • With Rogers it is $6 for Caller ID and $6 for Voice mail if you pay for them separately, yes. You can also get something like a $10 pack that gives you Caller ID, Voice mail, and 125 sent text messages/unltd received. No package for text? $0.15 for messages sent inside Canada. Also it's $2.00 for calls made in France back to Canada/US. And yeah their cheapest plan if you're outside Manitoba or Saskatchewan is going to be $20 for 200 anytime minutes, you have to pay a system access fee of $6.95 and a 911 Eme

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Glytch ( 4881 )

          It's even worse than that.

          Videotron

          Partnered with Rogers.

          EastLink

          Partnered with Rogers.

          Petro Canada

          Based on Ztar, a GSM MVNE. Depends on the Rogers network.

          Fido

          Owned by Rogers.

          7-Eleven

          Also based on Ztar, also depends on the Rogers network.

          Solo

          Owned by Bell.

          SaskTel

          Saskatchewan only. Prepare yourself for huge roaming fees out-of-province.

          MTS

          Manitoba only. As above.

          CityWest Mobile

          Northern British Columbia only. As above.

          Harmony Mobile

          A promising and interesting company, but also a

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Glytch ( 4881 )
        Don't forget about the $10 to $12 per MB data transfer rate on most of the Canadian carriers' plans. I look at European friends' unlimited data plans and feel nothing but burning jealousy.
        • For Blackberry Plans for Rogers for example that is getting pretty close. Rogers also has a mobile internet plan $5 for 5mb and $10 for 10mb for example.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kilrogg ( 119108 )
        Me too! When they raise the voice mail and caller ID prices (yet again) a year or so ago, I said enough is enough and canceled both. They wanted an extra $2/month out of me for a "service" that cost them nothing extra to provide, they lost $9/month from me instead.
    • I've been slowly switching all our work phones off of Bell and onto Rogers as contracts expire. Both are evil, but Rogers is less evil simply because of some of the benefits of GSM. Will Bell, lets say I want a new handset. I go to a Bellworld store, pick out a phone, pay the $300 for it with no contract, or $50-100 with contract. Now, they charge me a FEE, to switch the phone. I AM BUYING A PHONE FROM YOU!! DO NOT CHARGE ME A PENALTY FOR THE HONOUR OF AN UPGRADE!! It's like $35. I refuse to pay any made
      • The way I see it, you're not going to be switching providers every 2 months anyway, so why not just sign the contract, and get a cheaper phone. If buying your own phone actually gave you a cheaper monthly bill, then I would probably buy my own phone. However, it isn't. If you buy your own phone you pay the same for the monthly plan as the guy to paid $50 for the phone you just paid $300 for. The only advantage is that you can switch providers at any time. But it's not like there's many other choices.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by purpledinoz ( 573045 )
      Bell raised their "system access fee" from something like $3 to $7. This fee is not quoted as part of the monthly cost!!! So it's completely hidden until you get the bill. WTF! By that time, you're stuck in a contract, and they get to F^&* you for 2 years (or however long the contract is). Rogers has a monopoly on GSM. Which means that they get to @$$ rape companies that need phones to work in Europe. These companies are swimming in profits, and they are achieving this by lowering service and increasing

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hodet ( 620484 )
      Yes, just the fact that the big three don't like this auction process tells me it is good for consumers. These companies live by the motto "Do Evil". It's not enough to make money, you also have to control every last little thing and be a major pain in the ass or it isn't worth it.

  • "Our goal at the end of the day is lower prices, better services, and more choices."
    Well I didn't look at all of the phone services but however the Telus phone service for 400 local/long distance calling is 50 dollars a month for 400 minutes within Canada. I pay the same thing for my phone plan in America. If they plan on lowering the prices I think the American market should follow suit with these types of ideas :)
    • The fact Telus and Verizon offer similar plans is not surprising, becuase there is cross-ownership between the two and they are partners, so they'd align at some levels...however there are a lot of differences.

      local/long distance calling is 50 dollars a month for 400 minutes within Canada. I pay the same thing for my phone plan in America.

      That is but one component of the services these companies offer. You completely ignore everything else:

      * When Telus advertises "$x for y minutes" that "y minutes" is ALL

  • In news this week (Score:5, Funny)

    by boer ( 653809 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @04:15AM (#21515755)

    In news this week: Canadian government regulation on mobile telecom industry is welcomed by readers of Slashdot. "Truly wonderful example of succesful goverment regulation!" -Anonymous Slashdot commenter

    In other news: FCC castigated by readers of Slashdot [slashdot.org] for trying to regulate cable TV industry. "Yeah, like more government regulation is what we need!" -Anonymous Slashdot commenter

  • Don't hold your breath... networks are expensive.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by WoTG ( 610710 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @04:40AM (#21515869) Homepage Journal
    Canada didn't use to have 3 national wireless carriers. It was only a few years ago, that Rogers bought out Fido. A few years prior, Clearnet was purchased by Telus. The consolidation was great for the wireless providers...

    Fido* was the price leader. They started billing by the second, unlimited voice plans, etc. Except they didn't make much money (actually they went bankrupt once). When Fido got purchased by Rogers, the competitive pricing pressure was taken off of everyone. Rogers got the best of it, since they became the only choice for those who need GSM (and those international users who end up roaming on Rogers). So prices have stalled, and in many cases edged up.

    Naturally, we scream for more competition. I'm sure some company will win the frequencies, but I wouldn't bet on them succeeding.

    Networks are bloody expensive to build. And, since Canada's land mass is larger than the US, with only 30M potential customers, it's more expensive to build on a per-capita basis. Granted, you don't need to provide service to the bulk of the unpopulated land, but still, a town in Canada is a whole lot smaller than a town in the USA.

    Even today, Telus and Bell share their "home" networks with each other in the West and East respectively to provide national coverage while they complete their build-outs.

    So, yay for more competition. Whoever it ends up being, I wish them well, and luck... they'll need it.

    * Fido is operated as a distinct brand on the Rogers network, but a lot has changed - lots of nickel and dimeing.

    • Re:Don't hold your breath... networks are expensiv (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm a Canadian citizen living in Ontario who has been screwed by Bell many times. I used to think the "oh no we have such a large country and only 30m people" argument justified these companies abusing us, then I realized the vast bloody majority of us live in Ontario and our population density in many areas is comparable to many states.

      There is absolutely no reason that I pay $100 - $150 a month for BlackBerry service that would cost $50/month if I lived in the states. Apparently I am not the only one who

      • Re:Don't hold your breath... networks are expensiv (Score:4, Insightful)

        by vidarh ( 309115 ) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Thursday November 29, 2007 @08:11AM (#21516761) Homepage Journal
        For that matter, phone usage in Norway is pretty cheap, and while Norway is small compared to Canada there's also only 4.5 million people, and there's GSM coverage even in the middle of the central mountain ranges, where nobody lives (to the point where they have to regularly issue warnings for people going for walking trips into the mountains not to rely on it as their only emergency preparation, in case the coverage drops due to bad weather)

        The reason this worked in Norway is regulation far beyond what is being proposed in Canada: In Norway anyone can start a cellphone network and can demand roaming access from the licensees at cost + a limited profit margin, under the argument that since spectrum is a imited resource, anything else would restrict competition.

        As a result, there are tens of cellphone companies, some of which owns their network, some which own parts of their network (where it's cost effective compared to the roaming costs) and some who only sell additional services on top of the other networks.

        It's similar to the "local loop unbundling" for fixed line telephony in several European countries (where the companies owning the physical lines are required to sell access to those lines for customers who want to use a different provider at cost plus a limited profit margin again) where the argument is pretty much the same (you can't have everyone digging up streets to lay more cable, so it's either less competition or treat the local loop as a semi-shared resource).

        These are typical examples of where regulation leads to more choice and far more competition, and thus a far better working market.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
          But really how remote are those areas of Norway [wikipedia.org]. In Canada, you can go to places where it's a 4 hour drive between anything over 50,000 people. Lets look at Saskatchewan [wikipedia.org] for instance. Twice the size of Norway, and 1/4 of the population. Not only that, if you compare the top cities in Norway [wikipedia.org] to the top cities in Saskatchewan [wikipedia.org], you'll see quite a difference in the number of people in those cities. The Number 10 city only has 8000 people. People from Europe don't really know what remote is. They don't r

      • Re:Don't hold your breath... networks are expensiv (Score:4, Informative)

        by pokerdad ( 1124121 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @08:31AM (#21516963)

        I'm a Canadian citizen living in Ontario

        ...and you're about to give a great example of why the rest of Canada resents Ontario (btw, I live in Ontario too, though I haven't always)

        then I realized the vast bloody majority of us live in Ontario

        12.8 million [wikipedia.org] out of 33.1 million [wikipedia.org] is a "vast bloody majority"? McGuinty really needs to get on that whole "reinvesting in schools" thing.

        our population density in many areas is comparable to many states

        Yes, let's compare a small part of Ontario with entire states. Forget the rest of Canada, and even the rest of Ontario (Ontario isn't even close to the most dense province population wise; remember that it not only has the largest population, but has the largest land mass too).

        I would be shocked if a phone company came along with the balls to say "our coverage area will only be in the golden horse shoe". I suppose if they priced competitively it might work for a little while, but I suspect that sooner or later customer's would take a drive more than two hours from their home, and get pissed when their phone stopped working.

        There is absolutely no reason that I pay $100 - $150 a month for BlackBerry service

        Actually their is a great reason. Collectively we let them. When alternitives come along we don't flock to them, we just stick with the guys that are screwing us and when alternitive are not present we don't cancel the service and wait for them to be reasonable, we just pony up the money (as you are doing apparently).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by aonaran ( 15651 )
          I would be shocked if a phone company came along with the balls to say "our coverage area will only be in the golden horse shoe".

          We used to call that phone company Fido, then Rogers bought them and the coverage expanded to cover what a normal cell phone co covers.
          Clearnet used to be pretty much like that too, except with Clearnet you had coverage outside the cities as long as you stayed on a major highway.

          • We used to call that phone company Fido

            While Fido's coverage was certainly lacking, it was nowhere near as bad as I was suggesting. (I can't speak to Clearnet, but I am pretty sure it was better than was suggested)

            The OP thought that the higher population density of southern Ontario ought to make it viable for additional competitors to be in that market, suggesting that it could be considered independent of the rest of Canada. My point was that consumers have come to expect they can travel and still get coverage, so no part of Canada can be

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by aonaran ( 15651 )
              Actually it was.
              My sister had a fido for a while. We lived in Oshawa, she could not get to Columbus (which is still part of Oshawa) without losing her signal. As far as Fido was concerned they only needed to cover.. lets see... Google maps says 14.6km north of the 401.
        • Ontario is third [statcan.ca] in land area if you only count provinces, after Quebec and BC. That, combined with your poor spelling and grammar, would suggest that your school needed as much investment as gp's.

          • That, combined with your poor spelling and grammar, would suggest that your school needed as much investment as gp's.

            You know what really sucks? When somebody tears into you and you have no defense because they are completely right. My original post is filled with errors, both grammerical and factual.

            I can't even claim that I was rushed, because the final version is much improved over the one I previewed and then chose to edit. About the only excuse I have is that I was so enamoured with my own arguement that I made mistakes, both big and little. (which isn't to say that its a wonderful arguement; more like I'm an Alb

            • yeah, your post seemed a bit harsh, so I felt the need to defend the guy. Then I realized he was an AC, so he probably never read either of our posts anyway.

              I'm an Ontario boy who got dragged out to Saskatchewan (and hopefully Alberta soon enough) by the military. There's definitely a difference in culture... not to mention climate.
        • Ontario...has the largest land mass too.

          Are you sure about that?

          • Are you sure about that?

            It isn't, I know; I just was typing without thinking.

            • No real harm done. A bit ironic though, that you were taking a "fellow" Ontarian down a peg for thinking he was near the centre of the universe. Eh?

              Cheers, Paul
      • Or the Rogers "unlimited plan" where unlimited means "25MB a month" and every byte over that gets charged. We can't make Canadian money jokes any more since the CDN$ has reached parity with the US$. But we can make Canadian megabyte jokes!
    • The most important aspect of this story is hidden in the following brief quotation:

      Foreign companies, although faced with ownership restrictions, could also bid on the spectrum in partnership with a Canadian company.

      It is the government's insistence on subsidizing their friends by blocking foreign competition that is the root cause of high cellular service prices in Canada. Foreign companies were allowed to bid last time around too, and some did. But once they realized that without a controlling position th

    • Yeah, it's like they expect everyone to have forgotten about Clearnet and Fido. How are things going to be any different this time around, if it couldn't work financially last time?
    • The entry of new carriers was mandated in the last spectrum auction (1900mhz pcs). Just like this one. So what does this mean? Prepare to see two small carriers try to play catch-up for five years, then get bought out by telus and rogers.
    • Then why are both rogers and telus crying? Why did rogers share went down right after the announcement?

      Also when the same thing (deregulation) works for third world countries, it can't work for Canada?
    • Rogers ruined Fido. My plan is still the same price, but everything else has doubled or tripled. Extra minutes are 30 cents instead of 10, long distance is 30 cents instead of 10. Roaming is several times more expensive, all the miscellaneous fees are at least doubled. Grrrr.

    • Canada's land mass is larger than the US

      That is an incorrect statement. Check out the facts: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/area/3d.html;_ylt=As1XMsN8kgSx746VWazy_s7PecYF [yahoo.com]

      The US is slightly bigger in land mass. To your credit though, the difference is slight and you are correct that the cost to implement a nationwide network would end up being more costly per user.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by WoTG ( 610710 )
        Hmm... point taken. I guess I've always been using the land + water area amount, where Canada is indeed #2 in the world, behind Russia.

        A lot of the Canadian territory up north is mostly water...

  • A very interesting article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by director_mr ( 1144369 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @04:41AM (#21515875)
    That was a great article. I loved how they had the response of at least three different perspectives (a current telecom exec from Bell, the Allstream exec looking to go in the market, and a liberal critic) in the article without slanting the information towards a particular point of view. I wish newspapers and reporting agencies would do that kind of reporting more often. I know absolutely nothing about the wireless telecom situation in Canada, so I can't really contribute anything that insightful, but I enjoyed reading that article. It somehow makes me want to find out and learn more about the subject.

    • Re:A very interesting article (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fr05t ( 69968 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @07:12AM (#21516413)
      "I loved how they had the response of at least three different perspectives (a current telecom exec from Bell, the Allstream exec looking to go in the market, and a liberal critic) in the article without slanting the information towards a particular point of view."

      I hadn't checked to see who wrote the article, but when I read that I knew it was CBC. You should check out the online stream of the radio broadcast - great stuff!
    • The CBC regularly receives awards for overall excellence, at least in Canada.

      http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2003/08/26/gemini260803.html [www.cbc.ca]

      Or at least that is what the CBC would have you believe... ;)

      I'm not sure how well they do on the international stage though.
    • I live on the St. Lawrence River and up until this summer had no coverage on the river itself, or close to it (on the highway along it) for at least 75 miles(GSM & CDMA). So you would be forced into roaming which it seems either the Canadian companies or the companies here would charge you up the a$$. Eventually Verizon and Cingular said no roaming charges into Canada, then built their own towers.
  • Rogers currently has a virtual monopoly on GSM networks. If all the entrants are CDMA, then Rogers will still have an exploitable advantage - ever since they bought out the only company that was lowering prices, Fido.

    Fido used to have a plan called "City Fido" where you get unlimited plans local calling for $40 flat. Now, those plans, while not being offered any more, can be still be transferred from person to person, with the person receiving the plan usually paying over $400.
    • I recall reading that MTS Allstream was going in with Quebecor and Vodaphone to build a national GSM network. MTS's home network is CDMA, but that doesn't mean that its former AT&T Canada (Allstream) branch can't build a GSM network nation-wide.

      I work for SaskTel and that was a "Industry Update" we received in our email.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Prune ( 557140 )
      What's the difference with GSM?

  • but phone networks are so dumb (Score:5, Interesting)

    by troll -1 ( 956834 ) on Thursday November 29, 2007 @06:31AM (#21516265)
    So they have all this great bandwidth and all they can think of is more phones?

    Phone systems are a relic of the last century. A much better use would be mobile IP addresses where consumers choose their own devices for Internet, text, voice, or whatever and cell phone companies can't limit our choice of devices or nickel and dime us for trivial stuff, like opening a port for email and selling it as a service (I'm sure glad the cell phone companies aren't running the Internet).

    So perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of phones and start thinking more about expanding the wireless spectrum to be part of the Internet because that's where we'll get real choice and innovation.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by BPPG ( 1181851 )
      The cell phone side of things is already a big jump. The Canadian telcos wouldn't give up internet bandwidth as easily, let alone both. They're like big lumbering hungry beasts. I use 3web(Cable) and Teksavvy(DSL); 3web buys from Rogers and Teksavvy buys from Bell. 3web's speeds drop a lot here during the busy times, and we're connected to Teksavvy directly instead of just to the nearest node. This is because while 3web and Teksavvy are both cheap and without caps, they aren't allowed as much freedom.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by s1d ( 1185389 )
      The "Phone" system involves a dedicated connection to be setup between two nodes, assuring the highest level of QoS. The "Internet Protocol" system is not a dedicated connection, but just a stream of packets flowing between two nodes, which does not assure all data (voice here) may get delivered without delay. You can pause and wait for a response while on IM, but it can be frustrating on a voice call. Its up to the Government to set a consumer friendly telecom policy. In India, people can use any phone t
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • But the "phone" as we know it know does all that stuff. It's not even recognizable as a phone now.

      I would like the system to be more open, but I don't want the sound quality to suffer even more just by letting people be cheapskates and use worse quality devices like a roaming Skype device. I certainly would be more inclined to hang up if it's like the last Skype call I received.
  • This made my morning. If this does help the prices get competitive *cough*fair*cough*, I may actually consider getting a cellphone now. Seeing the big phone carriers around here in Ottawa quash any new startups was getting sickening to watch.

  • It won't change much (Score:2, Interesting)

    by spungo ( 729241 )
    All that will happen is that:

    (1) little companies will come forward

    (2) said little companies will find it tough competing against big players, due to unfair practices

    (3) Federal govt will ignore problem due to incompetence and/or backhanders

    (4) little companies will end up getting bought out by Rogers, et al.

    (5) Big companies increase their monopolistic stranglehold

  • I was watching a speech on a Rogers community channel recently where Ted Rogers was giving a speech in Ottawa. He outlined that the open spectrum bidding wasn't necessarily a bad thing but in essence Rogers has built its network using borrowed money, incurred debts which it is repaying now. As a result he says it wouldn't be fair for a new upstart to just come in and start without having to pay for lines while it bought access at a reduced rate for 5 years while it accumulates cash and builts its cash reser
    • Oh, gimme a break.

      Ted Rogers once boasted that he'd "never in his life sent a corporate income tax to Ottawa".

      Remember the negative billing when the new cable tv channels came out?

      Ted Rogers calling other people out on an issue of fairness would be like Bush criticizing Canada for spending too much on the military.

      The OECD found that Canadians have the most expensive plans in the world, 2 or 3 times the price of europeans, 1.5-2 times the price Americans pay.

      And before somebody pulls out the tired argument

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close