Rogers to Shutter Mobilicity and Transfer Existing Customers to Chatr
By Simon Hung
May 11, 2016It’s been the elephant in the room since Rogers acquired Mobilicity in June 2015. For many Mobilicity customers, it wasn’t a matter of if, but when the company would be dissolved and it appears as though that time has come, as Rogers has shuttered the Mobilicity brand and will move all current customers to their budget subsidiary, Chatr.
Rogers will cease new Mobilicity activations beginning August 15 and will begin the process of transferring more than 154,000 current customers to Chatr. In a statement given to MobileSyrup, customers will have the option to shift to a “comparable Chatr plan,” but current monthly wireless plans will not be grandfathered to Chatr.
Mobilicity was an RFD favourite due to the affordable, unlimited lifetime plans they offered once upon a time, but the company struggled financially until their acquisition by Rogers for $465 million in June 2015. Only 180 Mobilicity outlets remain across Canada and Rogers has stated that they will keep more than half of them open and re-brand them as Chatr outlets.
Many RFD forum members have expressed uncertainty with these lifetime plans, as Rogers has not released specific details about how these plans would be transferred to Chatr, if at all. Since Mobilicity did not use a contract model, some have speculated that owners of lifetime plans would be out of luck after the transfer and would have to settle for whatever Rogers considers a “comparable plan” on Chatr.
Mobilicity has set up an FAQ page regarding the move and will release more details at a later time. Until then, customers can use their phones and pay their bills normally.
This is the second time in the past month that a major Canadian telecom has changed the wireless market, as this news follows Bell’s acquisition of MTS in Manitoba.
While you wait for the Chatr transition, be sure to check out our Ongoing Deals forum, where you can find threads dedicated to helping you find the wireless deals from different providers.
If you’re a Mobilicity customer, how do you feel about the news? Express your dissatisfaction, jubilation or indifference by dropping a message in the comments!
Showing 40 Most Recent Comments
View allhttp://leaderpost.com/news/politics/pre ... ze-sasktel
Radio ads have started airing across Saskatchewan that tell Premier Brad Wall to "back away from the phone" in his bid to sell SaskTel.
Sponsored by the province's largest telecommunication union, Unifor, the ads highlight the unequalled value of having a publicly-owned carrier in Saskatchewan.
The ads are online at https://soundcloud.com/unifor/dont-sell-our-sasktel
from http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ra ... 63201.html
http://mobilesyrup.com/2016/05/10/roger ... -wireless/
I currently have the $15 unlimited plan with $10 data add-on, assuming these transitional plans suck (which they likely will), I will likely go with Fido and their $15 tablet data flex plan, and use Fongo for voice+text.
Seems fine here in the heart of Scarborough.
"you still have hundreds more subs to spread the cost across" You keep saying that point for density but wouldn't the LOCAL customer density unimportant since the tower costs are spread against all subs?
Even if I disagree with him, I won't outright call him a shill, he'll I've been called a bell shill before having NEVER worked for a telco/carrier lol
The other side of the equation is cost. If cost is high, then revenue has to be high to make any money.
No, you didn't. You're probably looking at EBITDA or operating profit. That doesn't include things like building towers or paying taxes. Please provide your source.
I've provide plenty of things that I've looked up. You've provided no evidence for your claim, as usual, so I dismiss it outright. Even if it was true that EU/UK laws were more expensive to follow than CRTC/Industry Canada rules, that would only be one factor. Overall costs for a Canadian telco if regulatory costs were slightly lower but capital expenses were far higher.
Uhhh.... it's pretty obvious. Both countries have coverage in more areas then in these two cherry-picked cities.
No, I haven't. I pointed out that even if 5 times as many towers are needed in denser areas, you still have hundreds more subs to spread the cost across.
A lot of towers in EVERY country are in areas where land is cheap. And that's certainly not the only cost. You could have free land in Canada - if you need to cover far more area and pay costs with far fewer paying customers, costs will still be higher. Land is only cheap in Canada in the places where there's hardly any people, and so those costs are spread across people who live in denser areas. Land is only one minor component of tower cost. Major costs are higher in Canada - the number of towers per person, the distance between them, etc. Some minor costs might be lower, that's certainly true.
In every country, you could point out a few minor components of cost that would be cheaper in Canada, but I could point out several major ones that are more expensive. Except for Australia - they're pretty similar in most regards to our situation.
You don't know what predatory pricing is. That's when you price your products in order to drive a smaller competitor out of business. You can't drive a government-owned company out of business (Sasktel/Tbay) and Quebeccor has a larger market cap than any of the Big3 wireless companies. And its' not the the big3 that set prices low and forced regional 4th companies to match, it's the other way around. Government companies don't prioritize profitability and Videotron wanted to grow market share and is willing to accept low profits to do so.
I still don't see whats wrong with my ARPU chart? yes it's REVENUE but you need to look at that along with profit to get a better idea of both sides of the equation.
Just for fun I looked at Rogers' profit margin on WIRELESS in 2009 (when rates were more realistic) and it was a 45% profit!
I'm too lazy to link anything about EU bureaucracy for a debate on a deal forum, but if you've lived in an EU country you'd notice the bureaucracy! (plus needing to comply with MULTIPLE governing bodies makes things more expensive)
I still don't see your whole argument around density when london and vancouver both have around 5K people per square KM? Even though most cities in Canada are less dense, you've ignored the whole issue around the significant extra cost with denser sites (way more equipment needed) and the fact that a lot of towers in Canada are built in areas where land is cheap!
Speaking of predatory pricing, If you've looked at anywhere with a 4th carrier in the country, you'd notice that robellus "magically" have lower prices for the SAME product!
Plus, there's that whole thing where revenue and profit are not the same thing...
Obviously, all else being equal, covering a lot of territory will cost more. They type of territory also makes a difference, it's cheaper to cover flat land like the prairies compared to mountains like BC and the Canadian Shield.
But literally hundreds of times the number of subscribers per km. (Toronto's density is 2650 compared to 3.6 overall for Canada.) 5 times the number of towers is a tiny price to pay. Density matters.
Give me some examples. Citations, please. Build a case with facts instead of unfounded and faulty assertions.
Where exactly is it illegal to "price gouge," where did I say they wouldn't "gouge" because it's illegal? Are you thinking of when I was discussing predatory pricing? If the do something illegal/against regs then I'm completely in favor of them getting sanctioned.
Just provide some evidence that they will engage in predatory pricing. Just because I speed doesn't mean that I break into houses and steal TVs.
Are you kidding? You don't know the difference between revenue and profit? It's like saying that Air Canada makes more profit than Westjet because AC has more revenue. But the average flight for AC might be longer, and they might have premium classes that are more expensive to operate. AC might actually make less profit than WJ even if they have more revenue.
Here's a tip: If you want to say they make a lot of profit THEN SHOW THEIR PROFIT LEVELS.
2015
Rogers: 10.3%
Bell: 12.69%
Telus: 11.2%
Verizon: 13.96% (for comparison's sake)
Vodaphone: 13.88% (Since we we were talking about the UK)
Please supply other major wireless providers that you think are relevant.
Canada's telcos are actually LESS profitable than many around the world. There is NOTHING unreasonable about the profits that they make. (A tiny bit of those profits go into my pockets as a shareholder, so I'd be well aware and quite happy if they were unreasonably high.) They're completely in line with other large, established telco providers around the world. If telcos became a charity and made no profit, your bills would only go down about 10-15%. You'd still complain about being gouged. The only way you're happy is when hapless investors actually subsidize your service, like has been the case for Mobilicity and Wind.
Sources:
https://www.google.ca/finance?cid=674743
https://www.google.ca/finance?q=TSE%3AB ... igKty5bICw
https://www.google.ca/finance?q=telus&e ... iQL985uYAQ
https://www.google.ca/finance?q=verizon ... iwL-8pbwDw
https://www.google.ca/finance?q=LON%3AV ... iQK-05GQBA
Carriers have to follow rules set by the ofcom but they ALSO have to follow EU laws. The EU regulators make the canadian government look speedy/efficient.
I know businesses don't have feelings but you stated earlier they wouldn't price gouge, because that is "illegal" I'm just pointing out the law doesn't mean much to them especially if they won't get punished right away for violations.
Again you're not wrong saying the UK has more subs than Canada but look at the difference APRU between us and them? When you split the subs across 4 carriers you see robellus are profiting like bandits!
i
Of course, it's not just telco workers that build towers. I'm sure a lot of the work is done by construction folks.
And even if wages are higher for telco workers, wages are only one factor. If wages in some country are 50% higher but you only need to build half as many towers, then that country would still be cheaper, presuming everything else was equal.
Actually...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom_i ... re_sharing
Telus and Bell share some towers, and they also each have some of their own. For example, when Wind added Telus as a roaming partner, they increased coverage by 14%. And they already had a roaming agreement with Bell. (And Rogers of course.)
http://mobilesyrup.com/2014/12/01/wind- ... -coverage/
No. The UK has 83m mobile subs. In-network calling in Europe means a lot of people have multiple sims, which means that usage will be lower per account (all things being equal.) But a lot of people are paying double what you'd expect just looking at prices. Canada has 28m subs. So roughly 21m subs per top4 company in the UK, and 9.3m per top3 company in Canada, looking at that your way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... nes_in_use
Having said that, I don't think that the economies of scale there make a huge difference. A UK operator will have an advantage in economy of scale having more than double the subs, but I don't think that will translate into a massive difference on the bill.
The entire UK is less than a quarter the size of the cell coverage area in Canada, and not all the UK is covered. So in Canada, you've got half the number of subscribers per company needing to pay for 4 times the coverage area. There's just no way for you to pretend that costs should be equivalent.
I've already refuted the argument that they don't share towers. I don't know how you plan on making the case that EU regulators have a significant impact on telcom in the UK. Telecom in the UK is regulated by Ofcom. But please feel free to provide reasons that Ofcom creates more expenses for telcos than the CRTC/Industry Canada does here. Wages don't have to be "1/10" to make a difference, wages are just one factor.
Density doesn't go both ways. Towers don't cost more in cities because they don't build towers in dense cities. They uses existing highrises, they just attach antennas to them. And even if it was more to install equipment, that's more than balanced by the fact that you have far more subscribers in that area to pay for them. If what you are saying was true, then Wind would have launched first in rural areas, if their infrastructure spending would have been more cost effective there. I don't live in Toronto, but have you ever seen a dedicated cell tower within the city limits?
Businesses can't care about anything. They're just a legal entity and don't have feelings. Humans and some animals have feelings and can care. I won't make excuses for Bell, but I will point out that other telcos in other countries have run afoul of regulations, but I don't think that has any significant impact on pricing. I can make the argument that we should expect to pay more for telcom services in Canada but I can't defend everything that they do, a lot of it I completely disagree with. (For example, I don't think they should be allowed to own media companies.)
Considering the UK is about 65 million people, averaged out that leaves 16 mil subs per carrier. Canada is about 12 mil subs per carrier. (Obviously not really useful numbers (2 year olds don't have phones) but it gives a rough estimation. Considering carriers DON'T all share towers with each other, AND the EU regulatory headaches, AND the fact wages aren't 1/10th like they are in other countries I think most argument you have fly out the window!
Remember density goes BOTH ways! Aside from running the initial fiber line, I'd say a rural tower is cheaper. Less upgrades needed and land is MUCH cheaper! Having most of your towers downtown reduces transit costs but real estate is DAMN expensive! (something everyone forgets) PLUS you have to install equipment at a higher density to serve everyone and likely upgrade it more often.
Telco's here have PROVEN they have little regard for laws (lol bell and do not call list, or 911 charges) and don't care about consumers.
Two things to keep in mind are this:
1. Rogers has greatly improved the reception, cell service and data speeds for Mobi users. I only signed up with Mobi when I heard that Rogers bought them out as I knew service would be moved to the Rogers towers. The old Mobi network was vastly inferior a la Wind.
2. Mobi would have died anyways unless bought out by some larger company. Mobi was bleeding money and their business model was a failure anyways. Their prices were cheap but the whole ship was sinking. Telus already tried to buy them, the government blocked that, but let Rogers have Mobi in exchange for a spectrum trade.
Let's see what sort of plans Rogers offers but I'm betting they will be much more expensive than Mobi prices. However, there is a good argument that Mobi's prices were artificially low, since they were way below average market prices AND Mobi was constantly losing money offering those rates.
It also makes a difference how close those towers are together. Being able to cover 1m sqkm (like Canada has) is more expensive when people live along a 5000km border and speckled throughout the rest of the country, compared to a contiguous coverage area. Every tower needs to be connected to a backbone, and that's a lot cheaper when the towers are close together.
As for your previous post that wages are higher in the UK, have a look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
65 million in 243,610 km² UK.
Alberta alone is 661,848 km². Canada only has 35 million.
I'm not defending the big 3s oligopoly, but your argument is flawed.
Plus you know they charge the same prices in rural areas just as in the cities which is a huge disadvantage to those in the city.
For example I looked up prices for Shaw and Telus internet and cell in Fort Nelson BC, up north near the Yukon. They would pay the same monthly prices as in Vancouver, but you can bet the infrastructure, operating, and maintenance costs are significantly higher up north. Hence why smaller TPIAs can offer cheaper prices in the big cities, since its cheaper to operate in a higher density market. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of 3rd party reselling support from the CRTC atm, so only weak alternatives exist like Speakout, Petro, PC mobility. (See Sugar mobile vs Rogers).