Latest News

Rogers to Shutter Mobilicity and Transfer Existing Customers to Chatr

Rogers to Shutter Mobilicity and Transfer Existing Customers to Chatr

By Simon Hung

It’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.

Effective this summer, Rogers will cut ties with Mobilicity and transfer current customers 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 all
    • I wonder which one of the Big 3 will buy Sasktel? Rogers, Bell, or Telus?
    • Report Post
    • When will Ontario gov create something like Sasktel to challenge the big 3? Wind, mobi, and public mobile all been a failure.
      Premier Brad Wall is preparing to privatize 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
    • Report Post
    • well nothings been happening yet.. maybe not until 2017
    • Report Post
    • Anyone know when these transitional plans will roll out?

      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.
    • Report Post
    • my son has Mobilicity and I see the similar speed in Thornhill

      Image
      I had speeds like that too, sometimes data wouldn't load for HTTP, especially downtown
    • Report Post
    • Well consider yourself lucky. We have 2 phones with Mobilicity in Thornhill and recently their network is s**t! Clearly forcing customers out.
      my son has Mobilicity and I see the similar speed in Thornhill

      Image
    • Report Post
    • Well consider yourself lucky. We have 2 phones with Mobilicity in Thornhill and recently their network is s**t! Clearly forcing customers out.
      Your phone maybe?

      Seems fine here in the heart of Scarborough.
      Image
    • Report Post
    • My god, Rogers' 3G network is much to be desired or their QOS for mobilicity customers is absolutely lowest. Can't even get 0.10Mbit these days.
      Your phone maybe?

      Seems fine here in the heart of Scarborough.
      Image
    • Report Post
    • I'm looking for voice plans and their $25 is more than enough for my needs - Unlimited call and text. Will Rogers honor this plan after the transition?
      Chatr has a similar plan, so I'm guessing they would grandfather it.
    • Report Post
    • My god, Rogers' 3G network is much to be desired or their QOS for mobilicity customers is absolutely lowest. Can't even get 0.10Mbit these days.
      If it's intentional, they're really trying to force you off the Mobilicty brand quick time.
    • Report Post
    • Greatly doubt it. Maybe once Rogers takes over, that $25 plan would be $29. With Rogers, there's always a catch.
      probably more than $29 IMO
    • Report Post
    • I'm looking for voice plans and their $25 is more than enough for my needs - Unlimited call and text. Will Rogers honor this plan after the transition?
      Greatly doubt it. Maybe once Rogers takes over, that $25 plan would be $29. With Rogers, there's always a catch.
    • Report Post
    • I'm looking for voice plans and their $25 is more than enough for my needs - Unlimited call and text. Will Rogers honor this plan after the transition?
    • Report Post
    • My god, Rogers' 3G network is much to be desired or their QOS for mobilicity customers is absolutely lowest. Can't even get 0.10Mbit these days.
    • Report Post
    • But the funny thing is, he's been providing evidence to back up his claims while everyone else is just projecting their frustrations without any evidence to back it up. One even said he's too lazy to find evidence but what he said was "facts". Lols
      I don't care enough to lookup EU beauracracy effcts! Don't put words in my mouth since I have linked to evidence in some posts
    • Report Post
    • I don't get why anyone is arguing with i6s1. He/she is clearly a Rogers shill. I constantly saw this type of language when I worked at Rogers. It's in their blood.
      But the funny thing is, he's been providing evidence to back up his claims while everyone else is just projecting their frustrations without any evidence to back it up. One even said he's too lazy to find evidence but what he said was "facts". Lols
    • Report Post
    • Rogers network. I wouldn't worry about call reception, data speeds on the other hand are to be determined...
      That's good to hear about the call reception.
    • Report Post
    • How is Chatr reception? Is it good? Or pretty much like Wind or worse?
      Rogers network. I wouldn't worry about call reception, data speeds on the other hand are to be determined...
    • Report Post
    • Yes. Is your assertion that they make (say) 30% profit on wireless and lose 20% on wireless for an overall profit of 10%? The same people who claim that wireless is highly profitable are the ones who claim that wireline is highly profitable. They make a reasonable profit on each service, but not excessive.



      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 know what predatory pricing is, it's just that anything I point out (ex rogers charging $65 for 100/10 which is much cheaper than they charge tpia) would be ignored by you and pointed out as baseless accusation etc.

      "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?


      I don't get why anyone is arguing with i6s1. He/she is clearly a Rogers shill. I constantly saw this type of language when I worked at Rogers. It's in their blood.
      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
    • Report Post
    • How is Chatr reception? Is it good? Or pretty much like Wind or worse?
    • Report Post
    • Are bribes included in Roger's financial reports? Because that's a pretty big expense.
    • Report Post
    • I don't get why anyone is arguing with i6s1. He/she is clearly a Rogers shill. I constantly saw this type of language when I worked at Rogers. It's in their blood.
    • Report Post
    • You realize the profit numbers you linked are for the carriers overall not just the WIRELESS parts?
      Yes. Is your assertion that they make (say) 30% profit on wireless and lose 20% on wireless for an overall profit of 10%? The same people who claim that wireless is highly profitable are the ones who claim that wireline is highly profitable. They make a reasonable profit on each service, but not excessive.
      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.
      The other side of the equation is cost. If cost is high, then revenue has to be high to make any money.
      Just for fun I looked at Rogers' profit margin on WIRELESS in 2009 (when rates were more realistic) and it was a 45% profit!
      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'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'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.

      I still don't see your whole argument around density when london and vancouver both have around 5K people per square KM?
      Uhhh.... it's pretty obvious. Both countries have coverage in more areas then in these two cherry-picked cities.
      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)
      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.
      and the fact that a lot of towers in Canada are built in areas where land is cheap!
      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.
      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!
      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.
    • Report Post
    • Plus, there's that whole thing where revenue and profit are not the same thing...
      I addressed that in my reply to i6s1. Just trying to show that the UK carriers have to deal with lower revenues, in addition to splitting subs between 4 carriers
    • Report Post
    • Lol. Citation please.

      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
      You realize the profit numbers you linked are for the carriers overall not just the WIRELESS parts?

      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!
    • Report Post
    • 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!
      Does that graph factor in wireless penetration? The UK's wireless penetration rate is over 50% higher than Canada.

      Plus, there's that whole thing where revenue and profit are not the same thing...
    • Report Post
    • Of course it wouldn't make sense for wind to build out in the middle of nowhere, I'm just arguing your point of "4 times the coverage area means more expense" when most of that coverage area costs nearly nothing to build in.
      Lol. Citation please.

      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.
      And of course you won't build a cell "tower" downtown but the space on the building still costs a lot especially when most of your subs are in these high rent/urban areas. (remember there are more people but over FIVE times the towers)
      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.

      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.
      Give me some examples. Citations, please. Build a case with facts instead of unfounded and faulty assertions.
      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.
      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.
      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!
      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
    • Report Post
    • Do you have any evidence of that? It might be true but I'd like to know instead of just having to trust your assertion.

      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.)
      Of course it wouldn't make sense for wind to build out in the middle of nowhere, I'm just arguing your point of "4 times the coverage area means more expense" when most of that coverage area costs nearly nothing to build in. And of course you won't build a cell "tower" downtown but the space on the building still costs a lot especially when most of your subs are in these high rent/urban areas. (remember there are more people but over FIVE times the towers)

      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!

      iImage
    • Report Post
    • wages for telco workers are higher, which is the relevant point for building out a network.
      Do you have any evidence of that? It might be true but I'd like to know instead of just having to trust your assertion.

      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.

      It's not like the UK carriers just cover the big towns and most of the fiber is already laid. The only "extra bit" is to the towers. Canada really only has TWO networks! BellUs share towers so that's a huge savings to both companies! The uk has 4 real carriers!
      Actually...
      The UK telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, states that it "encourages mobile network operators to share masts and/or sites where possible" [2] and the Mobile Operators Association (MOA) has published a paper on the subject.[3] There is some co-operation between networks. Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL) is a joint venture between 3UK and T-Mobile (now EE), and O2 and Vodafone have established a joint team called Cornerstone. The two schemes are different in that MBNL shares antennas while Cornerstone shares sites but not antennas. [4]
      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/

      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.

      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.
      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!
      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.
      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.
      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?
      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.
      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.)
    • Report Post
    • If a place has 5 times as many towers as us, but 10 times the population, then the costs of those towers per person is lower. If a place has 5 times the towers and twice the population, then I'd expect costs for them would be more per person. All else being equal.

      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
      wages for telco workers are higher, which is the relevant point for building out a network. It's not like the UK carriers just cover the big towns and most of the fiber is already laid. The only "extra bit" is to the towers. Canada really only has TWO networks! BellUs share towers so that's a huge savings to both companies! The uk has 4 real carriers!

      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.
    • Report Post
    • 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.
      This is the thing, urban users are hugely subsidizing rural users. Toronto should have the cheapest rates in Canada logically speaking. The most towers, users and competition. The problems is that Bell, Rogers, Telus and their many child companies, do not actually compete in any substantial way, but lazily just match each other's high prices.
    • Report Post
    • I'm a Mobi user and disappointed in this, but not surprised.

      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.
    • Report Post
    • How is density relevant? Everyone keeps yellling density but thats only relevant to how many towers you put up! If they have FIVE TIMES as many towers as us thEN I'd say density is irrelevant!
      If a place has 5 times as many towers as us, but 10 times the population, then the costs of those towers per person is lower. If a place has 5 times the towers and twice the population, then I'd expect costs for them would be more per person. All else being equal.

      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
    • Report Post
    • Population density...

      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).
      How is density relevant? Everyone keeps yellling density but thats only relevant to how many towers you put up! If they have FIVE TIMES as many towers as us thEN I'd say density is irrelevant!
    • Report Post
    • how exactly would you explain the UK then? Their wages are higher than ours, AND have about FIVE times the towers we do. They also have to deal with EU laws which I'd argue is a lot more difficult than the CRTC and while almost everything is more expensive in the UK, Cell phone service is MUCH cheaper....
      Population density...

      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).
    • Report Post