Rogers bought us

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:414FB034.3D0FF1AF@teksavvy.com...
> And consider that with a recent decision by the government to lift certain
> bandwidth restrictions imposed on the legacy carriers (Bell/Telus/Rogers),
if
> Rogers is able to use all of the bandwidth from Fido, it may be able to do
> interesting things.

This is a good point. By having more spectrum, Rogers' costs to let people
use it drop. Unlimited plans encourage full networks, which annoy customers
who can't get on the network. Having more spectrum means that CityFido-like
plans (and even unlimited evenings and weekends plans) become cheaper for
Rogers to offer and less likely to cause spectrum congestion issues for
subscribers.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:32:50 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> With Fido about to disapear, I will request that they give me unloack
> codes for ALL my phones, including my old 2190 in case I ever need those
> again years from now when we'll have Rogers SIMs and Fido will be long
> gone.

You can request all you want, I don't see any reason Rogers would do that.
More likely they'd offer a swap to a Rogers phone. TTYL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:44:34 -0400, repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:50:36 +0000, yoyo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:19:37 -0400, repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage.
>>
>> And dropped calls,
>
>Haven't had any more dropped calls with Rogers then I did with Fido,
>except of course during the big blackout last year (when I had Fido), but
>I don't count that...
>
>I did have one night where I kept getting crossed lines on Rogers, very
>weird, every call I tried to make ended up being connected to another call
>in progress, very weird. The effect disappeared after I switched towers.
>
>> and higher prices,
>
>That depends on your usage and features you want. For me Rogers actually
>turned out to be cheaper by a very small amount.
>
>> and by the way repatch your just a
>> dick and a troll.
>
>Oh, that hurt, I think I'm going to go cry now...
>
>Listen, if you're not
>capable of having a debate like an adult then maybe you should hang out
>with people your own mental age. Elementary school "name calling" is
>laughable during elementary, imagine what it is in your later years...


There's no debate here, all you do is cut up services you don't have
and praise the ones you have, weather you right or not you think yours
is the final truth.
Enough said, I hate feeding trolls.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:51:18 +0000, grubb wrote:
> There's no debate here, all you do is cut up services you don't have and
> praise the ones you have, weather you right or not you think yours is the
> final truth.

Hmm, so you're saying that the moment one stops using a service they loose
all right to complain about the service? Very interesting position.

But fine, yes, MY phone isn't on Fido, but my brother's is, and I use his
enough, so there, I'm still using the service, happy now? Do I have your
permission now?

> Enough said, I hate feeding trolls.

I don't, I love feeding trolls, I consider it a sport, seeing them slither
back and forth at my whim, very fun. TTYL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Jim MacKenzie wrote:
> Since Rogers will own the Fido towers, and can take advantage of them,
> Rogers' new amalgamated network should be at least as good as the better of
> Fido and Rogers at the moment.

Rogers will be hard pressed to reduce any duplication in towers. They cost
money to operate (and pay land owners for use of their land/buildings). This
is especially true in cities.

Consider that Rogers never quite got its network properly tuned in Toronto.
Consider that Fido is working hard to fine tune its network in
Toronto/Vancouver to cope with CityFido. Amalgamating the 2 networks will be
tantamount to building a totally new one in terms of studying the ikpact of
removing one tower or the other and seing how coverage in that area is impacted.

Consider that Rogers's quality standards are also lower. So any changes to the
Microcell network from now on will probably be done to Rogers' lower standards.


> I see this merger as win-win as long as some
> of the plan advantages that Fido has get retained post-merger (low-cost long
> distance, etc.).

You are dreaming if you think that Rogers will keep Fido's advantages. Rogers
is getting Fido's customers and Fido's spectrum. The rest is just necessary baggage.

It will be most interesting to see how the Québec government reacts to this
one. Last time Rogers tried to buy a visible Québec firm (Videotron) the
government got the caisse de dépot to force Québécor to buy Videotron in order
to prevent it from falling into foreign hands. (it was the PQ in power at the
time).

> Rogers could remove some of Microcell's towers and redeploy them

I am not even sure of that. Does Microcell have any equipment that is the same
brand/compatible with Roger's network ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:25:34 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Jim MacKenzie wrote:
>> Since Rogers will own the Fido towers, and can take advantage of them,
>> Rogers' new amalgamated network should be at least as good as the better
>> of Fido and Rogers at the moment.
>
> Rogers will be hard pressed to reduce any duplication in towers. They cost
> money to operate (and pay land owners for use of their land/buildings).
> This is especially true in cities.
>
> Consider that Rogers never quite got its network properly tuned in
> Toronto. Consider that Fido is working hard to fine tune its network in
> Toronto/Vancouver to cope with CityFido. Amalgamating the 2 networks will
> be tantamount to building a totally new one in terms of studying the
> ikpact of removing one tower or the other and seing how coverage in that
> area is impacted.

Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure when
that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900 coverage
then they seperately currently have.

> Consider that Rogers's quality standards are also lower. So any changes to
> the Microcell network from now on will probably be done to Rogers' lower
> standards.

True, but in my experience Rogers' network is pretty decent as it is, so
adding Fido will only make it better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:42:22 -0600, Jim MacKenzie wrote:

>
> "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> news:414FB034.3D0FF1AF@teksavvy.com...
>> And consider that with a recent decision by the government to lift
>> certain bandwidth restrictions imposed on the legacy carriers
>> (Bell/Telus/Rogers),
> if
>> Rogers is able to use all of the bandwidth from Fido, it may be able to
>> do interesting things.
>
> This is a good point. By having more spectrum, Rogers' costs to let
> people use it drop. Unlimited plans encourage full networks, which annoy
> customers who can't get on the network. Having more spectrum means that
> CityFido-like plans (and even unlimited evenings and weekends plans)
> become cheaper for Rogers to offer and less likely to cause spectrum
> congestion issues for subscribers.

On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and
not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase
capacity in dense areas. It even helps in rural areas since adjacent sites
have more "choices" of what channels to use (i.e. more widely spaced
apart), increasing SNR. TTYL

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:25:34 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

>I am not even sure of that. Does Microcell have any equipment that is the same
>brand/compatible with Roger's network ?

Roger?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

repatch wrote:
> Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure when
> that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900 coverage
> then they seperately currently have.

Spectrun does not affect coverage. It affect capacity only (number of channels
available from one tower). Signals won't go further, and weak signals won't
suddently become stronger.

What Rogers will probably do initially is to reduce the number of channels
available on Fido towers so it can use those channels on Rogers towers. So
Fido customers may start to see "system busy" signals more and more often.

While Rogers will likely allow Fido customers to roam on Rogers network at no
cost. In areas where there is no fido coverage, this is not a problem since
the Fido phones will roam on whatever network accepts them.

In urban areas where the fido signal is generally stronger and where fido
phones are programmed to have Fido as prefered network, those phones will
still want to lock onto Fido towers.

However, for Rogers customers, Rogers will still want those customers to
really have Rogers as prefered network, and allowing them to roam onto Fido
won't give anything since phones will already have locked onto Rogers network
which is present wherever Fido is present.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

repatch wrote:
> On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and
> not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase
> capacity in dense areas.

Yes. But this assumes that you are completely redesigning your coverage.

If current antennas are located such that there is limited interference to
maximise channel reuse, then Rogers would need to redesign location of
antennas to make them closer to each other and each antenna use different
channel ranges.

If Rogers is smart, it will use the Microcell network infrastructure as a base
for a 3G network. Think about it: shift Fido customers to the Rogers network,
then you can convert the microcell network to 3G and then start to sell Rogers
branded 3G services while your old customers are on the 2.5G Rogers network.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.09.20.15.19.35.800449@yahoo.com>,
repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage.

If Fido's call quality and coverage drops to the level of Rogers, I will
be leaving.

Rogers may have wider coverage in more areas, but at least in BC their
coverage is extremely shallow. Dropped calls and poor quality are the
name of the game with Rogers.

--
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.09.20.18.17.00.808740@yahoo.com>,
repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Odd, considering my move to Rogers actually resulted in my spending LESS
> per month then I did with Fido, fancy that...

My time with Rogers cost me about 1.5x as much as Fido, and for an
inferior package. This is very bad news, although probably better than a
Telus deal.

--
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:03:14 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> repatch wrote:
>> Actually, if Rogers is allowed to keep Fido's spectrum (I'm not sure
>> when that decision is due) conceivably they'd have a far better 1900
>> coverage then they seperately currently have.
>
> Spectrun does not affect coverage. It affect capacity only (number of
> channels available from one tower). Signals won't go further, and weak
> signals won't suddently become stronger.

Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense
coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely design
to not go as far as urban sites. The reason is if a site throws it's
signal too far it'll start to interfere with the nearest site using the
same channels.

More channels (i.e. spectrum) means those same sites can cover more since
the next site with the same channels is theoretically farther.

While I've tremendously simplified things I hope I got my point across.

This isn't to say that Rogers WILL do this, only that they can.

> What Rogers will probably do initially is to reduce the number of
> channels available on Fido towers so it can use those channels on Rogers
> towers. So Fido customers may start to see "system busy" signals more
> and more often.

Very possible, chances are they'll start a phone+sim swap pretty soon
after acquiring Fido.

> In urban areas where the fido signal is generally stronger and where
> fido phones are programmed to have Fido as prefered network, those
> phones will still want to lock onto Fido towers.

Yes, but that can be overridden by the customer, annoying, but possible.
There is no doubt that Fido customers will want to get on the Rogers
network. Is OTA programming of SIM's preferred carrier lists possible?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:09:15 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> repatch wrote:
>> On top of that more spectrum means more sites can be in a given area and
>> not interfere with each other (as much) which can greatly increase
>> capacity in dense areas.
>
> Yes. But this assumes that you are completely redesigning your coverage.

Yup, which is what Rogers will do, they've already done it once.

> If current antennas are located such that there is limited interference to
> maximise channel reuse, then Rogers would need to redesign location of
> antennas to make them closer to each other and each antenna use different
> channel ranges.

Not necessarily, it is far more complicated a situation, and antennas are
rarely in the prime place these days anyways.

> If Rogers is smart, it will use the Microcell network infrastructure as
> a base for a 3G network. Think about it: shift Fido customers to the
> Rogers network, then you can convert the microcell network to 3G and
> then start to sell Rogers branded 3G services while your old customers
> are on the 2.5G Rogers network.

Interesting idea, never considered that. TTYL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

repatch wrote:
> Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense
> coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely design
> to not go as far as urban sites. The reason is if a site throws it's
> signal too far it'll start to interfere with the nearest site using the
> same channels.

But this means that Rogers will have to retune all its antennas to increase
signal propagation. Retuning antennas all over the place is a big project.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

repatch wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:03:14 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
(much snippage)
>
>
> Very possible, chances are they'll start a phone+sim swap pretty soon
> after acquiring Fido.
>
>
>>In urban areas where the fido signal is generally stronger and where
>>fido phones are programmed to have Fido as prefered network, those
>>phones will still want to lock onto Fido towers.
>
>
> Yes, but that can be overridden by the customer, annoying, but possible.
> There is no doubt that Fido customers will want to get on the Rogers
> network. Is OTA programming of SIM's preferred carrier lists possible?
>
>

Ted Rogers has been quoted as saying it's just a matter of flicking a
switch:

> Under the proposed deal, Rogers would maintain Microcell's popular Fido brand and customers using the service won't need to change handsets or phone numbers because both wireless providers operate on global system for mobile communications (GSM) networks.
>
> "That [joining the two networks] will be done by a switch turning roaming on," Rogers president and CEO Ted Rogers said. "It's not complicated at all. I think it could be done in an hour, but we'll say a day just to be safe."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040920.wroger0920/BNStory/Business

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

"Steven Fisher" <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:sdfisher-22FD77.12051021092004@news.va.shawcable.net...
> Rogers may have wider coverage in more areas, but at least in BC their
> coverage is extremely shallow. Dropped calls and poor quality are the
> name of the game with Rogers.

At what frequency? If you have a GSM 1900 (or 900/1800/1900) phone, this
wouldn't be surprising. If you have a GSM 850/1900 phone, this would be
surprising indeed.

Jim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On 20 Sep 2004 06:34:31 -0700, tfortony@yahoo.com (tony) wrote:

>In case you haven't heard, looks like Fido is agreeing to it:
>
><http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/09/20/rogers_040920.html>
>
>I certainly hope City|Fido stays in tact, as does Fido's current voice
>mail with instant reply. I have Roger's vm system. I'm guessing if
>this gets finalized this year, not a lot will change in the first half
>of 2005, but then, who knows? 🙁
>
>Maybe Rogers will change over some of their system's to Fido's plans
>and vm, which would be good for us and them.
>
>.:. tony


I really don't like that !!

Call me a pessimistic paranoiac but my guess is that it's gonna be
double the price and bye bye customer services hello salesmen ! :S


I already ran away from roger once didn't think I would have to do it
again !?

I also approve the pager/pay phone alternative !

--

EDgAr H.
DPTLC.biz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:40:39 +0000, Brendan McCullough wrote:
> Ted Rogers has been quoted as saying it's just a matter of flicking a
> switch:
>
>> Under the proposed deal, Rogers would maintain Microcell's popular Fido
>> brand and customers using the service won't need to change handsets or
>> phone numbers because both wireless providers operate on global system
>> for mobile communications (GSM) networks.
>>
>> "That [joining the two networks] will be done by a switch turning
>> roaming on," Rogers president and CEO Ted Rogers said. "It's not
>> complicated at all. I think it could be done in an hour, but we'll say a
>> day just to be safe."
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040920.wroger0920/BNStory/Business

Yes, but that will just allow Fido phones to roam on Rogers, if I
understand things correctly the phone will still try to "lock" onto
"home", home being Fido.

Now, if Rogers simply changed the provider ID on every Fido tower to BE
Rogers, and allowed Fido phones to "roam" on Rogers, then every Fido phone
would not see "home" and simply roam onto Rogers.

In fact, if it were up to me, that's probably how I'd go about it anyways,
seems the easiest way. TTYL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:41:36 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> repatch wrote:
>> Actually it can, and does, the reason is co-site interference. In dense
>> coverage areas sites are so close together that they are purposely
>> design to not go as far as urban sites. The reason is if a site throws
>> it's signal too far it'll start to interfere with the nearest site using
>> the same channels.
>
> But this means that Rogers will have to retune all its antennas to
> increase signal propagation. Retuning antennas all over the place is a big
> project.

Not really, it's mostly just an output power deal on many towers these
days, a software setting. While there will certainly need to be SOME
retuning (i.e. in VERY dense areas where the antennas are basically
pointing almost straight down), but in less dense areas (i.e. Markham)
it's likely they'll just "turn up the juice" a little, after changing
channels around.

Of course, we are all speculating, who knows what will really happen, I'm
just saying the potential for better coverage is definitely there, and
pretty easy to accomplish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

JF Mezei said:
> I find it interesting that the media seem to believe Roger's claims that it
> will keep the Fido brand. How naive can they be ???????
>
> Considering Fido still have a fair percentage of its customers without
> contracts, loyalty will become totally 0 the minute Rogers buys Microcell.
>
> Will be interesting to see how Rogers handles the issue of locked FIDO phones.
----------------


I read that Rogers could actually use Fido as a brand. They would use it
against Virgin, which is getting ready to invade the market
aggressively, and use City Fido to steal as many customers from Bell and
Telus as they could.

Nothing says that it is guaranteed, but those two reasons seem to make
sense.


Munger

--
Read about my travels: http://travels.munger.ca/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

JF Mezei said:

> It will be most interesting to see how the Québec government reacts to this
> one. Last time Rogers tried to buy a visible Québec firm (Videotron) the
> government got the caisse de dépot to force Québécor to buy Videotron in order
> to prevent it from falling into foreign hands. (it was the PQ in power at the
> time).
---------


The Caisse de dépôt doesn't take orders from the government, so the PQ
or the liberals have nothing to do with it. Don't forget that the Caisse
is now regretting that move. Videotron is a really bad investment for
the institution.

And there are differences between the transactions. Videotron was a
bigger symbol of success for a Quebec-based company and Quebecor was a
local buyer for the company. As Telus is from the West, don't expect the
same reaction.


Munger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Munger wrote:
> The Caisse de dépôt doesn't take orders from the government, so the PQ
> or the liberals have nothing to do with it.

Actually, they did take "strong suggestions" from the PQ government very
often. Remember that the Caisse is the Québec Govt pension fund. However,
since the debacle a year or two ago, the Caisse has made it very clear that it
would n longer make "politically motivated" investments. #

Note that the Caisse didn't actually invest into Videotron. They invested in
Québécor which then wasted money in Videotron to ruin the company. The Caisse
should have invested in star choice and ExpressVu to profit from Québécor's
ineptitude in managing Videotron.


> And there are differences between the transactions. Videotron was a
> bigger symbol of success for a Quebec-based company and Quebecor was a
> local buyer for the company. As Telus is from the West, don't expect the
> same reaction.

Forget Telus. Fact remains that Videotron and Microcell were flagships of
Québec's high tech potential. Granted, Videotron was a far more visible
enterprise and perhaps more worthy of political interference, and especially
sicne this happened at a time the government was the separatists PQ for whom
Ontario was to Québec what the USSR was to the USA back in the 1960s.

The current government which lacks backbone, is perhaps more likely to not
even notice the change in hand and loss of a valuable québec high tech company.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Munger wrote:
> I read that Rogers could actually use Fido as a brand. They would use it
> against Virgin, which is getting ready to invade the market
> aggressively, and use City Fido to steal as many customers from Bell and
> Telus as they could.

Look, if Rogers had wanted to do this, they could have simply offered
competitive packages with the Rogers brand.

Rogers is just saying it will preserve Fido a a way to make the elimination of
Fido more palatable to the competition bureau. Once all is said and done,
approved, signed, sealed and delivered, Rogers will quickly integrate
Microcell and you'll fairly quickly stop seeing any new packages offered under
the Fido brand, start to see Rogers issued bills, and start to gets service
offers sent to ex Fido customers for Rogers branded packages with some
convincing argument to push Fido customers to opt for per-minute billing as
something which is much better.

It will not be any different from Telus' purchase of Clearnet.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:36:03 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

>Rogers is just saying it will preserve Fido a a way to make the elimination of
>Fido more palatable to the competition bureau.

So what you're saying is Rogers is lying, eh? Do you work for Rogers
so you know that they couldn't possibly be telling the truth?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -