I never said it did, I merely used a metric to remove all the unusual land from Canada to make the playing field more equal. If you have a metric that lowers the 4% figure even more then please post it.
Less towers would only mean it's cheaper per capita if everything else is the same. But it's not. Not by a long shot, yet I haven't read where you are considering that in any form.
I wasn't arguing for the comprehensive profitability of wireless carriers in the U.S. versus Canada. I was, however, arguing against the assertion that Canada's geographic specifications made it less suited to wireless profitability, and I stand by that. In fact, I think Canada's geographical specifications make it better suited for wireless profitability when compared to that of the U.S.
Originally Posted by solipsism
Rogers having to put up less towers does not make them cheaper per capita based on that measure along. Here are some simple things that you are not considering:
— The more towers bought the more likely the cost per tower lowers
— Which significantly more carriers in the US AT&T can rent out space, thus lowering the cost
— More competition in the US means lower prices as a general rule
— The US cell penetration rate is 84% compared to Canada's 58%
— AT&T has 10x the subscribers of Rogers
— The US has 13x the number of mobile customers than Canada
If you have viable facts to back up your claims that Canadian carrier costs are lower than the US then post it, but useless images of America with a rash isn't going to cut it. At least try to use a verifiable metric.
As I've said before, the conclusion you reached regarding geographical suitability to profit in the wireless industry in Canada versus the United States is erroneous and therefore not a verifiable metric.
Now onto non geographical factors you mentioned:
The more towers bought the more likely the cost per tower lowers
Cell phone towers are not like cans of soup. The cost will be roughly comparable no matter the volume. The does cost more, however, is to serve a geographically larger metro area. The United States has more metro areas and those metro areas are dispersed over a larger area of land. In addition, the United States has THE largest metro area in the world (New York to Pennsylvania).
Which significantly more carriers in the US AT&T can rent out space, thus lowering the cost
Although true in principle, it is to the benefit of the cell carrier to maintain their own cell towers and network. Every time a cell users uses another networks cell tower to make calls, the cell carrier's network must pay the other network through the nose for the call. In addition, since most United States carriers have free roaming, whereas I've heard Canada doesn't, U.S. carriers would have to pick up the tab on roaming calls, costing them profit. And finally, also consider that the two major carriers in the U.S., AT&T and Verizon, unlike most countries in the world, use competing technologies (GSM and CDMA), and therefore can't use each others networks, so therefore must have their own or use a smaller company's cell towers.
More competition in the US means lower prices as a general rule
Yes, but this would mean Canada has HIGHER profitability!
The US cell penetration rate is 84% compared to Canada's 58%
Penetration rate is directly proportional to the supply and demand. If those statistics are true, perhaps less of the population in Canada doesn't have cell phones because it's cost prohibitive or the canadian wireless industry spends less on advertising.
AT&T has 10x the subscribers of Rogers
The US has 13x the number of mobile customers than Canada
The United States also has 10 times the population of Canada.
Again, this is related to penetration rate and supply and demand. Profitability is based on profit per subscriber, not total number of subscribers or total profit.
Most of your arguments were not related to profitability. Consider this:
You said AT&T has 10 times the number of subscribers than Rogers.
The 2007 revenue of AT&T Mobility was $42.7 billion.
The 2007 revenue of Rogers wireless w as $4.01 billion.
This equates to $4.27 billion for AT&T compared with $4.01 billion for Rogers for the same number of customers. I think you'll find these very equal. I would have included statistics on profit, but I couldn't find them, and profit is not indicative of profitability. Consider that AT&T may spend more money on voluntary expenses like R&D or advertising expenses than Rogers.