The fun part comes in, in a situation like mine. I have 500 mins, 500 SMS, REAL unlimited data (not capped), and wifi all for 45? a month.
Outside the US, that seems like a great idea with so many GSM carriers using the same 3G spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parasubvert
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
So why are we getting all these comparisons outside the US if the rest of Canada is just as bad?
That's not true. (Before you ask, yes, I'm an ex-Rogers employee).
AT&T Canada was a landline business and had nothing to do with wireless. Rogers owned it for a brief time (Unitel); it's now called AllStream.
Rogers did have a relationship with AT&T Wireless in branding and investment; that was shed back in 2004.
Rogers built their GSM network on their own dime (it was over $1B+!) back in 2001-2002. They have not yet recouped the cost as it was built way before people in Canada were ready for mobile data (that and Rogers didn't know how to price it for consumers). Fido largely mostly funded by T-Mobile. They were not more advanced in terms of network, though they did have GSM 850mhz. Though their billing system arguably was better, metering per-second, creating lots more compelling options. They expanded coverage and had better customer base in Western Canada (to compete with Telus). Rogers bought them in Autumn 2004.
Anyway, not until the iPhone did it really matter whether you were GSM or CDMA -- Treos and BlackBerry was available for either... so it's really hard to call Rogers a "monopoly" when they have so much competition from Telus and Bell. OTOH, Rogers Cable surely is a monopoly (though satellite has hurt them big time).
I guess the point is that sure vs. the U.S. these plans suck but welcome to the Canadian market -- the WHOLE REASON you have this is because the mobile companies have to be majority "Canadian" owned -- this means Vodaphone, T-Mobile etc. aren't really allowed to compete and charge lower prices.
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
Telus on the other hand has unlimited Email + Web Browsing for $30 if you buy a voice plan worth $30 or more. So they have the best data deal (and they're EVDO), though they're still only 150 minutes for the $30 voice plan!
Thanks for the clarification. I thought the timeline was slightly different and that Cantel was a joint venture between ATT and Rogers that Rogers subsequently acquired. In any case, Rogers buying Fido eliminated any GSM competition, even if mobile data was not a viable market at the time. In a few short years, it has not become a viable market and Rogers is the only player, thanks to the CRTC decision. The CRTC should have considered this, when they allowed the purchase.
Solution #1 Skype on the iPhone or some VOIP (APP/Service)
FREAKING PLEASE PLEASE
1) Your point comes across well without the excessive font size.
2) Wouldn't the expensive data rates with Rogers be potentially more damning than their voice package?
3) Since the SDK rules specifically prevent VoIP apps from running while using the carrier's network, you'll have to be on a WiFi connection, trick OS X iPhone into thinking you are not on the carrier's network*, or have to get a cracked app that is installed with a jailbroken iPhone to run Skype.
* You can manually input your EDGE IP address into the iPhone thus allowing you to purcahse and DL music from the iTunes Store app.
1) Your point comes across well without the excessive font size.
2) Wouldn't the expensive data rates with Rogers be potentially more damning than their voice package?
3) Since the SDK rules specifically prevent VoIP apps from running while using the carrier's network, you'll have to be on a WiFi connection, trick OS X iPhone into thinking you are not on the carrier's network*, or have to get a cracked app that is installed with a jailbroken iPhone to run Skype.
* You can current manually input your EDGE IP address to trick the iPhone into letting you purcahse and DL music from the iTunes Store app.
Dude, you are a plethora of info.
Are you saying the version of Skype I currently have on my iPhone will not work unless I have Sonera's card in? Even if the phone is unlocked?
Can you explain a bit more about using the EDGE IP to trick the phone into purchasing and DL'ng from the iTunes store.
One little bit of fine-print that hasn't been mentioned is that the overage charge for data is a punishing $.50 per megabyte, to a maximum of 60 megabytes per month (at which point the rate of $.03 per megabyte kicks in).
I'm pretty sure there are going to be a lot of people that sign up for the cheapest plan (perhaps based on Rogers' laughable estimates of how many web pages will fit in 400MB) and will be shocked at the extra $30+ /month showing up on their bill.
Hey solipsism, a bit of what is going on over here in Europe (Finland)
Just had a visit with the local Sonera dealer here. Seems that they had a big hole in their iPhone plans. People that already have a Sonera card, can simply put this card in their iPhone and it will work. The fun part comes in, in a situation like mine. I have 500 mins, 500 SMS, REAL unlimited data (not capped), and wifi all for 45? a month. If you go to: http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin%20ja%20liittym%E4/Hinnat (sorry about the Finnish) you will see how they forgot about current Sonera card holders. So my current package is cheaper than their subsidized ones. I will simply buy the phone. After I pay for it, they will unlock it and I am free and clear with an unlocked iPhone on a cheaper tariff. The guy in the shop started laughing and saying that he will tell all his friends to just come in and get a new sim card, create their own service packages and then buy an iPhone outright when they are available.
Prices are always subject to fine print and are always allowed to be clarified.
The guy in the shop is going to start crying when the carrier starts to charge back on his commissions.
And of course, I don't want any shouting match with you. Babelfish doesn't do Finnish and we have statistics like 92% of Finnish mobile data coming from datacards and dongles --- on Nokia's backyard --- and only 4% coming from Symbian phones.
It makes me think that you got some kind of 3G dongle plan --- it's like mis-selling by the agents and the carriers have given up to try to police/fix the problem because nobody actually buys a Symbian phone in Nokia country to use it as a 3G device.
If you can get away with it --- that's great. It's like people who gets tethering with a $6 WAP plan from T-Mobile USA because they change a few proxy settings.
That's not true. (Before you ask, yes, I'm an ex-Rogers employee). Rogers built their GSM network on their own dime (it was over $1B+!) back in 2001-2002. They have not yet recouped the cost as it was built way before people in Canada were ready for mobile data (that and Rogers didn't know how to price it for consumers). Fido largely mostly funded by T-Mobile. They were not more advanced in terms of network, though they did have GSM 850mhz. Though their billing system arguably was better, metering per-second, creating lots more compelling options. They expanded coverage and had better customer base in Western Canada (to compete with Telus). Rogers bought them in Autumn 2004.
I guess the point is that sure vs. the U.S. these plans suck but welcome to the Canadian market -- the WHOLE REASON you have this is because the mobile companies have to be majority "Canadian" owned -- this means Vodaphone, T-Mobile etc. aren't really allowed to compete and charge lower prices.
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
Telus on the other hand has unlimited Email + Web Browsing for $30 if you buy a voice plan worth $30 or more. So they have the best data deal (and they're EVDO), though they're still only 150 minutes for the $30 voice plan!
Thanks for the background. But I am not sure that Roger's suck anymore than anybody else, either in Canada, the US or anywhere else.
As evidenced in these blogs, there is a significant misunderstanding of the terms and conditions that every carrier includes, price schemes are not truly comparable because the base units are not identical, and coverage is not uniform.
Canada, because it is geographically one of the largest countries in the world but with one of the smallest in population density*, i.e., ranking 230th out of 241 countries, is naturally burdened with a higher cost per person when it comes to building transportation and communication systems compared to most countries in the world.
Sitting beside the US which is ten times the population and if you omit Alaska, a population density about 15 times, Canada's cost for wireless services will always be significantly higher. As such, somebody has to pay for developing the infrastructure and obvious it is not the neighbors to the south or the tax payers, but the people that use the system.
It should also be kept in mind, that the majority of Canada's cellular construction was done when the dollar CDN was significantly below, i.e., 15 to 35%, the dollar US.
Even so, if one were able to accurately tabled the actual costs for wireless services for every country in the world, I would suggest that comparing the results would be quite surprising, and for Canadians, relatively speaking if not absolute, price for services are not as bad or variably different than is being portrayed.
As has been evidenced, ATT has been getting an average of $95 per iPhone customer for 450 minutes usage. True, the data plan charges are higher in Canada, but may not in effect end up costing the user more. It has been suggested that ATT's offering of an 'Unlimited Data plan' may in fact be 'over necessary' considering that the Roger's $60 plan will provide up to 200,000 text emails or 3100 web pages or 1360 photo attachments. I wonder how many users will have to upgrade to the next level? Better yet, what job would you have to have the time to do so?
Thanks for the background. But I am not sure that Roger's suck anymore than anybody else, either in Canada, the US or anywhere else.
As evidenced in these blogs, there is a significant misunderstanding of the terms and conditions that every carrier includes, price schemes are not truly comparable because the base units are not identical, and coverage is not uniform.
Canada, because it is geographically one of the largest countries in the world but with one of the smallest in population density*, i.e., ranking 230th out of 241 countries, is naturally burdened with a higher cost per person when it comes to building transportation and communication systems compared to most countries in the world.
Sitting beside the US which is ten times the population and if you omit Alaska, a population density about 15 times, Canada's cost for wireless services will always be significantly higher. As such, somebody has to pay for developing the infrastructure and obvious it is not the neighbors to the south or the tax payers, but the people that use the system.
It should also be kept in mind, that the majority of Canada's cellular construction was done when the dollar CDN was significantly below, i.e., 15 to 35%, the dollar US.
Even so, if one were able to accurately tabled the actual costs for wireless services for every country in the world, I would suggest that comparing the results would be quite surprising, and for Canadians, relatively speaking if not absolute, price for services are not as bad or variably different than is being portrayed.
As has been evidenced, ATT has been getting an average of $95 per iPhone customer for 450 minutes usage. True, the data plan charges are higher in Canada, but may not in effect end up costing the user more. It has been suggested that ATT's offering of an 'Unlimited Data plan' may in fact be 'over necessary' considering that the Roger's $60 plan will provide up to 200,000 text emails or 3100 web pages or 1360 photo attachments. I wonder how many users will have to upgrade to the next level? Better yet, what job would you have to have the time to do so?
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
That is conjecture. While it would make sense that the Rogers would not support areas that have little to no population in the upper regions we need to see some stats about the userbase and the number of cell towers in use. From those two figures we can get a basic idea of how many users are per cell tower. But this is still not a complete picture but it's a better basis than what we have.
Alaska is the US' largest state, but it also represents a very small portion of the country's uninhabited and/or untenanted land. Where as Canada appears to have a much larger portion of similar terrain.
To further illustrate my point, if we use the CIA World Fact Book—a great way to spend a few minutes honing your geography skills—as a guide we can see that Canada is slightly larger than US but with almost a 10th of the population. Of course, the US has slightly more land than Canada.
Canada
• Total Area: 9,984,670 sq km
• Total Land: 9,093,507 sq km
United States
• Total Area: 9,826,630 sq km
• Total Land: 9,161,923 sq km
Even if this was the first time we had ever heard of the two countries we can see that Canada is much harsher when we look at the finer details.
Canada
• Arable land: 4.57%
• Irigated land: 7,850 sq km
United States
• Arable land: 18.01%
• Irrigated Land: 223,850 sq km
So Canada might be big but the US has more land that is inhabitable. But not 10x more to account for the dramatic population difference. I can't find info on Rogers but i can find info on the number of telephone users in Canada.
Canada
• Population: 33,212,696
• Mobile telephone users: aboot 18,749,000
United States
• Population: 303,824,646
• Mobile telephone users: about 233,000,000
This is not exact nor conclusive in any way but if we take the sq km of arable land and divide by the number of cellular users we see that the US has a far greater density than Canada. Again, this is not conclusive, but it's the only method I could conceive that would remove the unused land from Canada's northern territories. The more metrics we get the more we can refine the data, but looking at the raw numbers I don't see any way the numbers could ever be shifted to indicate that Rogers has less overhead per person than US carriers... unless they completely cut off service as soon as you leave a city.
Canada
• 18,749,000 users ÷ (9,093,507 sq km x .0457 usable land) = 45 mobile users per sq km
United States
• 233,000,000 mobile users ÷ (9,161,923 sq km x .1801 usable land) = 141 mobile users per sq km
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
No, it doesn't. I thought I made that quite clear. if you look, I've only accounted for arable land. Id est, not the frozen tundra that dominates the North. Hence the much smaller percentage used to account for land mass of Canada as opposed to the US prior to my dividing by the number of cellular users.
As previously stated, if you can find more metrics that accurately removed the vast stretches of unused land from the equation go for it. But with less than a 10th or the cellular users of the US and a much lower percentage of the populace on mobiles the numbers are never going to work out in Canada's favour for this argument. It is still going to be considerably a much lower average of users per sq km.
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
Yes, including the entire area of the country is misleading because in fact most of the country probably has no cell phone coverage at all because it's barely populated, therefore no infrastructure cost to the provider in those areas--unlike the U.S., where a much greater percentage of the land area is populated and expected to have coverage. I think the person who suggested comparing cell phone towers to population served had a good method, but I still suspect Canada is gouged compared to other countries.
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
Let's be fair. The cost to build a tower is the same. Well not exactly. Most of Canada's towers would have cost from 15 to 35% more because of the exchange at the time.
The cost of materials are significantly less with larger orders. Usage per tower is the same, but only in equally declared populations. Management, maintenance and servicing is the same, however, it is spread over a significantly larger base.
In effect, it costs a lot more to have things done in Canada than in the US. Rogers cost per sq/km may not be far out of line with most countries. However, the fact that there is more users in the US to share all the costs, the cost to the Canadian user is still significantly higher.
One of the main issues that plagues Toronto, for example, is its public transportation costs. Canadian cities by at large are less densely populated and thus the cost per mile per person to service the main arteries are higher.
More important, considering that the entire population of Canada is less than the state of California. As such, to build, service and maintain a wireless operation in the relatively confined spaces of California would be less than in a country that is stretched over 5500 km.
Again, the total service/costs are that much different when you compare apples with apples and read the fine print
That is conjecture. While it would make sense that the Rogers would not support areas that have little to no population in the upper regions we need to see some stats about the userbase and the number of cell towers in use. From those two figures we can get a basic idea of how many users are per cell tower. But this is still not a complete picture but it's a better basis than what we have.
Alaska is the US' largest state, but it also represents a very small portion of the country's uninhabited and/or untenanted land. Where as Canada appears to have a much larger portion of similar terrain.
To further illustrate my point, if we use the CIA World Fact Book—a great way to spend a few minutes honing your geography skills—as a guide we can see that Canada is slightly larger than US but with almost a 10th of the population. Of course, the US has slightly more land than Canada.
Canada
• Total Area: 9,984,670 sq km
• Total Land: 9,093,507 sq km
United States
• Total Area: 9,826,630 sq km
• Total Land: 9,161,923 sq km
Even if this was the first time we had ever heard of the two countries we can see that Canada is much harsher when we look at the finer details.
Canada
• Arable land: 4.57%
• Irigated land: 7,850 sq km
United States
• Arable land: 18.01%
• Irrigated Land: 223,850 sq km
So Canada might be big but the US has more land that is inhabitable. But not 10x more to account for the dramatic population difference. I can't find info on Rogers but i can find info on the number of telephone users in Canada.
Canada
• Population: 33,212,696
• Mobile telephone users: aboot 18,749,000
United States
• Population: 303,824,646
• Mobile telephone users: about 233,000,000
This is not exact nor conclusive in any way but if we take the sq km of arable land and divide by the number of cellular users we see that the US has a far greater density than Canada. Again, this is not conclusive, but it's the only method I could conceive that would remove the unused land from Canada's northern territories. The more metrics we get the more we can refine the data, but looking at the raw numbers I don't see any way the numbers could ever be shifted to indicate that Rogers has less overhead per person than US carriers... unless they completely cut off service as soon as you leave a city.
Canada
• 18,749,000 users ÷ (9,093,507 sq km x .0457 usable land) = 45 mobile users per sq km
United States
• 233,000,000 mobile users ÷ (9,161,923 sq km x .1801 usable land) = 141 mobile users per sq km
Are you sure we are not sharing the same office.
After reading the above, I was trying to remember where I had read this before. Sure enough, I found the following I wrote on a Stickie that I never got the chance to post. As you can see, this was to be a comment on one of your blogs and was in part a reference that Melgross was also took part of.
Quote: Originally Posted by solipsism
I tend to use the CIA World Factbook for that info. If I remember correctly, the US has a per capita of 30 per sq km, while Sweden has 300].
edit: Boy was I off. I may have been thinking of the Netherlands.
Sweden
Land Area: 410,934 sq km
Popualtion: 9,045,389 (July 2008 est.)
= 22
US and A
Land Area: 9,161,923 sq km
Population: 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.)
= 33
When we are calculating population densities, we find that the "arable" land areas are closer in regards to that area of the country that is being lived on, but be aware, not totally true.
For example, the percentage or "arable" land in the US is approximately 18% of the total land mass of 9.1 million sq km. However, this includes Alaska which represents about 1/5 of the total and has very little arable land.
As such, the US has about 7 million sq km in total land area, of which approximately 1.3 million sq km in arable, which equates to a per capita of 233 per sq km .
Sweden with 410,934 sq km in total land area, 5,93% arable for 24.3 thousand sq km, equal to a per capita of 372 per sq km.
Then in the US 70% or 200 million live in urbanized areas, vs Sweden with about 85%
Unfortunately, I never got around to finishing it and just let it go at the time.
No, it doesn't. I thought I made that quite clear. if you look, I've only accounted for arable land. Id est, not the frozen tundra that dominates the North. Hence the much smaller percentage used to account for land mass of Canada as opposed to the US prior to my dividing by the number of cellular users.
As previously stated, if you can find more metrics that accurately removed the vast stretches of unused land from the equation go for it. But with less than a 10th or the cellular users of the US and a much lower percentage of the populace on mobiles the numbers are never going to work out in Canada's favour for this argument. It is still going to be considerably a much lower average of users per sq km.
Let's play the population density game!
US Cities:
New York – 27,147/sq mi
Los Angeles – 8,205/sq mi
Chicago – 12,470/sq mi
Houston – 3,701/sq mi
Phoenix - 2,937.8/sq mi
Philadelphia – 10,882.8/sq mi
Antonio – 2,808.5/sq mi
San Diego – 3,871.5/sq mi
Dallas – 3,605.08/sq mi
Canadian Cities:
Toronto – 10,287.4/sq mi
Montreal – 11,496/sq mi
Vancouver – 13,817.6/sq mi
Calgary – 3,522.9/sq mi
Edmonton – 2,764/sq mi
Quebec City – 2,800.3/sq mi
Winnipeg – 3,535.3/sq mi
And a map that shows population density in the United States AND Canada:
And a map that shows population density in the United States AND Canada:
<image>
<image>
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? You have stated the population densities of 7 Canadian cities and 9 US cities but have not quantified nor explained anything. I have no idea if you agree with my assessment that we need to look at colonised areas or not.
To further complicate things, you state in an earlier post, "[Solipsism,] your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated", but then in a later post you post highly populated US cities. I fail to see any bearing the varying population densities have on the argument as it stands.
I'm also confused by your post as I clearly made my case stating that only 4% of the entire Canadian landmass was arable while stating that 18% of the US was arable, which greatly favoured Canada in my equation to determine a closer—yet not exact, as previously stated—estimate of liveable land area that people could reside comfortably, thereby being a potential customer base for the associated carriers.
Besides the point that the Britannica population density of Canadian map from 2002 makes no sense for your argument unless you are asserting that Canadian cities are more densely populated than US cities (which wouldn't make sense), the US map below is not not from Britannica and has red splotches that only vaguely match up with the Canadian map above.
On top of that, there is no legend or explanation of any kind by you to discern the meaning of the red splotches. For all we know they represent the the sales of the original Nintendo Game Boy in North America, which is the only reasonable explanation to its inclusion in your post.
Comments
i want an iPhone but not under rogers rules
Solution #1 Skype on the iPhone or some VOIP (APP/Service)
FREAKING PLEASE PLEASE
The fun part comes in, in a situation like mine. I have 500 mins, 500 SMS, REAL unlimited data (not capped), and wifi all for 45? a month.
Outside the US, that seems like a great idea with so many GSM carriers using the same 3G spectrum.
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
So why are we getting all these comparisons outside the US if the rest of Canada is just as bad?
That's not true. (Before you ask, yes, I'm an ex-Rogers employee).
AT&T Canada was a landline business and had nothing to do with wireless. Rogers owned it for a brief time (Unitel); it's now called AllStream.
Rogers did have a relationship with AT&T Wireless in branding and investment; that was shed back in 2004.
Rogers built their GSM network on their own dime (it was over $1B+!) back in 2001-2002. They have not yet recouped the cost as it was built way before people in Canada were ready for mobile data (that and Rogers didn't know how to price it for consumers). Fido largely mostly funded by T-Mobile. They were not more advanced in terms of network, though they did have GSM 850mhz. Though their billing system arguably was better, metering per-second, creating lots more compelling options. They expanded coverage and had better customer base in Western Canada (to compete with Telus). Rogers bought them in Autumn 2004.
Anyway, not until the iPhone did it really matter whether you were GSM or CDMA -- Treos and BlackBerry was available for either... so it's really hard to call Rogers a "monopoly" when they have so much competition from Telus and Bell. OTOH, Rogers Cable surely is a monopoly (though satellite has hurt them big time).
I guess the point is that sure vs. the U.S. these plans suck but welcome to the Canadian market -- the WHOLE REASON you have this is because the mobile companies have to be majority "Canadian" owned -- this means Vodaphone, T-Mobile etc. aren't really allowed to compete and charge lower prices.
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
Telus on the other hand has unlimited Email + Web Browsing for $30 if you buy a voice plan worth $30 or more. So they have the best data deal (and they're EVDO), though they're still only 150 minutes for the $30 voice plan!
Thanks for the clarification. I thought the timeline was slightly different and that Cantel was a joint venture between ATT and Rogers that Rogers subsequently acquired. In any case, Rogers buying Fido eliminated any GSM competition, even if mobile data was not a viable market at the time. In a few short years, it has not become a viable market and Rogers is the only player, thanks to the CRTC decision. The CRTC should have considered this, when they allowed the purchase.
Folks
i want an iPhone but not under rogers rules
Solution #1 Skype on the iPhone or some VOIP (APP/Service)
FREAKING PLEASE PLEASE
1) Your point comes across well without the excessive font size.
2) Wouldn't the expensive data rates with Rogers be potentially more damning than their voice package?
3) Since the SDK rules specifically prevent VoIP apps from running while using the carrier's network, you'll have to be on a WiFi connection, trick OS X iPhone into thinking you are not on the carrier's network*, or have to get a cracked app that is installed with a jailbroken iPhone to run Skype.
* You can manually input your EDGE IP address into the iPhone thus allowing you to purcahse and DL music from the iTunes Store app.
1) Your point comes across well without the excessive font size.
2) Wouldn't the expensive data rates with Rogers be potentially more damning than their voice package?
3) Since the SDK rules specifically prevent VoIP apps from running while using the carrier's network, you'll have to be on a WiFi connection, trick OS X iPhone into thinking you are not on the carrier's network*, or have to get a cracked app that is installed with a jailbroken iPhone to run Skype.
* You can current manually input your EDGE IP address to trick the iPhone into letting you purcahse and DL music from the iTunes Store app.
Dude, you are a plethora of info.
Are you saying the version of Skype I currently have on my iPhone will not work unless I have Sonera's card in? Even if the phone is unlocked?
Can you explain a bit more about using the EDGE IP to trick the phone into purchasing and DL'ng from the iTunes store.
Dude, you are a plethora of info.
Are you saying the version of Skype I currently have on my iPhone will not work unless I have Sonera's card in? Even if the phone is unlocked?
Can you explain a bit more about using the EDGE IP to trick the phone into purchasing and DL'ng from the iTunes store.
I hope it still works after the v2.0 update. I hope the call quality is god over EDGE. Bandwidth its fine, but the carrier isn't offering any QoS.
I'm pretty sure there are going to be a lot of people that sign up for the cheapest plan (perhaps based on Rogers' laughable estimates of how many web pages will fit in 400MB) and will be shocked at the extra $30+ /month showing up on their bill.
Hey solipsism, a bit of what is going on over here in Europe (Finland)
Just had a visit with the local Sonera dealer here. Seems that they had a big hole in their iPhone plans. People that already have a Sonera card, can simply put this card in their iPhone and it will work. The fun part comes in, in a situation like mine. I have 500 mins, 500 SMS, REAL unlimited data (not capped), and wifi all for 45? a month. If you go to: http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin%20ja%20liittym%E4/Hinnat (sorry about the Finnish) you will see how they forgot about current Sonera card holders. So my current package is cheaper than their subsidized ones. I will simply buy the phone. After I pay for it, they will unlock it and I am free and clear with an unlocked iPhone on a cheaper tariff. The guy in the shop started laughing and saying that he will tell all his friends to just come in and get a new sim card, create their own service packages and then buy an iPhone outright when they are available.
Prices are always subject to fine print and are always allowed to be clarified.
The guy in the shop is going to start crying when the carrier starts to charge back on his commissions.
And of course, I don't want any shouting match with you. Babelfish doesn't do Finnish and we have statistics like 92% of Finnish mobile data coming from datacards and dongles --- on Nokia's backyard --- and only 4% coming from Symbian phones.
http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.c...a-traffic.html
http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.c...artphones.html
It makes me think that you got some kind of 3G dongle plan --- it's like mis-selling by the agents and the carriers have given up to try to police/fix the problem because nobody actually buys a Symbian phone in Nokia country to use it as a 3G device.
If you can get away with it --- that's great. It's like people who gets tethering with a $6 WAP plan from T-Mobile USA because they change a few proxy settings.
PS: What is up with urls not auto-linking?
No sure. However, I did send the wrong link to ATT Terms and Conditions page
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...-terms.jsp#gsm
That's not true. (Before you ask, yes, I'm an ex-Rogers employee). Rogers built their GSM network on their own dime (it was over $1B+!) back in 2001-2002. They have not yet recouped the cost as it was built way before people in Canada were ready for mobile data (that and Rogers didn't know how to price it for consumers). Fido largely mostly funded by T-Mobile. They were not more advanced in terms of network, though they did have GSM 850mhz. Though their billing system arguably was better, metering per-second, creating lots more compelling options. They expanded coverage and had better customer base in Western Canada (to compete with Telus). Rogers bought them in Autumn 2004.
I guess the point is that sure vs. the U.S. these plans suck but welcome to the Canadian market -- the WHOLE REASON you have this is because the mobile companies have to be majority "Canadian" owned -- this means Vodaphone, T-Mobile etc. aren't really allowed to compete and charge lower prices.
Rogers sucks in their own way but honestly look at the competition:
Bell -- $30/month for 150 minutes, $6/month for Call Display, and $60/month for 30MB of data , $100/month for 1 GB of data! That's like $90 - $130/month. On the bright side you can get an HTC Touch for free if you sign up for 3 years.
Telus on the other hand has unlimited Email + Web Browsing for $30 if you buy a voice plan worth $30 or more. So they have the best data deal (and they're EVDO), though they're still only 150 minutes for the $30 voice plan!
Thanks for the background. But I am not sure that Roger's suck anymore than anybody else, either in Canada, the US or anywhere else.
As evidenced in these blogs, there is a significant misunderstanding of the terms and conditions that every carrier includes, price schemes are not truly comparable because the base units are not identical, and coverage is not uniform.
Canada, because it is geographically one of the largest countries in the world but with one of the smallest in population density*, i.e., ranking 230th out of 241 countries, is naturally burdened with a higher cost per person when it comes to building transportation and communication systems compared to most countries in the world.
Sitting beside the US which is ten times the population and if you omit Alaska, a population density about 15 times, Canada's cost for wireless services will always be significantly higher. As such, somebody has to pay for developing the infrastructure and obvious it is not the neighbors to the south or the tax payers, but the people that use the system.
It should also be kept in mind, that the majority of Canada's cellular construction was done when the dollar CDN was significantly below, i.e., 15 to 35%, the dollar US.
Even so, if one were able to accurately tabled the actual costs for wireless services for every country in the world, I would suggest that comparing the results would be quite surprising, and for Canadians, relatively speaking if not absolute, price for services are not as bad or variably different than is being portrayed.
As has been evidenced, ATT has been getting an average of $95 per iPhone customer for 450 minutes usage. True, the data plan charges are higher in Canada, but may not in effect end up costing the user more. It has been suggested that ATT's offering of an 'Unlimited Data plan' may in fact be 'over necessary' considering that the Roger's $60 plan will provide up to 200,000 text emails or 3100 web pages or 1360 photo attachments. I wonder how many users will have to upgrade to the next level? Better yet, what job would you have to have the time to do so?
In addition, let's not forget Wi-Fi. It's free and faster. And growing more every day. http://www.canadianhotspot.ca/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density
Thanks for the background. But I am not sure that Roger's suck anymore than anybody else, either in Canada, the US or anywhere else.
As evidenced in these blogs, there is a significant misunderstanding of the terms and conditions that every carrier includes, price schemes are not truly comparable because the base units are not identical, and coverage is not uniform.
Canada, because it is geographically one of the largest countries in the world but with one of the smallest in population density*, i.e., ranking 230th out of 241 countries, is naturally burdened with a higher cost per person when it comes to building transportation and communication systems compared to most countries in the world.
Sitting beside the US which is ten times the population and if you omit Alaska, a population density about 15 times, Canada's cost for wireless services will always be significantly higher. As such, somebody has to pay for developing the infrastructure and obvious it is not the neighbors to the south or the tax payers, but the people that use the system.
It should also be kept in mind, that the majority of Canada's cellular construction was done when the dollar CDN was significantly below, i.e., 15 to 35%, the dollar US.
Even so, if one were able to accurately tabled the actual costs for wireless services for every country in the world, I would suggest that comparing the results would be quite surprising, and for Canadians, relatively speaking if not absolute, price for services are not as bad or variably different than is being portrayed.
As has been evidenced, ATT has been getting an average of $95 per iPhone customer for 450 minutes usage. True, the data plan charges are higher in Canada, but may not in effect end up costing the user more. It has been suggested that ATT's offering of an 'Unlimited Data plan' may in fact be 'over necessary' considering that the Roger's $60 plan will provide up to 200,000 text emails or 3100 web pages or 1360 photo attachments. I wonder how many users will have to upgrade to the next level? Better yet, what job would you have to have the time to do so?
In addition, let's not forget Wi-Fi. It's free and faster. And growing more every day. http://www.canadianhotspot.ca/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
That is conjecture. While it would make sense that the Rogers would not support areas that have little to no population in the upper regions we need to see some stats about the userbase and the number of cell towers in use. From those two figures we can get a basic idea of how many users are per cell tower. But this is still not a complete picture but it's a better basis than what we have.
Alaska is the US' largest state, but it also represents a very small portion of the country's uninhabited and/or untenanted land. Where as Canada appears to have a much larger portion of similar terrain.
To further illustrate my point, if we use the CIA World Fact Book—a great way to spend a few minutes honing your geography skills—as a guide we can see that Canada is slightly larger than US but with almost a 10th of the population. Of course, the US has slightly more land than Canada.Even if this was the first time we had ever heard of the two countries we can see that Canada is much harsher when we look at the finer details.So Canada might be big but the US has more land that is inhabitable. But not 10x more to account for the dramatic population difference. I can't find info on Rogers but i can find info on the number of telephone users in Canada.This is not exact nor conclusive in any way but if we take the sq km of arable land and divide by the number of cellular users we see that the US has a far greater density than Canada. Again, this is not conclusive, but it's the only method I could conceive that would remove the unused land from Canada's northern territories. The more metrics we get the more we can refine the data, but looking at the raw numbers I don't see any way the numbers could ever be shifted to indicate that Rogers has less overhead per person than US carriers... unless they completely cut off service as soon as you leave a city.
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
solipsism:
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
No, it doesn't. I thought I made that quite clear. if you look, I've only accounted for arable land. Id est, not the frozen tundra that dominates the North. Hence the much smaller percentage used to account for land mass of Canada as opposed to the US prior to my dividing by the number of cellular users.
As previously stated, if you can find more metrics that accurately removed the vast stretches of unused land from the equation go for it. But with less than a 10th or the cellular users of the US and a much lower percentage of the populace on mobiles the numbers are never going to work out in Canada's favour for this argument. It is still going to be considerably a much lower average of users per sq km.
solipsism:
Your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated whereas there are tons of land in Canada that is uninhibited, similar to Alaska.
Yes, including the entire area of the country is misleading because in fact most of the country probably has no cell phone coverage at all because it's barely populated, therefore no infrastructure cost to the provider in those areas--unlike the U.S., where a much greater percentage of the land area is populated and expected to have coverage. I think the person who suggested comparing cell phone towers to population served had a good method, but I still suspect Canada is gouged compared to other countries.
While all of what you state here is technically correct, the numbers are coached to be a little mis-leading. Yes, obviously, Canadian population density is extremely low. But, since Rogers generally only provides network coverage in urban areas, the over-all population density of Canada is entirely irrelevant.
For the same reason you said to set aside Alaska for US pop density rates, if you set aside the vast majority of Canada's land mass and include only urban areas, Rogers cost per sq/km of actual coverage should not be far out of line with countries like the US.
Let's be fair. The cost to build a tower is the same. Well not exactly. Most of Canada's towers would have cost from 15 to 35% more because of the exchange at the time.
The cost of materials are significantly less with larger orders. Usage per tower is the same, but only in equally declared populations. Management, maintenance and servicing is the same, however, it is spread over a significantly larger base.
In effect, it costs a lot more to have things done in Canada than in the US. Rogers cost per sq/km may not be far out of line with most countries. However, the fact that there is more users in the US to share all the costs, the cost to the Canadian user is still significantly higher.
One of the main issues that plagues Toronto, for example, is its public transportation costs. Canadian cities by at large are less densely populated and thus the cost per mile per person to service the main arteries are higher.
More important, considering that the entire population of Canada is less than the state of California. As such, to build, service and maintain a wireless operation in the relatively confined spaces of California would be less than in a country that is stretched over 5500 km.
Again, the total service/costs are that much different when you compare apples with apples and read the fine print
.... Canada that is uninhibited......
Hmmmm....... I had always thought that the Canadians were a tad inhibited......
That is conjecture. While it would make sense that the Rogers would not support areas that have little to no population in the upper regions we need to see some stats about the userbase and the number of cell towers in use. From those two figures we can get a basic idea of how many users are per cell tower. But this is still not a complete picture but it's a better basis than what we have.
Alaska is the US' largest state, but it also represents a very small portion of the country's uninhabited and/or untenanted land. Where as Canada appears to have a much larger portion of similar terrain.
To further illustrate my point, if we use the CIA World Fact Book—a great way to spend a few minutes honing your geography skills—as a guide we can see that Canada is slightly larger than US but with almost a 10th of the population. Of course, the US has slightly more land than Canada.Even if this was the first time we had ever heard of the two countries we can see that Canada is much harsher when we look at the finer details.So Canada might be big but the US has more land that is inhabitable. But not 10x more to account for the dramatic population difference. I can't find info on Rogers but i can find info on the number of telephone users in Canada.This is not exact nor conclusive in any way but if we take the sq km of arable land and divide by the number of cellular users we see that the US has a far greater density than Canada. Again, this is not conclusive, but it's the only method I could conceive that would remove the unused land from Canada's northern territories. The more metrics we get the more we can refine the data, but looking at the raw numbers I don't see any way the numbers could ever be shifted to indicate that Rogers has less overhead per person than US carriers... unless they completely cut off service as soon as you leave a city.
Are you sure we are not sharing the same office.
After reading the above, I was trying to remember where I had read this before. Sure enough, I found the following I wrote on a Stickie that I never got the chance to post. As you can see, this was to be a comment on one of your blogs and was in part a reference that Melgross was also took part of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I tend to use the CIA World Factbook for that info. If I remember correctly, the US has a per capita of 30 per sq km, while Sweden has 300].
edit: Boy was I off. I may have been thinking of the Netherlands.
Sweden
Land Area: 410,934 sq km
Popualtion: 9,045,389 (July 2008 est.)
= 22
US and A
Land Area: 9,161,923 sq km
Population: 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.)
= 33
When we are calculating population densities, we find that the "arable" land areas are closer in regards to that area of the country that is being lived on, but be aware, not totally true.
For example, the percentage or "arable" land in the US is approximately 18% of the total land mass of 9.1 million sq km. However, this includes Alaska which represents about 1/5 of the total and has very little arable land.
As such, the US has about 7 million sq km in total land area, of which approximately 1.3 million sq km in arable, which equates to a per capita of 233 per sq km .
Sweden with 410,934 sq km in total land area, 5,93% arable for 24.3 thousand sq km, equal to a per capita of 372 per sq km.
Then in the US 70% or 200 million live in urbanized areas, vs Sweden with about 85%
Unfortunately, I never got around to finishing it and just let it go at the time.
No, it doesn't. I thought I made that quite clear. if you look, I've only accounted for arable land. Id est, not the frozen tundra that dominates the North. Hence the much smaller percentage used to account for land mass of Canada as opposed to the US prior to my dividing by the number of cellular users.
As previously stated, if you can find more metrics that accurately removed the vast stretches of unused land from the equation go for it. But with less than a 10th or the cellular users of the US and a much lower percentage of the populace on mobiles the numbers are never going to work out in Canada's favour for this argument. It is still going to be considerably a much lower average of users per sq km.
Let's play the population density game!
US Cities:
New York – 27,147/sq mi
Los Angeles – 8,205/sq mi
Chicago – 12,470/sq mi
Houston – 3,701/sq mi
Phoenix - 2,937.8/sq mi
Philadelphia – 10,882.8/sq mi
Antonio – 2,808.5/sq mi
San Diego – 3,871.5/sq mi
Dallas – 3,605.08/sq mi
Canadian Cities:
Toronto – 10,287.4/sq mi
Montreal – 11,496/sq mi
Vancouver – 13,817.6/sq mi
Calgary – 3,522.9/sq mi
Edmonton – 2,764/sq mi
Quebec City – 2,800.3/sq mi
Winnipeg – 3,535.3/sq mi
And a map that shows population density in the United States AND Canada:
Let's play the population density game!
US Cities:
New York – 27,147/sq mi
Los Angeles – 8,205/sq mi
Chicago – 12,470/sq mi
Houston – 3,701/sq mi
Phoenix - 2,937.8/sq mi
Philadelphia – 10,882.8/sq mi
Antonio – 2,808.5/sq mi
San Diego – 3,871.5/sq mi
Dallas – 3,605.08/sq mi
Canadian Cities:
Toronto – 10,287.4/sq mi
Montreal – 11,496/sq mi
Vancouver – 13,817.6/sq mi
Calgary – 3,522.9/sq mi
Edmonton – 2,764/sq mi
Quebec City – 2,800.3/sq mi
Winnipeg – 3,535.3/sq mi
<image>
And a map that shows population density in the United States AND Canada:
<image>
<image>
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? You have stated the population densities of 7 Canadian cities and 9 US cities but have not quantified nor explained anything. I have no idea if you agree with my assessment that we need to look at colonised areas or not.
To further complicate things, you state in an earlier post, "[Solipsism,] your estimates ignore the fact that Canada's cities are densely populated", but then in a later post you post highly populated US cities. I fail to see any bearing the varying population densities have on the argument as it stands.
I'm also confused by your post as I clearly made my case stating that only 4% of the entire Canadian landmass was arable while stating that 18% of the US was arable, which greatly favoured Canada in my equation to determine a closer—yet not exact, as previously stated—estimate of liveable land area that people could reside comfortably, thereby being a potential customer base for the associated carriers.
Besides the point that the Britannica population density of Canadian map from 2002 makes no sense for your argument unless you are asserting that Canadian cities are more densely populated than US cities (which wouldn't make sense), the US map below is not not from Britannica and has red splotches that only vaguely match up with the Canadian map above.
On top of that, there is no legend or explanation of any kind by you to discern the meaning of the red splotches. For all we know they represent the the sales of the original Nintendo Game Boy in North America, which is the only reasonable explanation to its inclusion in your post.