Rogers bought us

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

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
58 answers Last reply
More about rogers bought
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

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

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:34:31 -0700, 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
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com> wrote in
    news:pan.2004.09.20.15.19.35.800449@yahoo.com:

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

    and new minimum service contracts to sign, terrible customer support, and
    higher monthly prices!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    Go Go Gadget tony <tfortony@yahoo.com>:
    > 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>

    Argh. And I just bought a new phone! (Unlocked Nokia 5140, very nice)

    I'd stick with a Telus-owned Fido, but probably jump ship because of
    Rogers. Too bad, too -- Telus would have brought fresh capital to the
    GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's base
    and brand.

    --
    Rob.Russell@Canada.Com, Unicorn of Usenet & Bastard of Bandwidth
    "If my son wants to be a pimp when he grows up, that's fine with me. I
    hope he's a good one and enjoys it and doesn't get caught. I'll support
    him in this. But if he wants to be a network administrator, he's out of
    the house and not part of my family." Steve Wozniak, http://www.woz.org
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    On 20 Sep 2004 13:54:08 GMT, Rob Russell <colonel@engsoc.org> wrote:

    >Telus would have brought fresh capital to the
    >GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's base
    >and brand.

    And what makes you think that Telus would not disassemble Fido's GSM
    network and put all Fido's customers on their CDMA network? It's not
    as if that's never happened before.

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

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:33:29 -0500, Good Man wrote:

    > repatch <repatch42@yahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:pan.2004.09.20.15.19.35.800449@yahoo.com:
    >
    >> It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage.
    >
    > and new minimum service contracts to sign, terrible customer support, and
    > higher monthly prices!

    Odd, considering my move to Rogers actually resulted in my spending LESS
    per month then I did with Fido, fancy that...
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    Rob Russell <colonel@engsoc.org> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:

    > I'd stick with a Telus-owned Fido, but probably jump ship because of
    > Rogers. Too bad, too -- Telus would have brought fresh capital to the
    > GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's
    > base and brand.

    I'm considering going back to alphanumeric pager and payphone again.
    Cheaper. Guess we'll see what the outcome of the offer is.

    --
    Mason Storm

    ---------------
    Remove "dogface" to reply in email.
    ---------------
    Think your pop-up blocker works?? Try this:
    http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html
    ---------------
    Unlimited local calling anywhere in Canada $70/month.
    http://www.fido.ca/portal/en/packages/monthly.shtml#unlimitedcanada
    ---------------
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    "Mason Storm" <mydogfacenippy@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:Xns956A5A6111CA3mysnippynippyshawca@24.71.223.159...
    > Rob Russell <colonel@engsoc.org> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:
    >
    > > I'd stick with a Telus-owned Fido, but probably jump ship because of
    > > Rogers. Too bad, too -- Telus would have brought fresh capital to the
    > > GSM market in Canada, and all Rogers is going to do is milk Fido's
    > > base and brand.
    >
    > I'm considering going back to alphanumeric pager and payphone again.
    > Cheaper. Guess we'll see what the outcome of the offer is.

    Find a way to get a Rogers corporate plan. Rogers is about to have urban
    coverage as good as Fido's (and theoretically better because it can overlay
    Fido's towers with GSM 850), rural coverage that blows Fido away, and if you
    can get a corporate plan you can get rates that are similar to or better
    than a lot of Fido's plans.

    I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing
    by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant,
    SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did.

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

    Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:

    > And what makes you think that Telus would not disassemble Fido's GSM
    > network and put all Fido's customers on their CDMA network? It's not
    > as if that's never happened before.

    Any of the current cellular operators would eventually kill Fido if they
    aquired it. They only want to gain control of it because right now Fido
    is killing the market for these other loosers with their great rate
    plans. Look what happened to Clearnet when Smelus bought it! Wish we had
    competition like in the USA. They have great plans too.

    --
    Mason Storm

    ---------------
    Remove "dogface" to reply in email.
    ---------------
    Think your pop-up blocker works?? Try this:
    http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html
    ---------------
    Unlimited local calling anywhere in Canada $70/month.
    http://www.fido.ca/portal/en/packages/monthly.shtml#unlimitedcanada
    ---------------
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    > > I have no Fido signal issues. When I swap my friend's Rogers sim-card
    > > into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop
    > > offs.

    The poster probably has a 1900 MHz phone. Rogers isn't that great on a
    1900-only phone, but it's extremely good on an 850/1900 phone. Since Fido
    has no spectrum at 850, it *has* to be good at 1900 only.

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

    Here's a good article worth reading:

    <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cellphones/>

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

    "repatch" <repatch42@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
    news:pan.2004.09.20.15.19.35.800449@yahoo.com...
    > It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage.
    >

    The coverage of fido is enough for my need. If I want better coverage (and
    higher prices) I wold go with Bell/telus. They go where rogers didn't like
    up from Rimouski, quebec. I don't see any advantage for Rogers. The
    custumer service is awful with syntetic voice and acadians CSR impossible to
    understand. The network acts bizarre with calls that not go though (I have
    a Rogers SIM and tried it with a lot of phones and 850/1900 too and I prefer
    Fido). But at least, if Fido is to be bought it's better to be Rogers than
    Telus (with their CDMA-robotic-voice-american-only-go-direct-voicemail
    system!)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:43:10 +0000, Blandine wrote:

    >
    > "repatch" <repatch42@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:pan.2004.09.20.15.19.35.800449@yahoo.com...
    >> It's about time. Finally Fido users will get decent coverage.
    >>
    >>
    > The coverage of fido is enough for my need.

    I thought the same, until I moved into a building in the GTA with ZERO
    Fido coverage, yet Rogers coverage. For me that was the final straw.

    > If I want better coverage
    > (and higher prices) I wold go with Bell/telus.

    I don't know. My parents have a Bell phone and while they do have signal
    in most places I do, it's FAR harder for them to get a call through. That
    and it's analog in many places with Bell, with Rogers their GSM850
    coverage is as good as their analog in almost every place I've tried, and
    I'd much prefer GSM over AMPs no matter where I am.

    > They go where rogers
    > didn't like up from Rimouski, quebec.

    Yes, that is one area I lost coverage, along with New Richmond and
    Gaspesie area, but hey, when you're in such beautiful scenery you don't
    really need a cell phone!

    > I don't see any advantage for
    > Rogers.

    For me the number one advatange is GSM. I HATE the codecs Bell and Telus
    use. They sound so horrible to my ears I actually pray for a Bell or
    Telus phone to switch to analog. I just can't stand it. That and the SIM
    card, an amazing feature. Just the thought of having to get permission
    from my cell provider to change phones is laughable in my mind.

    > The custumer service is awful with syntetic voice and acadians
    > CSR impossible to understand.

    In my experience no worse then Fido. I know that isn't much of an excuse,
    but hey there it is.

    > The network acts bizarre with calls that
    > not go though (I have a Rogers SIM and tried it with a lot of phones and
    > 850/1900 too and I prefer Fido).

    What do you mean by "strange"? I've actually encountered less problems
    with calls going through then I ever did with Fido.

    > But at least, if Fido is to be bought
    > it's better to be Rogers than Telus (with their
    > CDMA-robotic-voice-american-only-go-direct-voicemail system!)

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

    Jim MacKenzie wrote:
    > I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing
    > by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant,
    > SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did.

    If Rogers chose not to have per-second billing, it is because it felt it had
    no competitive need to do so, and buying Fido will even further reduce this
    small need.


    Roger's purchase of Fido will end up the same as Telus' purchase of Clearnet,
    if it is allowed to go though: Fido's brand will disapear, Rogers may
    integrate some of the former marketing )for instance the dog theme) into its
    own ads, but Fido rates will no longter be offered to new customers and little
    by little, Rogers will stop grandfathering existing ex-Fido customers' rates.

    If this is allowed to go through, within 1.5 years, expect to start getting
    nice letters giving you some sweet deal to move to a Rogers plan with the
    first couple months at reduced reate, and following months at the good old
    expensive Rogers prices.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:44:40 -0600, Jim MacKenzie wrote:

    >
    >> > I have no Fido signal issues. When I swap my friend's Rogers sim-card
    >> > into my unlocked phone, I giggle at the ridiculous quality and drop
    >> > offs.
    >
    > The poster probably has a 1900 MHz phone. Rogers isn't that great on a
    > 1900-only phone, but it's extremely good on an 850/1900 phone. Since Fido
    > has no spectrum at 850, it *has* to be good at 1900 only.

    Hmm, never thought of that, you're of course absolutely correct, without
    850 coverage Rogers network doesn't look to great outside of major urban
    centers. TTYL
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    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, and higher prices, and by the way repatch
    your just a dick and a troll.


    >
    >On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:34:31 -0700, 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
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

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

    repatch wrote:
    > Hmm, never thought of that, you're of course absolutely correct, without
    > 850 coverage Rogers network doesn't look to great outside of major urban
    > centers. TTYL

    Nobody has a decent 1900 network outside urban areas. 1900 happened well after
    Cantel and Mobility had built up their 850 analogue networks. They weren't
    going to expand 1900 to all of their existing 850 covered areas since they
    chose their phones to be dual frequency so there was no gain to put additional
    capacity in rural areas. And they started with beeper networks in the 1980s
    and analogue phones in early 1990s so had plenty of time to roll out coverage.

    Fido and Clearnet started from scratch with only 1900 in the late 1990s, and
    had a mandate from government to cover X% of population, so their priority was
    to roll out cities due to that government requirement.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    It will be to Rogers's advantage to keep the CityFido product (with perhaps
    just rebranding).

    Think about it:

    Rogers has no landline telephony. So by keeping CityFido, it can hurth both
    Bell and Telus without hurting its other businesses.

    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.

    If Roger's standards are lower, it will also be able to fit more customers
    than Fido would have in the same bandwidth.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:

    > If Rogers chose not to have per-second billing, it is because it felt
    > it had no competitive need to do so, and buying Fido will even further
    > reduce this small need.
    >
    > Roger's purchase of Fido will end up the same as Telus' purchase of
    > Clearnet, if it is allowed to go though: Fido's brand will disapear,
    > Rogers may integrate some of the former marketing )for instance the
    > dog theme) into its own ads, but Fido rates will no longter be offered
    > to new customers and little by little, Rogers will stop grandfathering
    > existing ex-Fido customers' rates.
    >
    > If this is allowed to go through, within 1.5 years, expect to start
    > getting nice letters giving you some sweet deal to move to a Rogers
    > plan with the first couple months at reduced reate, and following
    > months at the good old expensive Rogers prices.

    I think this is very well put. I totally agree with you.

    --
    Mason Storm

    -----------------------------
    Remove "dogface" to reply privately in email.
    -----------------------------
    http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html
    -----------------------------
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

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

    I don't expect to see an increase in front end prices, but I do expect
    to see an end to a gradual drop in prices.

    We used to see Fido pushing prices steadily down, so that it was
    reasonable to expect for the average consumer (No, not each consumer, so
    maybe not you) to see a drop.

    I think the current price plans will stay, but there will not be new
    lower prices.

    I also expect to see that backend prices going up, like international
    roaming, international long distance, so they nickle and dime you.

    Cheers all
    Andrew

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Jim MacKenzie wrote:
    >
    >>I'm hoping Rogers decides to keep Fido's low long distance rate and billing
    >>by the second - it could do some serious damage to Telus, Bell, Aliant,
    >>SaskTel, MTS, etc. if it did.
    >
    >
    > If Rogers chose not to have per-second billing, it is because it felt it had
    > no competitive need to do so, and buying Fido will even further reduce this
    > small need.
    >
    >
    > Roger's purchase of Fido will end up the same as Telus' purchase of Clearnet,
    > if it is allowed to go though: Fido's brand will disapear, Rogers may
    > integrate some of the former marketing )for instance the dog theme) into its
    > own ads, but Fido rates will no longter be offered to new customers and little
    > by little, Rogers will stop grandfathering existing ex-Fido customers' rates.
    >
    > If this is allowed to go through, within 1.5 years, expect to start getting
    > nice letters giving you some sweet deal to move to a Rogers plan with the
    > first couple months at reduced reate, and following months at the good old
    > expensive Rogers prices.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

    AndrewH wrote:
    >
    > I don't expect to see an increase in front end prices, but I do expect
    > to see an end to a gradual drop in prices.

    Which is interesting since the media seem to believe that by buying Fido,
    Rogers will be able to continue to push price down adn be good for customers.
    Again, the media are so naive.

    From an accounting point of view, It could be a good deal for Rogers since it
    will acquire bandwidth, infrastructure as well as a lot of customers.

    Big question is how much rationlisation can be made in terms of towers.

    I am very disapointed that the Microcell board has already recommended
    acceptance. It is a very sad day.

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

    "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
    news:414FAE88.3442A7F6@teksavvy.com...
    > Nobody has a decent 1900 network outside urban areas.

    Telus does in Alberta. A friend has an old Clearnet analog/1900 CDMA phone
    (I told him to upgrade :) ). He gets analog only in Saskatchewan (as one
    would expect) except in Regina and Saskatoon, but gets full digital
    everywhere in Alberta. Telus must have CDMA 1900 implemented province-wide.

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

    <yoyo@rogers.com> wrote in message
    news:l4ruk0l6sqdkur55u7fmbu167efjo44kcg@4ax.com...
    > And dropped calls, and higher prices...

    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. 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.).

    Rogers could remove some of Microcell's towers and redeploy them (in certain
    places, that might make sense - Rogers probably doesn't need two GSM towers
    at Davidson, Saskatchewan, for example) but I would think most if not all of
    the urban towers will stay right where they are.

    Jim
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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 ?
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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."
  36. 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."
  37. 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?
  38. 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
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. 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/
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ask a new question

Read More

Fido Rogers Internet Service Providers