The euthanizing of Fido. Poor doggy. by Tyler Hamilton Tor..

[Guest]

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

snip

Well, Rogers is slowly inserting the lethal injection into the dog. I
refer to the Rogers announcement this morning that it has "redesigned"
the CityFido phone service -- a safe way of saying they're screwing
the pooch.

It wasn't unexpected. Everybody assumed that Rogers, following its
acquisition last fall of Fido master Microcell Telecommunications,
would give itself a couple of months before destroying the spirit of a
flat-rate wireless service it has long considered "ridiculous."

The original CityFido offered the following: Unlimited local calling,
number portability and included the service access charge (normally an
additional cost of $6.95) for a grand, tidy total of $45.

The new CityFido still includes the service access fee and LNP, but
here's what has changed: A $45 plan with only 750 minutes or a $65
plan with 1,500 minutes. No more unlimited local calling. Also, it has
made the local calling area smaller to make it "more urban-focused."
Gee, thanks. Calls made outside the zone will cost 50 cents a minute
-- Yikes! Calls made after plan minutes are used up cost 30 cents a
minute. Yikes again!

You'd get a better deal signing up for a U.S. wireless plan. 50 cents
a call? Are we operating in 1988 or something? Customers on the older
plan will only be grandfathered for a year.

Existing CityFido customers should be pissed, and the Competition
Bureau should be ashamed for permitting Rogers acquisition of Fido
without imposing some conditions. The analysts I'm talking to say this
"redesign" is the last step before completely killing Fido, likely
sometime next year.


by Tyler Hamilton Toronto star

 

[Guest]

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

grubb wrote:
> without imposing some conditions. The analysts I'm talking to say this
> "redesign" is the last step before completely killing Fido, likely
> sometime next year.

Not the last step.

I expect to see Fido plans greatly simplified (removing lots of choice
in plans). What will survive is the Fidomatic (prepaid). They'll
grandfather existing Fido customers, but the "simplified" plans just
won't attract that many new cutsomers who will instead be steered
towards Rogers.

The next big step is when any new handset sold by Fido (or renewed for
existing customer) will come with a SIM card that is already identified
as a Rogers SIM inside, even if it says "Fido" on the outside. This way,
they can gradually transfer customers over to the Rogers network without
having to unlock phones etc. Within 2 years, they will have gotten
around to transfering most customers.Consider that Fido started with
contracts last year and final contracts signed this year at Fido rates.
So next year, you'll start having a bunch of Fido customers whose
contract expires at which point, they'll be turned over to Rogers.

The big unknown pertains to actual network and spectrum. How quickly
will they start to use Fido channels/spectrum on Roger's network ? How
quickly will they start dismantling Fido towers where there is Rogers
tower nearby ?

 

[Guest]

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

> You'd get a better deal signing up for a U.S. wireless plan. 50 cents
> a call? Are we operating in 1988 or something? Customers on the older
> plan will only be grandfathered for a year.

No, customers will be grandfathered for as long as they renew their fido
agreement.


> Existing CityFido customers should be pissed,

Why, FIDO is taking care of them, but removing the plan from the market as
it was, given a new reality.


> and the Competition Bureau should be ashamed for permitting Rogers
acquisition of Fido
> without imposing some conditions. The analysts I'm talking to say this
> "redesign" is the last step before completely killing Fido, likely
> sometime next year.

and if FIDO wouldn't have negotiated a purchase by Rogers it would have been
bought by Telus (remember it was Telus' offer that started this whole thing
rolling), when bought by Telus it would have been killed then and there..

 

[Guest]

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

malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
> No, customers will be grandfathered for as long as they renew their fido
> agreement.

Does anyone really believe this ? I expect one cycle of renewal but not more.

> and if FIDO wouldn't have negotiated a purchase by Rogers it would have been
> bought by Telus (remember it was Telus' offer that started this whole thing
> rolling), when bought by Telus it would have been killed then and there..

Nop. Microcell was essentially owned by banks. The owners of Microcell
did not have to accept ANY offer. Fido had been restructured,
essentially debt free and had become profitable, thus giving the owners
good chance of making money on their investment over long term. Banks
prefered short term cash and sold Fido in exchange for cash received by
Rogers, and Rogers in turn went to the bansk to borrow the money to buy
Microcell. Win win situation for the banks.

The owners of Microcell could have petitioned SERIIOUSLY the government
to have foreign ownership caps lifted for them (being a small player)
allowing an outfit such as Virgin to invest in Microcell. But had a
foreign player come in, the banks may have gotten their cash back from
their investkment in Microcell, but they woudln't have lent tyhat money
to the buyer, hence the poor banks would have been deprived of the
revenus from interest they charge on Rogers' debts.

 

[Guest]

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

I thought Virgin buying Fido would have made the most sense (or
DT/TMobile/Voicestream). Increased competition, better value for
consumers... you knew the government wouldn't let that happen. Think
Air Canada / Canadian and how wonderfully that turned out. I can vouch
personally for how lousy the TD Canada Trust deal was for customers (I
think I actually mentioned this in another post).

Anyhow, what's done is done. Just keep your eyes pealed for a good
pager deal and let me know what you find.

JF Mezei wrote:
> malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>No, customers will be grandfathered for as long as they renew their fido
>>agreement.
>
>
> Does anyone really believe this ? I expect one cycle of renewal but not more.
>
>
>>and if FIDO wouldn't have negotiated a purchase by Rogers it would have been
>>bought by Telus (remember it was Telus' offer that started this whole thing
>>rolling), when bought by Telus it would have been killed then and there..
>
>
> Nop. Microcell was essentially owned by banks. The owners of Microcell
> did not have to accept ANY offer. Fido had been restructured,
> essentially debt free and had become profitable, thus giving the owners
> good chance of making money on their investment over long term. Banks
> prefered short term cash and sold Fido in exchange for cash received by
> Rogers, and Rogers in turn went to the bansk to borrow the money to buy
> Microcell. Win win situation for the banks.
>
> The owners of Microcell could have petitioned SERIIOUSLY the government
> to have foreign ownership caps lifted for them (being a small player)
> allowing an outfit such as Virgin to invest in Microcell. But had a
> foreign player come in, the banks may have gotten their cash back from
> their investkment in Microcell, but they woudln't have lent tyhat money
> to the buyer, hence the poor banks would have been deprived of the
> revenus from interest they charge on Rogers' debts.

 

[Guest]

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

malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
> You are an idiot who accepts no version of reality except that which your
> own perception colours.

And you're the one who called me an idiot for stating that Rogers would
not keep Fido packages for more than a few months.

I don't know your real identity, but your nick is very NEW to this newsgroup.

> The Microcell CEO (now EVP @ Rogers Wireless) has communicated to analysts,
> partners, and employees that there was no choice in getting a deal done once

Hint: The Microcell CEO was working for hsi shareholders: the banks. The
Banks had stated categorically that they were not interested in holding
Microcell any longer than necessary.

The government could have stopped this and told the banks to be patient
and seek someone who would keep the microcell network separate.

Sirois and company could have petitioned the government to allow foreign
investors, stating that more than 70% of the candian mobile industry had
to remain canadian owned or something like this. (instead of forcing all
companies to be canadian owned). Precedent was set in the USA already.

The banks didn't want this. They saw Rogers as the likely suitor and
knew that rogers would end up borrowing more money from them in order to
buy microcell from them (converting equity in microcell into loans to
Rogers yielding known interest rates/revenus).

Where there is a will, there is a way. There was no will to maintain
Microcell. And if you think the Telus offer was serious, you need to
become much less gullible. (this is the same as the Onex offer to buy
Air Canada during the AC/CP debacle, the offer was designed to fail in
court). Both were designed simply to raise the stakes fot the second
bidder and in the case of Onex, a way to give unins lots of leverage to
force AC to make all sorts of promises to maintain jobs (which AC did
until 9-11).

> the company was put into play by the Telus offering.

No, it was put into play because the banks put a big "for sale" sign
over the Microcell property.

> made it better had they not allowed this to occur is irrational. Microcell
> was being marginalized in the wireless market, did not have the capital to
> expand its network or implement the next generation of technologies.

Microcell was an important asset to canadian telecom and forced the
legacy carriers to stay honest. And it was not so marginalised. CityFido
was a pretty big move. Fido had a large presence in the canaian market
due to good markleting.

And in terms of 3g, Rogers is today less able to invest into 3G since it
is in much higher debt level than befoer the purchase of microcell. And
you don't hear about Rogers spending megamoney for 3G, nor do you head
about Bell or Telus going for 3G.

In fact, 3G would have had greater chance if Virgin had invested in
Microcell. It would have broiught new capital to the canadian mobile
business. The microcell transaction just shiften equitiy into loans and
obliterated Microcell. No new capital.

 

[Guest]

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

>
> And in terms of 3g, Rogers is today less able to invest into 3G since it
> is in much higher debt level than befoer the purchase of microcell. And
> you don't hear about Rogers spending megamoney for 3G, nor do you head
> about Bell or Telus going for 3G.

Bell has already announced the roll out of EV-DO by the end of the year in
major centres and the rest of it's network by Q4 2006

 

[Guest]

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

malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
> People like you killed that effort because everything wasn't enough, only
> realizing once it was all said and done how good it had been.

Yeah, blame everything on me.

Fact is that prior to Fido messing with SMS a few years ago, I was a
staunch supporter of Fido (except for their outright lies about there
not being any DATA service). But since then, they've been going donwhill.

Note: we are not here to serve Fido, Microcell, Sirois or Tremblay. They
are here to serve us. And when they don't serve us that well, we have
every right to complain. And we are certaintly not here to serve Rogers.

Any corporation taking over another cannot take customers for granted.
They must earn the trust of those customers, they must earn the loyalty
of those cutsomers. I have 0 loyalty, and probably negative loyalty
towards Rogers, especially now that they have begun to mess with Fido.
Anbd I now have 0 loyalty to Fido. The minute they remove my package, I
go look elswhere.

If you are bitter because you see the end of your job, don't take it out
on customers.

 

[Guest]

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

Oh and one more thing.

Your new employer would have factored in a certain percentage of
digruntled customers and feel that this is quite tolerable. They have
predictions on certain loss of Fido customers, especially as they new
raise the rates in the face of *apparantly* very appealing offers from
Bell and Telus (one year free etc).

So your employer has to be perfectly OK with Fido customers not being
happy with what is happening. If it had underestimated this level of
dissatisfaction and anger, tough luck. Rogers is suqandering a great
company and a great product. Within 2 years when all contracts lapse,
Rogers may find itself with a very large churn. But they shoudl be
perfectly aware with it, and thus you must asssume that your employer is
OK with it and that it is within its financial predictions.

 

[Guest]

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

> I thought Virgin buying Fido would have made the most sense (or
> DT/TMobile/Voicestream). Increased competition, better value for
> consumers... you knew the government wouldn't let that happen. Think
> Air Canada / Canadian and how wonderfully that turned out. I can vouch
> personally for how lousy the TD Canada Trust deal was for customers (I
> think I actually mentioned this in another post).

Virgin is an MVNO.

 

[Guest]

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

> If you are bitter because you see the end of your job, don't take it out
> on customers.

An end to my job, doing what? Please tell? All I see is a company that tried
to do everything for the customer and ended up getting screwed by those same
people. Because those people can be led by the noses (see below for handset
scenario), even if the overall value scenario DOES NOT become a win for
them.

Everyone needs to benefit in the entire equation, not just the end user. If
a company cannot become profitable it must adjust or the result becomes what
Microcell became (fido solutions, as subsidiary of Rogers Wireless).

Customers like nice new silver flip phones with colour screens and cameras
built in.. plus they want them for free or close to it. With that comes an
obligation. Something has to give, the pot of money doesn't always flow on
way.. That low barrier of entry comes with a big price at the end of the
day.

If you think Branson will fight the consumer's battle you need to think
again. Bell is a joint owner in that company and Bell wont do anything that
will interrupt its revenue streams.

 

[Guest]

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

> Your new employer would have factored in a certain percentage of
> digruntled customers and feel that this is quite tolerable.

Why do you keep harping on this new employer bullshit?


> So your employer has to be perfectly OK with Fido customers not being
> happy with what is happening.

See above..

I see no disservice being provided to FIDO's current sub base, only keeping
with what they have done to date (grandfathering those subscribers). Where
are they screwing the current customers on City or any other plan? Removing
a product from being marketed to new customers is not the same thing as
taking something away from current customers.

Finally, this is a cell phone company, it is not a church nor a religion. We
operate in a capitalistic society where the strong prevail and the weaker
become marginalized. It's not pretty sometimes, but it is what it is.. We
have benefited from the Clearnet and Fido's participation in the wireless
sector, but it's time to grow up and realize that somewhere down the road
money had to be made and amalgamation had to occur.

I for one am glad that I have one account on City Fido (wife's/home phone)
which I will continue to renew for as long as I need it and another account
for work, which now gives me GSM coverage in places I didn't have it before.
I get the best of both worlds

 

[Guest]

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

You're as good an argument for communism as they come.

malingerer@gmail.com wrote:
> We
> operate in a capitalistic society where the strong prevail and the weaker
> become marginalized. It's not pretty sometimes, but it is what it is.. We
> have benefited from the Clearnet and Fido's participation in the wireless
> sector, but it's time to grow up and realize that somewhere down the road
> money had to be made and amalgamation had to occur.

 

[Guest]

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

> > We
> > operate in a capitalistic society where the strong prevail and the
weaker
> > become marginalized. It's not pretty sometimes, but it is what it is..
We
> > have benefited from the Clearnet and Fido's participation in the
wireless
> > sector, but it's time to grow up and realize that somewhere down the
road
> > money had to be made and amalgamation had to occur.
>
> You're as good an argument for communism as they come.

Don't you like your fast cars, high definition tv's, or cool new laptops?
That comes at a cost. There are winners and losers everyday. True communism
is utopia which cannot occur. What has been called communism this last
century is purely a socialist dictatorship setup. Which one are you
referring to?

True communism depends on human nature being basically altruistic. For
communism to work, the members of the society either need to be altruistic
enough to want to work for the benefit of their neighbors, or they need to
be forward thinking enough to see that what benefits the whole benefits
themselves. They must be very far-sighted indeed, because large-scale social
benefits tend to be more abstract in nature, and more difficult to
recognise.

 

[Guest]

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

<malingerer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2QpOd.340365$8l.339424@pd7tw1no...

> and if FIDO wouldn't have negotiated a purchase by Rogers it would have
> been
> bought by Telus (remember it was Telus' offer that started this whole
> thing
> rolling), when bought by Telus it would have been killed then and there..

Fido was owned by the banks. It had recently paid off it's debts and was
becoming profitable. If the banks had waited 2 or 3 years, they could have
had a nice steady source of income on their hands. Unfortunately, people
tend to not think long-term. It's all short-term, show me the money now.

Fido did *not* have to be sold. It would have been better for everyone
concerned if they'd left well enough alone. Including the customers of
other providers, since Fido was a balancing influence on price points.

Losers. The lot of them. Now we have to deal with Rogers bullshit.