TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Rogers begins the rape of FIDO
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

rogers also dicked around the people on the $70 unlimited plan

when the merger first occured they told us we would be able to access the rogers network, and we did for about 2 or 3 weeks. then one day we just stopped being able to. with no fanfare and no warning they "changed their minds".

i fucking hate that good for nothing piece of shit company so much. i wish ted rogers would just fuck off already

check out http://www.ihaterogers.ca

awesome

quote:

Originally posted by bcope rogers also dicked around the people on the $70 unlimited plan when the merger first occured they told us we would be able to access the rogers network, and we did for about 2 or 3 weeks. then one day we just stopped being able to. with no fanfare and no warning they "changed their minds". i fucking hate that good for nothing piece of shit company so much. i wish ted rogers would just fuck off already check out http://www.ihaterogers.ca awesome

lol.. sweet site .. kinda reminds me of aolsucks.org ..

quote:

Rogers has 'no commitment' to keeping low price for Fido wireless service: CEO Posted on Canada.com TORONTO (CP) -- Rogers Communications Inc. has "no commitment" to maintaining the low rates established by its newly acquired Fido wireless service, chief executive Ted Rogers said Thursday. "We have no commitment to keeping the price levels the same as they were and we've already announced a significant increase in the price for City Fido for new customers coming in late December and early January," Rogers told an investor conference in New York. "We're not known for having rock-bottom prices. With Rogers it's a premium brand, a premium service, a premium product." Fido's previous owner, Microcell Telecommunications, had been more aggressive in its pricing strategies that Canada's other three cellphone companies, which have said publicly they didn't want to erode the economic viability of their businesses. Rogers' subsidiary Rogers Wireless Inc. acquired Microcell for $1.4 billion. As a result, Rogers Wireless became Canada's largest cellphone operator, ahead of Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility. Fido is best known among consumers and wireless providers alike for offering a $45 flat rate for unlimited calls within the Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal areas. In the past, Rogers and Telus had admitted concerns over the possibility of their wireless businesses feeling City Fido's bite. Ted Rogers said Thursday his company will keep the Fido brand, but not necessarily the low price. He also pointed out that despite the $45 flat monthly fee, average revenue per user of the City Fido service comes to over $62. "That's above what the normal pricing ARPU is, so there must be something going on there," Rogers told analysts in a webcast question-and-answer period after his speech. Rogers also warned that the future of the mobile phone business is not in simply undercutting the competitors' prices but an "evolution" in which "the wireline phones at home being replaced by, in my opinion, a combination of a phone that will work in the house . . . and then over to the cellular switch," Rogers said. He said wireless companies have to work on increasing their revenues, because so many customers are using their mobile phones on weekends and in the evenings, when service is free. His company will aim to do that, he said, by developing a combination wireless-wireline phone, including video, that works through the Internet cable network, which is owned by another Rogers subsidiary, Rogers Cable, when the user is at home. "There's an opportunity therefore not to just go in and slash prices all over the place but to give greater value by giving better services," Rogers said. While the wireless-wireline video phone won't be a reality for some time, the company will begin testing its voice-over-Internet phone in April and has set a target date of July 1 for deployment. Shaw Communications Inc. and Cogeco Cable, the main operating unit of Cogeco Inc., are also working on Internet telephony services. Rogers owns about 27 per cent of Cogeco Cable's subordinate voting shares and about 21 per cent of all the outstanding shares of its parent, Cogeco Inc.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthr...threadid=516742

And so it begins, the monopolistic ways. Buy up the competition because they're undercutting you, then raise the prices in order to keep your pockets lined. We use to have competition in the wireless market, we don't anymore.

Premium Service, Premium Brand, are out of your fucking mind? Premium compared to what? To the rest of the world, you're the bottom of the barrel.

So on the one hand you want increased competition in order to drive prices down. This only results in declining profits for the wireless providers.

On the other hand, people are arguing that Canada's wireless services are behind the times and don't innovate.

How are companies supposed to innovate when they don't have the profit to invest in R&D / network expansion / upgrades?

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi So on the one hand you want increased competition in order to drive prices down. This only results in declining profits for the wireless providers. On the other hand, people are arguing that Canada's wireless services are behind the times and don't innovate. How are companies supposed to innovate when they don't have the profit to invest in R&D / network expansion / upgrades?

You're assuming the profits are going into all this innovation, why would they choose to spend money if they don't have to? Companies are in the business of making money, not spending it. They only spend what they have to. If the money keeps coming in, what reason would they have to forge ahead with new services? They just take a simple service like Call Display and raise the price. Call display and voicemail is now $8 instead of the $5 I've been paying for the last year.

It's all driven by competition, the need to innovate and come up with different services and prices all stems from competition. Their profit margins need to be slashed, things change. You use to be able to make like $500 building a PC and selling it for a reasonable market price. You can't make that anymore, the market changed. Unfortunately our wireless market won't change, it's protected, that protection is for the companies and profits, not for us.

yup! and get ready to pay more for this ..

quote:

More changes ahead as of March 1st aside from the City Fido changes Call Display: $5 Voice Messaging: $5 CD & VM Bundle: $8 Reflects increase for ALL airtime packages!

http://www.howardforums.com/showthr...15&pagenumber=1

i can't wait to enjoy my 'premium' voicemail and caller ID! i hope they make the IVR's voice sound sexier and cooler fonts when those phone #'z come up on my screen ..

Can ne1 confirm of an offer that fido was doing back in April 2004...when they were calling pay-as-you-go customers that had stopped using their service...offering an open monthly plan with an option to return to pay-as-you-go if u still didn't like it.

It looks as if they've renegged on that deal with those customers and are now claiming the recipients agreed to a 2 yr contract. I may be pursing a case re this.

Has ne1 here had a similar experience? Pls pm me.

Thanx

quote:

Originally posted by tw1tch You're assuming the profits are going into all this innovation, why would they choose to spend money if they don't have to? Companies are in the business of making money, not spending it. They only spend what they have to. If the money keeps coming in, what reason would they have to forge ahead with new services? They just take a simple service like Call Display and raise the price. Call display and voicemail is now $8 instead of the $5 I've been paying for the last year. It's all driven by competition, the need to innovate and come up with different services and prices all stems from competition. Their profit margins need to be slashed, things change. You use to be able to make like $500 building a PC and selling it for a reasonable market price. You can't make that anymore, the market changed. Unfortunately our wireless market won't change, it's protected, that protection is for the companies and profits, not for us.

Rogers Wireless in 2002 spent $465 million on additions to plant, property and equipment (essentially network builds). In 2003, that number was approx $500 million. I'd say that's a large chunk of potential profit being reinvested in improving / expanding the network. Obviously money is being spent.

Profit in 2003 was $138 million, and a $90 million loss the year before. So over this 2 year period, close to a billion has been spent on network builds, with resulting net profit of approx $50 million. For a company the size of Rogers Wireless (now a fully-owned subsidiary of Rogers), $50 million isn't exactly a ton of money, particularly when you compare it to the required investment of $1 billion to earn that.

You say they need to innovate... innovation requires cash! You want to take profit away from them, yet want them to spend more on developing new services / products. Where is this money going to come from? Taking the past 2 years as an example, they could only have invested an additional $50 million into network development before they broke even. How much of an improvement do think $50 million on the $1 billion invested is going to make?

Do you expect investors in Rogers to take a loss so that you can get great new services / products at a cheap price?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Flip = too fragile. I want a CDMA Sony p910 (tw1tch, quiet with your GPRS bragging!! )

I did look at the P910, but I got this instead. (Motorola MPx)



Its not a bad PDA/phone at all (Motorola calls it a smartphone). Its got the windows mobile pc OS. Lets see how long it takes for that to act up!

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi Rogers Wireless in 2002 spent $465 million on additions to plant, property and equipment (essentially network builds). In 2003, that number was approx $500 million. I'd say that's a large chunk of potential profit being reinvested in improving / expanding the network. Obviously money is being spent. Profit in 2003 was $138 million, and a $90 million loss the year before. So over this 2 year period, close to a billion has been spent on network builds, with resulting net profit of approx $50 million. For a company the size of Rogers Wireless (now a fully-owned subsidiary of Rogers), $50 million isn't exactly a ton of money, particularly when you compare it to the required investment of $1 billion to earn that. You say they need to innovate... innovation requires cash! You want to take profit away from them, yet want them to spend more on developing new services / products. Where is this money going to come from? Taking the past 2 years as an example, they could only have invested an additional $50 million into network development before they broke even. How much of an improvement do think $50 million on the $1 billion invested is going to make? Do you expect investors in Rogers to take a loss so that you can get great new services / products at a cheap price?

call it personal bias or what have you, but honestly, i don't firmly believe that added revenue going to Rogers will result in noticeable improved services or (distinct) innovation on their part over time .. i mean what have they done in the past that hasn't been synonymous to advances in the overall global wireless market in general? or that gives them a distinct competitive advantage over Bell and Telus? iDen? GSM? well what choice do we have seeing as how they're now the only carrier of that sort..

i'm not going to be delusional and expect Fido to carry on business if it does so at a loss just for the sake of me having a cheaper monthly plan, but at the same time there's no doubt that it appears Fido was apparently attempting to change the status quo with its approaches to international roaming, urban network deployment, wireless internet thru iFido, etc.. pricing was just one aspect. people on Fido knew full well that their coverage in comparison with the 3 larger carriers would be far smaller, but that's relative to how much we pay in terms of our service plans. but if i'm going to be paying more to Rogers i'm obviously gonna expect a lot more as well .. the ability to roam on their network at an additional $5/month is just the start.

i'll be fair however and see what happens.. tho i'm not holding my breath either..

let's just hope they can prove me wrong

agh wtf you fucking ontarians ruined it for us

quote:

Originally posted by malek agh wtf you fucking ontarians ruined it for us

haha, yes...blame it on Ontario first its our fault that the Liberals are still in power, now this?

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH haha, yes...blame it on Ontario first its our fault that the Liberals are still in power, now this?

hahhahaha

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi So on the one hand you want increased competition in order to drive prices down. This only results in declining profits for the wireless providers. On the other hand, people are arguing that Canada's wireless services are behind the times and don't innovate. How are companies supposed to innovate when they don't have the profit to invest in R&D / network expansion / upgrades?

You do realize that what you just said makes no sense, right?

Economics 101: Competition is a price-cutter AND an innovator. Some companies respond to competition by cutting prices, others respond by providing better service.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You do realize that what you just said makes no sense, right? Economics 101: Competition is a price-cutter AND an innovator. Some companies respond to competition by cutting prices, OTHERS respond by providing better service.

You said it yourself.... some do one, some do the other.

I think what you'll see over the next 5-10 years is the CRTC forcing the three cell companies to open up access to their networks much like what Bell is going with Virgin, just like Bell now has to do with other local landline providers. They will likely provide cheaper service, but it will be barebones, with few if any innovative features being added, so your choice comes back down to price vs. service. The three main providers will continue to have their "premium" priced plans, but provider greater functionality, etc.

Seems you want the existing Canadian wireless providers to do both... that's not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

What is it you want? Cheaper prices or better service?

I'm just thankfull that my work picks up my cell phone tab.

just to add insult to injury, Rogers is also hiking the price of 911 access for Fido customers to $0.50/month up from $0.25/month.. word on the street is that they're gonna hire sexier switchboard operators when you call the police for this 'premium' service..

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi What is it you want?

both

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi You said it yourself.... some do one, some do the other. I think what you'll see over the next 5-10 years is the CRTC forcing the three cell companies to open up access to their networks much like what Bell is going with Virgin, just like Bell now has to do with other local landline providers. They will likely provide cheaper service, but it will be barebones, with few if any innovative features being added, so your choice comes back down to price vs. service. The three main providers will continue to have their "premium" priced plans, but provider greater functionality, etc. Seems you want the existing Canadian wireless providers to do both... that's not a sustainable strategy in the long run. What is it you want? Cheaper prices or better service?

Ok dude, since Economics 101 apparently didn't take, I'll give you the LONG DRAWN-OUT explanation:

First, let me repeat: Competition in an industry creates better service/product AND lower price. You want proof? Just look at computer hardware! A 40 gig drive once cost $400, now you can get a 250 gig drive for $200 that lasts twice as long. Do you see a trade-off here? I don't. Same goes for microprocessors, you can now get a 2 GHz processor for $100 - a few years ago it cost triple that much for a 500 MHz processor.

When there is a healthy amount of competition, the companies DIVIDE. Some companies simply lower their prices and don't improve their service - they market to the people who want to pay less. Some companies improve their service - they market to the people who *want better quality* and are willing to pay more for it. They improve their service by innovating and developing new technology. When that technology is developed, it increases the production level. Increased production means lower operating costs. These lower costs enable the innovating company and other companies to in turn lower their consumer costs.

And the cycle then begins anew. You have better technology available at a lower cost. The industry is stable for a year or two. Then one company decides to undercut the rest, or comes out with a new technology that improves their service. Other companies have to lower their costs or do additional R&D to keep up.

Lower cost and better service are NOT mutually exclusive. The only time these things become mutually exclusive is when you have idiotic restrictive policies and bureaucratic red tape on the industry, which limits the competition and limits the wealth generated by these companies. Which, sadly, is exactly what we have in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ok dude, since Economics 101 apparently didn't take, I'll give you the LONG DRAWN-OUT explanation: First, let me repeat: Competition in an industry creates better service/product AND lower price. You want proof? Just look at computer hardware! A 40 gig drive once cost $400, now you can get a 250 gig drive for $200 that lasts twice as long. Do you see a trade-off here? I don't. Same goes for microprocessors, you can now get a 2 GHz processor for $100 - a few years ago it cost triple that much for a 500 MHz processor. When there is a healthy amount of competition, the companies DIVIDE. Some companies simply lower their prices and don't improve their service - they market to the people who want to pay less. Some companies improve their service - they market to the people who *want better quality* and are willing to pay more for it. They improve their service by innovating and developing new technology. When that technology is developed, it increases the production level. Increased production means lower operating costs. These lower costs enable the innovating company and other companies to in turn lower their consumer costs. And the cycle then begins anew. You have better technology available at a lower cost. The industry is stable for a year or two. Then one company decides to undercut the rest, or comes out with a new technology that improves their service. Other companies have to lower their costs or do additional R&D to keep up. Lower cost and better service are NOT mutually exclusive. The only time these things become mutually exclusive is when you have idiotic restrictive policies and bureaucratic red tape on the industry, which limits the competition and limits the wealth generated by these companies. Which, sadly, is exactly what we have in this country.

I understand Economics 101 just fine thank you very much, and have worked in an investment bank which had a strong practice in the wireless telecom sector... so I think I understand a thing or two about how these companies operate. What you are describing is a perfectly competitve market environment where there are an infinite number of small firms, none of which have the ability to set a market price. I'm not arguing your analysis, but here's a news flash... we don't have that in Canada.

What you have to understand is I am explaining how things will play out within the CANADIAN context as they exist TODAY. Sure, if the CRTC opened up the markets to foreign (read US) investors / companies, something like what you described could happen. That is not the reality today though. Whether or not it should be is a separate issue.

As the CURRENT Canadian wireless market stands with the three service providers, you will not get the outcome you describe. The market is not nearly large enough for the companies to "divide" as you put it, allowing some to focus on price while others focus on service. There are about 15 million wireless subscribers in Canada. Realistically, that number isn't going to grow by a huge amount in the years to come. As a result, there aren't really many gains to be made by improving productivity, which in this industry, is essentially getting more users on your existing network. Nor will you have new entrants to the market come and establish their own networks because of cost.

In the end, you're left with the situation I described above and which you have just mirrored. The only realistic outcome is that the CRTC will force the existing providers to sell time on their networks to third parties who will re-sell it.

I challenge you to find a research analyst that will say the cancellation of the CityFido plan was a bad move on Rogers' part. As nice as it was from a consumer standpoint, it was not healthy for the industry and it was inevitable that its lifespan would be limited.

quote:

Branson to recharge cellphone battle Branson's Virgin Mobile wireless covets the youth market Analysts expect edgy advertising, aggressive pricing in launch TYLER HAMILTON TECHNOLOGY REPORTER Virgin Mobile Canada plans to launch its mobile phone service on March 1 and could begin an advertising blitz as soon as Feb. 14, just in time for Valentine's Day, industry sources say. The highly anticipated arrival comes less than a year after U.K.-based Virgin Group, founded by flamboyant billionaire Sir Richard Branson, announced its intention to enter the Canadian market as part of a joint venture with Bell Mobility. The company plans to focus on pre-paid calling packages and is centring its attention on the high-growth youth market � teenagers and young adults who don't have a mobile phone or are unhappy with the service they do have. Bell, which has a large minority stake in the new venture, is selling network access to Virgin Mobile on a wholesale basis. Virgin has been quiet about its launch plans, but analysts following the industry say the company will position itself as the "cool" operator in a market of complacent rivals. Brian Sharwood, a telecom analyst with the Seaboard Group, said Virgin may be happy to lose money for a couple of years just to make its point, and to build its subscriber base. "They may not care less about being profitable," said Sharwood. "They just want to get subscribers, to get the brand name out." If that theory holds true and Virgin comes out with aggressively priced wireless offerings, the strategy could prove a thorn in the side of Rogers Wireless, Telus Mobility and its partner Bell Mobility, which have all signalled a move toward more stable pricing and "profitable growth." Increased stability was achieved last fall when Rogers Wireless acquired Montreal-based Microcell Telecommunications Inc., considered a nuisance in the industry for its low-cost Fido service and unlimited CityFido local wireless plans. The acquisition created a three-carrier market that, according to a draft report published last week by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) in Ottawa, may settle into a "comfortable oligopoly." As expected, Rogers dramatically altered the CityFido plan two weeks ago by decreasing coverage, upping the cost and capping talk time. Financial analysts applauded the move. Rogers' initiative "will trigger ease in price competition in the Canadian wireless industry," Kona Shio, an analyst with Conscius Capital Partners in Montreal, wrote in a research brief. "And thus we believe the whole wireless industry will benefit from pricing discipline." This disciplined approach sets Canadian carriers apart from their peers in other countries. PIAC cited the fact that Canada, where 43 per cent of the population has a wireless phone, is well behind other developed nations and said that the reason may be lack of competition and relatively higher prices. The United States, by comparison, has a market penetration rate above 50 per cent and much cheaper and more feature-rich mobile phone plans than in Canada. Some European and Asian countries have surpassed 70 per cent and 80 per cent penetration. Lack of number portability may be one explanation � Canada is one of the few countries that doesn't let phone users keep their telephone numbers when switching to a wireless carrier. Virgin is betting that the lack of certain services or offerings from Canada's existing wireless carriers will make them an easy target. "Like Virgin has done in every other market around the world, it is looking at the market and seeing where the customer is disgruntled in any way," said Virgin Mobile Canada spokesperson Paula Lash. "We'll be consistent with that approach here. Customers will definitely be surprised and pleased with what we offer." Virgin Mobile has launched youth-focused wireless phone services in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and talks are under way to launch in India and China. Virgin Mobile Canada's website opens with the comment, "The mobile rescue unit is on its way." Further into the site, the company states: "Bottom line, we're going to shake it up. We've already done it with the Brits, the Aussies and the Yanks and we're ready to do it Canadian-style." Virgin's advertising tends to be racy and suggestive, and often features pop stars or other celebrities with whom teenagers can connect. The company surpassed five million customers worldwide by adding 417,000 subscribers over the holidays. It's planning an initial public offering in the United States. John Boynton, vice-president of consumer marketing at Rogers Wireless, dismissed suggestions that Virgin Mobile will have a big impact on the Canadian wireless scene. "You've got three carriers who aren't going to make the same mistake as the guys south of the border, who didn't take Virgin seriously and got caught by surprise," he said. "This is what Virgin does. They get everybody riled up. In the beginning there will be a lot of noise, and they'll do some pretty crazy things. But like in the U.S., things will go back to normal by the next quarter." Boynton added that Virgin's focus on pre-paid service means they'll be fighting for 5 per cent of the total market against three major carriers with greater experience. "We've been ready for them for quite a while." And all is not rosy at Virgin. The company's pace of growth has slowed, causing concern among some analysts. Its churn rate � which measures the number of subscribers who drop the service every quarter � also rose to 16 per cent from 14 per cent, very high compared to churn rates of around 2 to 3 per cent enjoyed by the Canadian wireless industry. Meanwhile, some newspapers in England are beginning to question Branson's wireless strategy. "Virgin Mobile is losing its love affair with its youthful customers," said the London Daily Star in a recent report. Ian Angus, president of Angus TeleManagement Group, a telecom consultancy in Ajax, said the pre-paid wireless market, if done right, can be a big money maker if Virgin is effective in tapping the right audience. "Obviously making the brand is important, and that will be an issue in Canada where the Virgin brand is not well known," said Angus. "If the brand is really attractive, it becomes a thing where people don't want to give up their Virgin phones." Sharwood said Branson may have bigger plans for Canada and that mobile phone service may be the first step toward re-launching plans for a Virgin airline or Virgin train service. "We have many more stodgy industries that need to be shaken up," said Sharwood, adding that Andrew Black, hired last year as Virgin Mobile Canada's president and CEO, may be thinking beyond wireless. "He sees himself as a brand manager for Virgin Canada, overseeing what happens to a Virgin airline or train service or whatever else they want to do." Additional articles by Tyler Hamilton

source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969048863851

Prepaid? Uhh... Yeah, ok. I'd love to spend $400+ a month on phone cards... No thanks Sir Richard.

First of all, GOD DAMN, i'm stuck with my Fido contract for another year and a bit.
and second, I just recieved a notice from fido/rogers, saying that if I want to have coverage anywhere in canada, I need to give them a call and add an extra 5 bucks to my bill...
also in the 24hrs, the news paper, they were offering a package almost as good as mine, however the unlimited evenings start at 5 pm instead of 7.
however tempting it is, I don't know if I want it.... but I'm still considering. Since I'm stuck with the company for another year and a bit, I might as well get that, and then pay an extra 5 bucks, because supposedly they'll be raising the fee anyways

I'm confused and pissed off....

quote:

Originally posted by ~Delicious~ First of all, GOD DAMN, i'm stuck with my Fido contract for another year and a bit. and second, I just recieved a notice from fido/rogers, saying that if I want to have coverage anywhere in canada, I need to give them a call and add an extra 5 bucks to my bill... also in the 24hrs, the news paper, they were offering a package almost as good as mine, however the unlimited evenings start at 5 pm instead of 7. however tempting it is, I don't know if I want it.... but I'm still considering. Since I'm stuck with the company for another year and a bit, I might as well get that, and then pay an extra 5 bucks, because supposedly they'll be raising the fee anyways I'm confused and pissed off....

are you talking about the extra $5 to roam on the Rogers network .. ?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.