Comments on: Bell, Telus provide new iPhone competition in Canada

By: Norma

Norma — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:45:01 +0000

In fact Unicom of China has a GSM network before venturing into CDMA service, and it still provides GSM service.
I think China’s Unicom has dropped its CDMA network (transferred to another telecom co.) to concentrate its development/roll out of 3G W-CDMA.

By: Operation Shark Jump - Corvus Consulting

Operation Shark Jump - Corvus Consulting — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:38:11 +0000

[...] the trump card: Apple. They’ve shown us that they can and will break carrier exclusivity by punishing Rogers/Fido here in the Canada just last month, so why not reach for the lever that seems to actually work to the customer’s [...]

By: JohnWatkins

JohnWatkins — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:46:17 +0000

PRC,
Indeed I may have misunderstood your original post. As I said, I know little about the telco situation in Canada. I was referring specifically to this sentence,
“There is a tightly regulated heavily lobbied bureaucracy called the CRTC.”
(Why do you say that the CRTC is tightly regulated? Isn’t it the regulating body?) In any case, lumping together “tightly regulated,” with “heavily lobbied,” and “bureaucracy” might imply that you favor “deregulation” in the “let the businesses run themselves” sense of the word, when what you really need is proper regulation and transparency.
As you said “[regulation] in a system working properly, [is meant] to serve the interests of society.” That is my point — Regulation is not bad, it is essential.
Maybe in Canada rules and regulations (and regulators and enforcers) are well separated, but that’s not the case in the US. Most regulators are agencies that are under the direct control of the Executive which is the ultimate enforcement body (I think this is also the case for your CRTC.) Rules and enforcement often originate from the same agency (with input from congress and the Executive.) Most disputes are handled without involving the justice department (also under the Executive) or other law enforcement. The whole point is to protect the common good, ease commerce, and avoid expensive and time consuming involvement of larger, slower moving, more expensive bodies and encourage compliance without draconian interference (it doesn’t always work that way, but there you go.)
I suspect we both agree that lobbying organizations are one of the greatest subverters of regulation efforts and public good.

By: cy_starkman

cy_starkman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:02:00 +0000

Ahhh hmmm, few points re Australia from a local

- Australia never had a one carrier deal
- The 3G launched on Telstra, Vodaphone and Optus, only 3 (hutchison) didn’t

- The 3GS launched (due to a merger) on all 4 carriers

- With the 3GS launch the iPhone is now also available unlocked and outright from Apple’s Australian store

- Telstra’s CDMA shut down had nothing to do with iPhone availability and the network shut down was delayed a year due to regional/remote concerns about coverage blackspots and the then current 3G phones not having strong antennas. At the time of the shut down there was 1 national 3G network and 3 metro only 3G networks.

- Optus and Vodaphone are now gunning to complete national (read: smaller towns) networks to 98% population by mid ‘10. 3’s is being rolled into Vodaphone’s

- The only issue is that Telstra is the only one using 850mhz for regional/remote, the other 2 networks went 900mhz meaning iPhones only work on Telstra outside larger towns and metro zones.

- The 3G (3.6mbit) launched when Telstra already had rolled out national 7.2mbit

- 3GS (7.2mbit) launched with Telstra at 21mbit and the others having a mix of 7.2 and 21. From a usage perspective you can be camping in the bush (range about 30-40k from a tower depending on terrain) watching streaming video

- the iPhone can be had outright, prepaid and plan. Subsidized and not. The carrier offerings are from equal though. Telstra is worst but has best network. The others are very competitive but lack the all powerful everywhere network.

- visual voicemail on the other hand has had a rough time with only Vodaphone supporting it recently.

By: hi.wreck

hi.wreck — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:46:39 +0000

Bell (and Telus since the two of them are joined at the hip) had to roll out a 3G network. With the 2010 Olympics being in Vancouver, and Bell being a corporate sponsor, it would have been somewhat embarrassing to have all the foreign visitors roaming on Rogers. Now one wonders if they’ve got any roaming agreements set up. As it is, Bell and Telus don’t have 2G GSM, so all of the dumb phones will be roaming on Rogers as it is.

By: prc-citizen

prc-citizen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:16:52 +0000

Dear John(Watkins)

You misunderstand what I said…

I am not saying that there should be NO regulation, there should be less inhibitive regulation for service providers that want to enter the market. In Canada the regulatory agencies stifle competition by making the entry into a market so undesirable that by default the incumbents are free to own the market. This creates a psudo monopolistic environment, something that regulation should prevent.

The recent financial meltdown was not a result of free markets, it was a result of idiotic regulation, inept regulators, political agendas and greed.

Your analogy referring to rules and referees in the same breath is a little misleading. They are two separate things. Rules are set by regulators, where in a system working properly, are set to serve the interests of society. The referees, or enforcement branches of government are responsible for enforcing the rules set out by the regulators. I agree both are necessary.

My point with Canada’s wireless market is that the regulators appear to be setting rules that benefit the service providers with little regard for what would benefit the public. In the US when companies that control a large portion of any market what to acquire a competitor, regulators decide if the sale should proceed based on the impact such an acquisition will have in the marketplace.

When Rogers bought Microcell, which they did when Microcell (Fido) rolled out unlimited calling plans in metropolitan areas, there was not a peep from the Canadian government.

Getting back to the topic of the article, if T Mobile and Verizon were able to sell iPhones it would level the playing field and diminish AT&T’s iPhone advantage, thus forcing AT&T to address its less than stellar network, as well as forcing providers to compete on price.

The same is not true in Canada, if you compare what wireless service from Rogers and Bell costs, the market penetration comparative to other countries, I can come to no other conclusion, the wireless market in Canada is not competitive, period. The iPhone will not change this.

By: davidosus

davidosus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:53:12 +0000

Does Apple dictate the cost of a carrier’s plans?

A Telus representative claims this to be the case.

I was told that were I to purchase an iPhone I would have to leave my current plan and accept a specific plan tailored for Apple’s phone. All my loyalty perks and features would be lost, resulting in a monthly bill several hundred dollars higher.

I find the rep’s claim difficult to believe. One only has to compare AT&T’s iPhone rate plans to those offered by Telus.

By: JohnWatkins

JohnWatkins — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:24:19 +0000

“Want freedom? Then what we REALLY need is reverse-tethering.”
Yep, gus2000, I’m all for the telcos becoming “orifices.”
The common carrier (dumb pipe) concept is another victim of “deregulation” zeal.

By: JohnWatkins

JohnWatkins — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:21:35 +0000

prc-citizen
While I can’t comment on Canada’s telecom system (other than to say that it appears to have problems,) I would urge you not to confuse a competitive market with one that is not regulated. Non-regulation has been the fashion for many years now, (and it’s been especially embraced in the last ten years or so by the ignorant and those who would abuse the marketplace.)
Didn’t you notice the recent financial meltdown? That’s what so-called “free and competitive” (unregulated) markets lead to.
A real free, fair, open, and competitive market needs to be transparent and cannot exist without rules and regulation. Could you imagine a football game without rules or referees? Might work without referees for a neighborhood pick-up game, but it leads to chaos and catastrophe in the marketplace.

By: gus2000

gus2000 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:18:07 +0000

Want freedom? Then what we REALLY need is reverse-tethering.

That’s right, a cable that will let me tether my iPod Touch to a crappy $1 feature phone. All the benefits of the iPhone, using anybody’s network! And it will only look slightly dorky!