15 Comments

1. 

   Steve says: June 2nd, 2011 a 10:36am

   Fair? Really? I cringe at the thought of either of the major players getting their claws into this spectrum. It will mean Canadians, once again, get screwed by significantly higher prices and outrageous caps – all with players like Rogers claiming that this is done in the name of competition. I recently cancelled my Rogers Internet and switched to get 5 times more bandwidth (60 to 300!), faster speeds, and no (well, supposedly no) traffic shaping.

   If Rogers gets their money-grubbing hands on the bulk of this spectrum, I can only imagine how badly we as consumers will get the shaft
   • 

     Adam says: June 2nd, 2011 a 12:00pm

     Did you read the whole speech, Steve? The angle he’s taking is that LTE is an opportunity to get internet to rural Canadians. The new entrants are focusing on the more profitable urban centres, so the government could direct policy to ensure the spectrum purchased in rural areas would actually be used to roll out a network – something the incumbents have the capital and wilingness to do.
     • 

       Steve says: June 2nd, 2011 a 12:25pm

       Really? In what alternate universe would something they say = something they will do? Is there a precedence for this altruism, especially from Rogers and Bell? Not likely.

       You hit the nail on the head when you wrote “The ANGLE *(caps mine) he’s taking…”. Angle indeed. Pardon me if I have my doubts.
     • 

       Faraday says: June 2nd, 2011 a 11:52pm

       Adam? Like to work for Rogers?

       So who else would like 500MB LTE Caps for $30/month with $0.05/kb overage charges?

       Welcome to Canada, the land of incumbent price gouging! Where the powers that be (bell-rogers-telus) collude in price-fixing to make the MAX profit, sending Canadians 12′ feet under, cause 6′ doesn’t cut it no more.
     • 

       Diane says: June 3rd, 2011 a 9:18am

       You’re ignoring the fact that Rogers is already obligated to extend access into rural areas by their agreement with the federal government. This is the same agreement by which the feds granted Rogers a cable monopoly in exchange for them building out the network using our tax dollars.

       Rogers has failed to live up to their end of this bargain. What makes you think that granting them more exclusive privileges will make them behave better towards Canadians?
       • 

         RogersMiranda says: June 7th, 2011 a 11:16am

         Hi Diane,

         Just wanted to clarify a few points. Rogers exceeded all of the original rollout requirements that were attached to its cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS) licenses. Based on this fact, Rogers’ cellular and PCS licenses were renewed for an additional twenty year term by Industry Canada in March 2011.

         For background, Rogers has invested over $10 billion in wireless networks since it was initially licensed to provide cellular services about 25 years ago. Our wireless network currently covers approximately 95% of the Canadian population.

         In areas where Rogers is unable to extend its wireless network alone, we have made arrangements with other parties to deploy wireless services in some rural parts of Canada. We’re committed to working with partners to continue deploying in rural areas.

         Hope this helps put things in perspective.
2. 

   DipDip says: June 7th, 2011 a 7:28am

   Fair? Is Rogesr not already sitting on spectrum it is not using from the last auction? I would think that when they have used up that spectrum, they could then join in on the this auction instead of hoarding.

   I also find it interesting that this site is dead om terms of people posting on it. I remember people being blocked and not allowed to post their true thoughts on here and thus forced people to external sites. Rogers could have done something with this site instead, they turned it into a marketing piece where they censor those that make valid points. And for the ones that do get through, they are ignore by Rogers. I have no idea what the heck is going on within this company but it is not pretty.
   • 

     Diane says: June 8th, 2011 a 9:41am

     DipDip, I did post a rebuttal to RogersMiranda’s reply, but it was deleted because it contained a word which, if taken out of contexct and put into an entirely different context, might offend someone somewhere.

     But, to circle back to the subject of Rogers and fairness: considering that the purpose of this site is for Rogers to take advantage of social media for marketing its products and services, they do allow a fair number of negative comments – just not in proportion to the negative sentiment out there, I fear.
     • 

       RogersMiranda says: June 9th, 2011 a 9:50am

       Hi Diane,

       Thanks. We publish all comments as long as they abide by our comment policy which you can find here: http://redboard.rogers.com/comments-policy/

       We’ve actually published 95% of all submitted comments on this blog.
3. 

   Anon says: June 9th, 2011 a 2:34pm

   Miranda,

   Care to elaborate on why Rogers need 700MHz when you already have more than enough 850MHz (which is comparable for rural deployment and building penetration)?

   Look at p.20 to p.22 of the following document, and you will see very clearly that Rogers (and Bell/Telus) do not need any additional spectrum:

   http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/smse-018-10-mobilicity-submission.pdf/$FILE/smse-018-10-mobilicity-submission.pdf
   • 

     RogersMiranda says: June 10th, 2011 a 12:26pm

     Hi there,

     We’re using the AWS spectrum we purchased in the last spectrum auction to deploy LTE. Over time we’ll deploy LTE on multiple frequencies to ensure the best possible experience for our customers. We need 700 Mhz spectrum for LTE because the ecosystem for LTE will not appear in 850 for many, many years. The spectrum bands are not interchangeable. The LTE ecosystem is built on 700Mhz in the US and we want to make sure customers have access to new devices and applications.

     700 is the optimal band for deploying LTE since it covers a much wider area and has better in-building penetration than other mobile spectrum bandwidths. We believe we need access to 700 MHz spectrum to ensure the best experience possible for our rural customers.

     Hope this helps provide some additional context.
     • 

       Anon says: June 10th, 2011 a 2:34pm

       Miranda,

       Thank you for replying.

       Like I said, 700MHz does not cover a much wider area and does not have a much better in-building penetration vs. 850MHz. Wavelengths are 43cm and 35cm respectively (for comparison, 1900MHz has 16cm wavelength). Can you give me an example of a deployment scenario where 700MHz has a clear advantage over 850MHz?

       I understand device selection is a concern, but this is the first time we’re hearing about it. Rogers keeps directing their focus to: “we need 700MHz because of rural deployments”, which is not true!

       Perhaps management should focus on the point of device compatibility. At least that will be honest.

       In the document I linked, it is shown that Rogers has less than 100k subscribers per 1MHz of spectrum. US providers have anywhere from 600k to 1500k subscribers per 1MHz spectrum.

       What seems to be the problem with the spectrum that Rogers already owns? Why do you need more if you are so inefficient in its use?
4. 

   Aizou says: June 9th, 2011 a 8:37pm

   I would agree with Diane.

   I’ve had numerous posts deleted without provocation OR reason as to WHY it was deleted.

   @RogersMiranda – your entire team can put lipstick on all the pigs you want, but it still doesn’t change the truth and the fact that your customers are angry and tired or being gouged.

   No matter what product y’all introduce, it is STILL ridiculously over priced.

   I sincerely hope that you and your team got paid well to sell your souls. Know full well, however, that your wages come from the hard-earned dollars that other Canadians worked for and, in most cases, have no choice but to fork over to your company because there is NO ALTERNATIVE in their area..

   Much like the RURAL AREAS that were supposed to be built by Rogers and Bell using Canadian TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES. Rural areas are now finally going to have broadband – but at what cost? ROGERS providing them over priced service? All because Rogers spent $10Billion in wireless networks?

   Bell’s Mirko Bibic claimed almost the same dollar value when talking about wholesale UBB. Awesome. Talk about spending dollars for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT product and try to pass the costs along in the name of “progress for the customer”.

   Wow.

   Simply wow.

   (Oh .. $10 says this post will be deleted)
   • 

     RogersMiranda says: June 10th, 2011 a 12:35pm

     Hi Azou,

     Apologies that your posts were deleted. As I said to Diane, we publish all posts as long as they abide by our comment policy which is clearly published on this site. http://redboard.rogers.com/comments-policy/ I think we do a good job of this considering we’ve published 95% of all comments ever submitted.

     We do try to provide an explanation as to why comments are removed and we always invite people to resubmit their comment if we couldn’t publish it as it was originally submitted.

     As for your comments on price, I appreciate your opinion. This is why we created this blog – to hear the feedback of our customers both good and bad. We work hard to introduce innovative products and services while keeping costs as low as possible.

     Since we published your comment, does that mean I win the $10 you wagered? :)
5. 

   Branden J says: June 18th, 2011 a 6:06pm

   A point that Miranda attempted to make, and yet was dismissed, is that the 850mhz frequency is not going to be supported for LTE,

   This means that LTE phones will not run an LTE signal on that frequency. They may be able to downgrade their signal to GSM for non-LTE areas, but than they are no longer connecting to the LTE network.

   For North America, the 700mhz and 1700mhz bands are the designated frequency for the carriers LTE networks, which means 4G phones designed for LTE networks in North America will be given appropriate radios for those frequencies.

   I am all for some debate, but please get your facts straight before calling someone out.