That won't be good.
I'd only be using it as a roamer from the U.S., so technically, I wouldn't care.
Get this... DMTS doesn't do their own switching or billing on their CDMA network. With GSM they are going to their own switching and billing system, but they haven't figured out a way to do a cut over from CDMA to GSM so they are forcing their subs to take new numbers. They are forwarding their current 221 NPX to their new 216 range.
Strike number 1!
Last edited by piperzoe; 01-13-2011 at 10:21 PM.
That won't be good.
I'd only be using it as a roamer from the U.S., so technically, I wouldn't care.
AT&T... your world, throttled.
If and when they get their roaming agreements in place. The US companies won't classify a roaming agreement with DMTS as a priority.Originally Posted by formercanuck
Here's DMTS' coverage at launch...
Here's TBayTel's coverage current coverage...
I find it odd that DMTS claims to be able to cover large urban areas with a single cellsite, while TBaytel is blanketing some of the same areas using 2 or 3 sites.
Me thinks I'll be sticking with TBayTel. Besides the coverage I use a Blackberry as a business tool and the only company supporting them will be TBaytel.
Hope you're on T-Mobile, 'cause they don't have an agreement with AT&T.Originally Posted by formercanuck
Don't you just hate when somebody acts informed when there not. DMTS is not forcing current CDMA customers to change their NNX to 216 when converting to their GSM service. Becasue Tbaytel switches DMTS CDMA service, DMTS has to port numbers from the Tbaytel MTX to their GSM switch to move them. DMTS will have LNP established with Tbaytel in a couple months, then customers can move and retain their number, in the meantime they made an offer of FREE service to CDMA customers to move to the new GSM platform by changing their NNX to 216 and retain their last four digits (sweet deal).
PS/ DMTS will have 42 cell sites operational west of Thunder Bay by the end of 2009, that 11 more then Tbaytel has in the same area.
Well. Hopefully they get a roaming agreement in place with Rogers.. I am not paying per minute. I've already read some literature from Rogers that has in really small print (Territories and Dryden, ON - Excluded).
Get your head on straight Dryden, cause if there are no decent roaming agreements, you mineaswell just go put up AMPS towers as they will be useless to everyone.
DMTS does have a roaming agreement with Rogers, I have no idea what Rogers is going to charge their customers to roam on the DMTS network as Rogers sets that retail rate for its customers, but what DMTS is charging their customers to roam on Rogers is 15 cents a minute. They say they also have roaming agreements in the works with the major US GSM carriers. Their data is Edge and I see from their website (dmts.biz) they have the iPhone.
Like I said.. If it's anything more than zero. It ain't worth it. Easier to pick up a prepaid telus phone on ebay for a couple bucks and fill it up with some airtime at a gas station.
With Telus or Bell I get nationwide coverage with no roaming charges. Looks like Rogers may have to change it's slogan.
Wait a second... Looks like they already have. They don't have rates for DMTS..Yet.Traveling within Canada
When you travel in Canada on the Rogers network you will only incur Long Distance charges (no Roaming charges).1
Note: 1. If traveling to an area in Canada where there is no Rogers roaming coverage (such as Dryden, Ontario or the North West Territories), select Canada from the drop down box above to see rates for Roaming on another wireless service provider’s network.
But they do for ICE wireless. $0.90/min.
Did you miss the letter your employer DMTS placed in the Dryden Observer on July 7? They made up an excuse about having to change the numbers because they needed to inform other carriers of the changeover to GSM. What a crock of **** that was.Originally Posted by piperzoedontno
DMTS is going to have 42 cell sites active before the end of the year, man that makes my belly rumble. For someone who claims I'm not in the know you sure are speaking in generalities... most of the sites they are going to be using are existing Bell or TBayTel towers and there's not 42 of them that are capable of being used for cellular.
How many sites are functioning today... less than 5.
Here's the proposed 4th quarter coverage map...
DMTS is leasing space on mostly TBayTel owned cell sites. They are claiming service that far exceeds TBayTel's even though they subject to the same limitations that TBaytel has. Not sure how they overcome objects like trees, rock cuts, hills and distance. Must be some magic type of antenna they are using... but wait aren't the putting up Omni sites like this?
Omni sites are single antenna sites used mostly to cover small areas with few customers. The signal radiates out in a circular pattern no more than a couple of KM from the site. The capacity for voice and data is severely limited on a single antenna site.
Conversely, TBayTel uses tri sector sites in urban areas and dual sector sites for rural/highway coverage. The dual and tri sites not only offer superior coverage, but also add a far greater capacity than what can be achieved using a single antenna site. More bandwidth for calls and data. The signal from dual sites on 150-200' towers can travel upwards of 25KM.
Tri sector cell site...
Your claims that DMTS is offering 2 months of free service is laughable considering what they wrote in a letter to their customers. The letter in the Observer said DMTS would offer free call forwarding of the 221-NPX for a period of 30 days. Once the 30 days expired, the forwarding would be shutoff and customer would have to use the 216 number solely. If they wanted their old number back, they could re-apply for it approximately 60 days after the CDMA forwarding was shut down.
Care to tell us why DMTS isn't offering WNP or LNP, a direct violation of CRTC policy. Could it be they know the majority of customers would jump ship once they found out that DMTS claims are bogus?
Did you know about this little nugget I found on DMTS website regarding roaming on other carriers...
"When you use your cellphone there will be a roaming airtime charge and, in certain circumstances, long distance charges, and also sometimes a daily charge, generally less than $6.00 be on their system as a roamer whether you make/receive a call or not. The roaming airtime charges are not as uniform as in Canada so it will vary in different locations."
Some of your customers are already pissed, because you guys gave them a nice little map showing coverage in areas that aren't practical to cover. The maps showed 80+ sites and was tagged "planned coverage." When those customers hit the road east or west, they soon found their GSM service was none existent. I really loved the one about the customer who grabbed a GSM phone only to find out he had no coverage at his camp in Ignace. I hear he wasn't too pleased with you guys and the answer he was given. Thankfully, his neighbors have TBayTel so he was able to make calls back home.
If you're going to make claims and promises, perhaps you should know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.
Care to comment on the reason DMTS didn't buy the GSM license, but rather leased it for 5 years from Rogers? What happens if Rogers decides they decide they don't want to renew? Will it be another fire sale along the line of Dryden Hydro?
Robert Zimmerman said it best...
Last edited by piperzoe; 01-13-2011 at 10:24 PM.
That's the type of antennae they put on top of the Reid headframe in Balmertown.Originally Posted by piperzoe
Originally Posted by Deckster
Doing it on the cheap, great way to keep customers happy.
What our friend "piperzoedontno" or as I'm gong to refer to him from now on "DMTS Boy" fails to realize is that Bell is putting in a HSDPA network on TBaytel's and their own sites in 2010. I'm willing to bet Rogers will jump on board as a roaming partner there by removing the majority of Rogers roaming customers from the DMTS network.
Is that strike 2 or 3 against DMTS?
Sorry but I don't work for DMTS or know what Ostugon is??, but I have 30 plus years in the communications business in Canada and abroad and currently work as an independent consultant so I make it my business to know what is going on in the field.
I have seen their plans and between now and the end of the year they are installing cell sites on 26 Bell and 6 Tbaytel towers west of Thunder Bay. They have not leased spectrum from Rogers, they have received a subordinate licence for a portion of Rogers spectrum in Northern Ontario, what this means is the spectrum is theirs they do not have to give it back (you can verify this with Industry Canada). In May 2007 if you read the Canadian Gazette you would know that DMTS and a company out west called Ruralcom both challenged Rogers right to hold the spectrum while not using it, through a process called a competitive challenge, DMTS ended up with a portion of the spectrum.
In talking with Tbaytel I do know that DMTS has filed a WNP and LNP plan with the CRTC as Tbaytel has been received copies. LNP or WNP doesn't happen overnight it takes months to get the numerous contracts & technical connections in place to be able to access the number portability website to do dips, but if you go on the CLNPC website (organzation that controls number portability in Canada) you will see both Tbaytel and DMTS are consortium members.
Most of what I learned about what is going on at the commercial level I obtained from talking to their customer service and technical staff. You can do the same. In short this is a hell of big oppurtunity for a small independent carrier, their new licenced territory is larger than Tbaytel's.
You can become properly informed or on pissing and moaning all you like.
Blah, blah, blah...Originally Posted by piperzoedontno
First you claim they'll have 42 sites West of Thunder Bay (PS/ DMTS will have 42 cell sites operational west of Thunder Bay by the end of 2009, that 11 more then Tbaytel has in the same area.), now it's 32? Yeah, you're in the know.
As for the number portability, DMTS has known they were going to go GSM for a year and half. That's more than enough time to institute number portability.
I checked out the Canadian Gazette and could not find anything regarding DMTS in the 4 May 2007 issues dated May 5, 12, 19, and 26.
Last edited by piperzoe; 01-13-2011 at 10:25 PM.
Knowledge is power.
Un-informed colleague, if you work in the business then you would know it is Tbaytel that is overlaying it's own network with HSDPA, not Bell going on Tbaytel towers, I would expect Bell/Tbaytel will amend there roaming agreement to include HSDPA.
DMTS will have 42 sites up west of Thunder Bay, currently they have 5 in Dryden, 2 in Red Lake, one each in Fort Frances, Sioux Lookout and Atitkokan, with 32 more going on Bell & TBaytel towers.
Number portability is normally not implemented until a carrier receives a bonified request to implement it from another carrier, the reason for this is because the requesting carrier has to pay some of the costs for the other carrier to establish number portability. So nobody implements it unilaterally.
In practice, stats show number portability favors the smaller company because it has a larger pool of customers to attract customers from (see the NAS data many of the Southern Ontario independents post with the CRTC, there gains come at the expense of Bell).
If you couldn't find information in the May Canadian Gazette, check with IC the challenge letters were a matter of public record and I initially found them on the IC website in the summer of 2007.
If you do intend work in this industry, then do your home work, go on DMTS and TBaytels, CRTC, CLNPC, CNA websites you can make contact with the people that will give you the 411.
Or I can keep educating you about the telecommunications industry in Canada when I have time, but normally I charge for that.