Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 125

Thread: TBay Tel

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    10,550
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6+, Google Nexus 6
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nwotraveler View Post
    DMTS doesn't have a license or spectrum in Thunder Bay or Kenora.
    I'd have expected Kenora to have been KMTS (now part of Bellus if I'm not mistaken).
    Who has the other 850MHz license in TBay, if it isn't DMTS ?
    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    I detected a new carrier in TBay today. The carrier code is 302880.... which is shared Bell as far as I know.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wagreen View Post
    I detected a new carrier in TBay today. The carrier code is 302880.... which is shared Bell as far as I know.
    Thanks for showing up late to the party. I've been talking about Bellus' HSPA network for over a year.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    I'd have expected Kenora to have been KMTS (now part of Bellus if I'm not mistaken).
    Who has the other 850MHz license in TBay, if it isn't DMTS ?
    I believe they are both owned by tbaytel. One was theirs to begin with and the other was acquired in the Rogers deal along with a truckload of bandwidth.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    10,550
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6+, Google Nexus 6
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wow - So Rogers/TBay will have both Cell A and B in TBay itself. I could imagine having the 'possibility' (when CDMA goes away) of 4 cellular HSPA+ channels. At least that will ensure that initial deployment of HSPA+ will be on cellular band.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    Wow - So Rogers/TBay will have both Cell A and B in TBay itself. I could imagine having the 'possibility' (when CDMA goes away) of 4 cellular HSPA+ channels. At least that will ensure that initial deployment of HSPA+ will be on cellular band.
    Yet some "know it alls" will still preach going with Bellus, because they have no clue how the technology works.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    128
    Device(s)
    iPhone 3GS
    Carrier(s)
    Bell
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wagreen View Post
    I detected a new carrier in TBay today. The carrier code is 302880.... which is shared Bell as far as I know.
    It is a Bell/Telus common code. The new network will be up very very soon...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Whigs View Post
    It is a Bell/Telus common code. The new network will be up very very soon...
    With next to no bandwidth, no coverage outside the city limits and a crappy 1.9 signal which won't penetrate buildings... Thunder Bay is but an afterthought for Bellus.

    No thanks! I'll stick with the 850 HSPA+ signal tbaytel is offering on their 130+ tower network throughout Northwestern Ontario.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is the same Bell Mobility that closed their call centre in Thunder Bay earlier this year and took 300+ jobs offshore to Costa Rica. People in Thunder Bay tend to remember things like that.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    36
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nwotraveler View Post
    Yet some "know it alls" will still preach going with Bellus, because they have no clue how the technology works.
    Big words, nwotraveler. Nobody's preaching, just saying there are alternatives. And until you've actually tried their new network, your assessment is exactly as useless as anyone else's.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    259
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket_driver View Post
    Big words, nwotraveler. Nobody's preaching, just saying there are alternatives. And until you've actually tried their new network, your assessment is exactly as useless as anyone else's.
    I've gone on record before and I'll state it again, I am a current Rogers customer who is happy about the change that is coming on Monday. Rogers was never going to build out their existing infrastructure and Tbaytel was not going to be able to further expand without this partnership.

    I'm also pleased that tbaytel is matching the plan I have with Rogers. These are all positives.

    Unlike you Mr. SNC, I'm also glad that good paying jobs and the money generated by tbay mobility is staying in Thunder Bay. Here's a little caveat for you, without tbaytel your taxes would be at least 12% higher.

    Cellular service is a want, not a need. Want to play, then be prepared to pay!

    And while we're at it let's compare the cost per sub in Northern Ontario to the cost per sub in Toronto since that's where you keep posting pricing from. The city of Toronto is under a 1000sq km and could be covered by as few 1 quad sector site (based on current GSM/HSPA/UMTS limitations). Now we all know this is unrealistic, because of the number of subs, calls and the amount of data being used in a large metro area.

    Toronto is approximately 41kms from end to end and 21kms wide. Taking into account that most urban areas have a cellsite every 5kms, that means you theoretically could cover TO with 8 full sites or two less than what tbaytel currently has operating within the area bordered by the Dawson Road and Hwy 61. I realise this is a highly unlikely because of the lay of the land and the number of subs. Plus in large centres, carriers tend to build a lot of directional sites and repeaters. This scenario even plays out in Thunder Bay. Next time you drive down Simspon street take a quick glance behind The Lock Shop, there's a single antenna repeater being used to fill a gap. Or if you are on Rosslyn Road have a look next to the firehall, you'll see a dual sector repeater.

    Let's assume for arguments sakes that TO has an unrealistic 41 (one per km) quad or tri-sector sites and 41 (again one per km) duals, omnis and repeaters and that the carrier has 500,000 subs (less than 10% of the population). It doesn't take a genius to figure out the cost per sub will be significantly less than say an area like Northern Ontario where a smaller regional carrier like Tbaytel has 50-70 thousand subs. Tbaytel runs a network with more than 100 sites, all sites in towns and cities are tri-sector, most rural are dual sector and a couple of smaller areas like Nakina are omni's.

    We know it cost significantly more to run a network in the North because tbaytel covers 300,000 sq kms. Can you please explain why you feel tbaytel should be offering pricing that matches that of Egyptian billionaires who have access to 5.6 million customers in metro TO? Simple economics dictate tbaytel could not stay in business matching pricing from large urban only carriers with deep pockets.
    Last edited by nwotraveler; 01-13-2011 at 09:41 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3
    Feedback Score
    0
    I just got a glimce of tbaytel's new hspa plans. They look really good. No Connection Fee, No System Access Fee, No Regulatory Fee, No 911 Fee. Wow. I currently have one of their cdma plans and the new hspa plans are going to save me a lot of money. Looking forward to my upgrade to HSPA.
    On a clear disc one can seek forever.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    36
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nwotraveler View Post
    No it's not, because A) I've been involved in the planning and construction of a several networks including two 1.9 networks in TBay and B) my judgment isn't clouded by a hate for tbaytel.

    I've gone on record before and I'll state it again, I am a current Rogers customer who is happy about the change that is coming on Monday. Rogers was never going to build out their existing infrastructure and Tbaytel was not going to be able to further expand without this partnership.

    I'm also pleased that tbaytel is matching the plan I have with Rogers. These are all positives.

    Unlike you Mr. SNC, I'm also glad that good paying jobs and the money generated by tbay mobility is staying in Thunder Bay. Here's a little caveat for you, without tbaytel your taxes would be at least 12% higher.

    Cellular service is a want, not a need. Want to play, then be prepared to pay!
    Firstly, you're putting words in my mouth— I don't hate Tbaytel. I've only ever experienced excellent customer service from them, and I'm also excited about the new network. I think their 3G plans are garbage though.

    Tbaytel is (almost) matching the plan I have with Rogers which is not a positive, but rather merely acceptable. If they didn't match my plan, that would be the most underhanded move possible. Let's not call amazing that which is only expected.

    I've also gone on record stating I'd happily pay much more more city tax in exchange for the subsidy provided by our telecom. There is no reason why a council shouldn't be able to balance a municipal budget without handouts, however. My approach with this campaign was that privatization IS NOT the solution, but that lowering prices will increase the subscriber base. If you truly believe "pay to plan" they you'll see the merits of this.

    And I also have NEVER argued against keeping good jobs in the city. Who would? Don't put words in my mouth.

    EDIT: You call someone (me?) "know-it-alls" first. That adds nothing to the conversation.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3
    Feedback Score
    0
    lowering prices will increase the subscriber base.
    That is true. I'm not sure that Northwestern Ontario has a large enough population base for to allow a company to do that? I would think that in Toronto and GTA with over 6 million customers to market to lower prices would expand the customer base. Northwestern Ontario is sparsely populated, only 200,000 from Manitoba to Chapleau/SSM and all points in between.

    Hmm?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    10,550
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6+, Google Nexus 6
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    In a general statement, lowering prices will increase subscriber base.
    However, there's also a limit to where that will apply. Having coverage, and being 'effectively' the only carrier will also increase subscriber base.
    For those that do not travel outside of the city of Thunder Bay, Bellus may actually work. For those that go past the city limits, and want service, TBayTel is it. Having ~130,000 total residents in NWO, of which, ~80% live in Thunder Bay itself, Bellus can sell a local service, much like they do in Winterpeg.

    Site (URI hack) shows new coverage map
    http://www.tbaytel.net/residential/m...coverage.shtml
    http://www.tbaytel.net/media/Tbaytel...erage_1110.pdf

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When will Tbay wireless and Rogers Merge?
    By Dano89 in forum Rogers Wireless
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 09:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks