It is sad that even the title in the Globe and Mail article is incorrect. It is not cellphone but cellular network providers. The market is still brainwashed to think devices and cell providers are the same. Look even at Robellus's argument:
"The incumbents, meanwhile, argue that Canadians simply prefer the major players’ higher-quality service as well as the higher-end devices they offer such as the iPhone, which the upstarts lack. If the government wants to score political points by lowering prices for consumers, and the big wireless companies say, they will further fragment the relatively small Canadian market and make it more difficult for carriers to afford the latest, greatest wireless technology."
What the goverment need to work on is regulate the sale of cell devices. This is the easiest way to make us free from Robellus's greed and control. Cellular networks should be just like tv/radio/internet providers. Customer is free to buy whatever TV to watch his/her shows, whatever landline phone, whatever computer to go online, etc.
Once the goverment put that in place and people are educated about the rights they have allowed them themselves to loose, then then new entrants and healthy competition can strive.
He had areas where he had no Mobilicity service. Great. The same can be said about Rogers, Bell, WIND, and every other provider. It doesn't mean the new entrants are bad.
"Mr. Wilson says the company gave him the runaround when he tried to have some roaming charges reversed."
If you use your phone while roaming, why the heck should your provider reverse the charges?
Stuff like this seriously wants to make me write a long article and submit it to some news papers/websites. There are two places where my Rogers iPhone 4S has better signal than my WIND Galaxy Nexus. There are many more where the reverse is true.
What the goverment need to work on is regulate the sale of cell devices. This is the easiest way to make us free from Robellus's greed and control. Cellular networks should be just like tv/radio/internet providers. Customer is free to buy whatever TV to watch his/her shows, whatever landline phone, whatever computer to go online, etc.
Once the goverment put that in place and people are educated about the rights they have allowed them themselves to loose, then then new entrants and healthy competition can strive.
Is the sale of TV's regulated? Is Rogers allowed to sell you a TV? I actually don't know the answer to this, but I would imagine they're allowed to.
You are free to buy a phone anywhere and bring it Rogers. Customers just tend not to do that. I'm not saying it's easy to buy an unlocked device, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it.
He had areas where he had no Mobilicity service. Great. The same can be said about Rogers, Bell, WIND, and every other provider. It doesn't mean the new entrants are bad.
"Mr. Wilson says the company gave him the runaround when he tried to have some roaming charges reversed."
If you use your phone while roaming, why the heck should your provider reverse the charges?
Stuff like this seriously wants to make me write a long article and submit it to some news papers/websites. There are two places where my Rogers iPhone 4S has better signal than my WIND Galaxy Nexus. There are many more where the reverse is true.
+1.
I guess it's back to higher pricing for much less features for Mr. Wilson. Unless he was traveling much farther outside of the home zone for long period of time, I doubt his plan + roaming was more than his regular Big 3 bill.
Personal Plans:
Plan 1: Wind Mobile $35 All In The Family 2011 - Unlimited: Canada-Wide Calling, Data, Text and Picture Messaging, Global Text, CID, CF, CC, VM
Plan 2: Wind Mobile $20 HAITF Infinite Laptop - Unlimited Data
Is the sale of TV's regulated? Is Rogers allowed to sell you a TV? I actually don't know the answer to this, but I would imagine they're allowed to.
You are free to buy a phone anywhere and bring it Rogers. Customers just tend not to do that. I'm not saying it's easy to buy an unlocked device, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it.
It is not a question of Rogers selling a TV. They can sell whatever it pleases them. It is hard (and sometimes impossible) for an average John Doe to take a perfectly working phone the he purchased from AT&T and go over to Rogers and subscribe with them. This is not the case for his Samsung TV, or his Uniden home phone, or his Dell PC, etc
I know you are going to argue how technically it is not possible, but Robellus and the likes in different countries have put us in this situation. What I am saying is we need the goverment's help in regulating device locks and monoply pricing. They did it with number portability, ECF charges, and other things.
The new entrants have a better chance if that is in place. Think of Netflix and Vonage, any device on any network, free to operate due to how the internet is regulated.
It is not a question of Rogers selling a TV. They can sell whatever it pleases them. It is hard (and sometimes impossible) for an average John Doe to take a perfectly working phone the he purchased from AT&T and go over to Rogers and subscribe with them. This is not the case for his Samsung TV, or his Uniden home phone, or his Dell PC, etc
I know you are going to argue how technically it is not possible, but Robellus and the likes in different countries have put us in this situation. What I am saying is we need the goverment's help in regulating device locks and monoply pricing. They did it with number portability, ECF charges, and other things.
The new entrants have a better chance if that is in place. Think of Netflix and Vonage, any device on any network, free to operate due to how the internet is regulated.
But if Rogers wants to lock your device in exchange for a subsidy (or a tab in the case of WIND), I don't really see the problem with that. You're never paying full price for the device. If they add an extra $10/month to your bill, then I think they should unlock it when you leave.
Likewise, I think they shouldn't sell locked devices at full price.
But devices are going to be locked as long as consumers want free devices.
I know you are going to argue how technically it is not possible, but Robellus and the likes in different countries have put us in this situation. What I am saying is we need the goverment's help in regulating device locks and monoply pricing. They did it with number portability, ECF charges, and other things.
Considering the government can barely enforce their own policies such as the tower sharing agreements, no point in them setting out policies.
Considering the government can barely enforce their own policies such as the tower sharing agreements, no point in them setting out policies.
1. Devices sold without subsidy must be sold unlocked.
2. If you sell a device, you must offer it without a subsidy.
It might need a little rewording, but it's simple enough that there wouldn't be any loopholes. And it doesn't put the carriers at a financial disadvantage, so they'd have no legal basis for an objection.
Interesting read . . .
Reply With Quote![[V]'s Avatar](images/avatars/cyanogenmod.png)
Originally Posted by [V]
Bookmarks