Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Feds to cap domestic roaming

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,284
    Device(s)
    Essential PH-1 / Apple iPhone X
    Feedback Score
    0

    Feds to cap domestic roaming

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1863548.htm
    "The roaming rates that Canada's largest wireless companies are charging other domestic providers can be more than 10 times what they charge their own customers. For too long, Canadian consumers in the wireless sector have been the victims of these high roaming costs," said Minister Moore. "Canadians have been clear that they want their government to take action in the wireless sector to provide more choice, lower prices and better service. With domestic roaming rates on networks capped, Canadian consumers will benefit from more competition in the wireless market."
    Sounds promising, but not clear exactly what we'll get. "An amendment to the Telecommunications Act that will put a cap on domestic wireless roaming rates, preventing wireless providers from charging other companies more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data and text services." - Overage is ridiculous at the big 3, but domestic roaming charges are essentially non-existent due to reciprocal roaming agreements.

    http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1863548.htm

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    6,398
    Device(s)
    Blackberry Z30, Blackberry Q10, Galaxy Nexus
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I assume this is meant to try and prop up Wind...
    Noone else has roaming (unless CityFido plans count?)
    It is sad I need to state the obvious but some people just don't get it. Any posts I make are my own OPINIONS and in no way represent the views of my employer

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,284
    Device(s)
    Essential PH-1 / Apple iPhone X
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    I assume this is meant to try and prop up Wind...
    I don't know, if your own retail rate is up to 10 times lower than the 'wholesale' rate you're offering, it seems legally questionable and anti-competitive to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    Noone else has roaming (unless CityFido plans count?)
    There are roaming agreements (ex. Bell/Telus and Sasktel), but they are reciprocal arrangements and the end-user never sees a charge.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    I assume this is meant to try and prop up Wind...
    Noone else has roaming (unless CityFido plans count?)
    Wind, mobi, Videotron, eastlink all come to mind. TBayTel, sasktel and MTS also all roam.

    You are right however, it is about the new players but it isn't mean to prop them up. It's about enforcing existing regulation. A condition of the licenses the incumbents have is that they are mandated to offer roaming to other carriers and they cannot charge discriminatory rates. Industry Canada license mandates that the rates they charge must be comparable to what they charge others. It makes no provisions to say they can charge smaller carriers massively more because they lack the leverage of being able to offer similar reciprocal agreements.
    Unlocked iPhone XS Max 256GB, Unlocked JetBlack 128GB iPhone 7Plus, Unlocked 64GB iPhone 6, unlocked 32GB iPhone 5 (AWS), unlocked 16GB iPhone 4
    $60/10GB Unlimited Canada-wide anytime minutes, Unlimited international messaging (SMS/MMS) CD, VM

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by turbogeek View Post
    Sounds promising, but not clear exactly what we'll get. "An amendment to the Telecommunications Act that will put a cap on domestic wireless roaming rates, preventing wireless providers from charging other companies more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data and text services." - Overage is ridiculous at the big 3, but domestic roaming charges are essentially non-existent due to reciprocal roaming agreements.

    http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1863548.htm
    The big 3 charge wind 5x the rate wind pays for data roaming in the US. Wind's agreements with US and EU carriers include long distance and inbound SMS, while the big 3 charge them extra for these. Roaming charges for Wind customers definitely exists and are a big reason some people avoid them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,284
    Device(s)
    Essential PH-1 / Apple iPhone X
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ceredon View Post
    The big 3 charge wind 5x the rate wind pays for data roaming in the US. Wind's agreements with US and EU carriers include long distance and inbound SMS, while the big 3 charge them extra for these. Roaming charges for Wind customers definitely exists and are a big reason some people avoid them.
    Sorry, I know it exists for Wind et al, and that's what this is addressing, I meant aside from the new entrants. I'm not aware of any big regional with published domestic roaming rates; Sasktel off-network domestic comes out of the plan buckets, similarly for Alliant, TbayTel, and MTS as best I can tell.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by turbogeek View Post
    Sorry, I know it exists for Wind et al, and that's what this is addressing, I meant aside from the new entrants. I'm not aware of any big regional with published domestic roaming rates; Sasktel off-network domestic comes out of the plan buckets, similarly for Alliant, TbayTel, and MTS as best I can tell.
    That they pay such low wholesale rates that they can simply roll all roaming into their base plans is probably a good indicator that the new carriers are being discriminated against.

    As I mentioned in the other post, even without the proposed amendments to legislation, the existing license agreements that the incumbents are under already mandate roaming agreements at rates that are inline with what they charge others for similar services. The incumbents charge far less, likely orders of magnitude less, to established regional carriers and foreign carriers than they charge Wind etc. That is pretty clearly discriminatory and in violation of existing licensing regulation. The proposed legislation would make this more explicit, possible propose rate calculation and give teeth to regulators for enforcement.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    6,398
    Device(s)
    Blackberry Z30, Blackberry Q10, Galaxy Nexus
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ceredon View Post
    That they pay such low wholesale rates that they can simply roll all roaming into their base plans is probably a good indicator that the new carriers are being discriminated against.

    The big 3 charge wind 5x the rate wind pays for data roaming in the US
    But the point is they are nothing alike
    Those roaming agreements are reciprocal (Bell as example can use phones in SK while SaskTel can use phones in AB)

    There is no way a Bell client is going to want to roam on Wind's "network" so basically Wind is again crying for freebies

    Your claims the Big3 charge 5x roaming is grossly exaggerated (and even if true, so then Wind is price gouging its own clients? Why wouldn't US roaming be much cheaper at that point?)

    So Wind first wants to be allowed to roam on others towers
    Then complain the hand off is hard
    Now complain the rate are too high? (while possibly engaging in their own profiteering)

    How about fixing their own network before crying so loudly...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    But the point is they are nothing alike
    Those roaming agreements are reciprocal (Bell as example can use phones in SK while SaskTel can use phones in AB)

    There is no way a Bell client is going to want to roam on Wind's "network" so basically Wind is again crying for freebies
    You state that like you actually think it means something, as far as the regulation, legislation and rules are concerned. The wording is quite clear. When creating the conditions for their licenses, which the carriers all agreed to, Industry Canada clearly stated that they expect the rates charged for domestic roaming would be inline with what other are charged for similar services and access. Notice there is no provision for "unless you get a better reciprocal deal" or "if the request comes from a carrier with less leverage in negotiations for rates". That just is not in the conditions.

    So, ignoring, as we should, that Wind and the others don't have as much to offer in reciprocal agreements, it is quite clear that the services and access requested are identical, i.e. they are requesting roaming access.


    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    Your claims the Big3 charge 5x roaming is grossly exaggerated (and even if true, so then Wind is price gouging its own clients? Why wouldn't US roaming be much cheaper at that point?)
    Not my claim. This is the claim of Wind and Eastlink and the others in public documents that have been submitted to CRTC and Industry Canada. These will be supported by the information submitted to the CRTC in their recent and ongoing review of discriminatory conduct by the incumbents. Seems as though the CRTC and IC agree with these claims, but unlike you, they've seen the actual numbers so that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    So Wind first wants to be allowed to roam on others towers
    Then complain the hand off is hard
    Now complain the rate are too high? (while possibly engaging in their own profiteering)

    How about fixing their own network before crying so loudly...
    Yes, Wind wants to be able to roam because that has been a concrete requirement of all carrier licenses for years. Don't like it? Then the incumbents shouldn't have agreed to it and done without spectrum. This isn't special treatment for Wind or the other newbies. It's a condition of the spectrum licenses and it's been in place for years.

    Yes, the requested soft handoffs. Since this is not a concrete requirement of the licenses, the incumbents were not required to do so.

    Now complain the rates are too high? They have been claiming this for years. It's only now the regulators and legislators are paying attention, looking at the actual facts and appear to see that they are in fact so high as to amount to discrimination, something forbidden by the license conditions.


    You may not like these rules, but too bad, they aren't new. The carriers agreed to them. Unfortunately for you and them, they are not above the law nor allowed to simply break their regulations and rules that they agreed to in order to resell our national resources.

    These types of mandatory roaming conditions are common around the world. Seems like the incumbents are simply acting as though they are unique in all the world and need special treatment. They've become too accustomed to special treatment it seems.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    More info here:
    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst...f09081.html#p3

    [h=CPC-2-0-17 — Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements]1[/h]
    [h=2. Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming]3[/h]The conditions of licence described below apply to all Licensees in the Cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), Mobile Broadband Service (MBS) and Broadband Radio Service (BRS) bands.

    • The Licensee must provide automatic digital roaming (roaming) by way of a Roaming Agreement(s) on all of its networks in the Cellular, PCS, AWS, MBS and BRS bands in all of its licensed service areas to any other Licensee in these bands, including a provisional licence winner in accordance with a licensing process in these bands (A Requesting Operator).
    • The roaming which must be offered in accordance with this licence condition is defined by the following characteristics:
      • Roaming must enable a subscriber (a Roamer) already served by the Requesting Operator's network (Home Network) to originate or terminate communications on the Licensee's network (Host Network), wherever technically feasible;
      • The roaming offered must provide connectivity for voice and data services, including access to the public‑switched network and the Internet, regardless of the spectrum band or underlying network technology used, provided that the Roamer’s device is technically capable of accessing the Licensee's network. Roaming should provide a Roamer with the ability to access voice and data services offered by the Home Network at a level of quality comparable to that offered for similar services by the Licensee's Network. For greater certainty, this condition does not require the Licensee to provide to a Roamer a service which the Licensee does not itself provide on the Host Network, nor to provide to a Roamer a service or level of service which the Requesting Operator will not or does not itself provide;
      • Roaming as provided for in this condition does not include resale;
      • Roaming can commence as soon as the Requesting Operator is offering service on its own radio access network and a Roaming Agreement is in place;
      • Roaming does not require communications hand-off between Home and Host Networks, such that there is no interruption of communications in progress; and
      • Roaming should function without the need for any special facilitating action by the customer.

    • In order to satisfy the condition of roaming in accordance with this licence, the Licensee must respond to a request for information by a Requesting Operator within two weeks of receiving the request by providing a preliminary information package (PIP) to the Requesting Operator that includes preliminary technical information, such as technical data, engineering information, network requirements and other information relevant to formulating a Roaming Proposal.
    • The Licensee must respond to a Roaming Proposal from a Requesting Operator within 30 days as follows:
      • The Licensee must provide the Requesting Operator with a response in writing and an offer to enter into a Roaming Agreement. Industry Canada expects that roaming agreements will be offered at commercial rates that are reasonably comparable to rates currently charged to others for similar roaming services; or
      • In the event that the Licensee believes that the Roaming Proposal is not technically feasible, the Licensee must provide the Requesting Operator with a response detailing the reasons why it considers that roaming is not feasible (accompanied by any applicable technical information) and submit that evidence to Industry Canada if the Requesting Operator requests that Industry Canada review the reasons provided by the Licensee, in accordance with this condition.

    • Notwithstanding the Licensee’s initial response, if Industry Canada reviews the matter of technical feasibility under Section 4(b) above and finds that roaming is technically feasible, then the Licensee will respond to the Roaming Proposal with an offer to enter into a Roaming Agreement.
    • Licensees must negotiate with a Requesting Operator in good faith, with a view to concluding a Roaming Agreement in a timely manner.
    • If after 60 days from the date that the Licensee receives the Roaming Proposal, the Licensee and the Requesting Operator have not entered into a Roaming Agreement or have not agreed to any interim arrangement, the Licensee must submit or agree to submit the matter to arbitration, in accordance with Industry Canada’s Arbitration Rules and Procedures,Footnote17 as amended from time to time. The Licensee shall agree that the Arbitral Tribunal shall have all necessary powers to determine all of the questions in dispute (including those relating to determining the appropriate terms of the Roaming Agreement and those relating to procedural matters under the arbitration) and that any arbitral award or results under this condition of licence shall be final and binding with no right of appeal, subject to applicable provincial or territorial legislation. The Licensee must participate fully in such an arbitration and follow all directions of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with Industry Canada’s Arbitration Rules and Procedures and any arbitration procedures established by the Arbitral Tribunal.
    No provision for using the size, leverage or ability to provide comparable reciprocal agreements. Just that are reasonably comparable to what they charge others. 5x, 10x or 100x are not reasonably comparable by any definition.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,166
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kav2001c View Post
    I assume this is meant to try and prop up Wind..)
    That also means more income to the big 3 as well LOL

    Daniel

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,839
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256GB
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dtong22 View Post
    That also means more income to the big 3 as well LOL

    Daniel
    Yup. Which is exactly why in the US the carriers not only accept MVNOs but embrace them as a lucrative business model. The US also has mandatory roaming enshrined in their regulation. The US carriers may not have liked it at first, but they have seen that it can be a good thing if they are smart enough to work with it.

    The Canadian carriers don't seem to feel they are smart enough to make it work.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    SW Ontario
    Posts
    1,826
    Device(s)
    RIM9790
    Carrier(s)
    Wind
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9790; en) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.907 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

    All true...

    Nobody likes change. Which is one reason why the Big3 are throwing tantrums.

    But if the likes of Net10 can offer unlimited talk/text, plus a big chunk of data on networks they don't own, something is wrong if a canadian company can't do something similar here.
    --------------------------------
    Un petit d'un petit
    S'étonne aux Halles
    Un petit d'un petit
    Ah! degrés te fallent

    Old French Proverb from the book of; Mots D'Heures Gousses Rames

    (I am the Stig!)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 11:27 AM
  2. GPRS/EDGE domestic roaming charges?
    By poncewattle in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 11:38 PM
  3. EU might cap cellphone roaming charges
    By 99 GASE2 in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-10-2007, 02:50 PM
  4. GPRS Domestic Roaming charges?
    By kgutwin in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-20-2005, 05:15 PM
  5. Domestic roaming VM forwarding obervation...
    By ThePhantom in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2003, 03:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks