3 ms·
> Many of the home-grown independent telcos in Canada started operating cell networks in the mid-2000s, but they were never able to win over the customers loyal
by naasking 2y ago
> Many of the home-grown independent telcos in Canada started operating cell networks in the mid-2000s, but they were never able to win over the customers loyal to Bell and Rogers.
It has nothing to do with loyalty, the coverage of these networks is just bad. I'm on one right now. Canada is a huge sprawling country and many people venture far for camping, to cottages and so on, and they won't go with a cell provider where they lose service 10 mins outside of Toronto.
It's even worse sometimes, coverage in cities adjacent to Toronto, like Oakville, is also sometimes bad. Canada's problem with mobile is sprawl and a largely ineffective regulator.
- randomdata 2y ago> It has nothing to do with loyalty, the coverage of these networks is just bad. They had nationwide agreements. They still do, technically, but no longer operate any cell sites, now essentially being a Bell reseller. Even as a reseller, their customer base hasn't grown in any meaningful way, certainly not beyond the wired customer audience. In fact, I bet you don't even know their names. Nobody in Canada cares to look beyond their loyalty.
- naasking 2y agoWhat typically happens is that they are just bought up by one of the big 3. I had a great plan with Fido, very reasonable prices and good service, and because they were growing, Rogers bought them up and then all the prices shot up to match Rogers.
- randomdata 2y ago> What typically happens is that they are just bought up by one of the big 3. Perhaps, but as they are owned by the customer (or government in a few cases), that would ultimately be on the customer to decide. If future service, price, or quality was of concern, they could easily reject the deal.