kamira51
Active Member
No water stains please.
|
|
|
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure the TTC tried to negotiate with carriers and they all demanded they be allowed to install their own separate infrastructure (except for Freedom). So we could run into the same issue of the Big 3 refusing to use whatever Metrolinx has installed.
nfitz
Superstar
A new contract would make sense.
But I don't see how the TTC issue is a debacle. My phone works very well in the stations - and now in some of the tunnel sections as they expand the network. Nothing is to stop either Bell or Rogers or Telus from signing up with whoever the provider is.
The issue at TTC is that the big providers appear to have illegally colluded to only provide a very low bid to pay the TTC for the right to provide service, and that was overbid by another provider. Then they appear to have doubled-downed on the illegality of the collusion by discussing that none of them would sign up. It's a shame that there's very little enforcement of the weak monopoly laws in this country. Shame the TTC legal folks themselves don't go after them.
I doubt this will be an issue at Metrolinx though, as presumably they'll be "convinced" to only deal with one of the major providers - and knowing the "competence" there, actually pay someone to do it, rather than receiving payment.
superelevation
Active Member
Vancouver and I think Montreal have figured it out . . . worst case let them each install their infra and when one carrier fails they will have to deal with it
trtcttc
Active Member
There must be a reason but I’m not sure why TTC is opposed to letting each carrier build their own, it’s not like we have more than 3 telecom providers. In Seoul, they have 3 different telecom’s routers for wifi in every other subway car.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
You would need to train and allow access to 3x the number of people. It would be a logistical nightmare.
The carrier that has access can lease their spectrum to the other ones to recoup the cost.
Steve X
Senior Member
They probably demanded to have access to track level at anytime to repair an upgrade their stuff. When things break, they'll be pointing fingers.
Canadian businesses aren't nice, they sue each other's ass off when stuff like that happens. Plus they could try to break the competitors stuff to gain an upper hand. Bell installed their fiber network in my neighbourhood and caused multiple Rogers outages cause they didn't care about their cables when they were drilling. The Rogers technicians says they did it on purpose so you get frustrated and switch to Bell. So did they do it on purpose? Hmmm... either way the other network isn't working.
Have they even settle all the disagreement on construction related issues with the TYSSE?
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
This is exactly why the TTC wanted to limit it to one organization, who would then sell services to the others.
Dan
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I feel like the cell service in the subway issue has been dormant for years. Freedom has been the sole provider for damn near a decade now it feels like - when is the TTC going to admit their single provider strategy failed? They are achieving nothing by continuing to have the vast majority of riders not have cell service. It's ridiculous.
smallspy
Senior Member
How has it been a failure to the TTC? They're making their money on the program, and its cost them nothing.....
Dan
innsertnamehere
Superstar
because it failed to deliver it's intended purpose - providing increased convenience to their customers? The additional revenue was a bonus, not a purpose.
Just because the TTC is getting the cheque each month for it doesn't make me able to use my phone on the subway..
I mean how many subway networks still don't have cell service at this point?
Voltz
Senior Member
It would not have made sense for the TTC to allow multiple different providers to come in and install their own different equipment in the stations and tunnels.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
that's what most other subway networks do from my understanding.
smallspy
Senior Member
I guess that depends on your viewpoint. Some proportion of the TTC ridership is able to use their cell phones without issue in the subway. They certainly aren't complaining.
And if you think that the sole intended purpose of the system was "increased convenience", then you are sadly mistaken I fear. You think that advertising on the system is done to make people feel good?
Dan
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Freedom mobile has a 6% market share. So 94% of riders can't use cell service... congrats?
If that's mission accomplished.. man..
Yea, TTC getting revenue from it is good, as I said. It's not the core purpose, the core purpose is making the subway ride more attractive by providing cell signal access.
Providing the TTC a bit of revenue and 6% of riders cell signal is hardly an excellent result.. If that's "acceptable" I don't want to know what is unacceptable..
If that's mission accomplished.. man..
Yea, TTC getting revenue from it is good, as I said. It's not the core purpose, the core purpose is making the subway ride more attractive by providing cell signal access.
Providing the TTC a bit of revenue and 6% of riders cell signal is hardly an excellent result.. If that's "acceptable" I don't want to know what is unacceptable..