[quote=“Speakuppr”]
And we should accept this statement as a fact because…?[/quote]
because i know how to talk to the right people not whine on the internet where they cant see it
[quote=“decker”]
because i know how to talk to the right people not whine on the internet where they cant see it[/quote]
Citywest doesn’t have internet? That would explain alot!!
[quote=“Hoser”]
[quote=“decker”]
because i know how to talk to the right people not whine on the internet where they cant see it[/quote]
Citywest doesn’t have internet? That would explain alot!![/quote]
yea you got me i worded that wrong
I don’t think anybody using Citywest cell phones actually expect them to work at this point, do they? I mean, they’ve put up with outages, things not working, over and over again. If they’re still using Citywest after all that abuse, then they must not really care too much about actual cell service, right?
Anybody who actually wants their cellphones to be dependable has moved on from Citywest long long ago.
[quote=“sandimas”]I don’t think anybody using Citywest cell phones actually expect them to work at this point, do they? I mean, they’ve put up with outages, things not working, over and over again. If they’re still using Citywest after all that abuse, then they must not really care too much about actual cell service, right?
Anybody who actually wants their cellphones to be dependable has moved on from Citywest long long ago.[/quote]
Heh, I don’t use mine enough to complain, that’s for sure. But I also have a year left in my contract, I think it’s a year. Anyways. I’m still not sure what I’m going to do after it’s over. We’ll see.
This shit has to be fixed I have 2 kids and a husband on Telus and I agree Citywest should do something more then just quote and I repeat " Well Rogers called us and told us its there fault" and that is what I was told when I called them. Citywest is never accountable because they are so perfect, lol!
Rogers actually called them? Very nice avoidance techniques used by the representative you were talking to.
[quote=“decker”]
And we should accept this statement as a fact because…?
because i know how to talk to the right people not whine on the internet where they cant see it[/quote]
Ok so you’re sociable and a self described non-whiner… and that makes your statements factual because…?
When both Telus & Rogers customers have the same issue texting to a Bell surrogate(CityWest)…the common denominator seems to be CityWest… so how about some reals facts instead of … a friend of a friend knows someone in…and they said…
oh I know right I am the only one that has a citywest cell in my family so now they can’t text me because its costing them well us money to text.
Of course Citywest could learn how to use it’s website to let customers know what’s going on instead of long after the fact apologies / justifications for no longer being in control of their cell services
[quote]“CityWest.ca” Q & A - Partnership Between CityWest and Northwestel
Customers have been asking questions about the partnership between CityWest and Northwestel after the network problems in the Yukon recently affected cellular services in Prince Rupert.
Q: Why does a fibre cut in Whitehorse or Dawson Creek affect Prince Rupert cellular service?
A: In late 2007, CityWest entered into a partnership with Northwestel to upgrade and provide advanced cellular services to our customers in Prince Rupert. The Northwestel cellular switch is located in Whitehorse, and connects via fibre connections to the Bell Mobility network, a disruption at any point in that network connection would create problems for cellular service in Prince Rupert.
We have received a commitment from Northwestel, to ensure that in future there will not be a single point of failure on the network outside of Prince Rupert. We are confident that we will avoid or minimize future outages as a result.
Q:Why did you partner with Northwestel?
A:We needed to upgrade our cellular service in Prince Rupert to provide internet service, text messaging and other advanced features that customers were asking for. We had three options to accomplish this:
-
upgrade the network on our own and provide services. This would mean large up-front capital investments, and recurring annual investments needed to stay current. On the plus side, CityWest would maintain total control over the network.
-
Partner with a larger carrier. CityWest entered discussions with all of the major wireless carriers with a view to partner. Our discussions led to several scenarios.
-
Do nothing, just offer voice service, and not offer texting, email, web access etc. through the cell network. Knowing that failing to upgrade the system would make it less and less competitive, and less appealing for customers.
When all the options were weighed the Northwestel partnership presented the best business case and offered the most savings, and best suite of services for our customers. The deal did several things for CityWest and our customers:
- it offered mobile data, text messaging, media downloads, picture messaging etc;
- it also gave us access to preferred roaming rates, and preferred long distance rates, which were passed on through savings to customers;
- it gave us access to Bell pricing on cellular phone models, which again resulted in savings to customers i.e. buying a new phone today costs less than it did 2-years ago.
- it relieved CityWest of the requirement to continue to invest capital in the mobility plant to continue to keep it up to date.
Obviously, the largest problem with this deal has been that CityWest has lost control over the network. We are responsible for customer service, and marketing. And rely on Northwestel to handle network related problems. We feel that through the recent commitments made to protect the network, and through improved joint operating procedures we will improve reliability, and restoral time if there is a problem.
[/quote]
Well, prince rupert didn’t want texting anyways, so… rolls eyes
[quote=“bubbasteve735”]
Well, prince rupert didn’t want texting anyways, so… rolls eyes[/quote]
OK here is my arguement the city says that we need Citywest for revenue yet they wanna charge extra for internet because they are in a deficit so where is the revenue?
[quote=“Dismal”]
Well, prince rupert didn’t want texting anyways, so… rolls eyes
OK here is my arguement the city says that we need Citywest for revenue yet they wanna charge extra for internet because they are in a deficit so where is the revenue?[/quote]
Look no further than the saga of Skeena Cell and Watson Island to forecast the future revenue streams to the city…That huge sucking sound will be your tax dollars being written off on Pond’s folly again.
Well, prince rupert didn’t want texting anyways, so… rolls eyes
OK here is my arguement the city says that we need Citywest for revenue yet they wanna charge extra for internet because they are in a deficit so where is the revenue?
Look no further than the saga of Skeena Cell and Watson Island to forecast the future revenue streams to the city…That huge sucking sound will be your tax dollars being written off on Pond’s folly again.
haha when I received my land tax bill it gave an account the wheres monies were spent and what caught my eye was $10, 000 on a bus stop by the library, REALLY!, it costs that much for a bus stop.
The problem may have something to do with Citywest using the same three digit local prefixes (624, 627) for both landlines and cells. Telus has separate numbers for their landlines and cells and all Rogers numbers are for cells. Telus and Rogers cells should be able to readily recognize other Telus and Rogers cells from their numbers, but a Citywest number could be either a landline or a cell.
[quote=“bubbasteve735”]
Well, prince rupert didn’t want texting anyways, so… rolls eyes[/quote]
Maybe having the same numbers for landlines and cells wasn’t a problem before Citywest decided to follow the rest of the world by offering texting. From what I remember Telus issued separate numbers for their cells from the beginning, but they probably also planned from the beginning to offer texting as well.
When it comes to phone service Rupert is pretty weird place.
Why cant City West get it ? We pay for a service supply the dam service !!! They spend so much time trying to charge us for internet over usage why dont they fix the problems with texting ? When are we going to be able to get i phones ? All the other kids have i phones( Rodgers and Telus ). As tax payers and owners of City West can we all get together and fire the excuse department and save the people of this town some money.
Roger charges 15c to send a text mssg? And Rogers says the cell is a landline? And it’s CityWest’s fault. Are you ppl retarded?
Or just smalltown hicks intent on convincing yourselves anything from 100 miles away is better than anything next door?
[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]Roger charges 15c to send a text mssg? And Rogers says the cell is a landline? And it’s CityWest’s fault. Are you ppl retarded?
Or just smalltown hicks intent on convincing yourselves anything from 100 miles away is better than anything next door?[/quote]
*citation needed
15 cents per text message to a landline (still ridiculous). I don’t think the crux of the issue is so much that they are getting ‘charged’ 15 cents so much as text messaging isnt working. I’m sure if they talk to rogers/telus they would likely credit any $$ for text messages to ‘land lines’.
Nope you’re still wrong. If you have ANY idea how cellular or telco in general works or more specifically the translations involved, you would know that Citywest (or any provider) cannot force other companies to recognize a number as a landline or a cellular range. Telus or Rogers have to individually specify in their tables what is a cellular range and what isn’t. Additionally all Canadian providers use a 3rd party (Syniverse/Verisign) to handle some traffic between carriers. Last time this happened (Dec?), Rogers admitted it was an issue between them and Verisign. But suddenly the same issue now is Citywest’s fault? No. You guys (especially Speakuppr) have a hate on for this provider (some of which I can almost understand), however you’re allowing this hatred to affect your judgment when you blame them for everything under the sun.
[quote=“BTravenn”]The problem may have something to do with Citywest using the same three digit local prefixes (624, 627) for both landlines and cells. Telus has separate numbers for their landlines and cells and all Rogers numbers are for cells. Telus and Rogers cells should be able to readily recognize other Telus and Rogers cells from their numbers, but a Citywest number could be either a landline or a cell.
Maybe having the same numbers for landlines and cells wasn’t a problem before Citywest decided to follow the rest of the world by offering texting. From what I remember Telus issued separate numbers for their cells from the beginning, but they probably also planned from the beginning to offer texting as well. [/quote]
No, wrong. There is no issues what so ever with using the same NXX between landline and cellular ranges. And yes Telus and Bell do it as well. It comes from having to rent (on a monthly basis) a block of numbers from the telco (who own the numbers). As long as everything is properly specified in everyone’s switches, it doesn’t matter what numbers are being used. Depending on the customer base for a particular area, the cellular provider may rent a block of 1000 numbers or may obtain the entire 10,000 range. There’s other factors involved, but you get the idea.
[quote=“Speakuppr”]
When both Telus & Rogers customers have the same issue texting to a Bell surrogate(CityWest)…the common denominator seems to be CityWest… so how about some reals facts instead of … a friend of a friend knows someone in…and they said…[/quote]
Or Syniverse, or Bell… but no that can’t be it… it must be Citywest… ::rolleyes:: Keep grinding that axe Speakuppr. No point in allowing facts to get in your way.
Anyway as for this specific issue, there’s only a couple places where the issue could be. It’s either Bell, Syniverse or Rogers. There is no possible way that Citywest could cause or individually correct this issue. If Telus customers are having the same issue, then it’s likely not a Rogers issue. That would then leave Bell and Syniverse (in theory). If I had to put money on it, I’d look at Syniverse… but that’s me.
I do get the idea, Riptide. It’s good to get some technical insight, keeping in mind that at least some of us are just customers looking for explanations (the only text problems I’ve ever had have been Rogers > Citywest). The fact is that many of us dont “have ANY idea how cellular or telco in general works or more specifically the translations involved”. Why should we? When we pay for service we just want our phones to work so that we can do other things.
I was wondering though about “As long as everything is properly specified in everyone’s switches, it doesn’t matter what numbers are being used.” Who ensures that the specifications in the switches are correct? That’s an honest question, by the way. Perhaps that further narrows down the possible source of the problems.
As for Citywest, I think that there are two general issues. One is about the quality of service. The public seems to be highly polarized on this issue. Some think the service is poor and out of date. The alternative view seems to be that anyone who thinks that is a ‘moron’ or ‘smalltown hicks’ etc etc and so on and so forth. A preference for dealing with national providers like Telus or Rogers doesn’t seem that smalltown, and I’m not sure what’s wrong with being smalltown, but anyway …
The other issue isn’t so much about Citywest as it is about it’s ownership. That how I read Speakuppr’s comments on this and other threads about Citywest. Whether it’s a good company or not, why do we own it? Why isn’t it privatized, like so many businesses that were once government owned? Telus for instance was privatized from Alberta Government Telephone and then bought out Edmonton’s city owned phone company.
Why is it that in Prince Rupert public funds are invested in a phone company rather than being used, for instance, to pay down the city’s debts? If Citywest is a good company it must have market value as a going concern? Why do we own what amounts to a socialist phone company when there must be private sector alternatives?