Rogers txt to Citywest Problems

General Forums Tech
41

It’s up to each company to ensure that their switches contain up to date info. When carriers make changes (such as adding new number blocks), they send out updates to their roaming partners so that those partners can update their switches. Depending on the size of the company, there could be one person doing these updates to a whole department. If someones switch contains the wrong info (ie a Telus switch doesn’t have a Citywest line range loaded correctly) then the subscriber will not have service in that area, because the serving switch would not know how to route the call back to the home switch. In this example, it would be up to Telus to get the info loaded correctly. When it comes to something like SMS, it’s basically the same idea. One may be able to receive an SMS, but not send one. In this case, the SMS is being received, however in the wrong format. Personally I find it hard to believe that Bells switches would receive a SMS, then change the type from “cell to cell” to “cell to land”, and then pass that SMS on. I believe that they’re just passing on what info they receive - either from Syniverse or whomever.

[quote=“BTravenn”]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?[/quote]

Honestly the only reason I can see that the City itself owns the business is to increase their revenue stream. I assume that the company turns a profit. If one were a citizen receiving services from the city, that these profits in theory help provide, then this in itself shouldn’t be a huge issue (assuming that the costs for these services were not way out to lunch with the local market place). Sure they could sell the whole ball of wax (copper, cable, wireless, etc), and use the money to pay down debt. However now you have to ask yourself what’s better for the city fiscally? Having X amount of debt and loan payments while having 2X of income from the telco? Or paying off the debt (in part or all of it), and losing the revenue stream? I guess it depends on the city debt and the revenue stream.

Would this provide a better service for the subscribers in Prince Rupert? Honestly, I doubt it. Sure some things may change, but from what I hear people that have lived in Prince Rupert for a long time generally dislike the service and are unhappy with CityWest, while new comers don’t seem to share the same view. Its possible that they’re a crappy little telco in a semi remote area, but from what I’ve seen that isn’t the case. You have HD cable, EVDO cell service, and reasonably priced internet. Sure you may have issues, but every provider has issues. I think the fact that they’re the sole provider draws more criticism than they truly deserve.

42

I pretty much agree with that, but the discussion about why or whether the city should own Citywest never seems to get as far as what you’ve sketched out. The discussion seems to get stuck at ‘it makes money for the city’.

As you’ve alluded to, the real question is whether the city’s bottom line would be better off, or the city would better manage its risk, by investing its equity in Citywest in other investments or by reducing its debt servicing costs, or by a combination of those approaches.

Citywest makes a profit, but the dividends paid to the city have been considerably less than what was projected when there was a major expansion into the cable market. The decline has been from $2 million a year to $1 million; some years nothing was paid. The city council changed the corporate bylaws so that they could essentially order the board to pay a dividend, just in case the board was hesitant to fork over some money I suppose.

The city also wrote off a $20 million loan to Citywest. That was presented as not being a concern because, as city hall said, ‘it’s money that we owe ourselves’. The underlying reason was apparently that a lot of dated equipment that had been overvalued on the books was written off. On balance Citywest appears to be a depreciating asset, another topic that seems to elude public discussion.

I glanced at the last financial statement (2009) and see that Citywest reported almost $52 million in liabilities and $63 million in assets, giving the city $11 million in shareholder equity. That looks rosy, but $28 million of those assets is “Goodwill”, which has to be a somewhat theoretical, difficult to quantify number, particularly considering the number of complaints and concerns expressed by customers.

Take Goodwill out of the calculation and Citywest has less than $34.5 million in hard assets (cash, equipment, cable, bricks and mortar etc) and $63 million in liabilities, for a bottom line of minus $21 million give or take.

Landline usage must be declining here like it is generally in North America, a lot of customers have migrated to Rogers (the numbers would be interesting for sure). I’m not sure if cable service to Terrace and Kitimat is that promising an investment these days, with one town seeming to be holding its own and the other in serious decline.

It may be that Citywest is a business that the city could not sell off even if it wanted to. There may not be enough there to pay off the debt. It is hard to know what the future holds in store. Perhaps Citywest will slowly fade away, with declining landline and cable subscriberships, overtaken by changing customer preferences and technologies that are less reliant on cable strung on poles around town, including competition in the cell market.

43

[quote=“BTravenn”]Landline usage must be declining here like it is generally in North America, a lot of customers have migrated to Rogers (the numbers would be interesting for sure). I’m not sure if cable service to Terrace and Kitimat is that promising an investment these days, with one town seeming to be holding its own and the other in serious decline.

It may be that Citywest is a business that the city could not sell off even if it wanted to. There may not be enough there to pay off the debt. It is hard to know what the future holds in store. Perhaps Citywest will slowly fade away, with declining landline and cable subscriberships, overtaken by changing customer preferences and technologies that are less reliant on cable strung on poles around town, including competition in the cell market.[/quote]

Landline use may be declining, however they’re unlikely to lose money due to how it’s setup. I know (or rather I heard from a very reliable source that would know) that there was an offer put to CityWest a few years ago to purchase the whole thing, however it was turned down. I have no knowledge of the numbers involved - either with the proposal, or with their balance sheet (nor, to be honest do I care). And unless there was another provider there that offered the same services (cable, landline, wireless, etc), I doubt that they’ll go anywhere.

44

[quote=“Riptide”]

Landline use may be declining, however they’re unlikely to lose money due to how it’s setup. I know (or rather I heard from a very reliable source that would know) that there was an offer put to CityWest a few years ago to purchase the whole thing, however it was turned down. I have no knowledge of the numbers involved … [/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised either if Citywest’s landline service makes money. Products nearing the end of their life cycle are not necessarily unprofitable. Much of the landline infrastructure would have paid for itself years ago, old technology can be quite robust, and marketing costs would be nil because there is no competition.

I’d heard as well that Citywest rejected an offer years ago to buy the landline business. That may be where Citywest makes most or all of its money. It’s Citywest’s cell service that I would wonder about. It’s a small market, a lot of share has been lost to Rogers in not very long.

Citywest originally published separate financial statements for their landline, cell, and cable services, but they have been rolling everything together so that it is impossible to know where they are making or losing money. It would be interesting though to know what makes money and what loses money, and perhaps in the city’s best interests to take a look at that.

45

Linked in another thread: crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-579.htm

Citywest applies to the CRTC for a subsidy because of declining landline customers.

46

[quote=“sandimas”]
Citywest applies to the CRTC for a subsidy because of declining landline customers.[/quote]

I see that a background document cites “a substantial decrease in the wire centre’s total NAS count” since 2006, thus resulting in a $142,000 annual subsidy from the feds. Citywest’s 2010 financial statement, which should be available in the coming weeks, could make for some interesting reading.

47

Getting back to the original topic, I’ve heard that Bell has confirmed that the issue is not a Bell issue. That realistically only leaves Syniverse as the link between Telus/Rogers customers and Bell/CityWest users.

I would expect that Bell, Telus, Rogers and Syniverse will be having a big pow wow early tomorrow to hash the issue out. I would think that once Syniverse gets a chance to dig into their translations, that this should get resolved fairly quickly. My bet is before noon (all the engineers being out east helps).

48

[quote=“Riptide”]Getting back to the original topic, I’ve heard that Bell has confirmed that the issue is not a Bell issue. That realistically only leaves Syniverse as the link between Telus/Rogers customers and Bell/CityWest users.

I would expect that Bell, Telus, Rogers and Syniverse will be having a big pow wow early tomorrow to hash the issue out. I would think that once Syniverse gets a chance to dig into their translations, that this should get resolved fairly quickly. My bet is before noon (all the engineers being out east helps).[/quote]

I hope so, really really hope so!

49

You’re expecting a speedy resolution? Their managers are like ghosts Tues-Thursday. You’re of your rocker if you think anything of importance will get done between Friday noon and Monday noon. No decision makers, no decisions.
The Telus manager you speak to on Tuesday will retire/get fired/get shuffled by Thursday.
The Rogers managers have phones that send you back to their central 800 number.
Glaciers are faster…

50

Well it looks like rogers and telus are not at fault for any of the issues citywest is having!!! as i have a telus phone and have no issues texting anyone except those who have citywest services which is using bell as there mobile phone service!!! 1 more reason why i don’t go to citywest for cell service!! I will stick to telus or rogers!!!

51

[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]You’re expecting a speedy resolution? Their managers are like ghosts Tues-Thursday. You’re of your rocker if you think anything of importance will get done between Friday noon and Monday noon. No decision makers, no decisions.
The Telus manager you speak to on Tuesday will retire/get fired/get shuffled by Thursday.
The Rogers managers have phones that send you back to their central 800 number.
Glaciers are faster…[/quote]

No, this has gone way up the food chain in Bell. Perhaps noon was too opportunistic, but I know they’re working on this over the weekend (at least that’s what I’m hearing, and I believe it). And the bigshots don’t have to get involved… they’ll just tell the technicians to fix it… and fix it now. That’s how it always seems to work.

Bookgirl, it’s not an issue that “CityWest” is having. If you’ve read anything I’ve already written, then A you should know that I do know what I’m talking about (vs talking out my ass, or immediately blaming CityWest like many on here), and B that it’s technically impossible for the issue that’s occurring to have been caused by CityWest - they couldn’t do it even if they wanted to. But hey, you do whatever works for you, and keep telling yourself whatever it is that will make you feel better.

52

I think that what some of us have trouble appreciating is that, using your analogy, Citywest is far down the food chain. They don’t have a cell network to fix because unlike Bell, Rogers and Telus they don’t own and operate (or fix) a cell network.

As a cell service, Citywest is a hollow shell in a way, a collection of contracts. It switched off its cell network in 2008. That’s a big reason why its assets were substantially written down and a $20 million loan from the city was ‘forgiven’. It rents cell services from Bell (Northwest Tel) who owns and operates the actual system. The current technical problems probably are mostly for Bell to work out with Syniverse, an outfit that few of us had probably heard of before.

Citywest also has a roaming agreement with Telus that prevents Telus from competing with Citywest in Rupert, an unintended consequence being that Telus cannot compete with Rogers here, with the result that consumers have less choice.

Technical issues aside, Citywest is a bit hard to make sense of. Underneath the storefront it’s really a Bell outlet in Rupert, operating under a different brand and offering a lite package of Bell products and services (eg no GSM phones last time I checked). I think that customers and the public that owns Citywest might have more confidence in the company if it cut the pretense and presented itself as a Bell provider, and became something like 7/11 Speakout is to Rogers.

I appeciate, Riptide, that you’re able to offer some insights without the useless, cutting remarks that sometimes clutter the more technical threads on HTMF.

53

CityWest is not completely Bell… but they’re very close. As BTavern said… CityWest owns the contracts, Northwestel owns the network (and some switches), all of which piggy back off of Bells platform.

My understanding is that HSPA is right around the corner for Prince Rupert, and CityWest customers. However from what I understand, the coverage isn’t that great, and that area’s of downtown that have poor coverage now with CDMA, will have worse coverage with HSPA (GSM).

54

Rogers, Telus and Bell already have HSPA coverage in Rupert. Rogers seems to have the best coverage, and they also have GPRS and Edge as well as HSPA, so that non-3G GSM phones work.

55

I wonder what ‘the deal’ is though with Telus and Bell phones here? They work, but I know that you cannot have a Telus cell phone with a Rupert address, due to their agreement with Citywest. Presumably the same applies to a Bell phone.

Does a Telus or Bell customer pay extra to roam onto Citywest’s phantom network, which is really a Northwest Tel (Bell) network, such that the service is not cost competitive, particularly compared to Rogers? Or is there just the inconvenience of needing an out of town address? The issue has been touched on in previous cell phone threads but I don’t recall it being answered.

Roaming seems so archaic in view of the coverage that Telus-Bell and Rogers have achieved in the last few years, and the ease with which one can use a local SIM card in other countries, but it still seems to be a live issue in Rupert. It’s another area (much like the lag on offering HSPA) where Citywest seems out of step with the times.

Perhaps that’s another example of why it might be better if Citywest was just a co-brand providing a storefront for a national provider, probably Bell, rather than marketing itself and structuring contracts with Northwest Tel (Bell) and Telus as if it’s still an independent provider, which it hasn’t been since 2008.

56

Bell doesn’t offer service there, and I believe Telus won’t due to pre-existing agreements with CityWest. However I’m not sure what the deal is with the HSPA.

The customer won’t pay extra, however depending on what their number is there could be LD charges for incoming calls. The customer’s carrier will get billed for every minute/byte used by the subscriber while on another network. I’ve been in the industry for some time now, and I can’t remember a customer ever getting billed additional charges (not airtime or LD, but charges on top of that) while in Canada, and getting service from a Canadian carrier. As for getting service there, I’m not sure what line ranges Bell/Telus have access to, and what their restrictions are regarding the billing address. Could you live without a local number to get access to HSPA? Some people can while others can’t.

Not sure what you mean in regards to it being a live issue?

57

There are HTMF people with both Bell and Telus phones, and with Port Edward numbers who have HSPA phones – we’ve gone over this fact before on HTMF. They don’t make it easy for you, but you can do it. You have to ask for a Port Edward number instead of a Prince Rupert one.

Bell and Telus share their HSPA network. Anywhere you can get HSPA service from one, you can get it from the other. We’ve been over this stuff in previous threads, I think.

58

With Telus I just phoned them up, gave them the # of my micro sim card and away I went. The only thing was I couldn’t do it via internet. That said they didn’t charge me a hook up fee or what ever they call it so all good. Gave me a 778 #

59

See My wife was in PG this weekend and she tried to get me an I Phone 4 and the lady had told her that I couldn’t have a local number with a telus phone. So how do i get around this i am sick of waiting for Citywest to join the rest of the country.

60

Get a Port Edward number.