undefined | Better HN

0 pointsversion_five3y ago0 comments

Roger's isnt really a business, it's part of an oligopoly and more like a government utility. They do focus on churning customers from their identical "competitors", but a big part of their model is making it as hard as possible to cancel. Normal business rules don't apply, it's basically government rent seeking and doing as little for customers as possible while charging them as much as possible. The Canadian telecom industry bears no resemblance to "business".

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

walrus013y ago· 2 in thread

a fascinating thing to learn in canada, as someone who works in the telecom industry, is that the vast majority of non-industry consumers have absolutely no idea who really owns the various MVNO/flanker brands like chatr, fido, koodoo, public mobile etc which all run on the networks of Bell, Telus, Rogers.

the ordinary consumer really does believe these are separate networks.

wodenokoto3y ago

In Denmark MVNO use the name of their network provider heavily in their marketing effort.

“The same great coverage as TDC because we use their network, but you only pay xx DKK” kind of thing is quite common.

zinekeller3y ago

I think I can get what you're saying, but unlike in the EU where true MNVOs exists (which are independent of the backbone carrier and can switch to a different one for a lot of reasons), in Canada they are effectively subbrands of the same carriers. For example, Fido (https://www.fido.ca/) is owned by Rogers (the same company the OP is asking about) and Koodo (https://www.koodomobile.com/en) is owned by Telus but the carriers are "shy" to show that these MNVOs are ultimately owned by the same carriers they want to leave from (try to poke their websites and you'll be hard-press to find that they're subbrands).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse