I missed this story when MTS and Rogers first announced their deal to co-operate on 3.5G wireless, but they’ve recently received regulatory permission for the plan. According to the original MTS release, MTS’ investment in the partnership will be about $70 million and the new network will cover “the majority of the population” by the end of next year. Of course, in Manitoba the majority of the population can mean greater Winnipeg which already has HSPA coverage from Rogers according to the Rogers website.
I still have some questions, particularly about the scheduling for rural areas given the use of vague terms like “majority of the population”. I’m also curious about tower coverage and how that may or may not effect the holes in coverage of both MTS and Rogers. There are some areas where both networks have poor or non-existent coverage (especially in the border areas) and more where one or the other has poor coverage.
Such questions aside, this looks like a very promising development. The official word on this will emphasize new technology and higher speeds which is all good, but I’m also hopeful the shared infrastructure will improve simple coverage in at least a few of the problem areas. The mobile networks in my area are not as good as they could be, and it seems obvious that building an excellent shared network is a better solution than building multiple not-so-good ones.
This entry was written by the proprietor, posted on 17 September 2009 at 11:05 pm.
MTS, Rogers shared wireless network looks promising
I missed this story when MTS and Rogers first announced their deal to co-operate on 3.5G wireless, but they’ve recently received regulatory permission for the plan. According to the original MTS release, MTS’ investment in the partnership will be about $70 million and the new network will cover “the majority of the population” by the end of next year. Of course, in Manitoba the majority of the population can mean greater Winnipeg which already has HSPA coverage from Rogers according to the Rogers website.
I still have some questions, particularly about the scheduling for rural areas given the use of vague terms like “majority of the population”. I’m also curious about tower coverage and how that may or may not effect the holes in coverage of both MTS and Rogers. There are some areas where both networks have poor or non-existent coverage (especially in the border areas) and more where one or the other has poor coverage.
Such questions aside, this looks like a very promising development. The official word on this will emphasize new technology and higher speeds which is all good, but I’m also hopeful the shared infrastructure will improve simple coverage in at least a few of the problem areas. The mobile networks in my area are not as good as they could be, and it seems obvious that building an excellent shared network is a better solution than building multiple not-so-good ones.
This entry was written by the proprietor, posted on 17 September 2009 at 11:05 pm.
Filed under Commentary Unbound and tagged mts, rogers, telecom, wireless.
Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.