Template talk:Canadian mobile phone companies

Public mobile

[edit]

Is it, or is it not a 'regional' mobile phone company? I say it isn't. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A regional network is one that covers a specific sub-region of the entire country, as opposed to major carriers that covers the entire country (Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Wind Mobile to a lesser extent). If you see here (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09004.html#can69inc), you can see that Public Mobile (Canada Inc is only a front name) only has the right to a very small region within the entire country, specifically the Lower Canada region. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, they do operate in more than one province, and thus not regional. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regional (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regional#Adjective) -
  1. Of, or pertaining to, a specific region or district
  2. Of, or pertaining to, a large geographic region
Just because the region spans parts of two provinces doesn't make it not regional. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cincinnati Bell and i wireless in the US are classified as minor-regional carriers even if they straddle multiple state boundaries, so the precedents exist. An appropriate measure of 'major' would be both area and population coverage. A major network should cover at least 70% of the entire population of Canada (i.e. >23 million), and has coverage in at least 7 provinces and territories of the country. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? And your point is...? You're giving me a link to page deletion arguments, which discusses whether the existence of article A is a valid argument for keeping article B, that have absolutely nothing to do with what I presented. I have yet to see another argument from you in support for your change except for the fact that this company offers coverage for two provinces. Perhaps you should see WP:NOREASON, even if it is from the same page about page deletion you gave me, which is more relevant here. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, it's quite appropriate for them to be under national. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, what is your justification for this besides, well, "be that as it may ... therefore I think it should classified as a national and a major network"? Just saying that it is without any compelling reason is not an argument. It's just a vote. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinon - A third opinion was requested at the project page WP:Third opinion. I am here to provide an opinion in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that will encourage the formation of consensus and help us all to produce a better encyclopedia.

Working It may take some time to review your discussions, check for sources (if necessary), review the aforementioned policies and guidelines and write the opinion. I will post my opinion here shortly, but in the meantime please continue a constructive debate. Bigger digger (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can start by saying I have not (to my memory) edited Canada telecommunication type articles and have not had any previous dealings with the two involved editors, so am sufficiently uninvolved to offer this opinion, which I hope will help build an agreement.
The other major "Major network operators" all operate across the whole of Canada, can provide coverage to their customers across the country either through their own network, or, in the case of Wind, via roaming. I think therefore it would be suitable to define a Major network operator as one that operates across the country with network provision and retail support.
Public mobile does not operate across the whole country, only in one area. Its article mentions major bases in two cities and no coverage outside of them. This does not fit either the definition I propose above, or the definition earlier suggested by 24.85.146.19 and I therefore think it's appropriate to class Public mobile as a Regional company.
I think that regional does not need to be equated with province. A region could be the whole of Western Canada, for example.
There are also many more areas your efforts could be focusing on in the field of Canadian wireless firms. Whilst looking through the articles I found that CityWest doesn't even have a copy of this template in it, despite being listed in the template. NMI Mobility is a simple redirect to Bell Mobility, so there needs to be some explanation there, and a lot of the articles have unnecessary details of price plans, which makes them look like consumer guides.
I would be keen to see your further thoughts. Bigger digger (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding network provision and retail support across the country, but your definition of "across the country" is a bit too loose in my mind.
How do you define "across the country"? Does having a network that operate in British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland, with an area that spans 3 provinces and with a population of about 6.2M (population of Canada is 33M), mean that the network is "across the country" and thus qualify it as a 'major network'? Of course not, I would say it is even less regional than the Western Canada example that you gave. Ok, so you may say, let's define that as having a specified number of provinces and territories and cover a specific amount of area of Canada. The problem with that is focusing on just the geographic area alone can be just as problematic. Let's for example say that a major network is one that covers at least 50% of the geographic area of Canada. So a network that covers Western Canada, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut would be eligible as a major network, since it spans from the Pacific to Arctic and Atlantic and cover a pretty big area. Problem with this is, there are only about 10.5M people living in those regions, which is only about 1/3 of the entire population of Canada. So just depending on this singular measure alone can be weak as well, even if it reaches 7 provinces and territories; just ask the other 2/3 of Canadians who probably don't even know of its existence, let alone its geographic reach.
Therefore, any measure of 'major' should be one that account for both the geographic and population reach of the network provider. A bar set high enough so that not every single new entrant to the market (or even existing ones) can be classified as 'major'. So I still think my criteria for classifying a wireless network as a major network operator of Canada should be one that has coverage (both wireless signal reach, retail and customer service support) in at least 7 provinces and territories, and reaches at least 70% of the total population of Canada. Those are simple, objective, and verifiable criteria that show with few doubts that a particular operator is major.
In any case, back to the original topic that got to this debate. Public Mobile is just so small that I just cannot believe anyone with a rational mind would say that it is a major network and not a regional network. It's crazy that we're even arguing about this. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree. If they operate in BC, Ontario and PEI (another example) then I'd say it's not just regional, but perhaps not national. Perhaps we simply need another category on the template for these? The term "multi regional" might work. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So all you disagree with was my hypothetical situation to demonstrate to Bigger digger how, even a company with a presence in multiple regions, can be smaller in scale than a big, entirely Western Canada regional network, and thus cannot be classified as a major network the same way a Western Canada only network cannot? Sure, if there is such a company in Canada operating in such a way, with presence in multiple, non-contiguous (but sizable in terms of geographical area) regions of Canada, I'm open to making a new category for it. But such a company does NOT exist!
If you are genuinely wanting another third opinion, look no further than another anonymous editor who reverted your change on August 25th (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Canadian_mobile_phone_companies&diff=380932222&oldid=380834512). He wrote this about Public Mobile: "Public officially covers 20% of Canada's population". Even if his/her message was terse, it was pretty apparent to him/her that the population reach of Public Mobile just isn't vast enough to qualify it as a major network. In conjunction with Bigger digger's suggested simple geographical reach criterion ("Public mobile does not operate across the whole country, only in one area") for identifying suitable candidates for major networks, it's pretty apparent that Public Mobile falls extremely short of both the geographical measure of Bigger digger and the population measure of 38.111.118.85, let alone my even stricter criteria. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

[edit]

To quote the article: "Public Mobile only has coverage in the Greater Toronto Area and Montreal. Plans to expand their network to other large Canadian cities such as Ottawa are slated to be completed by the end of 2011. Public Mobile does not have any roaming agreements with other providers in Canada, so when outside of their network coverage area customers will have no service." It doesn't even cover all the provinces you note, just a few cities in them. That is why I can't see how this is a major operator. If we were to use the US-compromise of major and minor regional firms, which other networks would you promote? And why is it important to you to elevate Public mobile? Perhaps if I can understand your motivations I can be more constructive? Bigger digger (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me regional would define a Regional Municipality, County, or equivalent. At most it would cover just one province. The GTA and Montreal are four hours apart by car, and thus not part of a region. OTOH I might apply that same difference between the GTA and Windsor, Ontario which are equal driving distance. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me-123567-Me, seems like we're making some progress! Can you agree that as it only serves two cities, it would be inappropriate to list Public in the Major Providers section? Bigger digger (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes sense, but to me it's that word serves that makes a big difference. If it has roaming for a larger area, then I consider it part of a larger network, as both Bell and Telus rely on roaming and don't have truly national networks (like Rogers for example.) Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the problem is that 24.85.146.19 & I don't think Public mobile is "Major", but, coming from the other angle, you don't think it's "Regional". If we renamed "Regional" to "Other", so that we had "Major network operators" and "Other network operators", would it then be acceptable to you to include Public in the "Other" section? Bigger digger (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I will notify 24.85.146.19 and hopefully we can resolve this. Bigger digger (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll keep it short since digger likes it short. I think renaming from 'regional' to 'other' is a bit condescending, as if they weren't important to the markets they serve (who likes to be called 'the other guys'?). "Spotty regional network operators" or "Networks operating in select markets" would address the separation in coverage zones, but one's a bit silly and non-encyclopedic sounding, the other is too wordy and maybe a bit vague (but I think it's pretty good). So let's keep it simple and call it regional network operators. Oh wait...
I'm open to more suggestions. It's getting long and digger will be mad so I'll stop here. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Squeezing up to the edge of the page now... Shame you don't feel that's a useful compromise. I agree that Regional Network Operator would be the preferred term but I can also appreciate that under a very strict definition it might not be entirely appropriate. If not regional or other, how about minor or non-major? If either of those strike you as odd they might also attract the attention of another editor viewing the template and tempted to change it. I'll quickly run out of proto-synonyms so other suggestions are welcome. Bigger digger (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Why compromise when there isn't anything wrong with the current name? I like the current "Regional network operators" just fine. If you really have such trouble with the term, Me-123567-Me, what do you think it should be called? The onus is on you to come up with new names, not the ones who are already satisfied with the status quo. If you can't come up with them, then it means the current one is the best, and that's what we'll run with. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Bigger digger's suggestion. Other network operators sounds like a good suggestion. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I actually now consider a better phrasing than Regional network operators. Per 24.85.146.19's definition above, a region is a single contiguous area, and the lack of coverage by Public between the two cities actually means it covers two regions. The fact that a region can be as small as a city and its suburbs, as big as half a country, or a group of continents ("North American region")actually introduces some variability. This shows the lack of accuracy in the use of "regional" as it can mean so many different, and potentially inaccurate, things. Bigger digger (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So to you, a physical region that cover the entire area of a province can be called a region, and yet when this physical area is divided by an imaginary border, then it isn't a region anymore?
If a region is physically contiguous, even arbitrary province boundary lines virtually dividing such region do not separate the physical makeup of the region. And by the same token, a region separated by provincial lines does not physically divide nor disrupt coverage and presence of any wireless network. It is, for all practical purposes, a single region. I think Bigger digger would readily agree with me on this.
And by the way, the current coverage area of Public Mobile is just two cities, GTA and Montreal. It is even smaller in terms of coverage area than some other provincial operators which have province-wide access. And you still consider Public Mobile a major operator? Give me a break. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single network currently in the regional list is a 'major regional network' in my mind. If you check out each company on the list, they're either absorbed by a major operator, or they're only provincial players, with one or two 'spilling over' to adjacent provinces. A company with spotty access, but has retail and support presence, in two adjacent provinces hardly qualify it as 'major regional', let alone a major network operator of Canada. It's simply reducing the meaning of 'major'. So I don't think the US solution of dividing carriers as major and minor networks works all that well here.
And also, just because a company A has a roaming agreement with a major network B (e.g. Rogers) does not make it a major player either. I can start a cellular network in my hypothetical town of Mobileville in Nunavut with a population of 2, and coverage of 10 square metres, and then I would sign a roaming agreement with a major network with cross country coverage. In that instant, would my mobile company become a major carrier? That is a terrible criterion; a network's coverage area used to measure its reach must only measure those provided by the network itself, not a third party corporation.
There are a couple of networks in the US template that cross state lines but are considered minor-regional that you should take a look at. In particular, nTelos, a minor-regional network (according to the US template), is most directly comparable to Public Mobile in terms of network coverage (I'd say Public Mobile is much smaller, but it's good enough as an example). I discussed US multi-state, minor-regional networks as appropriate comparisons to Public Mobile and how they should be considered as precedents to support Public Mobile's demotion from the major networks list, but for which Me-123567-Me blew off by insightfully replying: "WP:OTHERSTUFF". I really don't think he's really discussing this topic in good faith. He just blew you off by another non answer to your inquiries regarding his motivation and rationale to elevate Public Mobile as a major network. If you've noticed, he just reverted the template back to his contentious edit.
Finally, Bigger digger, you only need to look at this map from Public Mobile (http://www.publicmobile.ca/pmconsumer/coverage). I don't know how anyone would look at that coverage map and proclaim this network as a major wireless network of Canada. Anyone saying that it is must be smoking something really hallucinogenic. 24.85.146.19 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public mobile

[edit]

There is a dispute as to weather or not public mobile should be regional or national. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to respond to the RfC. However, I'm concerned that the issue already appears to have been raised at 3O - if you don't like the response you get from 3O it may be bad form to shop around for other responses til you find one that you like.
I would be happy to call a network "national" if it covers the whole of the country (to the extent that it's practical. In a country like Canada it's inevitable that some remote areas may not be covered by even the strongest network).
As far as I can tell, coverage is nowhere near national; it is limited to patches at one end of Canada according to this map and I would be happy to characterise such coverage as "regional". Is there some other map which shows broader coverage? bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

major vs minor

[edit]

I don't understand why WIND is listed as a major carrier. Its network is not even close to the big three. Videotron invested more for its network and have more coverage (even if it is only in Quebec right now) and so would deserve the title. Or maybe Sasktel. But Wind is clearly in the minors, just ahead of Mobilicity and Public Mobile. --Bob333333 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest we determine major vs minor besides how much $$$ was invested? I don't agree that $$$ = major or minor. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved WIND from the "upcoming" to "Major", I did so, because they have (or were very actively building) networks in more then 2 provinces. To me, a "Major Network" (in Canada, at least) would be one that has networks already active, or planned launches with in a 18 month period, in 5 provinces, and/or 10 major cities. To me, that means a population over 100,000 people, counts as "major" in our Great Nation. When I moved Wind, they had 2 Major Cities, with plans for 3 more by 2010's end, and up to 15 or so by 2011's end. Wind scared Bell, Telus, and Rogers - and they caused them to go crying to the CRTC and thus, they proved a 'credible nuisance' to the major networks. Public is more of a 'private network' in a very small area, and Mobilicity is trying very much to catch up (and I think they will eventually!) but they both belong in "other networks". We should use "Small" "Medium" and "Large" for network types - small being those in 1 province (Ontario) / region (Windsor - Quebec City Corridor) / city (Winnipeg) i.e. MTS, Public. Medium a network could be 2 to 4 provinces (Wind, Mobilicity, ICE, Northwest etc etc), and Large being those in 5+ provinces/territories (Rogers, Bell, Telus).
The "Small/Medium/Large" network could help sort out the issues above or make it worse. I don't know for sure. But, I'm tossing it out for consideration. AllanVS talk contribs 03:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody look at [1] and say with a straight face that the red dots are the footprint of a major national telecoms company? bobrayner (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "major" and "minor" are the problem; why not "national" and "regional" instead? "Major" and "minor" leave too much up to opinion. --Ckatzchatspy 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't use "minor", following the lengthy conversation in earlier sections. All of these categories leave too much to opinion! Bigger digger (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think "Major" and "Other" is fine, and feel that Wind unambiguously belongs in the latter; but we can't spend the rest of our lives disagreeing over such a small detail of wikipedia, so I'd be happy to tweak the section names if that leads to a solution that everybody's happy with. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should instead merge those two sections and just have one of the companies that own their own infastructure vs MVNOs. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mobi launched in Western Canada, and Ottawa, I've moved them up - with Wind - to Major Networks.
BUT I agree, that we should just have Networks and MVNO's instead of Major and Minor companies. AllanVS talk contribs 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any editor boldly making this re-arrangement. Bigger digger (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, merged. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take bets on the whole thing being merged without any differentiation in about 3 months! Good work! Bigger digger (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I'd rather "Major" "Local" and "MVNO" as it was before "Me-123567" merged it. It now looks overly crowded. Just saying. AllanVS talk contribs 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major" and "Local" or "Regional" is pretty subjective. At least MVNO is pretty defined. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Major (in 3 or more provinces)" and "Regional (in 2 or less provinces)" is pretty defined. AllanVS talk contribs 04:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That definition is pretty POV. I wouldn't call it regional if they're in BC and Quebec for example, but no other provinces. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yes, whilst other editors would take the other view, see all the conversation above! Bigger digger (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, I only came here to help with the dispute, but I would recommend other editors interested in this area have a look at the articles linked to from the template. Most of them are a total mess! The opportunity to rank the companies in a meaningful, statistical way, is at List of Canadian mobile phone companies linked from the top of the template, yet that List is embarrassingly ropey. Some of the articles linked on the template don't even include the template on the page! Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messy template; please help clean!

[edit]

There are just too many issues with this template:

1. Push-to-talk (PTT/iDEN) networks : where are they? Notably, MiKE is owned by TELUS, but always uses iDEN and not CDMA or HSPA. (Note: Bell is NOT a PTT provider, as they do not own a dedicated PTT network, and they are phasing out their 10-4 service. Also, Ckatz, why are you deleting MiKE and PTT/iDEN networks?)

2. Clearnet : is it defunct, virtual, or both? It's unclear. Any thoughts about this?

3. Fido: are they an MVNO or a regional operator? Do the Fido towers work with Rogers phones or vice-versa? Please provide sources explaining this. Also please explain whether Fido is an MVNO or a separate operator.

4. Big titles: WHY!? USA has "Major", "Super-regional", "Minor-regional", "Virtual" and "Defunct". So WHY do we need to use two big, lengthy, redundant titles: "Network operators" and "Mobile virtual network operators"!? While we're at it, why not rename "Defunct" to "Defunct virtual network operators"? Please, let me know what you think about smaller names such as "Dedicated", "Virtual" and "Defunct".

5. Unlike the US template, Canada does NOT separate coast-to-coast providers (Robelus; from BC to NS) from regionally-limited providers (Mobilicity, WIND, DMTS, Vidéotron, SaskTel and others). The size of population and coverage area are all factors which differentiate a provider from another. NorthernTel and Télébec are mostly or completely owned by Bell Aliant, so why do they have separate entries? So instead of this pot-pourri providers list, why not separate Robelus from smaller providers? Why not create something like the Linux distros list?

It's really frustrating that some Canadians would accept to have more bloat in their Mobile Networks template, while the USA template is neat, clearly divided, easier to read and more informative. Despite my modifications 1, 4 and 5 to the template, Ckatz continually reverts them without any clear explanation. i sent him an email, but i have yet to receive a reply from him.

Please, Canadians, let's write a quality template for Canada's mobile network operators! --LABcrabs (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please reference the previous discussions as to this template. Second, it is your opinion that the US one is better; personally, I find the terms "super-regional" and "minor-regional" unconventional and also certain to lead to more of the disputes over status that we had before. --Ckatzchatspy 16:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why does PTT needs its own category?
  2. Find out and report back. I'm not your private researcher.
  3. MVNO owned by Rogers.
  4. We eliminated the regional cats due to disputes, and really we don't need them.
  5. The US template isn't necessarily better. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From coast to coast

[edit]

Bell, Rogers and Telus are Canada's largest mobile networks in terms of coverage and customer base. They are oftentimes nicknamed "the big three" or "Robelus". Unlike other providers, they provide bilingual talk and text mobile service in all ten provinces. Moreover, compared to smaller networks, coast to coast networks charge higher prices and receive more criticism. For this reason, i've created a Coast to coast article and separated the template accordingly. The article is off to a good start, but it certainly must be expanded.

As for Push-to-Talk or iDEN networks, there are not too many in Canada. The iDEN technology is very unique and different from both CDMA and GSM. Notably, they allow instant communication, while Internet data speeds are much slower than even dial-up. MiKE would be the largest and most well known of the PTT/iDEN networks. If more exist, please add them to this section!

Please discuss on this talk place about your opinion regarding these changes. For those who disagree with the "Regional" title, please suggest another title. As for me, it's clear that coast to coast networks are in multiple ways much different from smaller networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LABcrabs (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "coast to coast" article has been proposed for deletion; there is no indication that this term is in use. --Ckatzchatspy 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "coast to coast" terminology in Canada refers to anything that reaches from east to west. This expression is roughly translated as "d'un océan à l'autre" in French. The expression, for example, can be used to describe the VIA Rail train. It is equally fitting to use it to describe mobile networks.
So to delete an article, simply because one disagrees on the terminology, is not acceptable. These networks are distinct from the smaller networks and that is clear. Rather than the "pot-pourri" list of networks, it helps readers if they can find out: "which network operates in every province? Which ones only operate in certain regions?" The goal of Wikipedia is to educate, not complicate. Rather than edit warring, please make suggestions as to which terminology should be used instead of "coast to coast" and regional. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue your case over on the deletion discussion page. But we generally go by consensus here. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you made up the term in this context; it is not used in Canada to describe mobile telephone operators. You are also arguing against a previous consensus that led to the current arrangement with respect to the template. Trying to characterize this as "a few Wikipedians are edit warring" is misleading and incorrect, when it is you who is ignoring the previous consensus. --Ckatzchatspy 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "made up terminology" argument is false, as Telus uses this exact terminology on many if not all of its brochures. Others use synonyms. See my "Coast to coast" article for my valid arguments and a pamphlet scan. The previous consensus was that categories should be defined without using a biased point of view. For example, "Dedicated" and "MVNO" networks. However, "coast to coast" networks also have certain non-POV characteristics that differentiate them from smaller providers. This is why it is suitable to separate Coast to coast providers from smaller ones. iDEN networks, too, are unique and should be represented by their own category rather than be merged or omitted. Wikipedia is for information, not for confusion. --LABcrabs (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to coast, iDEN, BCE networks and Red links.

[edit]

Please comment on the following issues:
1. "Mobile networks" should be divided between "Coast to coast" (all provinces) and "Regional" (not all provinces) and there should be a vote or commenting on this;
2. Mike should have its own category, as this iDEN network uses unique, dedicated push-to-talk technologies;
3. BCE networks should be merged with Bell Mobility or otherwise have a valid reason to stand alone; and
4. Red links should be avoided, removed or placed in a "More..." section.
Thank you! --LABcrabs (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are ignoring the previous discussions (and the points made since then, in response to your proposed changes) that led to the existing consensus version. Also, "coast to coast" is not the industry term that you make it out to be. --Ckatzchatspy 17:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there is an AFD about the article on so called coast to coast networks. This RFC is a bit of a waste of time... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD only means that "Coast to coast networks" in Canada are not notable enough to justify a separate article. It does not answer "should we put all networks together, or should we separate the coast-to-coast ones from the regional ones?" Nor does it address my other points. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd listen to consensus and stop re-hashing anything you don't agree with. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus is that for three years, coast to coast networks were separated from regional ones. For less than six months, they were all merged. Also, it does not address my other three issues. Red links are a must-avoid on Wikipedia. Mike is a different network technology. Separating BCE-owned networks is like saying that Fido's not an MVNO (it is). (UPDATE: Turns out that Fido DID have a separate network and separate frequencies from Rogers. Only, the cluttered template made Fido seem like an MVNO. This is far from the truth! --LABcrabs (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)) And there should be a second vote or commenting regarding if people (not just a few versus a few) want to see a distinction between smaller and larger networks. If you tell me that i don't own Wikipedia, then neither do you, and you should be willing to accept, or at least consider, that change can improve Wikipedia and Canada's reputation. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fido is owned by Rogers and is now an MVNO since it uses their network. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why is this RFC still open? I really think LABcrabs has to WP:LETGO. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Fido, I have restored the move to the top row per the Fido article, which at present describes Fido as still maintaining its own network. --Ckatzchatspy 19:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Fido was described as Virtual on its article page, then it would have made sense to classify it as MVNO. What we do know is that they "own" GSM 1900MHz. But what about HSPA(+) and LTE? Does Fido only own an older GSM network, or do they own per se a newer network as well? --LABcrabs (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not willing to address the coast-to-coast issue, please look at the other suggestions: 2. Mike should have its own category, as this iDEN network uses unique, dedicated push-to-talk technologies;
3. BCE networks should be merged with Bell Mobility or otherwise have a valid reason to stand alone; and
4. Red links should be avoided, removed or placed in a "More..." section.

So what should be do with Mike? Should it be mashed with the other "network operators", or should it have a separate section as an iDEN/specialty network?

As for NorthernTel, NMI (if it still exists), Latitude (Northwestel, apparently MNVO) and Télébec, should they be listed as separate networks, or should they be embedded in the Bell Mobility article? Are they in a situation similar to Fido or Clearnet? Most of them do not have a dedicated "Mobility" page on Wikipedia, or only have a sentence or two discussing the mobile network, so perhaps more work needs to be done there.

Finally, besides the stub-esque articles, what should we do about the red links? It seems those networks are perhaps too insignificant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Should they be moved in a "More..." section?

Please provice feedback regarding all of this. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile network criticism

[edit]

Hello,

First, let me be clear, i am simply an alias of LABcrabs.

All right, my question here is: what should we do regarding mobile network provider criticism? i've added (criticism) links besides their names in the template, but then changed my mind. This approach less than ideal, especially considering that all companies certainly have some form of criticism.

So what should we do about this? Please discuss here.

Thanks,--True Tech Talk Time (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (new username)[reply]

A template isn't the place to do that. An article on mobile phones in Canada, maybe. So long as it is well sourced. Third party sources. It cannot be original research. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fido Solutions

[edit]

Fido's official website: "Au-delà de l'empreinte de son réseau dans les principaux centres urbains au Canada, Fido offre aussi à ses clients l'accès au réseau GSM/GPRS de Rogers Sans-fil, le plus important réseau sans fil intégré voix et données au Canada." (source: Fido.ca, emphasis mine)

Translation: "Beyond the footprint of its network in Canada's principal urban centres, Fido also offers its clients access to Rogers' GSM/GPRS network, the most important network with voice and data in Canada." (again, emphasis mine)

The English translation omits such an elaborate description, but still suggests that there are separate networks. If this wasn't the case, how could Fido or Chatr identify whether or not customers are in the CityFido or Chatr zone? --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Canadian_mobile_phone_companies&oldid=1246925156"