PC World Forums: Canadians Blast iPhone Pricing - PC World Forums

Post your comments for Canadians Blast iPhone Pricing here

First check out this density map: http://maps.howstuff...ensity-map.htm.

Looking at the map, it seems reasonable to conclude the respective 3G networks in both countries will focus roughly on the orange areas. Agree? But even with Canadian's living close to the border, the population density is still very low compared to America. Just look at all those really profitable dark orange areas in America!

To me, it looks like regardless of where Roger's plunks down a cell phone tower, each tower is going to (on average) serve far less people than each AT&T tower that gets plunked down in America. Thus the cost of the network in America is a lot more profitable, and prices for subscriptions can go down a lot. To me this is so trivially obvious!

So, I think Canadian's should be thankful that Roger's invested in a 3G network at all. It must have been very expensive for them to build, and my if they were to match AT&T's rates, they would go bankrupt.

Furthermore, this also explains why cities like Hong Kong get such great rates compared to Americans... 7 million people in a single city state. Very dense network that is extremely profitable from a "per tower" perspective.

I love your post CanadianinAmerica. So few canadians seem to realize what you said.

If you buy and Ipod then you deserve to be ripped off.

That's a decent argument, but the map you are using to present is flawed. The problem is one of the selection of cartographic symbols. I think you'll find the population density in Canadian city centers is every bit as high as those in the United States (the form of urban development really isn't that different). Here's another view from 2003:
http://www.usgcrp.go...2003-fig8-1.htm
What has happened in the map you used is that the symbols for city locations in Canada obscured the locations of high density below them. Now, the fact that you can see a difference on the map you linked does tell us something: Areas of high density are more extensive in the United States for certain (which means there are much bigger viable markets there). However, within the cities of Canada, there are viable markets too. And Rogers should be able to make a lot of money by building towers and offering service in those markets.

Problem with both maps is that there are density dots that show you an idea of what the populations areas are so it really comes down to opinion. If you really want to get into some actual numbers, try looking at the biggest cities in both countries. These only list the true city populations, that don't include the outlying areas. For example, Los Angeles has 13 million people, but the downtown is 4 million. Vancouver lists 1.8 million, but the region is over 4 million.



www.citymayors.com/gratis/uscities_100.html


[http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/canadian_cities.html]


If you use these numbers and sum up the top 30 cities in both countries, you'll find that the biggest 30 cities in America have a population of 36.9 million (core populations), while Canada's top 30 cities have a combined population of 14.3 million. According to this, American top 30 cities are 2.57 times bigger than Canadian's top 30 cities.


It is scary to know that little Abbotsford is Canada's 26th biggest city (in 2003) with a population of 136,000. Grand Prairie Texas also has a similar population, but is ranked US's 166th biggest city.


Again, this proves that there are far more opportunities for profitable cell phone towers in far more cities. Both Rogers and AT&T have to build 3G networks that encompass a broad area, not just the biggest cities. But America has 166 cities that are all bigger than Abbotsford and the profits from the networks of those cities offset the losses incurred by smaller cities and rural areas in the network. Like I said before, Canada doesn't have enough major profitable network cities to offset the cost of the unprofitable lower density areas in their network, where America has far more profitable areas to carry that weight.


The differences are huge! But the price difference between Roger's plan and AT&T's plan isn't nearly as drastic. AT&T is guaranteed to be making far more profit than Roger's is, who is lucky to be breaking even.

Rogers has proper prices on their plans. I do not understand why everyone is so mad. No one bothers to read what rogers has posted.

"While the iPhone 3G Voice and Data Packages allow you to use this device to its fullest and offer savings over separate voice and data plans, they are not the only options available to you. Other pricing options are available" -rogers.com <-- means u do NOT have to pay what is posted on their site.

And.

"If you are an existing customer, you may keep your existing voice service plan and add a separate data plan. " -rogers.com <--what many of us will be doing. Because this way u can keep ur high min plan where u talk as much as u want. and still be able to use Iphone to the max.