[Bordercollie]

It's obviously important enough that GO transit wifi was a key campaign promise for the PCs in 2018.

And my original statement was more about how it's received basically no attention at either the TTC or the media since the current system was implemented, what, 6 years ago?

From my experience trying to use It, it doesn't work more than half the time (on buses).

In other countries that I have used It, it worked great.

So I don't know why it's such an issue to have it working properly.

 

[MrGoose]

From my experience trying to use It, it doesn't work more than half the time (on buses).

In other countries that I have used It, it worked great.

So I don't know why it's such an issue to have it working properly.

Cell signal probably. Go busses are just relaying their data signals to you. It’s basically a giant mobile hotspot.

 

[smallspy]

Freedom mobile has a 6% market share. So 94% of riders can't use cell service... congrats?

If that's mission accomplished.. man..

Yea, TTC getting revenue from it is good, as I said. It's not the core purpose, the core purpose is making the subway ride more attractive by providing cell signal access.

Providing the TTC a bit of revenue and 6% of riders cell signal is hardly an excellent result.. If that's "acceptable" I don't want to know what is unacceptable..

From the TTC's standpoint, they put out a request to have someone come in and install the network. And they would have to pay for the privilege to do so at a flat rate. And so far, the winning proponent did that, and has been.

It's not within the TTC's scope to go out and canvas the various cell providers as to why may or may not want to play ball with the winning proponent. Hell, it might even be a violation of the contract to do so.

The problem you have is not with the TTC, it's with the proponent. Or maybe even with your own network provider.

Dan

 

[innsertnamehere]

From the TTC's standpoint, they put out a request to have someone come in and install the network. And they would have to pay for the privilege to do so at a flat rate. And so far, the winning proponent did that, and has been.

It's not within the TTC's scope to go out and canvas the various cell providers as to why may or may not want to play ball with the winning proponent. Hell, it might even be a violation of the contract to do so.

The problem you have is not with the TTC, it's with the proponent. Or maybe even with your own network provider.

Dan

My point is that perhaps the TTC should be re-evaluating the proponent and their approach to the procurement as they are failing at accomplishing the goal of the request.

Just because they pawned off the problem to a sub-contractor doesn't absolve them of it.

 

[nfitz]

because it failed to deliver it's intended purpose - providing increased convenience to their customers? The additional revenue was a bonus, not a purpose.

I find that I can use my cell phone now on TTC very convenient. If one needs to do this, why isn't one using Freedom? It's a heck of a lot cheaper than Bell and Rogers too.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Bell installed their fiber network in my neighbourhood

They did that in mine too although the rogers line runs through the back yards on my street. A bell rep came by at one point to try and sell people on switching and was puzzled about why no one was connected to them

 

[rbt]

I mean, the same 3/4 carriers operate in Vancouver (I know one may say underground portion of Canada Line was built much later than TTC), and Montreal just completed their rollout a year ago, with all of the big 3 + Videotron with service at stations and tunnels. The install also didn’t require any partial or full closure of any station or line. I don’t see how the reasons you gave is unique to Toronto, and I don’t see Montreal Metro having delays everyday because these companies want to go down and fix their lines.

Carriers learned their lesson from Toronto when bidding in Montreal. They formed a new company, gave it $50M in funding, then installed a single set of equipment which supports all shareholders.

In Toronto they tried to bid for exclusive access (I.e. the Bell bid specifically excluded Rogers access) and ended up losing to a foreign bidder who promised to support everybody (while also paying the most). Also notable, at the time of the Toronto bid, cross-carrier roaming wasn't really a thing among the big 3 either; they all effectively share the edge of their networks today.

 

[smallspy]

My point is that perhaps the TTC should be re-evaluating the proponent and their approach to the procurement as they are failing at accomplishing the goal of the request.

As I understand it from people within the TTC, the contract was for the installation and maintenance of the system in the tunnels. There would be ongoing period payments made to the TTC, and the TTC would allow a limited window of time each period to allow access to the equipment for maintenance and upgrades. There was nothing in there about a requirement to allow all 3 major cell providers access to it, or any of the smaller players either.

It sounds like that the terms of the contract have thus far been met then. Should they have written the contract differently? Perhaps....but the TTC isn't a cell service provider.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

Carriers learned their lesson from Toronto when bidding in Montreal. They formed a new company, gave it $50M in funding, then installed a single set of equipment which supports all shareholders.

$50 million seems low to me. How much was the fee that the new company paid STM for the rights to install the equipment?

 

[rbt]

$50 million seems low to me. How much was the fee that the new company paid STM for the rights to install the equipment?

I don't know how the funding was spent. I only know that the shareholders (Rogers, Bell, Telus, Videotron) each funded 12.5M. It's possible there are annual service fees charged as well for day-to-day operations.

 

[nfitz]

I don't know how the funding was spent. I only know that the shareholders (Rogers, Bell, Telus, Videotron) each funded 12.5M. It's possible there are annual service fees charged as well for day-to-day operations.

I assume it was a public tender. Isn't the information public?

 

[MisterF]

From the TTC's standpoint, they put out a request to have someone come in and install the network. And they would have to pay for the privilege to do so at a flat rate. And so far, the winning proponent did that, and has been.

It's not within the TTC's scope to go out and canvas the various cell providers as to why may or may not want to play ball with the winning proponent. Hell, it might even be a violation of the contract to do so.

The problem you have is not with the TTC, it's with the proponent. Or maybe even with your own network provider.

Dan

And yet other cities have figured this out with those very same providers.

 

[robmausser]

And yet other cities have figured this out with those very same providers.

Exactly, people here are acting like this cant be done, while meanwhile it has been done already in Montreal and Vancouver.

Typical Toronto: If we can't do it, its impossible.

 

[smallspy]

And yet other cities have figured this out with those very same providers.

It also sounds like those other providers did this after the TTC's system went live.

Hindsight is 20/20, after all.....

Dan

 

[trtcttc]

It also sounds like those other providers did this after the TTC's system went live.

Hindsight is 20/20, after all.....

Dan

The TTC definitely should’ve and probably did talk to the carrier as well, but whether by choice or incompetence they didn’t agree with the telecoms. And sure Montreal came after, but Vancouver always had reception underground before the TTC deal.