Jason M. Hanley :: Custom Software Developer

I have been in touch with lots of people regarding my previous blog posting, and I’m very impressed to see that a lot of people are indeed aware of the problem, and actively working toward solutions.  In fact, Michael Geist, who has been speaking and writing about this for much longer than I have, recently spoke in front of a Senate committee and explained things in very simple, precise manner.  Here is a great excerpt (emphasis added by me):

“The truth is that there are ways, if we had unlocked devices and had a more open space, we would encourage this innovation without the gatekeepers that we see. Fundamentally, that is what we see taking place here. Certain gatekeepers exist in the chain; sometimes it is the device manufacturers; often — particularly in Canada — it is the carrier themselves who set limitations on what can come into the marketplace, precisely because it is to their competitive advantage to do so. We do not have enough competition to counteract that at the moment.

Who is to blame? I think there is plenty of blame to go around. We have the CRTC — to be honest — asleep at the switch, particularly on this wireless issue; they have not been involved at all. On net neutrality, for example, a complaint was brought against Bell Canada’s activities. They found for Bell in a manner that just last week was appealed asking for a reconsideration, noting that the CRTC itself has acknowledged in public statements that they may not have had all of the facts. Even when they do get engaged, the perception is that they may be overly cosy with some of the companies that they regulate, so there is ample reason to lay some of the blame at the CRTC.

It is not just the CRTC, however. I think we can blame the Competition Bureau as part of this. It was the bureau that, when we had two providers in the GSM space — Fido and Rogers — allowed a merger of those two services to go ahead, taking away the only competition we had in the GSM space and leaving us with just the one provider.

We can look to governments. This is not a partisan issue because this falls under both the watch of when we had Liberal governments and now, more recently, Conservative governments. In both instances, they let broadband task force reports sit there. There has been no digital strategy for Canada for more than 10 years now, while we see other countries move ahead more aggressively. I think we can look to all of these players to say that they have let us down, quite frankly.

The results are in the independent statistics. You can certainly get lobby groups or association groups to come in and spin the numbers any way they like, but if you take a look at statistics from the independent people — groups such as the OECD that no one will question — the numbers do not lie. We are falling behind other countries, and Canadian consumers know it intuitively. I suspect many of you know it, based on the experience you may have had just last week when you had a chance to compare what they have in Europe to what we have in Canada.”

The full transcript is here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/tran-e/47244-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&comm_id=19

Keep it up everyone.  We have a lot of work to do to reverse the damage done over the past decade!

People love to talk.  It’s in our nature.  We’re social creatures.

At some point, however, if you want to get anything done, you have to stop talking and start doing.

There is a big conference in Stratford this week called “Canada 3.0.”  One of the major sponsors apparently has something to do with the recent government spend of $10 million plus to “stimulate” things through creation of some sort of “Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR).”

The stated purpose is to “create jobs, improve the quality of life of all Canadians and strengthen the economy for future generations.”

This is all fine and good.  Every project needs a high-level/brainstorming phase.  The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be many (any?) specific goals about how this is all going to work.

You see, there are some severe, systematic problems in Canada that tend to destroy innovation in the early stages.  Let’s have a look at some pretty graphs.

In 2000, Canada was leading the way with broadband penetration:

Can you spot the difference in the 2006 graph?

Similarly, back in 1995, Canada was among the leaders in mobile technology:

But by 2005, something had changed:

Canada is behind many nations that have small fractions of our GDP.  Keep in mind these are plotted logarithmically.  So, for instance, Israel’s mobile reach is more than double Canada’s rate.

If you think these charts are scary, head to www.gapminder.org and run the animations.  The most alarming thing is the speed at which we’ve been overtaken.  I’m sure the more recent data will look far bleaker.

And don’t give me the old “Canada is so big” argument.  Most Canadians live in large, densely populated cities, just like everywhere else in the world.  Plus, we used be to way ahead, despite our huge land area.  And Russia is just as big and vast as our country, yet they have nearly twice as many cell phones per person.

Why have we fallen behind?  Because the government has been asleep at the wheel, letting a few private corporations bleed everyone else dry charging premium rates for old, obsolete technology.

They have no incentive to invest in R&D, because there is no competition in the mobile phone or broadband internet categories.  Meanwhile, the government keeps passing laws and making rulings to help these companies expand and protect their monopolies, killing any incentive for new or even existing international companies to take them on.

This is really freaking basic economics, folks.  High-school economics.  Maybe first year college.

If we want to “create jobs, improve the quality of life of all Canadians and strengthen the economy for future generations” it’s going to take a hell of a lot more then some “center” with no clearly defined purpose.

Instead, let’s allocate a couple bucks towards enforcing the Canada Competition Act, which supposedly “contains both criminal and civil provisions aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.”

Let’s bust up these old cartels that are cutting off the oxygen supply.

That’s the only way we’ll have even a small chance of keeping pace with the rest of the world.

So please - at some point in the near future, stop talking about “ways to innovate”, and start doing something to make it happen!

Progressive versus Conservative.  Us versus them.  A battle waged in the media every day.

But how many people actually know what these words mean?  People certainly have strong stereotypes that come to mind.

Here’s some dictionary definitions to help out.

• Progressive: “Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.”
• Liberal: “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.”

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have:

• Conservative: “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”
• Conservative: “Strongly favoring retention of the existing order.”

So basically, Progressive = Change, and Conservative = Don’t Change.

This is why the “Progressive Conservative” party name never made any sense.  Somebody just stuck two words with completely opposite meanings together.

Meanwhile, there are some (mostly talk radio hosts) who work very hard to convince the public that:

• Conservative (aka. Republican) = Small government, low taxes
• Progressive (aka. Democrat) = Big government, high taxes

I’m not sure how this misconception started, but it is about as far from true as it can be.

In fact, Conservative politicians, by definition, strive to keep government more or less the way it is right now — which is not small by any means.

Progressive politicians are the only ones who promote significant governmental change — be it bigger, smaller, or different in other ways.

To sum up the topic, here’s a not entirely accurate, but still cute little video I found when looking up dictionary definitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nWIGarTCj4

I’m tired of hearing Canadians complain about our healthcare system.  You know what?  We do have to wait longer for some types of treatment — but not usually anything life-threatening.  And you know what else?  That’s life.  Resources are expensive, limited, and in Canada, they’re allocated based on urgency of need.

I had to go to a clinic here in the States for a minor issue that I’ve visited several Canadian clinics for in the past.  The experience was nearly identical!  They had the same advice, and the same treatment.  The setup was similar.  I swear even the posters on the wall were the same.

However, there are a few major differences.  See if you can spot them.

The Canadian Experience:

1. Realize you have a problem
2. Go to walk-in clinic
3. Present your health card
4. Wait (1-2 hours)
5. Get treated
6. Go home

 The American Experience:

1. Realize you have a problem
2. Call insurance company
3. Explain problem
4. Get pre-approved and record claim number
5. Go to walk-in clinic
6. Attempt to have them bill the insurance company directly
7. Often have them refuse to bill insurance company directly
8. Wait (15-30 minutes)
9. Get treated
10. Go to cashier
11. Pay bill out of pocket (cash, visa, mastercard)
12. Get full detailed receipt for insurance
13. Go home
14. Fill out claim form
15. Fax or mail claim form and detailed receipt to insurance company
16. Wait for payment in the mail (1-4 weeks)
17. Optionally argue with insurance company about non-payment or co-pay amounts
18. Deposit reimbursment cheque (assuming they pay)

Can you see the difference?

I only had about 1/4 the wait time in the US clinic.  The visit (which only lasted about 15 minutes) cost about $100, which I put on my credit card.

Meanwhile, I had to spend at least the amount of time saved in the clinic fussing around with stupid insurance paperwork.

But here’s the big difference.  While I “jumped the queue” and enjoyed quick treatment for my minor, non-life-threatening problem, millions of middle-class Americans suffered through their illnesses, got sicker, and some of them probably even died.  Why?  Because they had little or no insurance and simply couldn’t afford it.

What are the facts?

Total health care spending per person / year:
USA: $6,717 USD (46% government = $3,089)
Canada: $3,678 USD (70% government = $2,574)

Fact: Americans pay almost twice as much per capita for health care even though 1/6 of their population lacks coverage.

Fact: The US government already subsidizes health care, and already spends more per person than Canada.

Fact: Of the 27 richest nations on the planet, the US is the only country without universal health coverage.

Fact: 16% of the US population (45 million people and growing) have no health insurance at all and are basically screwed if they incur a critical injury or sickness they can’t sue for.

What’s up for debate?

The overall quality of health care in the two countries has been widely debated, but the overall consensus — of all scientific studies based on measurable data and facts — is that the quality is roughly comparable.

I’ve written an article over at Google Knol exploring some of the debatable points.  Have a look at:
   http://knol.google.com/k/jason-hanley/healthcare-canada-vs-usa