It’s a dismal state that must be corrected.

Canadians need choice. Canadians need freedom. Canadians need security. And most of all, when things get rough, Canadians need support. What they don’t need is a government that is so eager to put them in prison that they’re going to spend billions of dollars on new American-style superprisons. What Canadians don’t need is a government that seems hellbent on turning us into a warmongering nation, spending billions of dollars on jets without engines, and forgoing our previously well-known reputation for being peacekeepers. What Canada doesn’t need, or want, is to leave our neighbours and families out in the cold when they need our help the most.

It’s high time we stood up for the country we live in. Now is the time where we must look to the future and decide what we want this country to look like, to act like at home and around the world, and how we want to be seen amongst our peers. We have a very serious choice to make, and it can make or break this country.

In order to survive and thrive in the next 144 years, this nation has but one way forward. We need to invest in ourselves, in our communities,  and in the way of life we hold dear. That means making decisive, wise choices in how we spend our money, how we treat the future leaders of this land, and how we treat those that are suffering.

We need to invest in our children and grandchildren. Students need genuine help getting to and through school, and that’s why the Liberal Party’s platform introduced the Learning Passport, providing up to $1500 per year for students that get the grades, and deserve to get a post-secondary education.

That’s why the Liberal Party platform brings back the deal it signed with the provinces, that was killed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, ensuring each province has the ability to get the funding they need in order to train new early childhood educators, create more childcare spaces, and help parents out in the way they need to most.

Canadians should have the right to take the time off work you need to look after your parents without being penalized for it. That’s why they want to create a new Family Care Employment Insurance Benefit, so that caregivers take six months off work to care for gravely ill family members at home; and on top of that a new Family Care Tax Benefit worth up to $1,350 annually, to help low- and middle-income family caregivers manage the costs associated with looking after their parents.

And, of course, those who need the healthcare system should feel comfortable knowing that it will be there to take care of them thoroughly, efficiently, with the best care possible. The federal government has to continue to work with the provinces to make that a priority now and in the future.

We need to expand and enhance the Canada Pension Plan, before it starts having the same problems the U.S. Social Security Plan has. Canadians need to know the CPP will be there for them, and will make a meaningful impact on their retirement lifestyles. Canadians have also been clear that existing retirement saving methods aren’t enough. That’s why the Liberal Party has proposed a Secure Retirement Option – an enhancement to the CPP that’s voluntary, leaving you with the choice to participate or not, and not run by the banks.

We need to ensure that affordable housing is available, that we leave this country and planet cleaner than it was when we came into it, where service to your community is recognized and rewarded, and where the arts get just as much respect as our office workers, construction workers, and doctors do. Canadians need to know that the food on their table not only tastes great, but is good for them and won’t make them sick. And rural Canada, in all its forms, finally get the respect it deserves from the cities it feeds.

That’s the Canada you deserve. That’s the Canada I want to live in. Anything less is unacceptable.

And when we can afford it, we will reduce taxes. We will reduce personal income taxes. We will reduce business taxes. But we can’t go on running the country as if printing more money is the answer. This all has to be done responsibly and with a level head recognizing the situation for what it is, and the implications of where money comes from, and how it’s spent.

So join me in voting for a Canada we can all be proud of. Vote for your local Liberal candidate, and give them the mandate to turn this country around and into one that all Canadians can be proud of, and is once again respected on the world stage. Our livelihoods depend on it.

Here goes…

Current Situation

Current Senate, courtesy of Wikipedia

The Senate – currently an unelected body of representatives that are appointed by the current governor general (under advice of the current Prime Minster) whom hold their positions until they turn 75 – is the part of our government that has to approve bills after they pass the House of Commons (where our elected MPs sit and discuss bills and other issues). Since new Senators are chosen by the sitting PM, all of them are either Liberal or Conservative, and the Senate rarely rejects bills passed by the House.

It’s bad enough the House of Commons doesn’t reflect the true will of the people thanks to the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Why does the Senate purely reflect the will of past PMs?

I propose that we impose a proportional representation system on the Senate, so that the number of seats assigned in the Senate are directly proportional to the percentage of votes each party has received, with a minimum of 1 seat being assigned to any party that receives a significant number of votes, or maybe even to any party that has received any votes.

The Solution

Going back to the 2008 Federal Election, here are the results for percentage of nationwide votes by party:

• Conservatives – 32.67%
• Liberals – 30.23%
• NDP – 17.48%
• Bloq – 10.48%
• Green – 4.48%
• Other – 4.66%

Note that only the top 4 parties won seats in the House, and the Bloq wins a disproportionate amount because all 10.48% of  votes come in Quebec. But what do those numbers mean for the Senate? Well, currently the Conservatives hold 52 out of 105 seats, the Liberals hold 46, Progress Conservatives hold 2, Independents hold 2, and 3 are vacant. Instead of this current oligopoly, the makeup of the Senate using proportional representation would be quite different:

• Conservatives – 34 seats
• Liberals – 32 seats
• NDP – 18 seats
• Bloq – 11 seats
• Green – 5 seats
• Other – 5 seats

Looking that over, I suppose it would be best to split those other 5 seats amongst the next top 5 polling parties (I think we have to draw the line somewhere, but that’s up for debate). Whether they be fringe parties like the Communist Party of Canada, the Rhinoceros Party, or the Christian Heritage Party – as much as you may disagree with their politics and policies – the people who voted for them deserve to be heard.

So what now?

At this point it’s important to note that each province has a set number of seats in the Senate. I’m not sure whether this should be continued or not. In the USA, each state has a junior and a senior Senator. I think, for the sake of provinces currently feeling under represented in Parliament, this should be done away with. Instead of each province having a set number of seats, instead each party should be able to choose their best and brightest to sit in the Senate.

One other thing that I’m open to suggestions on is term limits. I think a limit of, perhaps, 8 years or two elections should be in place. While the Senate should theoretically provide a steady, guiding hand for the country, fresh ideas are still needed. I suppose we could let previous Senators back in after being out for one or two elections, but I think most of us are a bit tired of “career politicians,” especially those Senators that were appointed for life prior to recent changes, and even those that are appointed until 75 yet don’t sit in the Senate nearly as often as our MPs do in the House.

What I like about this is that it’s easy to implement. Citizens are already voting for their favourite party/candidate at the local level, and this practically guarantees them representation in Parliament regardless of the results in their riding. It doesn’t require extra effort, math, deciding which parties they prefer in what order, etc. Same tick in the same box as before, with Elections Canada applying the numbers to the Senate, and then calling upon each party to send their best and brightest to the Senate for whatever term we decide appropriate.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. The existing FPTP system stays in place, but I think this is a quick and easy way to bring about electoral reform without confusing the populace (including me).

So let’s open this up for discussion. Love it? Hate it? Suggestions for improvement? What say you?

What I have never personally been able to understand though is people who support a party, and therefore that party’s local representative, with blind faith. They identify themselves as small ‘c’ or capital ‘C’ Conservatives, and therefore feel like they need to fall into line with their Dear Leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. No doubt he maintains an iron grip on the party and most of its communications, but I think we’re starting to see an increasing number of people, thanks to the aforementioned Vote Compass, start to question themselves and their allegiances (or at least the Vote Compass).

And regardless of your politics, you must be able to actually rationalize your support. I’ve had several online discussions with regular people asking them to justify statements like, “North Centre, its time to be rid of Pearson. Vote Susan Truppe!” By all accounts prior to this, I’ve heard Glen Pearson is a terrific MP, regardless of whether he’s a Liberal or not. When I asked the woman who originally said this, plus the two people that retweeted her, why they wanted to oust Mr. Pearson… well, let’s just say none of them came up with a valid reason.

The way I see it, ideology in politics gets in the way of reason just as much as religious ideology does. Always identifying yourself as a Conservative, therefore implying that you believe in a fiscally and socially conservative government, ignores the fact that most people are indeed centrists.  There are, no doubt, supporters and members of the Conservative Party that are in favour of same-sex marriage. And though the Conservatives say they have no plans to re-visit the issue now, they were indeed against the idea when it was made legal in Canada.

In the same vein, there are probably Liberal supporters and members who support the purchase of new F-35 jets and superprisons. Should these people suddenly identify themselves as Conservatives? Surely not. Historically the Liberal Party is a centrist party, and welcome all who feel they belong into “The Big Red Tent.”

So what happens? People who identify themselves as wholly left wing or right wing ignore the fact that there will always be good ideas coming from the other end of the political spectrum that they can get behind. I can get behind a corporate tax cut to 16.5%, but not now when the federal government is still running a massive deficit. I’m also a fan of high speed rail, but I fully recognize that it’s an expensive endeavour that has to be fully costed and paid for without putting a massive amount of debt on the backs of taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. All avenues have to be explored to make sure any idea is feasible.

And there’s the problem. When you see yourself as purely Green or NDP, and the party proposes a set of policies you don’t like, they fall out of favour with you. You feel like they’ve turned your back on you. It happened to me when I donated money to the federal NDP back in 2006 and, suddenly, I was literally a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. I didn’t ask for a membership or card, but I got one nonetheless. When Mr. Layton, and the party, started leaning further left than I’d like, I felt a bit betrayed. It’s silly, but true.

And while I would love to argue for an end to partisanship, I know that’s just blue sky thinking. Instead, what I would like to argue for is a respectable, sensible debate over representatives, policies and platforms. Look at the facts, look at the people, then make up your mind. Feel free to go into an election not wanting to vote for the incumbent, but don’t tune out all of the other options just because you don’t think you could ever vote for, as an example, the Pirate Party. It’s not easy, and I’m certainly guilty of keeping the blinders up at times, but it’s well worth the effort in the end.

If you’re the type of person who eventually wants to run for office, you and I both know that independents rarely get elected. There’s a case to be made for spending some time raising your profile in your community by, earnestly, attending philanthropic events, participating on committees, volunteering your time to various causes and, therefore, making enough of a name for yourself that running as an independent is worth your while. It wouldn’t be an inexpensive affair, but it could certainly be worth it if you thought you had a decent chance of winning without a party affiliation.

This whole notion of ideology generating bad policy gets far worse at the top of the party. These are the people who are so in the trenches that all they see is the ideology. They sit there day in, day out strategizing, polling, and trying to figure out how to get their party into power. I can’t think of a worse career. The stress these people must go through, I imagine, is tremendous. They’re tasked with crafting ideas and costs that may get them praised or simply booted out the door.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and now the Conservative Party of Canada, illustrate just what a bad idea it is to let ideology dictate how you run the country. Former Premier Mike Harris started Ontario down the road of the Common Sense Revolution. As Naomi Klein shows us in a column written in the fall of 2001, it didn’t exactly make Ontario a better place to live. And really, isn’t the goal of public service to make the place you live better for everyone, or at least most of us? If not, shouldn’t that be the goal?

Prime Minister Harper likes to harp (ha ha, get it?) on the fact that the Liberals will raise taxes if elected. Yes, they will… one tax. They’ll undo the recent corporate tax decrease, moving it from 16.5% back up to 18%. What Mr. Harper likes to ignore is the fact that the Liberals decreased the corporate tax rate by 10% while they were in power during the 1990s, led by Mr. Jean Chretien. But again, ideology blinds us from even giving a pat on the back to the other guys for doing something good and smart for Canada when we could afford it.

The real problem is that these men are very idealistic. Once in power, they have done everything they can to lead Canada down one road that isn’t led by a vision, but by an ideology.

In recent history, we’ve seen time and time again where ideologies like “free market” and “regulated market” fail miserably. They don’t allow for a balanced and fair approach somewhere in between that not only allows businesses to thrive, but to compete and drive innovation, increasing choice and competition for consumers in the process. There is a place for regulation, and also instances where red tape must be removed. To argue otherwise is to blind yourself to the possibility of a middle way forward that benefits all parties involved.

Maybe that in itself is an ideology… that there is a middle way between the extremes. I would argue that it isn’t – that the middle way is simply an amalgamation of the best ideas from all sides of an argument. And even if you could make the case that it was an ideology, I would still argue that it’s likely much better than the extreme left or extreme right on any issue.

My point is, following a particular ideology leads you to create policies specifically geared towards meeting that ideology. You don’t end up taking into account the needs of all stakeholders, and anyone with an iota of knowledge on how to run any organization will tell you that’s a bad thing. You may end up ignoring a large part of the population, which then leads to the types of revolts we’re seeing in the Middle East and North Africa now. Clearly things aren’t the same here in Canada, but much of this entry has been about extremes.

So I ask you to take the blinders off and don’t simply dismiss an exercise that tells you you actually align better with the policies of another party. Is that really so bad? If the Vote Compass tells you you align with the Conservative Party’s platform and policies, shouldn’t you at least take a moment to investigate whether it’s true? Most everything you need to find is available in the same way you took the Vote Compass – on the Internet. Look up this opposing party’s website, read the platform, talk to the candidate in your riding. You may discover something about yourself you didn’t know, and, as long as you’re being true to yourself, that’s probably not a bad thing.

Joe Preston – Conservative Party Candidate

• Twitter – @joe_preston
• Facebook group
• Website – joepreston.ca

Graham Warwick – Liberal Party Candidate

• Twitter – @graham_warwick
• Facebook page
• Website - http://grahamwarwick.liberal.ca/

Fred Sinclair – New Democratic Party Candidate

• Twitter – @freddysinclair
• Facebook page
• Website – None at the moment

UPDATE: Ryan Dolby dropped out and Fred Sinclair is in for the NDP. Both the Conservative and Liberal candidates have made themselves very available online on both big social networks, along with their own websites where more contact information exists. Fred’s on Twitter and Facebook, but his Facebook page currently has 0 likes.

Again, if there are other parties you’d like me to dig up the information for, please let me know. I know of the Christian Heritage Party, and other fringe parties, but we all know they don’t get many votes. However, I will still dig up the information if you want me to.

As someone who is online throughout the day and evening, I thought I would help out my fellow LKMers by compiling a list of the candidates and how to keep track of them. The results were a bit disappointing.

Bev Shipley – Conservative Party Candidate

• Twitter – @votebevshipley
• Facebook page
• Website – bevshipley.ca

Gayle Stuck – Liberal Party Candidate

• Twitter – @gayle_stucke
• Facebook page
• BBM Group – PIN image
• Website - http://gaylestucke.liberal.ca/

Joe Hill – New Democratic Party Candidate

• Twitter – @joehill42 (protected tweets though)
• Facebook page
• Website - http://joehill.ndp.ca/

Jim Johnston – Green Party Candidate

• Twitter - @LucanJim
• Facebook page
• Website - http://greenparty.ca/campaign/35046
• Blog - http://lkm-green.blogspot.com/

I must give props to Ms. Stucke for doing something different (BlackBerry Messenger Group) and Mr. Johnston for being available pretty much everywhere online. It’s disappointing that Mr. Hill and Mr. Shipley are making themselves scarce online.

If there are other parties you’d like me to dig up the information for, please let me know. I know of the Christian Heritage Party, and other fringe parties, but we all know they don’t get many votes. However, I will still dig up the information if you want me to.

Tomorrow I’ll post the information for Elgin-Middlesex-London.

* Updated April 26 with new information on Bev Shipley and Joe Hill.

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Conservative MP Bev Shipley

Heading into Canadian federal election number 41, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada wants you to believe that they are on your side, that they are standing up for families, that they know the way forward, etc. I beg to differ. I have personally attempted to contact my MP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Bev Shipley, several times over the past two years since I moved back to this riding from London West.

Unfortunately, Bev is unresponsive. Instead, his staff signed me up for his uninformative email newsletter, and his staff also just sent me a request for contributions in the mail this past week. That is not the type of MP I want. Ed Holder, the Conservative MP for London West, displays similar behaviour. He’s unresponsive, the polls on his website are very polarizing, and Ed’s Twitter account is nothing more than a self-promotion platform.

Since I live in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex now, I decided to actually take a look at Bev Shipley’s voting record. Given the statements that Prime Minister Harper has made about how he’s looking after Canadian families, I was quite surprised to see the results.

Bill C-343 makes it possible for people to take 52 week or 104 week (depending on the circumstances) unpaid leaves of absence, and receive EI, when catastrophic family issues take place like:

1. child or spouse committing suicide
2. child being physically injured and requiring care
3. your child goes missing

• Bev voted No on these ammendments.

Bill C-449 was intended to provide free public transit for senior citizens.

• Bev voted No.

Liberal candidate for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Gayle Stucke

Bill C-304 was designed to help ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

• Bev voted No.

Bill C-300 was introduced to enhance corporate accountability for foreign mining/oil/gas companies.

• Bev voted No.

Bill C-469 established a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

• Bev voted No.

Several motions from Bill C-9 (the 2010 budget) came up for vote in June 2010, conveniently when many Liberals and Bloc Quebecois MPs weren’t in the House of Commons. Bev voted No on almost every single motion, negating several budgeted items.

Bill C-501 is designed to strengthen pensions by amending “the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that the claim of a clerk, servant, travelling salesperson, labourer or worker who is owed termination and severance pay by a person is secured as of the date of the bankruptcy or receivership by security on the person’s current assets”

• Bev voted No at the Second Reading, and then was absent on a subsequent vote on March 9, 2011.

Bill C-234 removed the waiting period (typically 4 weeks) from EI claims.

• Bev voted No.

NDP candidate for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Joe Hill

Does this look like the voting record of someone looking out for the average Canadian? I suggest not. However it isn’t as surprising as one would think once you find out that the budget for the Prime Minister’s Office was increased by $1 million as soon as Harper became Prime Minister. Why $1 million? Because the PMO employs a lot more employees than normal, all tasked with keeping an iron grip on what Conservatives MPs say, do, and think. Press releases are all written by the PMO now (not the norm), MPs are provided with “talking points” (Republican-style politics), and MPs are silenced from speaking their own mind. Just look at the votes of each party from HowdTheyVote.ca and you’ll typically see every Conservative vote the same on every Act.

If you’re not sure how to vote on May 2, I highly suggest you use http://federal.votecompass.ca/ to find out which party you align best with. As is typical, I lie somewhere between the Liberals and NDP, which is why I’ve reached out to the Liberal candidate for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Gayle Stucke, and already know there currently is not an NDP candidate in my riding that Joe Hill is the candidate for the NDP.

As someone who speaks to vendors of high tech equipment, and consumers of the same high tech equipment, several times a week, I feel I can bring somewhat unique insight into the usage-based billing (UBB) debate happening across Canada. I don’t think I’ll say anything spectacularly special here, but looking at the issue from both the telecom side (including both the business and technology) and the consumer side yields some key things that need to be considered.

1. The CRTC is supposed to ensure a healthy level of competition amongst the industries it regulates. Moving from the current gateway access service (GAS) to only allowing smaller ISPs, essentially, to resell Bell’s existing packages at a 15% discount will easily put providers like TekSavvy and Primus out of business.
2. Bell and Rogers laid their respective infrastructures in my neighbourhood when it was built, 13 years ago. Given the inherent oligopoly, I’m certain both companies have gotten a decent ROI by now. There are a few homes with wireless antennae on the roofs, mine included, that I believe are intended to be used with Execulink however I don’t believe anyone is using wireless at the moment.
3. There have been no upgrades in my neighbourhood past the nodes since that time. In fact, Bell hasn’t upgraded anything other than laying down fibre and new DSLAMs in London in several years. The new Fibe service isn’t available in Kilworth or Komoka, and Bell can’t provide me with anything better than 6Mbps. And, I know from experience, that Bell throttles streaming video (legitimate or not) very harshly from 9am till 9pm (give or take an hour).
4. Rogers cannot provide me with anything faster than 15Mbps. The bandwidth cap on this plan is 80GB (it was 95GB until just a few weeks ago). I went over my 60GB cap during my two most recent billing cycles. The problem: I use Primus TalkBroadband VoIP service instead of a traditional landline, and watch video from legitimate sources like ctv.ca, citytv.com, globaltv.com, treehousetv.com, etc.
5. Bell’s net income last fiscal year was $1.738 billion, for a profit margin of 11.7%. Rogers’ net income last fiscal year was $1.478 billion, for a profit margin of 12.5%. Based upon typical standards of trying to achieve profit margins between 10 and 15%, it’s clear both companies are doing just fine.
6. Claims that Rogers and Bell need to recoup the costs of their infrastructure investments are fine. As a business owner, I know companies exist in order to make money. What it sounds like many people don’t know is that Primus, TekSavvy, Execulink, et al all pay Bell for the privilege to resell their services to the tune of $15 per subscriber per month (I’ve received confidential data to confirm this). So even if Bell doesn’t have you as a customer directly, but you’re using DSL, Bell is making money off the infrastructure (a.k.a. copper phone lines) it delivered to your house with very few exceptions (areas served by Eastlink for example).
7. Until recently, only Bell was mandated to allow resellers to use its infrastructure because a large portion of Bell’s “last mile” was paid for my Canadian taxpayer money. The inherent oligopoly that has existed in most areas since the dawn of cable, and in some areas it’s actually a monopoly (like Aylmer, ON where EastLink owns both the phone and cable infrastructures) allowed Bell and Rogers to simply charge whatever they wanted for high-speed access until the CRTC opened up Bell’s lines to everyone. If Rogers never started offering @Home, and then eventually its own high speed offering, Bell would effectively have a 100% market share on high speed internet wherever they own the phone lines.
8. Middlesex County awarded Bell Aliant a contract several years ago to build up wireless internet capabilities all across Middlesex County. So here is an instance where Bell forked out very little cash, and will profit any time someone living in rural Middlesex County, where DSL and cable internet aren’t available, and sign up for wireless internet service instead. Bell is actually several years behind the curve, as EastLink (formerly known as Amtelecom, and also a former employer of mine) was rolling out wireless access across most of Elgin County back in 2001. Being a publicly traded company at the time, surely if Amtelecom felt they couldn’t make money off the wireless service they wouldn’t have bothered putting it up in the first place.

I have followed this issue (broadband speeds, infrastructure, and access in Canada) for over a decade already. One conclusion I have come to is that Bell and Rogers are not interested in keeping ahead of competitors (because there really aren’t any) or providing you with great service (especially Bell). Their only concerns are shareholders and the bottom line, period. Yes, I know that’s capitalism, but at the end of the day we’re all getting screwed. TekSavvy has indicated they’re going to start laying out their own infrastructure. Start Communications (based in London) already has fibre covering the downtown core, and has indicated they will be extending it as well. Unfortunately the edge of their fibre network still only supports 5Mbps speeds.

Don’t forget to look at places like Chattanooga, TN which has laid out its own fibre-to-the-home network across an area very similar to London’s geography (medium-sized city in the middle, lots of rural areas around it), and they’re providing great speeds at decent prices… synchronous 30Mbps for $57.99 per month, no caps. Amsterdam is laying a FTTH network that will be open access, and so is the entire nation of Australia. So Amsterdam/Australia will provide the network, à la Bell, and then let independent providers resell internet, phone and TV service on top of it. Brilliant, and you know there will be plenty of competition because Australia has actually paid Telstra AUD$43 billion to ditch their legacy copper network.

The internet services offered here in Canada suck, and UBB only makes it worse. We’re ranked 22nd in the world by the OECD… wait until the next ranking, I bet we’ll be ranked 40th or 50th.

Backing up a little bit, I know there are other fees that Bell and Rogers (along with other telcos in their respective areas of the country) have to fork out, like “right of way” fees that municipalities charge for telcos to have the privilege of laying their infrastructure down in our neighbourhoods, and putting up those ugly grey mini-towers all over the places. I will admit I don’t know as much about the “right of way” fees charged by various municipalities as others do, but until Bell/Rogers are more transparent about the types of fees they incur, and how these have to be passed onto the consumer, it’s hard for the average person to make up their own mind on whether it’s fair or not, isn’t it? And yes, of course there are operating costs.

Again, though… the net profits speak for themselves. Maybe dealing with Toronto and Hamilton is a logistical nightmare, but Bell and Rogers seem to be making a healthy profit margins. And then, of course, the premise of heavy bandwidth users needing to pay more than others has been given serious treatment, and determined to be false.

The reality is that UBB is a desperate attempt to keep people from further cutting their expenses, while shifting their video watching habits to web-based services. Instead of compete with Netflix, Rogers and Bell would rather gouge the average customer and prevent them from even using the web to watch video (again, legit or not) in the first place. I’m part of a minority that “cut the cord” 2 years ago. It isn’t easy, but it’s doable. I bet Rogers, Bell, Shaw and Cogeco are freaking out at the idea of consumers moving to Netflix.

But when you think about it, I’m using much of the same infrastructure Rogers actually puts into place to watch TV shows online, instead of via traditional cable. I’m really not using anymore bandwidth than I did before. At the end of the day, the same infrastructure that carries all these bits & bytes also carries voice and TV signals. It’s all data. Internet service fees are not the only way to recoup costs and generate a profit. This goes back to the same point many bloggers and columnists have made about getting to a realistic cost/profit number.

Hell, I’m probably using far less bandwidth than a traditional TV customer uses given the video quality actually available to me online. And I cause less bandwidth on the local head end (similar to a central office, but used to deliver video), instead pumping my traffic via fibre-optic lines between the servers located in Toronto (most likely given I typically only watch on Canadian websites) and Kilworth.

There are many reports that show people using their smartphones more and more, therefore cell phone towers, in lieu of their internet connections. Anyone who saw Cisco’s press release the other day about this would have seen the report, along with those produced by many other vendors and publications. If so many people are shifting their habits over the wireless access, why the huge change in our land-based internet access services?

I’m left asking myself… why UBB on internet services, but not on phone lines, cable, and satellite (especially the first two)? They use the same modern infrastructure to transfer the phone calls and TV shows we’re all watching.

Someone suggested to me that electricity rates were billed using a UBB scheme. True, but hydro is a bad analogy given the fact that we have to generate electricity and transport it to where it’s going to be used. Fibre optic lines are laid, connected to routers, and then sit there in anticipation of traffic. I remember someone telling me about all the dark fibre (a.k.a. unused) that Hamilton once laid in the hopes that businesses would flock there for the capacity. If that infrastructure is still there, then one big component of the capacity already exists.

Lastly, I’ll address the cost per GB sanctioned by the CRTC. $1.90 per GB, and $2.45 per GB in Quebec, is absolutely ridiculous. Hugh Thompson goes through much of the argument here, and he’s right. Even when you factor in all of the other costs associated with running this infrastructure, and then all of the other services that generate revenue from it, you’re left with the billions of dollars in profit that Bell and Rogers are generating.

So call/mail/email your MP, do the same for the CRTC commissioner representing your area of the country, and give them a piece of your mind (or mine). UBB is unnecessary, plain and simple.

You need to open up more. WAY more. The lack of communication we get at the municipal level is abysmal. Compare yourselves to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin, MP Tony Clement, former Toronto Mayor David Miller, or MP Glen Pearson, and you’ll see the difference between your approach and theirs.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty

In fact, Glen Pearson blogs, tweets and even uploads videos to YouTube! He’s a pretty good example of what more politicians ought to be doing long before they run, during a campaign, and especially after being elected.

Do I expect the politicians themselves to always be the ones communicating with us via the various channels? No, of course not. I know full well their staffers will be doing some of it, and that’s fine. The difference is accessibility, and at least attempting to appear to be a normal person that just happens to be in an elected position of power vs. someone in a position of power telling you what they believe you should be thinking about.

I adore the fact that Dalton McGuinty has a Twitter account, and will tweet about seemingly innocuous things like coming home from his recent trip to China, where his dog showed more enthusiasm for his return than his kids did. It’s real, we all feel that way sometimes, and he actually replies to many tweets himself (according one or two directed at me).

There are a few area politicians who are leading the way, like Nancy Branscombe and Judy Bryant; unfortunately they are the exceptions to the rule in our area.  Middlesex Centre Mayor Al Edmondson, whom I’ve exchanged emails with in the past, has a website that was launched for the recent municipal election that hasn’t been updated since the election. Newly elected London Mayor Joe Fontana recently deleted his Twitter account after saying, during the campaign, he intended to continue communicating with citizens via his Twitter account (which lead to the events surrounding my previous blog entry).

I know what some of you are thinking: Who cares? Why should politicians blog, tweet, or have Facebook pages?

Middlesex Centre Mayor Al Edmondson

At a purely selfish level (for them), to help them get re-elected. If you’re a politician, and you strong believe you’re still the right person for the job, you need to get your positions, accomplishments, and message out there in as many ways as possible. If you think I’m wrong, you might as well not run in 2014. Get done what you can now, then get out.

In four years Twitter, Facebook, blogs – or whatever other medium comes in to replace or supplement those communication platforms – will be far more important than they are now. Much of the electorate in the London area is still catching on to social networking/media sites (for reasons other than sharing funny cat videos), but I myself maintain two Twitter lists full of London-based accounts – right now they track 840 individuals, businesses and organizations.

That’s 840 Londoners on Twitter who talk to 10 friends, who talk to 10 friends, etc. – the math starts to add up quickly! Oh, and that doesn’t count the Londoners with “protected” accounts – you can’t add those to Twitter lists. So the number’s probably closer to 900, if not more.

On a more altruistic level, politicians need to open themselves up in order to show they can take criticism and praise with equal grace, to show they really do care about their constituents whether it’s a riding or a ward, and to help increase their profile overall. It’s important to know who you should speak to regarding issues in your community regardless of the issue falling under municipal, provincial or federal jurisdiction – having name recognition makes your constituents feel better about having a real voice at city/town hall, Queen’s Park or Parliament.

I’m talking to London, Strathroy, Mt. Brydges, Kilworth, Komoka, Dorchester, Arva, Ilderton, St. Thomas, Glencoe, Newbury politicians… get more engaged; whether for the more selfish reasons I outlined above, or more community-building and altruistic reasons. At the moment, I’m not overly concerned why you do it – just do it.

• Yesterday afternoon several people, including myself, noticed that @londonsmayor had been re-registered by someone after former Mayor Anne-Marie DeCicco-Best had changed her Twitter handle to @DeCiccoBest.
• It looked like Joe Fontana, the new Mayor of London, was the person tweeting (or someone on his behalf, which is more likely), despite a misspelled name on the account’s profile (it was ‘Joe Fontama’ before being changed to simply ‘Joe F.’)
• @londonsmayor even replied to someone about the name change/handover saying that it was a simple administrative issue (which is true).
• I noticed a tweet from @londonsmayor last night, asking if anyone knew where he had to go tomorrow (for the swearing in ceremony) and it CC’d @LondonComms. I thought this was pretty funny, and knew immediately that the account was in fact a parody/spoof.
• This morning it was very evident it was a parody since a tweet was sent out saying Joe had been hit by something while riding his bike to the swearing in ceremony, even though Joe was being sworn in just as this was tweeted.
• I called out the fact that it was a parody/spoof account this morning, and several people agreed. No big deal, I still thought it was funny and harmless.
• @LondonComms tweets that they have reported this “hack” to Twitter.
• I take issue of the word “hack,” which this clearly was not.
• @LondonComms tries to reply to me, instead turning the reply into a retweet making it looked like I supported the City reporting the account to Twitter. I took issue with this and dealt with it via direct message, though others called @LondonComms out for it publicly — I appreciate the backup folks!

This led to Deb finding Orpheum’s website and getting my number via the Contact Us page. I end up being quoted in an article about the issue.

Unfortunately, Mayor Fontana is saying he has no intention of continuing to use Twitter after shutting down @JoeForMayor. This is unfortunate, and also a contrast to when he said, during the campaign, that he had intended to continue using Twitter to keep in touch with the populace even after the election.

It’s dumb, really, that he won’t continue to use Twitter to engage the public and connect with potential, future voters. And it’s also extremely shortsighted.

Thankfully the person that had registered @londonsmayor after Anne-Marie relinquished control is back on the beat with @NOTLondonsMayor. I’m really looking forward reading the tweets from London’s own version of @notstevejobs.

This is a terrific video I came across in one of my RSS feeds, done by Dr. Phil Plait. From the Dr. Plait’s site:

In July, I spoke at The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in Las Vegas. Sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation, it’s the largest meeting of critical thinkers and skeptics in the world. Unlike my usual talks about the abuse of science that I had given at previous TAMs, this time I wanted to tackle a much thornier issue: how we skeptics argue with believers of various stripes.

This isn’t directed towards any group in particular, so please relax and just enjoy the talk. No matter what side of an argument you’re on, there are some very valuable lessons to be learned here. I think this talk is particularly good for anyone wanting to get involved in politics or activism at any level.