Business, Caveat emptor

Truth Hiding in Advertising

Leave a comment

Truth in Advertising

“What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?”

That’s the question asked in Shaw’s latest advertising campaign to lure customers to purchase (or upgrade) their Internet services from Shaw. The image that goes with this question is of someone downloading their ‘favourite program’ while they rush out to talk the cabdriver, rush back to collect the laptop and rush out and into the cab.

The question posed and the images create an impression of impressive speed for Shaw Internet services.

What Truth lies in the Question?

The fact that you are paying for the fastest Internet in Canada does not mean you are getting the speed you are paying for. That is why contracts for internet services have within their wording the proviso ‘up to’ however megabytes per second you are paying for. Should you test the actual speed of your internet services you will almost assuredly find that, as speed tests of the actual speeds versus ‘up to’ speeds have demonstrated, you are not getting the speed you are paying for. Hence the need for the ‘up to” proviso to protect the service provider from refunds or price adjustments.

The images of the show being downloaded in the time it takes to rush out to the cab and back falls under both ‘up to’ and more importantly the excuse “it is them not us”. For most of us it doesn’t really matter what our download speed is, the limiting factor is what the download speed of the site you are downloading from (uploading to) is.

Except for a very few sites, the download and upload speeds are such that paying for higher or highest speeds is a waste of money.

Does paying for the highest internet speed mean you can download a show in the time shown in Shaw’s internet commercial? No, but should you contact Shaw to complain  “it is the downloader, not Shaw” that prevents you achieving downloading a program in the time promised (an implied promise) in the Shaw commercial.

“What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?”

For all but a select few it means you have bought a ‘mirage’ and are paying too much for your internet.

For me “What does having the fastest Internet in Canada mean to you?” means that the Federal Government needs to stop paying lip service to competition and bring meaningful competition into the markets where monopolies, or effective monopolies, exist (Cable, newspapers, wireless, banking, internet services, TV and radio ownership, news and information programming, etc) .

It is well past time the Federal Conservatives remembered that they are in Ottawa to serve the best interests of ALL Canadians and not just the interests of the wealthy and big business.

Unfortunately for the future of Canada and Canadians. putting the best interests of Canada and Canadians as a whole above the interests of the wealthy, business and those special interest groups they favour, is not part of the Conservative’s Ideology. And as we all are well aware, if it is not part of the Conservative’s Ideology it cannot be Reality and therefore does not exist in the Conservative Universe.

Finances, Municipal

What a Concept

Leave a comment

Councillor Braun dared to suggested that before the City spends $300 million to solve a problem, the City take the time to make sure it was a problem that required a solution.

To avoid having  the City find itself with the true problem still needing to be addressed, having squandered $300 million and years of time ‘solving a problem’ that did not require a solution.

And the mayors’ reactions? Mayor Peary……ahem….Banman: “My tendency is to focus on solutions rather than spending valuable time and resources re-examining the problem“.

Apparently Mayor Banman has caught the SPEND, SPEND, SPEND fever that infected prior mayors and councils, where the important thing is to be spending large amounts of taxpayer funds and whether it is being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Abbotsford/Mission doesn’t matter. After all, it isn’t his money, so why should he make the effort required to spend it wisely and on needed infrastructure?

Similarly Mayor Adlem “At the end of the day, we have a water issue that we need to address.” From Mayor Adlem’s words it seems that, since the issue is clearly some kind of water issue spending $$millions, hundreds of millions$$ of tax payer dollars addressing a water issue, any water issue is the important point. Mayor Adlem also apparently sees no need to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent on infrastructure that is needed and will benefit the citizens of Mission/Abbotsford.

It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?

Henry David Thoreau

It is clear from the Mayors comments pooh-poohing the suggestion that, before spending $300 million on a water issue, they make sure all those millions of dollars will be spent on the issue/problem that actually needs to be addressed, that Councillor Braun had no choice but to bring his concerns to the attention of those who will be stuck paying the tab, if – in the well established traditions of local politicians – the dollars are spent pointlessly.

This was an issue that engaged voters and the number of votes Councillor Braun and Councillor Ross (the only prior council member to oppose the Stave Lake proposal) got and the 75% NO vote to Stave Lake make it clear voters, the people who pay for Council’s profligate spending, did (do) not agree with the City’s conclusion and contention that a new water source was needed.

One could argue the top mandate Councillor Braun was given in the election was to ensure taxpayer’s monies were spent wisely and only as needed on appropriate and necessary issues – especially the water issue.

Therefore Councillor Braun’s actions are clearly in line with the duty of care due those who voted for him and the duty of care he owes all citizens of Abbotsford as a City Councillor.

Meaning those who, as Mayor Adlem’s puts it,  “…stepped a bit out of line” are the mayors and councillors who are ignoring the voters and rushing to spend $$millions$$ regardless of whether the money is spent unnecessarily upgrading water sources more than adequate for decades to come, rather than on the issue that truly needs addressing.

As to the cost of performing a review to determine what (if any) issues our water delivery system has that require addressing and what the timeline for addressing the issue(s) is (are), I have no idea where the figure of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the cost of the review comes from. Perhaps that is the going cost for a report that is written to support the City’s desired course of action; however, the review called for is to be a review of the facts, and what actions the facts indicate are required.

Under these circumstances a review should not be that costly……..well assuming adequately competent and frugal management by the City; which admittedly is a rather large assumption based on how the City conducts its business affairs and the City’s past management performance.

If cost is the only issue I (and I am sure Councillor Braun and others) can think of several ways to structure a review that would ensure that $300 million is not spent where no expenditure is needed, that adds no additional costs for the City.

I do wonder why Mayor Banman considers the cost, even if City was to somehow run the cost to several hundred thousand dollars, to be the deciding factor for whether or not you do or do not undertake the  review?

It seems to me an excellent business decision to invest the cost of a review when there is more than reasonable doubt as to what the necessary, wise and prudent fiscal behaviour is with respect to our water delivery system.

Much wiser and far more fiscally prudent than being in a rush to waste $300 million on a non-problem.

Beware of the man who knows the answers before he understands the question. Anonymous

Municipal

Solving City Council Problem

Leave a comment

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley

Henry Braun’s suggestion that Abbotsford City Council adopt a policy of gathering ALL the facts, examining all these facts to determine what the issue/problem truly is and then basing Council’s actions and decisions on what the issue/problem was revealed to be……… is so contrary to the way Abbotsford’s City Council approaches issues and problems one has to wonder if Mr Braun’s approach stands any chance of being adopted by Council?

Council has consistently chosen to decide what they want to do, ignoring any and all evidence that does not support their desired course of action, commissioning reports to support Council’s intentions and hiring PR to develop a plan to Sell, Sell, Sell Council’s desired course of action to voters.

Mr Braun’s proposed approach abounds with common sense, perception and savvy – all behaviours Council has demonstrated aversion to employing; standing in marked contrast to Council’s commandment: Thou shalt not look in dusty corners where unknown answers hide.

So, is this a matter of distribution?  of supply?.

It is imperative that, in addressing this issue, we remember there is a major difference in the delivery of the Utility Services Water and Electricity.

There is currently no way to economically store and then distribute large amounts of electricity, while water is easily stored for later distribution.

That is why an electrical utility such as BC Hydro has to have the capacity to meet peak demand as it is occurring. BC Hydro’s ability to generate electricity overnight while people sleep and there is little demand, is of no importance because BC Hydro has no way to store the electricity and deliver it later to meet peak demand.

It is why southern Ontario is dotted with water towers. During scorching summer weather with its peak water demand, the water stored in the towers is used to meet peak demand for water and then refilled overnight (when demand is low but the supply remains fully accessible) to meet the next day’s demand.

The ability of water to be efficiently and economically stored was reflected in the report from experts after the ‘crisis’ of high water demand as a result of abnormally hot weather.

I had the opportunity to read this report where the experts stated that the problem was not with the water sources the City had, but with poor planning and design with the City’s reservoir which cannot be refilled overnight because the intake system is incapable of processing water to refill the reservoir quickly enough.

In light of this the experts recommendation that Abbotsford 1) build a second reservoir with intake capacity that would permit refilling the reservoir in a portion of the off peak hours available and 2) when the new reservoir is on line the old reservoir’s intake system be renovated to be capable of refilling in a timely manner and brought back on line.

As to redundancy, others experts hired to evaluate whether Council should fully upgrade the capacity of the Norrish Creek water system to the levels planned when Norrish Creek was originally developed had an interesting comment on redundancy.

Noting that the recommended full upgrade would mean the existing pipeline lacked the capacity to carry the total amount of water available, it was suggested that council consider building another pipeline which would permit all the water available after upgrade to be available for use. That not only would the second pipeline increase the water available from the upgrade, but it would reduce the stress on the original pipeline increasing lifespan and decreasing the probability of a leak or failure. And pointing out that having a second pipeline from Norrish Creek would provide protection of supply in the form of redundancy.

This leads to the conclusion that the water problem Abbotsford has is not supply but distribution; concurring with Mr Braun’s judgment that it is distribution, not supply, that the City needs to address.

Suggesting that Mr Braun is also correct in advocating a change from the current Council policy of deciding what course of action to undertake, finding or creating evidence to support the desired course of action and using a high pressure, ‘the sky is falling’ sales campaign to scare voters into accepting the need for Council’s desired actions; to a policy of gathering all the facts, analyzing the facts and setting out a course of action (or non-action) based on what the facts and analysis of the facts reveal.