Huzzah! Rogers is getting bigger!

[CBH99]

Which company are you accusing of under-investment?

Didn't sound like he was accusing any particular company of under-investment...

And as for investment only occurring after a massive failure of some kind...it wasn't that long ago that this very thing happened - and with Roger's ironically enough.

Not withstanding the whole thing happened as a result of 'bad code in an update', the fact that they didn't have a backup network they could use in an emergency was mind-blowing...

I had assumed (wrongfully so) that a telecommunications provider would be obligated to have backup infrastructure in place in order to operate.

If a network goes down, people need to be able to call 911, emergency services have to be able to communicate, and people's bank accounts can't be 'off until further notice'...

But nope. We have time to force law abiding citizens to give up their firearms, but don't have time to make sure people can contact 911 or access their own money if a telecommunications company screws up.


(The money Roger's announced to be invested in network upgrades & infrastructure wouldn't have been spent/announced had the massive outage not happened...)

 

[lenaitch]

Without government regulation mandating otherwise, the private industry definition of 'mission critical' is largely financial. Any decision to spend money on non-income generating infrastructure will be weighed against the perceived corporate risk. I suppose any consideration of the need for a backup system was met with 'how bad could an outage get'. Oops. A true 'mirror' type backup would have to be very large - as large as the main system - and very expensive. They might be able to get away with a smaller 'critical services' system but the digital world is so intertwined now I'm not sure trying to somehow throttle or limit access would be feasible.

I guess it was necessary to drift to edge of the cliff and be publicly humiliated for the them to have their come-to-Jesus moment (and government to be 'very concerned').

 

[OldSolduer]

Without government regulation mandating otherwise, the private industry definition of 'mission critical' is largely financial. Any decision to spend money on non-income generating infrastructure will be weighed against the perceived corporate risk. I suppose any consideration of the need for a backup system was met with 'how bad could an outage get'. Oops. A true 'mirror' type backup would have to be very large - as large as the main system - and very expensive. They might be able to get away with a smaller 'critical services' system but the digital world is so intertwined now I'm not sure trying to somehow throttle or limit access would be feasible.

I guess it was necessary to drift to edge of the cliff and be publicly humiliated for the them to have their come-to-Jesus moment (and government to be 'very concerned').

Its not going to matter when some twerp detonates a nuke in the upper atmosphere and fries every device that depends on a computer. We better find some old tech to communicate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are always single points of failure. Even with a mirror system, by definition any flaw in one would exist in the other, so it would be possible for a condition to trigger failure in both. (Since I've seen it happen in prototype and test systems, I confidently assume it can happen in production systems.) It's not really possible to attain 100% test coverage, especially if not everything is done in-house. In software, if you don't control the code, you don't control its reliability.

(Parenthetically: as systems mature, software problems become more difficult to solve but occur increasingly less frequently - all the easy/frequent problems are solved in the early life of the product. That's part of why so many legacy systems hang around so long.)

Regulations matter, but "brand" matters, too. Probably more. That's why there's so much advertising, and why companies resort to other image-polishing initiatives : charitable giving, support for trendy social causes. In a competitive market - and mobile phone services is very competitive (the amount of money thrown at "brand" essentially demolishes the notion of "non-competitive") - it isn't necessary to hold suppliers' feet to fires with regulations designed to maintain services; they'll do it themselves. Critics who imagine that companies are indifferent, careless, whatever, are wrong; they are basically making allegations without proof.

 

[CBH99]

Its not going to matter when some twerp detonates a nuke in the upper atmosphere and fries every device that depends on a computer. We better find some old tech to communicate.

You're not wrong.

Everything going on right now in the world is slowly moving us towards a final result - a moment in time that history books will focus on as part of their teachings.

What that precipice is, I believe is 50/50 better or worse. Maybe a soft revolution will happen to the world overall, and we will gradually have leadership that shows common sense & a push for genuine solutions to pressing problems...or we will continue to go down a path (seemingly by design) of self destruction.

Ham radios and smoke signals may still have a place in the future! Better not turn in all those guns just yet


(Sorry for the thread derail...Roger's acquisition )


EDIT - dammit Brad, my post seems even more unintelligent since you posted right before I did

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's nothing wrong with using tech, but relying on it too much is unwise. The higher your tech and the more you rely on it, the harder you crash. So, for example, when people keep bringing up the idea of moving to a cashless society, they should be read out of existence - by all means use e-payments, but always carry some cash. If a person can't go for a short period without a mobile device, the device is a single point of failure.

 

[brihard]

Update: the Federal Court has issued a temporary emergency stay on the merger approval, pending a Competition Bureau appeal of the Competition Tribunal’s decision to let it go ahead. This emergency stay means the merger won’t happen until the federal court is able to hear an appeal of the Tribunal’s decision that would allow it. Looks like the Competition Bureau is going to fully fight this one.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6701854

 

[GK .Dundas]

Does anyone else note the irony of a Competition Bureau that seems intent on stamping out competition whenever they stumble over it ?

 

[brihard]

Does anyone else note the irony of a Competition Bureau that seems intent on stamping out competition whenever they stumble over it ?

Huh? The competition bureau is the organization trying to prevent the merger in order to keep greater competition on the market sector, which is already horribly cartel-like.

 

[FSTO]

Huh? The competition bureau is the organization trying to prevent the merger in order to keep greater competition on the market sector, which is already horribly cartel-like.

Competition Tribunal seems to be bought and paid for by the monopolies.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Sorry my mistake, I meant to say Tribunal.

 

[OldSolduer]

Huh? The competition bureau is the organization trying to prevent the merger in order to keep greater competition on the market sector, which is already horribly cartel-like.

And not only in the telecom sector. Think about all the "marketing boards" that stifle productivity that sees us pay higher prices for products.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Telecomm in Canada is not cartel-like. The companies know the competition rules and apply them. It is obvious by inspection that the federal government is a bit hostile towards the major telcos. The telcos would be foolish to allow the mere appearance of collusion with respect to competition.

 

[CBH99]

Telecomm in Canada is not cartel-like. The companies know the competition rules and apply them. It is obvious by inspection that the federal government is a bit hostile towards the major telcos. The telcos would be foolish to allow the mere appearance of collusion with respect to competition.

Is it safe to assume you either do, or have recently, worked for one of the major telco’s & have a pretty good understanding of the industry?

(It’s meant rhetorically, I wouldn’t pry like that. You seem to know your stuff)

 

[Brad Sallows]

I did. I'm recently retired. I was only peripherally involved with the core business (I worked on systems for monitoring switch traffic), but the internal passage of information exceeded what is publicly available. Telecomm is like energy (particularly "big oil") - an easy target for politicians trying to detract public attention away from government incompetence and errors, and for reasons beyond rational understanding a cost people resent paying even though they are so reliant on it. Misinformation gets perpetuated.