Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Given all the animosity between the countries at the moment (Made in America, NAFTA 2, Bombardier, boarder delays, the Saudi fiasco, pending legalization of pot) now is not the best time for the US to urge Canada to impose any new restrictions. Canada laughed the last time the US described it as a national security threat (aluminum/steel tariffs) it will laugh at this one too.

Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now. Canada's cell networks are much more regulated than those of the US. They cover vastly larger areas and are much more expensive to access. The insertion of national security politics will only slow progress.

View on HN

>>Canada needs improved cellular services and it needs them now.

In what way does Canada require improved cellular service? I'm nodding my head to the other points you've made but this one puzzles me. If you're talking about pricing, then I would agree there given more numerous and more transparent wireless competition in other countries.

Canada's mobile networks are generally comparable to advanced (but not cutting edge) cellular networks around the world.

Yes, in Toronto and Vancouver. But drop a random pin on a map of Canada and it is a different story. There are towns only 50km from downtown Vancouver that lack any reliable cell coverage. I've been involved in a few SAR events, at major tourist spots beside highways, where the lack of cell coverage was a huge issue.

Canada's distances also mean that there remain a great many communities without wired internet services. Satellite is very expensive, and increasingly difficult at higher latitudes. Cellular-based broadband is the only realistic option.

http://www.comparecellular.com/images/assets/coverage-maps/b...

Setting aside the north, take a look at how much of BC lacks any real cell coverage.

There's huge demand for cellular-based broadband. I wasn't aware that TELUS' wireless coverage in the Interior was so bad, and slightly surprised that there isn't more negative news coverage when TELUS and Bell tout "national coverage". I'm sure the CRTC's roaming caps[1] will change some of the profitability scenarios per set of cell-sites.

I will note that Saskatchewan (through SaskTel) seems to cover the province quite well even outside of Regina and Saskatoon.

Re. cellular-based broadband - while there is huge demand in rural regions, the pricing is challenging. Basically, cellular-based "broadband" usually operates at a loss, but at least it's a loss that more carriers are willing to shoulder, in (small) part due to the CRTC's renewed call for action to review "universal broadband service"[2] in 2019.

[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018-99.pdf

[2] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet/internet.htm

Large swaths within an hour of downtown Vancouver had 6Mbps ADSL or highly asymmetrical cable as their only option until ~2012-2013.

I get the conflict, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't possibly still be in Canada's best interest.

Basing the response on school yard type diplomacy would be unwise.

Canada's best interests are different than those of the US. Improved Canada-Chinese relations are much more of a priority as Canada looks for new markets. Security takes a back seat to trade as their top trading partner (US) becomes more and more erratic.

If you think the US is erratic, check out how China bullies its neighbours and always seeks to control the infrastructure of the countries that supply it with raw materials it needs.

The way I see it, the US may be erratic, but it's still a country with the rule of law. China is a massive unknown because it's a dictatorship run by competent but unconstrained (and therefore sketchy and unpredictable) group of people. Even worse now that Xi is going to a full single-man dictatorial model.

>If you think the US is erratic, check out how China bullies its neighbours and always seeks to control the infrastructure of the countries that supply it with raw materials it needs.

I see you've ignored nearly the entire Middle East and what the USA has done almost everywhere in the world throughout its history.

USA doesn't go around giving loans to build infrastructure in countries that have no realistic way of paying them back, then leasing said infrastructure back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_Po...

> I see you've ignored nearly the entire Middle East and what the USA has done almost everywhere in the world throughout its history.

Everywhere in the world throughout its history? That's a pretty amusing statement, given the US barely left its shores for the first 140 years of its history. The US didn't even have a serious standing military until after WW1, and more realistically just before WW2.

Demonstrably the US has done dramatically more good in the world than it has ill. In the era of the US superpower, the world has never been better off. It's just as absurd to ignore the vast good the US has been responsible for, as it is to ignore the mistakes it has made.

> Canada's best interests are different than those of the US.

Not really. Canada's economy can be described as trade with the US and some other stuff.

The problem is that the US government has stated it considers Canada as the enemy.

The correct response is for Canada to remove its dependence on the US. The behavior of the current US government basically destroys their “soft power” for a very long time - who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them? How much of a sweet deal will countries be willing to give the US in treaties anyway?

I suspect the current behavior of the us administration is going to have very long term consequences - the biggest being a long term reduction in global influence as countries (like Canada) seek to reduce their dependence.

I say this with the assuredness of a random commenter on HN ;)

> The correct response is for Canada to remove its dependence on the US

This would be reckless. Geography dictates the U.S. and Canada will be major trading partners. Population, resource distribution and topography dictate, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will be the big sister in that relationship.

Smarter would be to hang low and wait for fairer weather.

> who will trust treaties with the US when the next admistration can arbitrarily end them?

I agree. Since "the U.S. has not withdrawn from a trade agreement since 1866" [1], there is disagreement over whether Trump can unilaterally kill NAFTA or if he requires Congressional approval [2][3]. Either way, it's not a good show.

[1] https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/in...

[2] https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/trump-boa...

You misunderstand, I don’t mean Canada should cutoff trade with the US, I mean that it should be working on ensuring that the US is not as critical to its economy.

That is the sensible thing for Canada to do. No one wants their economy to be dependent on a country that from one election to the next may choose to divorce itself from reality, or at a moments notice label long term allies as being “the enemy”.

Of course Canada will continue to try to maintain trade, but they recognize that in the long term that is no longer a safe option...

> it should be working on ensuring that the US is not as critical to its economy

Installing Huawei telecom equipment would be a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" way of achieving economic independence. I agree that Canada should work to diversify its economy. But diversifying away from the U.S., instead of working to improve the relationship, would be silly given the geographic, cultural and linguistic proximity between the nations.

Look at the behavior of the current administration, and ask if you'd try to work with them to improve a relationship that the administration deliberately made deteriorate.

You can argue that there are many reasons that Canada has for maintaining that relationship, but the same thing applies to the US, and it threw that away. Basically: given the behavior of the US, what reasonable country would want to continue to have their economy be dependent on it?

Also, while Huwei may be producing compromised equipment, what reason does Canada have for trusting US provided equipment? Or any other country -- every country that manufactures any network, radio, satellite, or other technology has a spy agency. All of those spy agencies would happily take an opportunity to compromise each others equipment. The "correct" course of action is to design your secure systems to assume non -trustworthy network hardware.

Mostly don't buy cheap equipment from anyone, because it seems they always ship on day 1 with software that's 2 years old that somehow has like 3 years of vulnerabilities :D

Actually, this is exactly why Canada should be looking for other markets. The US has clearly indicated to us that we can no longer rely on them for trade. It's long overdue, but now is the time we need to act in reducing our dependence on the US, since clearly one dumbass can impact our economy in ways that one dumbass shouldn't be able to.

I see the Chinese mobile market as a serious threat to US cellular markets & phone manufacturers, something USA (with lobbying & special interest money) & its trade war is likely trying to prevent with propaganda campaigns. I would like to see CA laugh this off.

[deleted]

Then it’s too bad the United States cried wolf and now no one will take them seriously when it comes to real threats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com