For a long time, companies, such as Rogers, have been carrying the signal from networks such as CBC, CTV and Global, free of charge. They have never paid the networks for their content, but charge their viewers for it and make a profit from it. This has never been a problem, as networks once survived on their advertising revenue, however this resource is no longer sufficient to sustain their business model. The networks believe that it is time for the cable companies to pay a “fee for carriage”.

The cable companies are not happy with the demands of the networks of course, as it is going to increase their cost of doing business. They are refusing to pay the fee as they feel that they have nothing to do with the networks losing money. Cable companies feel as though “the only reason networks are losing money is because they have made bad business decisions”.

As the two parties have not come any conclusions on their own, the CRTC is getting involved. They began holding hearings recently in order to end the disputes and come to a consensus where both the networks and the cable companies are partially satisfied.

During the hearings, CEO of CTVglobemedia, Ivan Fecan, threatened to pull its signal from cable companies, unless they were compensated for the content they provide. CTV is one of Canada’s largest broadcasting corporations that provides viewers with the majority of the U.S. programming that Canadian viewers love.

What will this mean for the customers of the cable companies? If cable companies start having to pay for the content provided by the networks, will the cost of cable for the consumer go up? Probably , and this will only help to drive consumers away from the television and online where content is free.

These organizations are going about this problem in the wrong way. Rather than changing their business model and adapting to the changing times, they are trying to find and generate money in any way possible, without having to change at all. Eventually their resources are going to die out, just as the advertising dollars have, and then they will have to change. They should focus on being proactive and adapting rather than trying to stand still, while everything around them changes.

Bradford, 19, was arrested the day following a robbery at gunpoint committed at approximately 11:50am on October 17, 2009. However, Bradford was simply wondering where his pancakes were at that time and posted his contemplation on Facebook at 11:49am – he couldn’t have done it! An article by the New York Times outlines the full details of the proceedings, but it leaves huge, open-ended questions about the use of Facebook and other social networking in the acquittal or even prosecution of a person accused of a crime.

Is it fair? Is it reliable? Is it legal?

For one, it is legal. As mentioned in the article, US Congress passed a law in 2006 allowing for the acceptance of electronic information as evidence.

Question is: should it actually be allowed?

I say, why not! Not only has it been used to find someone innocent of a crime, as in this case, it has also served some justice. A young girl who was hit and almost killed by a drunk driver used pictures from the driver’s Facebook page to establish the character of accused (or lack thereof). The drunk driver was charged and convicted of his crime. Facebook has also lead to the capture of one burglar, who checked his Facebook page (and left it open on the computer) at the home he had robbed.

In a new era of electronically-based everything, using a medium like Facebook or Twitter to prove the guilt or innocence of a person is a step in the right direction. Social networking and social networking sites have become such an ingrained part of society that to refuse to let them assist in fighting crime is almost a crime in and of itself. It is time to adapt to the current society and the justice system shouldn’t be exempt.

Telus is taking full advantage of this situation and attempting to gain the competitive advantage, over both Rogers and Bell. Telus decided to enter into new markets where the iPhone would not have been appealing before now to residents, due to their lack of internet access. However, now thanks to Telus, 2,100 communities across British Columbia and Alberta, who until last week had no Internet access of any kind, now will have it through their cell phone as well as for laptops through a wireless Internet stick. In these areas Rogers is confined to the more urban areas and centers because they never focused on expanding, which would have only been to their advantage. Bell on the hand has very little consumer base out that way.

As a result of this expansion, Telus feels as though they now have a much larger network than that of Rogers and feel as though this will be the time when they will surpass them in the Smartphone race. Not only has Telus expanded the reach of their service, but they have also reduced their rates ever so slightly in order to entice consumers to choose them over Rogers or Bell. The total net savings on a Telus bill will be $2.70, however they are also offering free voicemail with certain plans, which usually costs about $10.00 a month. 

As Rogers, Bell and Telus gear up “for a crucial Christmas season as the wireless world become dominant”, Telus feels as though they are one step ahead of the competition. They have entered a new market and see a lot of potential consumers within those areas. They feel as though these potential consumers will rush their doors for the Christmas specials and limited time offers.

What does this mean for Rogers and Bell? Well they are going to have to step it up. They are going to have to offer similar limited time offers and Christmas specials in order to compete with Telus, however Telus has control over this new market and therefore lowering prices and offering promotions may not be enough to compete with that. Telus may just beat out Rogers as  the number one smartphone carrier this Christmas.

Telus spokesman, Shawn Hall, says that these changes are only the beginning, and there is still a lot of work to do. This Christmas is not the real test. The real changes to come are when the networks start working on developing 4G networks. This he believes will be the “long-term evolution”. Eventually everyone will have access to the same standards of service and no communities will be excluded. This is their true goal, providing people with equality of access and service.

The Globe and Mail author Karen Pinchin is reporting in “How Spotify might save the music industry” that a new European service that is negotiating expansion into North America may be what the music industry is looking for, streaming music on a cloud.

Currently, the music industries major woes about digital music is that once pirates have a digital copy of a song, they can pirate it without any effort. However, if the music is streamed from the internet, there is no actual file that one could pirate (or it at least requires more of an effort to get to).

Spotify allows users to stream music from their database of 6 million songs on their computer, and, more recently, their iPhone or Android device. There is a free version, that is ad supported, or you can pay about $14CAD a month for the ad free premium version.

The article suggests that streaming services such as Spotify (and from my own experience, Grooveshark, though I’m not sure of how “legal” it is) have been reducing the pirating of digital music files.

Pinchin notes that if services such as Spotify take off, the changes will not happen overnight. The change will not come without pain as the industry undergoes a major shift in business model. Eventually, streaming services may be used for other products, such as books, movies, TV shows and video games.

The one flaw I see with this is, what happens if something happens to the internet? I must say, I’m a big fan off other cloud services such as Google Calendar, Gmail, Google Docs and Remember the Milk, all of which basically run my life, but if all the content I could ever hope to watch, was streamed online, if the internet is no more, how could I ever waste my days away watching re-runs?

Hulu.com, the popular American website, is your one stop shop for anything and everything television. You can watch past episodes of all your favourite syndicated shows. And now, Hulu brings you something more. A new “coming soon” feature was recently launched, giving the site’s visitors a heads up to when their favourite TV shows will be available.

It really does seem that the Internet is getting closer and closer to becoming the new television. But is it a reality?

Michael Gartenberg, in an article for the Washington Post, doesn’t seem to think so. “You always read articles about people giving up cable for Hulu,” the market research analyst said, “but that’s not mainstream behavior.” Maybe that’s the case for Americans, but for Canadians with limited access to American content websites it’s not so easy.

That doesn’t take away, however, from the fact that soon the computer may be the new television. About 168 million Americans used Hulu to watch television shows in September of this year, corresponding with the new Fall seasons of different popular shows. This number is up from 146 million Americans in September 2008.

Still, it seems the fact remains that people are still willing to pay for their cable. As the author of the Washington post article, Mike Musgrove said, “For the time being, I’m still forking over my monthly subscription payment to Comcast — for all of its features, Hulu doesn’t have “Dexter” or “Mad Men,” after all…”

The recession has been particularly harsh on the broadcasting sector, as advertising dollars have all been spent and CanWest Global, on of the country’s major networks, filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year. This has resulted in a dispute between broadcasters and the cable companies about who should pay for programming. Each side was taking out full-page ads in order to present their side of the argument. Recently, the federal government solved the problem and ended the dispute for now, through a negotiation that resulted in the reduction of the regulatory fees paid by both sides.

It is very clear and has been proven through the use of surveys and research, that people within Canada and the United States “actively seek TV shows and movies online and turn increasingly to the Internet, as their main source of news” (Scoot, 2009, para. 4). Although the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission recently claimed that the Internet complements traditional broadcasting and is not substitute, trends suggest otherwise.

If these trends continue, as many believe they will, many of the CRTC’s tools will not be effective when it comes to monitoring and controlling broadcast content on the Internet. Specifically their efforts to promote Canadian content become meaningless and ineffective. Air time quotas for domestic and local programming lose authority as these things cannot be controlled within the Internet. Users can watch what they want when they want as everything is available to them either legally or through piracy.

In the past when new technologies cam along that threatened the current mediums and caused concern within the industries, the government generally responded by imposing new regulations. However, when dealing with the Internet it is not this simple as the Internet is a place that is very difficult to regulate. Users will not allow it to happen, which means that it is time for a “comprehensive review of the objective of our regulatory framework, in the broader context of a strategy for a digital economy” (Scott, 2009, para. 8).

Canada needs to develop methods in order to capitalize on the new digital consumer trends. A 2009 World Bank study suggests that a 10% increase in broadband penetration in high-income countries, such as Canada and the United States, correlates with a GDP growth of 1.2%. Countries, such as Australia have already made this move in order to reap the benefits of this digital economy that we are moving towards.

Australia has committed to invest approximately $43 billion in order to improve and update their broadband services. Their broadband speeds will be increased to speeds of up to 100 times faster than their current standards, which are already faster than those in Canada. Britain has also taken a step in the same direction, deciding to invest in the digital technology as well as provide education on the Internet. They want to ensure digital literacy so that users know how to deal with harmful content on the Internet so as no to fear the technology.

Canada needs to develop ways of becoming part of the race for economic prosperity in the digital world. It is easy to be worried by the immediate needs of the Canadian broadcasting industry as they are putting it right in the face of the people; however this problem needs to be looked at more broadly, in the sense of the framework of the industry. They need to adapt to the digital way of life that their viewers and consumers are moving towards. The CRTC should part of this innovation, however they are fighting it as they refuse to adapt. There will come a time when the CRTC will no longer be necessary.

 The models were put on display at the country’s biggest consumer electronic show. The displays were very interactive as  ”visitors to company booths at the CEATEC show donned special electronic glasses and watched as soccer balls flew toward them in sports clips and virtual heroes dodged deep into the background of video games”. They were amazed by the technology that could soon be available to consumers in their homes, rather than through outside sources.             What  will be available to  watch next year on these new televisions is still vague, which is where the technology is most vulnerable. It will be diffcult for them to move products and sell the technology if there is nothing available to watch. Companies say they will begin with movies and video games, which seems to be the most simplistic response. Panasonic and Sony both know that this is going to be their biggest problem and that “content is the most important thing”.

The concept of this technology is pretty straightforward, but more difficult to implement. It shows the viewer two images, one for each eye,  which are seen as one 3-D scene in the mind of viewers. The 3-D glasses are still going to be necessary for these models, otherwise the images are blurry and out of focus. The glasses are what ensures that each eye only views one images. These glasses will be much a much better quality than the plastic ones you get at the movie theater, however one must be concerned with how much this entire entertainment experience is going to cost.

Not only is 3-D television coming to stores, but also a new technology. Toshiba is introducing a new line of television in the next year that will use a”cell chip” technology that will enable a television to show and record up to eight programs at once. This chip will also have the capability of chinging regular images into 3-D images that can be viewed with the use of the necessary glasses.

This innovation of technology has brought a lot of revolution within the television industry. Many argue that the television is on the way out however, this technology may be what saves it. Having 3-D content available through television, but not online may shift viewers from the Internet back in front of their televisions. The first step will be encouraging the sales of these new televisions, which will be the challenge for these corporations because of content and pricing.

The Globe and Mail author John Doyle reporting in his article “Cable guys, broadcasters: Time to look at the big picture” that both sides are waging war on the other over, what else, money. Cable started the blame game with ads condemning broadcasters proposal to force cable companies to pay for local television. Then the broadcasters quickly followed suit with ads proclaiming that big cable was making millions in profit, and not passing any of it on to the broadcasters (TV broadcasters that are freely available over the air).

While both sides were waging a mass media campaign of epic proportions, each blaming the other side for what really just boils down to greed, consumers just get confused and lost in the mess. This situation is not new with broadcasters FOX and CBS asking our neighbours to the south to implement similar measures.

While it would be great to see big cable return some of their profits to local television, especially since they pay millions to carry American television networks like ABC, FOX, CBS and NBC, which are all freely available over the air in the US, Doyle (and I) would like to see that money put to good use. Instead of just focusing on local news, the money needs to be put towards some solid Canadian TV shows. As we note in our video documentary, the majority of TV shows available on Canadian networks, such as CTV, are American produced.

To me, Canadian television has always been the source of a joke. Much of it has seemed to be lame ripoffs of their American counterparts, or fill-ins that the network needed to simply satisfy CRTC broadcast regulations. If big cable does end up giving (read: being forced to give) money to broadcasters, I do hope for some solid Canadian content that makes me proud to call this white nation my own.

It isn’t irony. Or coincidence.

Advertisers are tracking your every move. One click of your mouse to any website and your preferences, information, and viewing habits are stored in a type of vault far away from your computer. Is this a good thing? Is it an invasion of privacy?

In an article in the Ottawa Citizen, advertisers are arguing that this “Big Brother” type system is a customer service to the clientele.

But the average citizen doesn’t see it that way. According to the article, 75% of Americans were against tailored advertising if their behaviours were being monitored. It gives them the “heebie-jeebies” according to Stephen Baker.

What America wants, America gets. United States Congress, at the time of the article, was in the process of proposing a bill that would force websites to detail how they are using collected data and would also force websites to allow its users to “opt out.”

The article also outlines how to avoid getting “cookies” placed on your computer. “Cookies” are codes that allow websites to store your preferences and other information. You can easily delete and disable cookies in your Internet Options, however some websites don’t perform properly without cookies.

“You’re at a party, chatting with your pals and enjoying repartee. Then it happens.” “What’s the name of the new Coen brother’s movie, again?” someone asks. People whip out their smartphones in order to look up the answer and after that it is difficult to get the conversation flowing again as there has been an awkward pause while waiting for people to finish up on their phones.

Or if you are out to dinner and someone whips out their iPhone to show a video that they found funny on YouTube, the rest of the meal is spent by people at the table wanting to show their funny videos and then all conversation is lost as the group is glued to the 10 inch cell phone screen.

I think that it is absolutely rude when you are out with someone and they are constantly texting or checking their e-mail on their phone. It is very difficult to interact with someone while they are doing this. They are occupied with interacting with someone who is not there and it often ruins the flow of the conversation. There have been times where I am mid-sentence when the person I am with picks up their phone and starts answering a text.

The smartphones are not only becoming a problem in the social world, but also in the workplace. Linda Allan, a Toronto-based certified management consultant, who specializes in business etiquette, says that since the inception of the iPhone more and more companies are coming to her seeking help to write guidelines about the use of smartphones so that they can insert them into their codes of conduct. They are looking to eliminate the use of smartphones for personal activities in the workplace because they feel as though it is decreasing productivity as well as creative corroboration between employees. 

Social circles have also had enough of the antisocial smartphone users and have developed rules among themselves in order to deal with it. For example Sean Tyson, 28, from Vancouver says that he gets mad whenever anyone disrupts conversation in order to show the latest and greatest of YouTube on a smartphone. “No thanks. That’s the lamest get-together” he says. As a result of this he and his friends have developed an informal rule that when out together they should set aside their phones and pay attention to what is going on around them. If someone breaks this rule then “they fight fire with fire” says Tyson. If someone is constantly using their phone, they will send that person a text message saying “stop texting” and that is the only way they will stop, which is according to Mr. Tyson, very ironic.

Smartphones are a technological revolution allowing people access to everything they want, but on the go. You no longer have to be glued to a computer in order to have access to the Internet. You can e-mail, chat and use YouTube wherever you are. However, it seems as though these phones are having a detrimental effect on the social aspect of our lives. Regan Rankin, 31, says that smartphones are “socially isolating” as at parties their users are often sitting alone playing on their iPhone or in a group sitting there texting and watching videos, but not interacting with anyone, not even each other.

I agree with her. I find that smartphones are minimizing the time that their owners spend socially interacting with the people around them. They spend more time texting and e-mailing people who are not physically there. It seems as though technology is developing faster than the etiquette that comes along with its usage, but I am happy to see that there are people who really care.