CanCulture

Episode 56 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest episode features CanCulture, a new online magazine that celebrates Canadian art and culture.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogs​pot.com

NEXT EPISODE: July 29, 2011

Revisiting CKLN (Part two)

Episode 52 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition is part two of a two-part series that revisits CKLN. The Ryerson-based station was forced to vacate 88.1FM, but will still broadcast online.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: June 3, 2011

Blue and White Love

Episode 49 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition features WeWantACup.com, a new website that hopes to maintain the Maple Leafs' presence in Toronto. According to the site's founder, the team's lack of success hurts the city in many ways.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: April 22, 2011

Your Online Funny Pages

Episode 45 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition features Bitstrips.com, a Toronto-based website that allows users to create their own comic strips.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

Next episode: Feb. 25, 2011

My City Lives

Episode 33 of This Is Toronto is now available!

This latest edition features My City Lives, a website that allows Torontonians to upload videos about their favourite parts of the city.

www.thisistorontopodcast.blogspot.com

NEXT EPISODE: Sept. 10, 2010

The Key to Media Profitability is Respect

I talk to alot of people in various media. Most of them don't really care about file sharing one way or another. The thing I've found, with music, is that most of the people I know buy alot of CDs (physical or digital) from artists that they like because they respect the artists and they know how hard they work. They know that most artists (unless you're U2 or Coldplay) are not wealthy and make their money by a combination of recorded music sales, merchandise and concert attendance. So the fans show respect to the artist by buying something. Some may download the music for free but they go to live shows and buy t-shirts. The artists, in turn, respect their fans and will accept this partial payment - the artists know that their fans are also not made of money. The artists also know that there is little they can do about file sharing and would rather remain on good terms with the audience that create an adversarial relationship over a few dollars.

This is the kind of relationship, based on mutual respect, that needs to exist for your media company (in whatever medium) to survive. Sometimes it is the audience that needs to show more respect. To download an unreleased album or an unreleased film shows a lack of respect for the artists. It is up to the creator of the content to decide when it is done and when it is available to the public. You wouldn't want someone reading your rough drafts - or making them available to the public at large.

Most of the time though it is a lack of respect on behalf of the media. To actually expect fans of your film to pay to see it in the theatre and then to buy it on VHS, and DVD, and Blu-Ray and then to buy another .mp4 copy for their iPod shows a lack of respect for the audience and it should come as no surprise if that lack of respect is returned.

I have bought Sandanista by the Clash three times - on Vinyl, then on CD, then on CD again. If something should happen to my copy I should be able to download another one. I have shown my respect to the creators of the album three times over. But according to the big record labels I should not only buy it again, I should buy the CD and then buy it in digital form if I want it on my computer and then buy it yet again if I should if I want it on my portable MP3 player. That shows an intense lack of respect for the audience and it should come as no surprise if that lack of respect is returned (especially when the record companies have a poor track record on supporting artists.)

I pointed out in my last post that the problem that big media is facing is not due to downloading, it is due to their inability to adapt to the increased competition of the million channel universe. Taking your problems out on your fans and your best customers (and taking $222k from a single mom because you lost $8) is the ultimate show of disrespect and if that disrespect is returned at the same level your company will not survive.

To date big media (record labels, movie studios, and others) have shown almost no respect to the audience, but they demand back full and total respect, even a little bit of awe. I do not, at this moment, believe that most of these companies will survive. If one day I rent a DVD and, instead of an anti-piracy advertisement, see the head of the MPAA on his knees begging forgiveness and offering free downloads of all films made prior to 1990 - I may change my mind. I'm afraid though that it would take something on that level for me to have any confidence that Fox, Vivendi, Universal, etc., are going to be around in 20 years.

If you, as a content producer in any media want to have a lasting career and a growing audience that is willing to pay - not because they have to but because they support you - try earning the respect of the audience. If you create intelligent, meaningful, worthwhile media and show respect and appreciation for everyone in your audience you'll be fine.

MPAA Declares Victory: Pirate Bay Insurgency Begins

In case you somehow missed the news the Pirate Bay's founders were fined and sentenced to prison earlier this week. The action touched off immediate protests - but now it is going beyond that. The Twitosphere is buzzing with calls for a full media boycott. At this point any reasonable person can only hope that it is successful.

Independent studies of downloading in the U.S., U.K, and Canada have all shown that file sharing is good for media. The problem the media is having has nothing to do with torrents or piracy - the problem is competition. We now live in the million channel universe (it's actually far more than a million but we can skip that.) Big media hasn't learned to live in a world where they don't have a monopoly on the audience. As that audience fragments and their share gets smaller big media has opted to sue their fans and customers - not out of any kind of moral right and wrong but purely to try and grab some easy cash from an easy target. That kind of irrational and irresponsible behavior cannot and should not be rewarded.

Additionally, as a supporter and consumer of intelligent, meaningful arts and culture the product produced by the larger media companies in all areas (television, film, music, news, etc) is deteriorating rapidly year over year. In an effort to make a "safe" profit they have gone to the familiar and formulaic over anything new, interesting or progressive. These conglomerates are failures both as business' and as providers of arts and culture and there is no conceivable reason for the public to lift a finger to save them.

As for the Pirate Bay itself, it is business as usual. From their

"So the first verdict finally came, almost 3 years after the raid. You might have heard about it in the news...

You, our beloved users, know that this little speedbump on the information super highway is nothing more than just, a little bump. Todays verdict has already been appealed by us and will be taken to the next level of court (and that will take another 2 or 3 years!)

The site will live on! We are more determined than ever that what we do is right. Millions of users are a good proof of that.

We have seen that some people that we dont know have started collecting donations for us, so we can pay those silly fines. We firmly ask you NOT to do this. Do not gather or send any money. We do not want them since we will not pay any fines!"

So, if things continue on their current trajectory - when 2015 arrives Pirate Bay will still exist but many of the companies currently suing them will not and the world, including the arts and culture sector, will be fine (probably even better off) for the change.

Associated Press Declares Itself Obsolete

Considering the line of work they are in it's somewhat ironic that the Associated Press has, apparently, not being paying much attention to what is going on in the world for the last few decades. That is, apparently, the case though. From Bill Doskoch and the New York Times comes word that the Associated Press has adopted litigation as a method of protecting it's intellectual property from the internet.

"Taking aim at the way news is spread across the Internet, The Associated Press said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not.
A.P. executives said they were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds.
They said they did not want to stop the appearance of articles around the Web, but to exercise some control over the practice and to profit from it."

Asking for compensation from people who copy their articles in whole is fair and reasonable but going after those who link to articles, or who quote them and link to them shows a complete lack of understanding of how the internet and the modern information economy works. It is a policy that essentially says that if you do free advertising for them, they will sue you. Perhaps when visited by the AP's lawyers Google should ask for compensation from the AP for all the publicity they have been getting?

In the interim, until the Associated Press figures this out or goes out of business you might want to find another news source to link to online.

Godsend Timesaving Sites for Musicians

I've talked to many musicians and managers of musicians about which social media sites they should be on: Twitter? Facebook? Myspace? YouTube? etc.

The answer of course is all of them. Each of these sites have millions of users and, when you are promoting yourself, anytime you can reach millions of people for free you really should do your best to do it.

Now there is a tool that makes it all much, much easier. Artistdata is a new site (still in beta mode) that lets you update all of your sites at once - so you send a update to artistdata and it updates Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, LastFM and a dozen or so other sites for you. So instead of going to all of these sites to update your info you do one simple update on artistdata and artistdata updates everything for you. (Thanks to Artists House Music for the heads up on this!)

Also, in case you don't already know about it there is another site you should check out that does the same for video. Tubemogul takes your video and puts it on YouTube, Myspace, Yahoo Video, Vimeo, Blip.tv, and about 20 other video sites.

So, now you can be everywhere while investing the same time it would take you to only be on Myspace!

cross posted to NxEW

Is Mass Media Coming to an End?

These are desperate times in media generally. Layoffs, cut backs in service, and even closing the doors altogether are regular daily occurrences. Today the Conservative government, in the first indication that anyone in Ottawa understands what is going on in media combined the Canadian Television Fund and the Canadian New Media Fund into the Canadian Media Fund. I've said more times than I can count that for all intents and purposes there is no longer any difference between television, radio and the internet and this move acknowledges that.

Make no mistake, this is an attack on the CBC. There has, until now, been a part of the Canadian Television Fund earmarked for the CBC. This earmark has been stripped away and will no doubt mean an even lower budget for the CBC.

What all of this means is currently being discussed far and wide so I'm not going to go too deeply into what the CMF may or may not do. What I'm wondering about tonight is: Is there a workable model for mass media anymore? Across North America and around the world media companies of all types are in trouble (public and private). Television, radio, newspapers, publishers, record labels, and film studios (ok not today, wait six months and film studios will be laying off too.) At the same time nearly everyone I talk to is crying out for relevant media, especially smarter media.

I've said before that CBC Radio 3 seems to be doing well. I've had a much easier time generating support for Radio 3 than for the CBC in general but it is unclear, if it were forced to fend for itself, if Radio 3 would be vialble.

It is worth considering that financially viable media is a new concept, it is largely something that occured in the 20th century. For most of human history there was no 'media' except what happened around the campfire. There were also, within the last 1000 years, traveling troupes of actors and musicians (essentially buskers) who would performs in towns, cities and for groups of travelers in exchange for a little money. This is largely where the stereotypes of 'show people' come from. Books happened eventually but had to be hand copied and were primarily the media of monasteries and royalty. Even with the invention of the printing press books were so expensive that even well off merchants, if they were literate, could only afford a few books. Newspapers emerged late in the 18th Century but it wasn't until the 20th century that there was a 'Main Stream Media' - the big newspapers, radio, television, paperbacks, magazines, film were all things that happened in the 20th century and now the model is completely broken.

The internet has changed everything. The models that generated revenue for media in the 20th century have gone away. Everything is now free, or very low cost. People are no longer interested in watching commercials if they can avoid it, and they can. Public funding is still an option (as in the PBS model in the States or CBC in Canada.) But public support for giving these institutions the funding they will need to do what they do well is thin.

The first problem is that with so much media being available for free people are reluctant to devote tax dollars to the cause. The second and much larger problem is that the audience is so fragmented that broadcasters, public and private, are left with the task of being all things to all people.

With the emergence of the internet people have found opportunities to form communities very narrowly. If you like Neil Diamond cover bands, or Chinese films translated into english you can find friends online that agree with you. If media does not cater to your tastes you can all complain together and it gives the impression that "everyone" feels the way that you do. So media companies are faced with the expectation that they will meet the demands of a mammoth variety of groups and individuals. For the most part media companies cannot do it because the financial resources required to produce media are greater than what can be produced from any individual group.

It seems to me that the only viable approach is to target a niche and cater to that niche exclusively and well. Even when targeting a niche the reality is that others will target that same niche. I think that Radio 3, so far, has been successful because it has targeted a niche (fans of Canadian independent music) and has worked hard at community building which engenders a sense of loyalty and helps Radio 3 keep ahead of it's competitors. It seems that this might be a model which media companies could follow, creating inexpensive content and building communities around a variety of interests (other types of music, literature, history, politics etc.). It is unclear though, as I've said, if this is a viable financial model. If everyone took this approach would the overcrowding kill the financial viability?

I'm really asking questions here more than anything. It is entirely possible that 'mass media' was a blip on the radar, that it's window in human history is closing and that it will be replaced with an online 'virtual' campfire. Stories, songs and (unverified) information shared in the evening among people who do other things to make a living. And of course there will be the occasional traveling troubadours.

This may be far fetched. You may be saying 'no someone will find a way' or 'once people realize how serious the problem is they'll be willing to pay'. You may be right, I really hope so, but you also have to realize that most people aren't reading this or anything like it. Most people aren't thinking about it at all, they simply act in whatever way suits them best and 'the financial viability of media' is not a topic they are interested in.

New Media vs. Old or We're Not Making Cake Today

It can be intensely frustrating trying to talk to old media people about new media. You can talk away and feel like it's sinking in and you are making progress and suddenly it all vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Let's say you were teaching a cooking class and were telling people how to make calzones, so you give everyone an overview, make sure they have all of their ingredients and get ready to start mixing dough. Just as you're about to start someone from the back of the room shouts out, so we're making cake? You step back, start again, and once you are convinced that everyone is on the same page you get ready to start again. 'So why don't we have any frosting? Are we going to make that later?' You sigh, take a deep breath and go back over your overview (repeat ad nauseam).

This is the way it starts to feel after awhile when people keep bringing up things like Cancon requirements, broadcast licenses and the CRTC. All of these things are in their dying days. In ten years anyone with an internet connection will be able to broadcast, the days of having a 'broadcast license' will be over. Broadcast towers will, for the most part, be torn down or used for satellite relay. Cancon requirements will be unenforceable. The CRTC will only exist to enforce net neutrality and privacy laws (or it will not exist at all.)

The good news is that the CBC will still be required to make Canadian shows, and people who want to tap into the Canadian Television Fund will have to as well. In fact everyone will have to produce their own content because there will be no more incentive for show producers in the U.S. (or anyone else) to sell or license their shows. They will be able to deliver them around the world without the need for someone else to re-broadcast them. (The towers are pretty much gone remember).

At home people's televisions, internet, radio, cell phone etc., will all be connected and do the same things. That is how people will get shows and it won't matter where a show comes from. If you want to watch it, you can, regardless of whether it's a Canadian show, US show, British show or other. So, if CTV, City, etc., want people to watch, they will have to make their own shows. Many production companies will even bypass these altogether and go directly to the consumer. Alliance Atlantis, for example, would be able to take CSI directly to consumers without the need to sell or license the content. That means that in house production or (contract) work for hire will be essential to survival.

Again - no broadcast license, no legal Can con requirements (though if they are Canadian they'll need some). This is not a possibility, it's what's happening, it's already begun and unless we run out of all energy supplies and western civilizaiton collapses it's pretty inevitable.

While we're at it I'll make a few more, farther reaching predictions: By 2020-2025 ish, sophisticated animation and graphics programs will allow people with just a story to create photorealistic 'feature films' on their home computers. They will be able to select characters, dress them, shape them, choose their voices and cause them to 'act' with simple instructions. But, once everyone can do it, they will have to be really, really good stories to get any attention.

Shortly after that 'virtual reality' will finally become a real reality and people will be able to plug themselves into story lines, as if they were the lead character and virtually 'live' the stories - living in photorealistic, three dimensional worlds of their own creation where they can do as they please. This is going to be nearly impossible to compete with as a content producer but don't worry. Shortly after this technology hits the market there will be a growing chorus of calls to ban it - when people can plug into a world of their choosing and lead any life they want 'without consequences' it will be hard to get them to stop. In fact even the market for narcotics and alcohol will plummet. An alarming number of people will stop going to work, cleaning the house, taking care of the kids etc.,

After that something else will happen! At any rate, we're not making cake so put the frosting knife away and get over it.

Grasping at Straws or Not the CRTC Has Lit a Fuse

The CRTC and their hearings on the Internet, CanCon and New Media may turn out (whatever the outcome) to be less important than the conversation's they started. For one thing, it's now clear that nothing Rogers says should be taken seriously. They do not tell the 'truth' they say what is convenient and suits their momentary interest.

Beyond that though have a look at Denis McGrath's post on the topic. The post itself may not be as significant as the conversation that followed in the comments section - about net neutrality, broadcast vs. internet, new paradigms and the importance of getting money into new, more creative and flexible, hands.

If the CRTC's colossal overreach finally gets the conversation on where 'broadcast', Can Con, and content creation need to go to survive in this country it will be worth the hundred million - even if the money has little or nothing to do with online Can Con.

A Proposal on Making Free Content Pay

There is a post this morning from Bill Doskotch about a Toronto Star article (which also mentions other articles.) The basic gist of it all is how to make newspapers pay. Newspapers have been declining for decades now, very few of them charge for online content and quality journalism costs money to produce. There are alot of comments on the Star article of the 'evolve or die' variety and it's true that all media must evolve or die. This isn't advice, it's reality, if media fails to evolve it will die. However, media cannot going on forever producing content for which there is no way to get paid.

Doskotch wonders, in particular, about whether newspapers should charge for online content. They shouldn't. That discussion has been over for a decade. If, for example, the Toronto Star decided to start charging for content tomorrow they would get a few subscribers but most people would simply go to the thousands of online news sites that don't charge (especially in a recession.) So, how do you pay for all the work that goes into that journalism? Ads alone won't do it. Internet advertising simply doesn't pay that well. If it did news organizations wouldn't have been slashing budgets and staff for the last decade, but there is another way.

The Songwriters Association of Canada put forward another unacceptable proposal. They called for a fee to be added to everyone's internet bill to pay for 'illegal' downloads'. Their proposal is not acceptable primarily because the suggested fee would go to the SAC who would then decide on their own how to distribute it. How does the SAC know how many times a particular song has been downloaded? They don't know. They would have to guesstimate and what about Canadian musiciains who weren't members of SAC? They would have to join if they wanted to get paid and then - what about films? what about television programs? e-books? etc., do we set up separate fees given to various organizations to divy up as they see fit? The short answer, and the long one, is no. We simply cannot institute what would basically be a new tax to be distributed according to the whim of a private organization. However, they are not far off the mark.

What might work is a centralized fee for all content. So, let's say (as a starting point) that $5 / month was tacked onto everyone's bill. According to this there are 28 million internet users in Canada, the collected fees would come to 1.68 billion annually. So that is the pool to be divided. The Internet Service Providers would be required to pay the administration costs.

The administration would be set up as a bureaucracy that ran something like Google Adwords. The regulating agency would provide a snipit of code that would track your traffic - not just by visitors but by bandwidth. So large files would count for more than small ones. A feature film, or a new music album is incredibly time and cost intensive and it simply wouldn't be fair to only pay the hosting site for a single visitor when someone came and downloaded an entire feature film. So, bandwidth used would be measured and the site would be paid based out of the pool based on that.

Like Google's adwords there would also be rules. Sites that tricked people into visiting them, or set up robot software to artifically increase their traffic would be kicked out of the program. Sites that used other people's (unlicensed) content or sites that deliberately made their files larger than they needed to be would also be removed from the program. Sites that already charged for content would be intelligible etc.

Initially this would only be available for Canadian web sites but that could change. If other countries wanted to adopt similar rules, and if mutually acceptable guidelines could be found then the program could become international in scope. This would discourage the 'not available in Canada' messages we sometimes see.

On the whole this would allow consumers to pay for content without even thinking about it - no forms to fill out or credit cards. It would also encourage content producers to put their best stuff online. It would encourage, for example, television producers to put their shows online, it would encourage recording artists to put their music online and it would make all internet content pay, without the content producers actually having to do much - no ad sales required, no elaborate licensing contracts - you put good content online and you get visitors and when you get visitors you get paid, automatically.

I think that a program like this would answer the questions asked by Bill Doskotch and countless others almost since the birth of the internet: "How do you make money providing free content ?" My answer may or may not be the best one, but it is an answer - if you don't like mine, please tell me yours.

Why the Internet Beats Television for News and Information

I'm something of a news junkie but I must be a different type of news consumer than most of the television audience. Last night, in case you missed it somehow there was a plane crash near Buffalo, New York. Fifty people were killed in the crash, it appears to have been an accident. For me, that's all I need to know but the reporter on CBC Newsworld just said "this is our only story". What else is there to say? It's not an ongoing story. It was an accident and it is certainly a tragedy but it's over and there are other things going on in the world.

There is a difference with an ongoing story. Take the Mumbai attacks for example, or the Israeli attack on Gaza those stories are complex, ongoing and political. There is are a number of different aspects and angles to cover. For a freak accident though or a crime story there just isn't much to say. Perhaps I'm not curious enough, or interested enough in trivia, but there just isn't that much I need to know. The biggest example of this was the O.J. Simpson trial (the first one.) What I needed to know was that O.J. Simpson was accused of a crime, what he was accused of, when the trial started and what the jury decided. That's all. Like the plane crash in Buffalo it was tragic, but just isn't that important to my life.

On any given day, somewhere in the world there are crimes and accidents - there is constant tragedy but it's a big world and there is a good deal going on in. If it is an ongoing situation I'll follow it. If it is a recurring systemic problem I'll look at the problem but if it's a one time incident I just can't devote that much time or interest.

So, for me, given that television news likes to dwell on such incidents the internet is far better. I can get the basics of dozens of stories, and even look at a few in greater depth in the time it takes television news to interview the neighbors about the sound of the explosion. There is a ton of information produced in the world:

"The world produces between 1 and 2 exabytes of unique information per year, which is roughly 250 megabytes for every man, woman, and child on earth."

This was as of 2000 - the amount has grown exponentially since then. To me this means that there must be some discrimination. If you're going to absorb the information you need you have to decide what is important and what is not and be ready to move on as soon as you have the information you need. Television does not allow for this, the internet does. Generally when there is a story like the plane crash all of the television news stations are covering it simultaneously - on the internet there are enough different 'channels' that you can always find some interested in something else and even if every web site in the world decided to cover this story, you can skip that part of the web site, there will be other information there as well.

The customization, the ability to skip around and the interactive capabilities are what ultimately will allow the internet to absorb television rather than the other way around.

Net Neutrality Comment Deadlines Moved as New Information Emerges

The CRTC has moved the deadline for public comments on net neutrality until the 23rd as new information has come to light. The ISP's argument in favour of traffic shaping relied heavily on the assumption that bandwidth use would continue to grow. They argued that this would clog their systems and force them to pick favorites.

But when forced to reveal actual numbers the results showed:

"The figures from seven ISPs also reveal that annual growth in total traffic volume declined for two consecutive years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 for five of the seven ISPs, in one case dropping from 66 per cent growth in 2005-06 to 21 per cent growth in 2007-08."

Bell, Rogers and Shaw will no doubt try to twist these numbers around to back up their argument. As Evan Esar once said “Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.” But once that falls flat the only argument they will have left is their desire to control what information Canadians are exposed to and to profit from that control. Again, don't forget to tell the CRTC what you think, you have an extra week to do so http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/crtc_submission

How Not to Use Twitter: For Journalists and Media Types

Torontoist has all the screencaps from today's Twitter conversation between David George-Cosh, the tech writer for the Financial Post and product marketing consultant April Dunford. It would appear that Ms. Dunford failed to return a call to Mr. George-Cosh. The Twitter world didn't really see how it started, but did see how it ended.

Again you can have a look at the conversation on Torontoist or Mediastyle.ca (probably elsewhere by now too) but a snipped includes such gems as

"sirdavid: @aprildunford hey april - fuck you. seriously. fuck you.

sirdavid: @aprildunford if u can’t handle any heat from what u post and immediate hang up, fuck u. u know my number. u call if you want to settle. 

aprildunford: @sirdavid Re-read what you have just Twittered. Then re-read what I Twittered. Deep breaths David. Calm."

If you work in journalism or media you should print the screen cap and post it up on the wall, just to remind everyone that Twitter is a public forum and probably not the best place to have a blow up with a source.

Traffic Shaping Will Not Preserve the Big Media

I know that the thought of net neutrality will have some big media types salivating. They may object out of principle (it is pretty objectionable) but there are parts of it that some might think sound pretty good from a self-preservation viewpoint. I've heard from and read some in old/big media lamenting the new age and wishing things would go back to where they were. People who honestly believe that they are the guardians of culture and information and believe that position should be enshrined in law and tradition. Some of these people may look at the net neutrality debate and say 'that's our ticket, we pay a little extra and our dominant position is insured.'

I'm happy to tell you that it won't work. Even if Canada's big ISPs are allowed to regulate traffic the web will find a way around it. The internet started out, originally, as a way for the military and science labs to communicate. Internet culture developed around the sharing of ideas, the spread of information and free speech. Almost since the beginning the users of the internet have found their way around obstacles put in their way. The first hackers were not out to steal credit card info, only to find information they were being denied access to. Over the years avid internet users have developed open source software in response to Microsoft's monopoly, they have found their way around every DRM system devised, have engaged in and grown the practice of file sharing regardless of any laws, lawsuits, or obstacles presented, and have even broken through the great firewall of China. The best, brightest and most creative people have never been on the side of the status quo and control.

Traffic shaping by the ISPs would be an insult to the audience, it would be a pain in the ass, and it would be expensive for some but it would not change the game - only serve to drive a further wedge between Canada's media and the Canadian public. Over the last half century most western institutions (political, religious, media and other) have had their bright spots but have ultimately received a failing grade from the public. Support from these institutions for online traffic shaping or other controls will only serve to deepen the divide between themselves and the public and will hasten their demise rather than preserve them.

Net Neutrality: Last Chance to Weigh In

Most people reading this will already know all about Net Neutrality if you do and you already have an opinion on the matter then all I really have to tell you is that you have until February 16 to let the CRTC know what you think. If you don't already know what net neutrality is read on ...

Bell, Rogers and Shaw have a near monopoly on internet connections in this country. Most other internet providers buy their bandwidth from one of these larger companies. This monopoly position has been given to them by the government of Canada. Bell, Rogers and Shaw all use public airwaves or lines over public land (many of which were also paid for by you directly or by various governments with your tax dollars) to deliver this service to you. As things stand they generally overcharge for sub standard service. In a recent study Canada ranked 27th out of 42 countries for broadband penetration.

But a government subsidized monopoly and the right to overcharge customers is not enough for these companies. They'd also like to decide what you can and cannot see online. If net neutrality legislation is not implemented these companies will be able to charge web sites for visitors. That means that web sites that don't pay up will be harder to connect to and slower to load, or they just won't be available at all.

Imagine if the government gave a private company control of the freeways. Imagine if the government gave that company money to maintain the freeways and that company charged you a toll every time you wanted to use the freeway. Now imagine if that company went to Canadian cities and threatened to block, or slow down the off-ramps from that freeway unless they paid. So they might go to the city of Toronto and say if you give us 10 million a year things will continue as usual. If you give us 5 million a year we'll only close half of the offramps, if you don't do either there will be no offramps to Toronto. So they are not only forcing the cities and other destinations to pay, but they are deciding where you as a driver (who pays for the freeway through fees and taxes) can go on the freeway.

That, in a nutshell, is exactly what Bell, Rogers and Shaw would like to do. To make matters even worse, all of these companies have web properties of their own - cable stations, newspapers etc., so they will not have to pay but their competitors will. Going back to the freeway analogy, imagine if the Ontario or federal government gave the freeway monopoly to Toronto. So it would be up to Toronto whether or not you could go to Hamilton, or Guelph. It is shocking that the CRTC is even having hearings on this issue.

Every media revolution the world has experienced - from the printing press to the television has been controlled by the wealthy and powerful. If you wanted to have a printing press or a television station it cost vast sums of money to get started, even then there were government and/or religious constraints on what you could or could not say. We finally have a media that is open to all, where anyone anywhere can have their say, share their stories and points of view and weigh in on issues that concern them. Bell, Rogers and Shaw - heavily subsidized monopolies would now like to take it away and put power back in the hands of the rich and powerful exclusively. It is not unlike the system they have in China except in this case it wouldn't even be controlled by government but by a few large, powerful corporations.

Please take a moment to let the CRTC know what you think.

Interactive Exchange Comes to Toronto in March

From March 17 - 19 the Interactive Exchange will be running at the Carlu (444 Younge Street in Toronto). The Exchange referred to as 'IN 09' (formerly the Interactive Content Exchange) is

"an event dedicated to the business of interactive digital media. In an industry so dictated by the flow of ideas and reinvention, discussion about future trends and re-framing of thought is paramount."

It is an opportunity for interactive and digital content producers, game developers, educators, investors, programmers, and more to gather, talk shop, learn, network and show off new projects. For more information on IN 09 visit inexchange09.com.

Boost: New Media

Earlier today I mentioned the other Boost Groups. This one kindof completes the set. It will be the last for awhile, perhaps the last altogether but I've just created Boost: New Media: This one deals with new media in the broad sense: That is to say it is for content that is only available online podcasts, video podcasts, video games, internet radio, web tools and more. In other words it is about Canada's rapidly exploding digital world. Once a week I will send out a new email pointing you to a new online treasure that is either wholly Canadian or has heavy Canadian involvement. (This is the internet after all, it crosses borders frequently.)

I'll also include a blog of the week, it may not be an "art" but it is media and has become an important one. As with the other Boost groups I'll let it grow for awhile before sending anything out, feel free to sign up and spread the word if you're interested.