<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Live coverage of the CRTC New Media hearings</title>
                <link>http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&amp;task=siteviewaltcast&amp;altcast_code=7fc63edf5f&amp;height=&amp;width=</link>
                <description><![CDATA[ Live coverage of the CRTC New Media hearings]]></description>
                <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:05:43 GMT</pubDate>
                <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:59:39 GMT</lastBuildDate>
                <ttl>1</ttl>
                <language>en-us</language>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:07 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:07:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hi all. We're about to get rolling with our coverage of today's hearings. Astral media is up first.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:08 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:08:18 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[You can watch the submissions live on  <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=watch&lang=e&watchID=3e" href="http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=watch&lang=e&watchID=3e" target="_blank" > CPAC</a><br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:12 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:12:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[For some background, here's Astral's <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74422&lang=E&defaultName=Astral%20Media%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74422&lang=E&defaultName=Astral%20Media%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >submission to the hearing</a><br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:14 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:14:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Astral says measuring bandwidth use is not an effective way to track Canadian content online.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:16 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:16:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Commercial intent is also hard to define online, Astral VP Chris Bell says. As is the difference between amateur and professional content.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:21 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:21:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Sounds like Astral says the Commission should be encouraging the government to consider a federal new media production tax credit.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:24 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:24:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Also presenting today will be Rogers Communications, Cogeco Cable, Shaw Communications and Canadian Cable System Alliance. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:28 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:28:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[At the moment, Astral is making a technical case that the nature of TCP and the limitations packet-inspection technology to detect CanCon. The very fact that we're talking about using packet-inspection to detect trace amounts of Atwood indicates that something is amiss here.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:29 hartleyglobe via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:29:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/hartleyglobe" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Once again myself and Grant Robertson will be liveblogging the <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> new media hearings for the Globe.  #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> <a href="http://bit.ly/BYdGT" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/BYdGT</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:31 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:31:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I agree Ivor, but I think Astral struck the right tone to highlight that doing so probably isn't the best idea. Such things would only benefit the Sandvines of the world. <br><br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:32 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:32:50 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Regulating only broadcasters online would cause real competition headaches, according to Astral. Can't say I disagree with that. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:42 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:42:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA["How do you supervise without measuring Canadian content?" the commission wants to know. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:44 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:44:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Can you imagine what it would take to develop a system that tracks and measures all Canadian broadcasting content online? Not impossible, but sure sounds difficult and expensive for the CRTC.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:48 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:48:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I don't think "impossible" is too strong a word. How would it pick out a Canadian song broadcast from a British online radio site? A Canadian foreign correspondent Twittering from India using an America-based web service?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:48 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:48:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Astral has no intention of having web-only radio stations, but CRTC wants to know if competitors come in and braodcast competing stations with less Cancon over the Internet, would that cause problems for Canadian stations?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:49 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:49:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Astral seems to be saying that it might cause problems, but good luck to them in figuring out a viable business model.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:49 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:49:52 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Good point Ivor. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:50 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:50:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[That does it for Astral. Time for coffee as we await the presentation from Rogers Communications.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:58 Comment From Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:58:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Seems I missed them before the break, has this morning been mostly technical issues so far? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:00 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:00:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It might be more fair to say that there was a good deal of discussion about whether the CRTC can or should be measuring Canadian traffic and/or Canadian content online - and that discussion took a quite technical bent at times, Geoff.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:01 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:01:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I concur with Ivor. Not overly technical, but the conversation definitely dipped that way.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:02 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:02:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Up now we have Rogers Communications. You can read their submission to the commission <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74378&lang=E&defaultName=Rogers%20Communications%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74378&lang=E&defaultName=Rogers%20Communications%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >here</a>. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:03 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:03:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Did he just say the ISP levy would be unlawful?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:03 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:03:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Not surprisingly, Rogers argues that a levy on ISPs used to fund new media would not only be bad for business, but unlawful.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:04 hartleyglobe via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:04:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/hartleyglobe" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Rogers Communications takes the floor at the <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> new media hearings. Follow the proceedings. <a href="http://bit.ly/yL8WV" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/yL8WV</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:05 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:05:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Canada is not falling behind when it comes to the creation of "webisodes" Rogers says. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:06 Comment From Michael Geist]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:06:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Yes, Matt Frehner.  There are at least two legal opinions submitted by ISPs arguing that the imposition of a levy would be illegal (a function of the separation of the Broadcast Act and the Telecommunications Act). ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:08 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:08:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The way broadcasting is working right now is taking television shows meant for TV and broadcasting them on the Internet, Rogers says.<br><br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:08 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:08:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA["ISPs are pipes, not broadcasters," according to Rogers.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:13 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:13:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers recommends an alternative to an ISP levy.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:15 Comment From Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:15:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Wouldn't the "solution" coming only from Rogers cause competition problems? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:15 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:15:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers is promising an online portal for Canadian content, which at first blush sounds like a hosting service for Canadian broadcasters. Twice now, the Rogers speaker has mentioned that it will be accessible to customers of any ISP - almost as if this were a bonus feature.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:16 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Sounds like the portal would only be available to people who also have a subscription to a cable company. So you wouldn't be able to only watch television online. You'd need to subscribe to a cable package too.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:17 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:17:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>RT @globeandmail Live coverage of the New Media hearings: Globe reporters and readers follow the <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> talks... <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bfcqsm" target="_blank" >http://tinyurl.com/bfcqsm</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:17 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:17:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Konrad isn't going to waste any time on the legality of the ISP levy. "The court will decide," he says. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:17 Michael Geist]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:17:50 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Konrad just pointed to what some think are the most likely outcome - an ISP levy and five years of litigation over its legality. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:20 hartleyglobe via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:20:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/hartleyglobe" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Google's Canadian policy counsel Jacob Glick will join the Globe's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> live blog this afternoon at 2 p.m. <a href="http://bit.ly/BYdGT" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/BYdGT</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:20 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:20:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob Glick, Google's Canadian policy counsel will join us this afternoon at 2 p.m. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:20 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:20:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Oops. Said it twice, apologies. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:22 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:22:01 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Jacob Glick, Google's Canadian policy counsel will join us this afternoon at 2 p.m. - The Globe live blog #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bfcqsm" target="_blank" >http://tinyurl.com/bfcqsm</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:23 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:23:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers says it could essentially whitelist sites to give traffic priority to, given a list of URLs to prioritize.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:26 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:26:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>#<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> and rogers team agree to disagree re. whether ISPs legally considered distributors - 'see you in court' </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:27 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:27:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Can Rogers actually measure Canadian content on the Web through deep packet inspection? Rogers says no. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:28 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:28:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Once again, Konrad returns to the troublesome notion that professional and non-professional traffic can be distinguished and measured, and that Canadian content is tied to dot-ca domains.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:31 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:31:29 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Fascinating stuff from Rogers CSO Mike Lee.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:32 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:32:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Chums, my tweets are being published live to the Globe blog re #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> hearings; Iong day there - try not to flood yr timelines here :) </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:35 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:35:52 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers makes a good point that if you subscribe to a cable service, you should be able to watch your programs on whatever platform you like. But should we all have to subscribe to a television service?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:36 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:36:31 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>told ya! Rogers is boosting tier subscription portals for can con online, correct? #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:38 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:38:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>'extension of tv billing rlshp'; this is what some studio entities were presenting last year #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:41 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:41:29 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>wow rogers sounds just like the US producers' association 07 except they admit they will find a way 2 monetize content (subscribers) #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:44 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:44:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>'trends on online advertising are up-swing' - rogers #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:45 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:45:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I don't think that anyone is worried about the whole online advertising market eventually maturing to the point where advertisers embrace video, but it's just a matter of when. Looks like even Rogers isn't sure when that's going to happen. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:46 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:46:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>wait they can measure advertising on web but not whether isp/distrbing BDUs carry what they get licensed to do hmmm sounds familiar #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:49 mattfrehner via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:49:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/mattfrehner" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>RT @jvanderveen watching <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> hearings. familiar Canadian dynamic of isp/broadcasters making counter proposals to <a href="http://hedge.bad" target="_blank" >hedge.bad</a> ideas all over </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:52 Comment From Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:52:55 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[So, Rogers wants to present their customer-only service as the answer, but then say that all content should be available to them? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:55 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:55:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers: We are just a series of tubes.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:55 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:55:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Pretty much Geoff. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:55 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:55:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[People are "downloading content in buckets from the big wide Internet." Great quote. :-)<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:55 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:55:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I want my content bucket. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:56 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:56:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>to Geoff W. on Globe - exactly #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:00 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:00:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers: most online radio listeners are listening to local, real-world stations; Toronto listeners listening to Toronto radio.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:00 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:00:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The new media world is appearing "complimentary and ancillary" medium to the old media world, according to Rogers. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:02 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>it's not about regulating. it's about, ISP (also  BDU) gets protectedfrom 'big wide competition'  in Canada.  For what? #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:02 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>they're using the hot-button word 'regulating' strategically web friends, it is *not* what reasonable watchdogs want or asked for here #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:02 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>canceling cable for internet 'if that world comes..'- Rogers.  Me - it's here in both my homes now man #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:02 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I'd agree with that Ivor. I know some people who listen to stations from the U.S. and the U.K. over the 'net, but for the most part, people listen to Q107 or whatever in Toronto. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:02 Comment From Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:02:52 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Does Rogers have concrete facts on that, Ivor? Because, quite frankly, if I want local radio, I'll turn on the radio. The internet is useful for all the global content I can't get locally ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:03 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:03:52 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[For some of us, online television is already supplanting normal television. If that's when the regulation needs to arrive, as Rogers argues, then maybe it is time for regulation. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:04 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:04:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matthew, their specific example was of people working in office buildings, where they might not get reception. But anecdotally, I concur with their broader point: people, presented with a global network, tend to use it to check the weather outside their windows.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:04 Comment From Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:04:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Fair enough - in that context, that makes sense, yes. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:06 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:06:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[(...much as I wish that more people followed your lead and used the Web to think globally!)<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:11 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:11:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Do these guys not know that anyone, anywhere can buy a .ca domain? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:11 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:11:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I know advertisers cringe when people say this, but man, I have a real hard time listening to traditional radio (which is full of ads) with the availability of digital music and podcasts I can get on my iPod. As a newspaper reporter, I'm sure that's bad karma and means that more people will read my stories through Google news and ignore my paper's advertising. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:12 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:12:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I can get on board with Rogers' dream of having users pay one price to access content on any platform they like, but we're a long way from that eventuality. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:12 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:12:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Didn't Rogers just say they only have 5,000 subscribers to their mobile TV service?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:13 Michael Geist]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:13:15 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I've just written a short post on the dot-ca issue, which misunderstands Canadian presence requirements for the dot-ca and Canadian content requirements. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:13 Michael Geist]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:13:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Sorry - post at <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3737/125/" target="_blank" >http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3737/125/</a> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:14 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:14:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks for that Michael.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:14 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:14:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks, Michael - good to see you here as well! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:14 Comment From Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:14:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[If it is a Roger's Cable product, then they are sitting on both ends of the pipe and there's no reason that the ISP arm shouldn't pay.  And if their solution is used, it's be very easy to tax or charge based on usage of their service. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:14 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:14:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[So Rogers is hedging its bets on the idea that a full shift to the Internet for content will not happen...good luck with that. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:16 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:16:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Roger's current on-demand video offerings (I'm talking cable based) - there aren't any ads, are there? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:17 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:17:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matthew, the only ads that you get are house ads, or ads for other shows from the network the show aired on. If you watch Prison Break, for example, which airs on Global, you'll get ads for other Global programs. But usually only one per commercial break. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:17 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:17:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[a tad off-topic perhaps, but if monetizing on content is the agenda, why isn't Rogers considering doing some good with the notion, and by good I mean pairing down content in a pc-rated manner?  Just like movie ratings, one application which many parents may find useful is to create a high-speed subscription tier for the teenage demo, or younger (i.e. active tagging of adult oriented content, and blocking out offfensive content sites). ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:18 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:18:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>has anyone mentioned yet dealing w remote & poor communities' access to the net?  just on price-points. 'price sensitive'... #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:18 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:18:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>'iternet is not designed for bcasting video' - Rogers somebody call Universal NBC, CNN BBC they're getting it all wrong ;) #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:18 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:18:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>ah Morin points out the discrepencies btwn ISPs filed submissions & their presentations - at last; they *are* changing on the fly #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:20 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:20:12 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Internet is not designed for broadcasting video...so, how does Rogers define the internet, then? Last time I checked, it's a global computer network, with near-infinite possibilites. I think what they're trying to say, is that we don't have the infrastructure to support broadcasting streaming video. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:22 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:22:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers appears to be proposing a Hulu-type service where users could go online and get cable programs over the Internet, and they would be partnering with other cable companies. The catch? You have to keep your cable TV subscription. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:22 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:22:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[My understanding of that argument is that, with traditional broadcasting, you transmit one signal, and an unlimited number of people can recieve it. On the Internet, you have to transmit one signal for each person who receives it. So it's not optimized for broadcasting, per se.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:23 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:23:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Is this the first we've heard of Rogers' subscriber-Hulu?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:24 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:24:03 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It's not, they've been talking about it all day, but the suggestions that they'll let other smaller cable companies play too makes it seem more Hulu-ish, in that more than one cable provider would be helping out. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:25 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:25:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Right. I was thinking if this hearing was its first appearance. A CRTC hearing seems like an odd place to announce a product.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:25 Comment From Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:25:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers said cost-sharing for the other small cablecos, but they never said profit- or revenue- sharing did they? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:25 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:25:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Why the catch? Is it Rogers looking to maintain a business model that can continue to make money, or the content providers/networks themselves working towards that arrangement? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:19 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>(waving) at federal & corporations' staff monitoring these tweets; wish they'd let you all chime on :) #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:19 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>paying for online use rights... and *using* those rights would be viable for bcasters if ISPs hubbed (or portal'd) - Rogers #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Geoff, i would assume that if they're going to share the costs, they'll share the reveneus too. No small cable company would sign on to help Rogers pay for a system that they couldn't also profit from. <br><br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ivor, the product idea was announced a little bit ago, but they're now pushing the product as a solution in place of an ISP levy. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:48 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[how is Hulu-type service going to sustain video broadcasting insfrastructure when its practically already a free-to-air concept (many alternatives)? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:26 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks, Geoff.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:27 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:27:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Moreso, what if I'm a Rogers cable subscriber, but not Internet? Does that allow me access? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:30 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:30:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[They say so, Matthew. As long as you're subscribed to cable.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:32 Comment From Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:32:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matthew Braga - yes, they're saying you pay for it to them as a bcaster, but of course it's physically accessed on any ISP (that is fast enuf - ie, speed up or fail, smalI ISPs) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:34 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:34:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[If they do go ahead with this, I can't wait to see how its implemented. Because, frankly, I doubt they'll simply allow the $20/month cable subscribers in on this. Knowing Rogers, it will probably be an extra plan on top of whatever VIP or digital plan they currently offer. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:37 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:37:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matthew, those users would probably see something a lot closer to the BBC's offerings than a Hulu-type service. The chance to catch up on shows missed for about a week, and all those episodes removed once a new one becomes available. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:40 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:40:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matt - a footnote to this point on subscribers using multiple services.  I have to admit the (Home) bundling Rogers offers is quite competitive.  The only issue I have is (and its sort of a biggie that the CRTC might want to address at some point in light of regularity of power outages)  when the service goes down, you lose cable, internet and phone.  At least with Bell, if the internet went down, I had phone and a back-up dial-up account thrown in for good measure. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:40 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:40:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think customers are reaching the limit of what they'll let Rogers charge for cable/Internet. If you have HD and a modest line-up of channels, plus Internet, you are approaching $200. I think the breaking point is being reached, I know for me it is. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:40 Comment From Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:40:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[totally - it's also a way to eliminate lower speed ISP options; create demand for dense content, create demand for 'lite' ISP customers to bump up to more expensive ISP subscriptions. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:45 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:45:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[the surcharge could only be justified if you needed to pay rental for a special tv-set box (i.e. of an apple tv flavor) - i'd like the option of buying it out.  otherwise, there are too many couch-surfing options already on the market which I can realize right now without the wait or added expense ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:47 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:47:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Interesting to hear Mayrand suggest   online shelf space is unlimited. Getting the shelf space that matters - in terms of promoting shows to people can find them - is a challenge. That prime space is limited. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:50 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:50:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Nice to hear someone finally say that Canadians currently have the ability to search for and find access to Canadian content. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:50 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:50:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Who is that coming from Geoff? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:52 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:52:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Maynard, when he was referring to search engines and current usage ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:53 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:53:31 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Okay. Just wanted to clarify - not listening/watching, sadly. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:53 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:53:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I'm curious, has anyone at the CRTC ever used Google.ca's big, shiny "Search Pages from Canada" button? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:55 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:55:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[to Mr. Braga - even that button can't compensate for bcasters putting US content front and centre on their portals ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:56 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:56:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff & Mathew - how accurate is this statement (search Canada-only content)? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:58 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:58:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Cogeco: "Let the flowers bloom before trying to harvest them." ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:59 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Joseph, I'm honestly not sure, never used it. I'm covering the hearings and such from the States, though I believe options like that are available. The problem would be driving traffic to that search instead of just Google's main search engine. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:59 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Chair finally mentions Heritage announcement yesterday; supports the appropriate contribution to domestc pdn/promotion by profiteers #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:59 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>#<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> it's cogeco cable inc up now/live on <a href="http://cpac.ca/" target="_blank" >cpac.ca/</a> follow the globe live blog here <a href="http://bit.ly/BYdGT" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/BYdGT</a> (tweets very slow to connect today) </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[11:59 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Rtmyself Chums, my tweets are being published live to the Globe blog re #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> hearings; Iong day there try not to flood yr timelines here :) </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:02 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:02:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[InkCanada... Glad you mentoned the Heritage announcement yesterday. Curious what you think about it. Does it really change anything? Looks like the same money in the end, with some shuffling involving the envelopes. This is an aside to the hearings, but what are your two cents? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:07 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:07:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Cogeco making a great point here, most of the content we're talking about is repackaged TV content. So why is a new fund needed if there is already a fund that helps promote Canadian TV content? Sounds like double-dipping by the CanCon industry to me ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:10 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:10:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Interesting point, Spencer... Yes if there was a levy introduced, theoretically there would have to be rules put in place to ensure it was producing new content, not merely funding existing content. But you could see the lines blurring pretty quickly. It could be a bigger  regulatory challenge than expected. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:11 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:11:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The previous hearings tried to differentiate between content made and intended for TV, and Internet-only content. From what I gather, this additional fund was meant to take into account those looking to make online series' and productions. Yet, the roadblock was in how to appropriate such a fund, since you can't quite give money to every Dick and Jane looking to produce their own Youtube series. More so, the lines do blur, as Grant's pointed out - what about Internet series and shows that are broadcast on TV? What about supplementary webisodes? There's still way to many unanswered questions. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:11 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:11:51 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Grant honestly still processing that announcement, because it precludes designing its reasonable implementation - what I *see* in it so far is, odd pre-emption to these hearings in spirit, more applicants for same over-subscribed funds, and *potentially*, non-producer entities deciding what you get to see from our own creative sector, determined by their own corp or even broader agendas.  Concerned, but hoping for *much* consultation from public; consumers, creators. Not happy about CBC losing its priority/special status in federal financing. But we need to see how it is all restructured, for sure. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:16 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:16:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[If there is one thing I trust it's bureaucrats to implement rules :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:16 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:16:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matthew Braga that's precisely the point, you can't finance every independent blogger, podcaster and YouTuber who wants to produce CanCon so the money will inevitably end up in the hands of the usual suspects. This is a cash grab by the big CanCon players not a effort to help out independents. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:17 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:17:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Spencer - lol ditto... and lawyers. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:19 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Spencer 'cash grab by the big can con players' - who are those? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:21 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:21:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Any piracy argument will make this a much more befuddled process. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:22 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:22:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Karen, thanks for your thoughts, especially since  everybody is still processing  yesterday's changes I realize you're kind of stepping out on a limb.  I'm not sure what to make of it either. It looks like one of those announcements that we'll only know a year or two from now, once we can see how everyone is using it, what exactly the changes mean.<BR> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:22 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:22:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Spencer coz if wishing to stay and make stuff in Canada, wihing to preserve a vital economic sector I'm in, and wishing to see what I want to see online makes me a big playah, I wish that was reflected in my bank balance. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:23 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:23:15 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Grant precisely - I like limbs, I'm a creative writer, I enjoy using my imagination, but in this case I'm not being cautious, I'm worrying about info we just don't have yet, in terms of seeing a direction implied... ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:23 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:23:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matt Braga, you hit the nail on the had there. What if  a show moves from the Internet to TV? And what if a show is simultaneously produced with both platforms in mind? Lots of potential for blurring. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:24 Karen Walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:24:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@ Grant & @Matt Bragga - the blurring is what the creators have seen coming since 99.  In CDN context, blurring includes that the same corp entities own both end of the blurring brush... if that makes any sense :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:26 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:26:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It does make sense. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:27 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:27:14 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It seems they could take a better approach to blurring by simply establishing a portal for Canadian content and then taking a cut from some of the advertising, instead of putting the fee on ISPs. Then it would be per usage and the content wouldn't matter in terms of who pays. Disseminating the money through a variety of content producers has been and always be a problem, whether its video like this or 'the arts' or govt. contracts. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:27 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:27:45 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Grant at the Globe asks me to comment on the Heritage announcement re new media/tv financing combo - see globe blog for my reply #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:28 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:28:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[But charging for usage could introduce a slippery slope when it comes to attracting viewers - struggling CanCon is given no way to succeed, and could simply be overpowered by more popular, foreign offerings. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:29 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:29:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Will Jon Lajoie, who produces a great series of funny YouTune videos, see a dime of this "new media" money? No, and neither will any other independent content producer, it will go to Alliance Atlantis, etc. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:29 Comment From Grey suit on CPAC]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:29:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Have any of the groups today specifically called for the continuation or elimination of the exemption order. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:29 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:29:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Karen Walton I want to see small independent content producers get some help, but this fund isn't the way to do it. This is a dying industry's death throes. Just like the CanCon rules for radio only benefit the top 10% of artists, this fund will only benefit the top 10% of online content. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:29 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:29:06 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks for you response Geoff.   As it is, there are many a machine limitation with identifying Web geography as a metric.  And while it would make sense to promote Canadian content concurrently with TV/Radio broadcasting standards, the Web is an entirely different animal and a global Web audience makes the topic of relevance and worth, not a levy or any funding program. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:33 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:33:01 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I don't think international competition would be too fierce if the portal was able to pull major Canadian content from all the big content producers. International distribution agreements, especially in terms of TV shows, are very lacking right now for most countries.  Look at YouTube, its 'most pirated' content is from Univision, and it is watched by people who can access that content on their TV sets  ( a legal battle over who owns digital rights is why it doesn't have its own channel or much of a Web presence) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:35 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:35:03 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Joseph, you're very right about the Web being a different animal.  Geography wouldn't be the way to monitor, content is. There are some firms, especially Auditude, that shouldn't have too hard of a time building a database for usage by the CRTC or another body that could, in real time, monitor and determine a lot of origin and relevance. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:40 Guest]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:40:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Spencer industry in death throes versus indie access to financing:  every crisis is an opportunity to confront real and perceived obstacles for all concerned. The thing is, indies are being out-danced by corp strategists. Indies must step up.  Where are these indies/new media producers at these hearings? and do you really want professional production to vanish with old fashioned TV (which, I'm with you, is on the way out - but these guys behind the tables... they know that very well.  I guess I'm just never a fan of assuming change means the same interests should win all the marbles.  To me, we must participate, and contribute to the process.  Or, we get what we get. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:41 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:41:01 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[whoops guest comment above to Spencer was me, strangely lost my name in the box a second sorry:) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:44 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:44:44 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Well still battling #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> new media hearing fans' perceptions that anybody wants to reg the net *or* let the usual suspects get all fed $ </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:45 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Just catching up.  @Ivor, Rogers was not the first mention of passowrd-protected online access for cable subscribers -- Glassbox proposed the same thing a couple of weeks ago. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:45 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Grant Robertson re CTF announcement -- same money, less new media friendly (now *everything* has to be for TV plus one other platform), and with unprecedented control by the big cablecos. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:45 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:45:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Good question:  why haven't indie new media producers applied to appear at the NMHearings?  did you submit to? #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:46 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I do not understand all this focus on measuring Canadian content by bandwidth.  The levy idea woudl simply extend what cablecos pay to ISPs -- that is about total broadasting content, not Cancon, which is not too hard to measure.  The CRTC wants to measure Cancdon to see how Canada is doing online, but that does not have to be according to the exact volume of bandwidth used -- if we want to see how we are doing, use Google Analytics, Auditude (good point @Geoff Whiting), and so forth, just as the CRTC uses BBMs and Nielsens to see whether we're doing okay on Canadian TV.  Pretty straightforward. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:46 Comment From Les Kerekes]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[What worries me about any imposed levy is where does it end?  is it going to a $5 levy for Can-con, then another $5 for the music industry, another $5 for song writers, then videographers, producers, until my internet bill is $300 a month, and 90% of that is levy's ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:46 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[But keep in mind that YouTube is more than a video site.  YouTube is a search property, and video (YouTube) places second only to text searches (Google).  The idea of pusing content through an ISP or for "Canadian" audience only will appeal to new entrants, but those who are net savvy will still use search to locate content that is relevant to them.  This is how they will stumble onto discussion, or much like how I used Twitter to locate this live discussion.  I don't mean to be demeaning towards our culture place and significance, but topic and current awareness are what make content relevant on the Web, and content without relevance forced into our view (even if it is embedded with an underlying culutral value) will only be percieved as nagging as a pop-up ad. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:46 Comment From Denis McGrath]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:22 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I am now at the point where I think we're kidding ourselves if we think anything that's being said in this room matters or even is considered.  Since KvF took over CRTC, they've talked a retrenchment and commitment to local programming; OTA's respond by shutting stations.  We go through the hue and cry of hearings into the CTF, the CRTC makes a cockamamie recommendation for a two fund system that is overruled by the Feds, and what do the feds do? Hand the keys to the guys who complained in the first place. The BDU's.  If you want to know what the result of these hearings will be, don't follow the testimony, follow the lobbyist visits to Gatineau. The CRTC as an arms-length agency is over. The BDUs are running the show. Whatever they decide they want, they're going to get.  Next month it's the OTA's turn. They will get what they ask for, because the CRTC now knows if they don't give them what they want, they'll be overruled by Heritage. The fix is in, kids. I don't know why everybody's still wriggling. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:46 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Does the Canadian Council for the Arts extend its grants to 'new media' film and video content?  If so they might be able to help regulate some of the flow of these funds and keep at least some of the cash out of the usual pockets. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:50 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:50:15 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Quoting @herywriterboy on Globe blog:  'the fix is in kids, I don't know why everybody's still wriggling' re cable controlling all #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:52 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:52:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@ Geoff In some limited respects but Can Council is for individual artists (often experimental, exploratory art) or non-profit orgs.  If you were an experimental charity - awesome. But that financing is not guaranteed ever as on-going, for individuals it's usually a one shot deal and is also over-subscribed already as well. would new media installation artists part w/ money for YouTube pdrs? doubtful. very. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:55 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:55:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks Karen, it looked that way but couldn't tell too much from its site. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[12:59 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:59:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Geoff, my tip re that site is to pull up their applications for that programme (and check where they announce what's been funded) - gives you a proper snap shot of the mandate there  (and my pleasure, good questions!) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:03 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:03:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Appreciate it, hope to catch you and everyone else back here in a bit. Lunch time has finally made its way out here. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:04 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:04:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[right! eating! excellent idea... see you in a few :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:33 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:33:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Looks like we're just about ready to go here. Up first this afternoon will be Shaw Communications Inc. You can read their submission to the Commission <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74402&lang=E&defaultName=Shaw%20Communications%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74402&lang=E&defaultName=Shaw%20Communications%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >here</a>.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:36 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:36:45 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Just to remind everyone, Jacob Glick, Google Canadian policy counsel will join us live today shortly after 2 p.m. Feel free to begin submitting questions for Jacob whenever you like and we'll post them when he signs on. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:37 Comment From Joseph Fiore]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:37:15 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[There is another angle.  If I'm producing content for the Web, do I want to limit the exposure of the project to a Canadian-only audience?  If the funding is designed to promote Canadian culture, and as such, would only be viewed in Canada, one might decide to meet all the funding eligability requirements, and once in post-production, repackage the project using a global branding formula strategy.  How does funding control the possibility that someone pushes their content outside of its intended area of coverage, and how is it going to determine if its was intentional or not?  Keep in mind that there is an organic spillover aspect of the Web that can sometimes redistribute (mirror) content - it would be interesting to hear for instance from security regulators and how successful they are in containing announcements intended and required (by law) for Canadian or US audiences. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:37 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:37:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@GeoffWhiting, the main new media funds are the Ontario Media Development Corp's new media funds, Bell TV & New Media Fund, and until recently Canadian New Media Fund run by Telefilm -- which the Minister has just turned into another cable-run television fund. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:38 hartleyglobe via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:38:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/hartleyglobe" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Jacob Glick, Google's Canadian policy counsel is going to join us for our <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> new media live blog shortly after 2 p.m. <a href="http://bit.ly/BYdGT" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/BYdGT</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:38 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:38:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>#<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> Chair is clarifying the definition hearing uses for 'new media' </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:39 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:39:34 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>and here's Shaw Communications w/ Jim Shaw #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:40 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:40:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[self-interested?  that's ironic ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:40 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:40:45 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[No one has said there's a shortage of Canadian content online, says Jim Shaw. Says that "self-interested" writers and actors are the ones who want the tax. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:40 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:40:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>'already an abundance of Can con on the internet... there is no problem that needs to be fixed' - Jim Shaw #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:41 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:41:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[That sound you heard is Jim Shaw picking up the gauntlet laid down by Rogers earlier in the day and slamming it down again. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:41 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:41:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA["The Internet is about the world wide web, not the Canadian wide web," Shaw says. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:42 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:42:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Go Shaw! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:42 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:42:31 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Attempting to regulate any aspect of the Internet at this time or any time in the future is futile, Shaw says. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:44 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:44:19 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[No regulation, no taxation. Shaw wants the CRTC to leave the Internet alone and argues that their view reflects that of most Canadians. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:45 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:45:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Not only is Shaw ruling out ISP taxes, but they're going as far as to trash the very concept of cultural subsidy.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:46 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:46:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[This is refreshing, frankly. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:46 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:46:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[For background, Shaw has had an "interesting" relationship with  the CRTC (see the long series of PrideVision complaints).   They are going to war with having to pay any taxes -- commissioned two law firms to say it would be illegal .. ! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:47 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:47:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>'consumer will choose the content they want to watch' - so will CDNs be able to choose the ISP they want to use? US or otherwise? #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:47 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:47:03 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[If I could get Shaw at my house I would switch right now simply out of support for their presentation ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:47 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:47:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It is, at the very least, an approach that's as populist as it is popular.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:48 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:48:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[At the very least, we know how Shaw is going act with regards to net neutrality now. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:51 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:51:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>controlling bandwith is good for you (esp if you can pay more for most) me re. Shaw #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:52 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:52:50 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>wow using poor/remote communities ability to pay for their federally protected services is not an argument I was prepared for (shaw/<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a>) </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:53 Comment From Denis McGrath]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[re: "Go Shaw!" Yup. Faux populists who inherit cable companies from their Daddies are so just like you and me! Vox Populi! Yay!  Let's get a shout out for Lenny Asper while we're at it. The business acumen just makes them all so dreaaammmy. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:54 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:54:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think you're taking that out of context; realize that he was referring to Shaw's stance, which, for now, is differing pretty heavily from the party line Rogers et all have been pushing thus far. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:55 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:55:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Wait, what?  How does Shaw differ from Rogers? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:56 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:56:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Denis McGrath I hardly see what the family history of the Shaw corporation has to do with their position on this issue. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:56 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:56:37 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Konrad starts by slapping down Shaw's straw men. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:56 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:56:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[KVF getting defensive, didn't like being told the truth ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:56 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:56:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>thank goodness Chair is correcting some bsic perception management issues re this #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:56 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:56:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA["Ivor Tossell:  Not only is Shaw ruling out ISP taxes, but they're going as far as to trash the very concept of cultural subsidy." Rogers is still looking to promote CanCon, and is enforcing the tax through their own, Hulu-like system. Shaw wants none of this ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:57 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:57:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>(waving again) @ staff, corporations & federal, & foreign interests... monitoring tweets on #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[1:58 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:58:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Don't understand "is enforcing the tax through their own, Hulu-like system". ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:00 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:24 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Instead of taking the proposed levy, and passing it on to consumers, Rogers is taking that tax, and recouping costs through an ad-supported, Hulu-like system, which will be available to Cable subscribers. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:00 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[J, Braga is talking about the portal that Rogers proposed this morning that would only be open to people with cable subscriptions. The reason it's Hulu-like, is because they would be open to partnering with other broadcasters on the project. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:00 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ah, there you go. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:00 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Well, you phrased it a bit better Matt. Thanks :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:01 Comment From Denis McGrath]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:01:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Shaw's presentation cannot be considered out of the context of his conduct re; the CRTC and Canada. He enjoys a regulated monopoly, but regularly subverts "must carry" channels or favors his own properties (Pride, Super Channel). He instigated the feud over the CTF then didn't show at the hearing. He appeals every decision to cabinet, and yesterday got what he wanted --  BDU control of the CanCon fund.  But he doesn't believe in cultural subsidy.  Shaw is the ultimate Canadian capitalist -- no protectionism except that which is in my favor. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:01 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:01:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matthew -- oh.  That's not a party line, that's Rogers freelancing in the corner.  Rogers isn't "taking that tax" (it doesn't exist), they're saying, hey, here's what you could do with it if you did it.  But the party line is certainly the Shaw one.  (See also Bell, etc.) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:03 hartleyglobe via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:03:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/hartleyglobe" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>"The Internet is about the world wide web, not the Canadian wide web," says Jim Shaw to the <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a>. Live blog at G&M.com <a href="http://bit.ly/BYdGT" target="_blank" >http://bit.ly/BYdGT</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:03 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:03:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matt/Matthew, Hulu is the wrong analogy.  This is Rogers' version of Time Warner's "TV Everywhere" idea -- interesting.  (GLassbox proposed the same thing in this hearings a couple of weeks ago; look up the transcript.) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:04 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:04:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Seems to bear similarities to both, J. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:04 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:04:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Chair continues to have to clarify this hearing is about CDN bcast content ...online. And that Shaw is a cable co (BDU) & an ISP #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:05 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:05:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I may be mistaken, as I'm simply going off what you've been reporting back here, but I was under the impression that they stated their Hulu plan would aid in protecting CanCon. The everywhere concept was something connected, but separate, no? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:05 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:05:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>wow Shaw claims 'there ain't a lot left' re profitability re his cable enterprises - shareholders? #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:06 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:06:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Anyone have any questions for Google's Jacob Glick?He'll be joining us soon. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:07 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:07:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[A small piece of trivia: Von Finckenstein and Shaw argue a lot, and have had some legendary clashes.  But von Finckenstein acknowledged  at a CRTC hearing last year that he  is actually a Shaw customer, through StarChoice Satellite service. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:07 Comment From Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:07:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hi - I'm online. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:07 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:07:44 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matthew, "TV Everywhere" is an idea that's been mooted in the States.  The Glassbox idea that Rogers has picked up is sort of a Canadian version of it.  (Well, the TV Everywhere came after the Glassbox appearance before the CRTC, so it's more parallel than derivative, but you get the idea ... !) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:07 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:07:50 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think the BBC's iPlayer might be a bit more of an appropriate comparison because of the proposed levy in this situation. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:09 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:09:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob... Google's submission to this hearing implored the CRTC to keep the Internet "Awesome." What do you make of the debate so far?<BR> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:09 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:09:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Grant yes that's true.  But if Canada did not protect that ISP/BDU from foreign competition... would he still? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:09 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:09:34 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Everyone please welcome Jacob Glick, Google's Canadian policy counsel. Jacob, welcome to our live chat and thanks for joining us.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:09 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:09:54 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hello Jacob, very eager to hear your thoughts on all this ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:10 mattfrehner via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:10:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/mattfrehner" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>RT @Senturion: #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> Good to see Shaw standing up for the Internet </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:10 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:10:29 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hello, Jacob :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:10 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:10:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hi everyone! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:10 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:10:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hi Jacob, thanks for jumping in. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:11 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:11:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Google's Jacob Glick has joined live blog on Globe #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:11 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:11:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matt/Jacob, I would like to hear whether, in addition to user-uploaded stuff, YouTube enters into licence agreements with big content providers to make their stuff available -- and, if so, whether those are Hollywood content providers, or whether the European or CAnadian studios are on there too. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:12 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:12:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[YouTube has a number of deals with content publishers -- including Canadian companies. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:12 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:12:07 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacon Glick Please save us from our government, help keep the Internet free! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:12 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:12:18 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Interesting.  Either Shaw is making a strong commitment to net neutrality right here, or they are seriously screwing themselves for the net neutrality hearing.  @Jacob, welcome! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:12 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:12:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>wow am really disappointed in the calibre of this exchange; guess some think consumers aren't watching #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:13 Grant Robertson]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:32 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Karen....Not sure.... But a good point. Perhaps we'd all be Comcast subscribers by now.   I always found that bit of trivia interesting, though  I realize it  doesn't really indicate anything. Theoretically, he could be a customer of Bell, or the cable BDU in his area. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:13 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[This is an important point -- YouTube contributes to CanCon by providing a free distribution platform. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:13 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, Google submitted an interesting comment in advance of these hearings, urging the CRTC to keep the Internet "Awesome." How would Google suggest they do that? <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:14 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:14:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[(Sorry -- there is a timelag on some of my comments -- Shaw not talking about net neutrality anymore!)  @Jacob, is there anything in Google's CRTC submission on which Hollywood, Canadian studios, etc. YouTube has deals with? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:14 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:14:06 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@ spencer - again - no one is trying to regulate the net, you are taking some impression management strategy very literally.... ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:14 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:14:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[We didn't focus on premium content in our submission ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:15 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:15:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@karen walton taxation is a form of regulation ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:16 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:16:14 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob, thanks -- am quite curious about this side of Youtube as to be honest I had not anticipated.  The free side of Youtube is definitely a huge service to the Internet and a key part of what does make the Internet awesome!  Am hoping it will still remain viable given costs... ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:16 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:16:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Me too :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:17 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:17:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[taxation is a word being used by one side of the table here.  Suggest you check the other presentations. These ompanies benefit form protection by regulation, but you don't. You're okay with that? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:17 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:17:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Additionally I am well aware of the various financial motivations of the presenters, I know there is a profit motive for each one of them, but in this case the end -- no tax on ISPs -- justifies the means. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:17 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:17:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Am important point of the tax: aren't ISP revenues better directed at investing in better broadband? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:18 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:18:31 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Robust, capacious broadband is the key regulatory answer to protecting CanCon. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:18 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:18:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob, is that really an either/or?  On the telecom side all telecom providers pay a contribution fee to pay for rural/remote telecom access.  Shouldn't that be what goes to broadband? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:19 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:19:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Remote service is certainly key. But investment needs to go into all parts of the network. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:19 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:19:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, you've been following these proceedings from the beginning, what have you found to be some of the more interesting discussions we've seen so far? Curious of your thoughts. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:19 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:19:50 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Tax, fee, levy -- it's all the same. Governments impose financial consequences on actions they wish to control, that's regulation. (See: cigarettes) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:19 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:19:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The commission's focus on stats -- and the parties lack of empirical proof. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:20 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:20:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob indeed. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:20 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:20:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, I know YouTube is finding its way to end-users through a variety of new ways, like the Wii, do you think that the proposal would drive people to your services through less PC-based mediums since a new Canadian-only portal would limit what users can find? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:21 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, do you think Canadian ISPs are willing to make such an investment? Because from where I stand, ISPs seem to think throttling and traffic shaping is a better alternative than upgrading their aging infrastructure. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:21 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It depends on what regulations look like -- but don't forget, YouTube is *not* within the CRTC's jurisdiction. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:21 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Again, I 100% support CanCon and think our government should too, but there are already several mechanisms in place to support CanCon. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:22 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:22:03 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob, right.  But you're setting up universal broadband versus investment in content as an either/or.  I see no basis for that; opposite seems true (virtuous circle).  Also @Jacob, agree re focus on measurement as interesting.   Google Analytics has a huge amount to offer here and the CRTC would jump on it if they heard more about it. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:22 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:22:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>combative and acrimonious Shaw Q&A at #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a>, and they're arguing about even that </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:22 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:22:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[On the either/or point - you're right that it's not a strict dichotomy. However, given a finite pool of money, I think a better case exists for investing in the pipes ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:23 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:23:01 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Spencer total respect and agree :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:24 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:24:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Quoting Google's Jacob Glick 'given a finite pool of money, I think a better case exists for investing in the pipes' #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:27 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:27:03 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The "merging of screens" point is misleading in my view. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:27 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:27:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Although TV content can be viewed online, it is a mistake to regulate the Internet merely as another screen on which TV content is viewed. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:28 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:28:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jim Shaw is now talking about 3D technology. The CRTC barely wants to talk about the Internet, do we really think they're ready to discuss 3D?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:28 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:28:18 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob, right, but that's sort of an ad absurdum argument -- given a finite pool of money, let's focus on keeping the hungry fed and the poor clothed!  The ISP levy wouldn't really pay for much broadband; nor would gutting the existing cable levy whose extension to ISPs is being proposed. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:29 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:29:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob even when the controlling interests in both are the same corp entity? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:29 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:29:37 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob PS to clarify I mean service providers not the content on the net :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:29 Comment From Spencer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:29:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Matt Hartley Which is precisely why the CRTC should keep its hands off the Internet, they barely understand what was going on 6 months ago let alone what will be happening 6 months from now. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:29 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:29:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think they were trying to say the availability of all content across multiple screens, but they'd do better to look at in terms of the TV becoming another browser instead of the PC/Mobile etc becoming another TV ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:30 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I have a proposal for quality online CanCon: Lock Konrad von Finkelstein and Jim Shaw in a room, and webcast the results.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:30 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff like that point v much ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:30 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The corporate entities should be regulated in their various capacities -- but as ISPs they should be regulated as ISPs. If they are ALSO in other businesses those business can be regulated under the appropriate scheme. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:32 Comment From Evan]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:32:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA["multiple screens" - isn't it really really "multiple pipes" to the same screen? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:32 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:32:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff, I think it's a merger of engines and divergence of screens.  Should be able to both Web-browse and to lean back to HDTV, on as many screens as possible.  @Jacob, right, regulate activities not organizations. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:32 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:32:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Ivor, yes please!  Quality content for another round of CPAC streams. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:33 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:33:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ivor, I think that webcasting that might be selling the interest short. I suggest pay-per-view. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:33 Comment From Evan]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:33:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Geoff - "they'd do better to look at in terms of the TV becoming another browser instead of the PC/Mobile etc becoming another TV" - Right! Even they way we watch broadcast television has become "browser-like" - we browse through channel listings on our cable box, browse through pre-record shows on out PVRs. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:33 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:33:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Indeed. UFC: CRTC.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:35 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:35:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff - I certainly "surf" channels, although the kind of choices available between TV and online are differences in orders of magnitude. The huge variety of offerings matters from the perspective of the Broadcasting Act. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:35 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:35:48 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Whew. That was quite the presentation from Shaw. High drama at the CRTC today.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:36 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:36:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, could you elaborate on that? How does that variety matter to the Broadcast Act?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:36 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:36:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob thanks I agree, unfort the co's seem to change hands on that philosophy depending which desk they face - regs v. sales - here. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:38 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:38:01 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The Broadcasting act lists a whole bunch of (often conflicting) objectives. Many of these say that the Broadcasting system needs to encourage certain kinds of content. To the extent that the Internet is part of the Broadcasting system (which is debated...) there is just soooooo much of this stuff up there. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:38 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:38:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob - I agree entirely. I think they might be pigeon-holing themselves a little if they treat it, even at the beginning, like another TV screen. The Internet being considered an add-on as Shaw put it will shift once more consumer electronics can leverage the Internet. Just saying approaching TV as becoming more browser like might knock off a day or two of the next round of this in a couple years. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:38 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:38:33 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>I'm with the Globe, *that* was more melodramatic than the afternoon soaps #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:38 Ivor Tossell]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:38:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Interesting. Thanks, Jacob.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:39 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:39:51 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The other point - that the Commission has not picked up on - is how easy it is to promote content online. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:40 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:40:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[This is especially true given social media tools. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:40 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:40:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob agree re promo online, unfort in Canada we have a history of, if not required to, they don't ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:40 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:40:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff, think the CRTC gets that.  Interesting to follow what happens with the closed devices a la ZillionTV (talked about yesterday) though.  Sort of fed by the Internet, but more like TV than Internet. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:40 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:40:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Ivor, Broadcasting Act at <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/B-9.01///en" target="_blank" >http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/B-9.01///en</a> btw. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:40 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:40:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I shudder at the thought of trying to explain viral media to the CRTC. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:41 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:26 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I wish the CRTC would log onto YouTube and click the post to Facebook button. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:41 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Braga oh I think some of them are very competent users... don't paint all with one brush ;) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:41 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:44 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[That's "promotion". And really effective promotion at that! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:41 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[yes. I agree. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:42 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:42:14 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I do not want you to take my comments as disparaging. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:43 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:43:29 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@J Didn't see yesterday just found out about the live feed this morning, did they treat  ZillionTV as a viable alternative to cable? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:44 Comment From Evan]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:44:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob - "The other point - that the Commission has not picked up on - is how easy it is to promote content online. " ... or sell content to consumers in other countries! I think it's untrue that Canadian productions have to be supported by Canadian money. For example, EA and Ubisoft make video games in Canada that sell mostly in foreign countries. Why shouldn't we expect Canadian video content to sell in foreign countries? Doesn't "Degrassi" sell outside of Canada? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:45 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:45:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It's a good point - especially because the Internet allows content creators to reach diffuse audiences. So even if a show could never be sold in one place, its aggregate global audience might be significant. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:46 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:46:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@ Evan it sells due to incentives provided to make it here (cheaper than US pdn/distrib).  all major industries in Canada receive incentives to do biz here. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:47 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:47:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Now you just have to convince content owners to start distributing it world wide. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:47 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:47:48 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob but unlike say the States, we don't have mass pdn entities that produce/distribute their own work.  We have a vast array of indie interests that must deal with few separate distribs ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:48 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:48:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob ps an exception would be Alliance but for instance, Alliance closed its film pdn unit years ago ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:49 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:49:44 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[But the Internet levels the playing field in that regard. The Interest is better for smaller producers because they don't need a traditional distribution undertaking to get their stuff watched. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:51 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:51:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Okay, up next we have the Canadian Cable System Alliance, including CTVGlobemedia. You can also read their submission <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74474&lang=E&defaultName=Canadian%20Cable%20System%20Alliance%20Inc.%20(CCSA)&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74474&lang=E&defaultName=Canadian%20Cable%20System%20Alliance%20Inc.%20%28CCSA%29&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >here</a>.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:51 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:51:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Jacob yes *provided* they've protected their distribution rights to do so; current financing structures require you to partner up w distribs (in film) to even finance pdn. I agree, I'd prefer to cut the middle man, but this would require over-turning much of the investment system ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:51 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:51:46 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ajacob perhaps unfairly muddyin the water by talking film, forgive me if so ;) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:51 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:51:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Apologies for posting this so late, but you can all read Google's submission to the CRTC <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74398&lang=E&defaultName=Google%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&call_id=74398&lang=E&defaultName=Google%20Inc.&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >here</a>. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:52 Comment From Ross McKie]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Has the Broadcasting Act even been amended since its New Media inclusions in 1999? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:52 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:52:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ross, I'm fairly certain the exemptions made for new media in 1999 haven't changes since, hence the hearings to see if the exemptions should be changed or lifted. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:53 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:53:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@MattHartley - that's my impression as well ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:53 Comment From Alan Sawyer]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:53:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The broadcasting act was last modified in 1991 ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[A somewhat more subdued opening from CTV.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:07 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[unfortunately I have to step back to my work now, thank you so much everyone for including me, very good discussion.  Tnx @Jacob for this v much! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[My pleasure! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Everyone, Jacob must take off at 3 p.m. any final questions before he departs?<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[yes can he come back more often? :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:55 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:55:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<blush> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:56 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:11 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[(I'm blushing) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:56 karen walton]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:20 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[puhleeeez :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:56 Comment From Evan]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@karen - about those incentives... For example, Ubisoft gets incentives to employ Canadians and make video games in Montreal. Canadian consumers are not taxed on all video games. Canadian consumers are not restricted in buying Canadian video games. No media or retailers are required to promote Canadian games over other games. So, if that works for games, why shouldn't it work for video? Why should consumers be taxed for video content, or have access to video content regulated if games are not regulated and the system works fine for games? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:56 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:29 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Hehehe ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:56 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:55 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob: Are you based out of one of Google's Canadian offices? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ottawa ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks for the discourse Jacob! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Just curious...I'll be visiting the Toronto offices soon, so I thought I'd ask :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jacob, aren't you pretty much the Ottawa office? ;-)<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[No comment... ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:57 Matthew Braga]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:57:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[It's been a good discussion :) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:58 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:58:06 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks for joining us Jacob, we really appreciate your input and taking the time to join the chat. Please, come back soon. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[2:58 Jacob Glick]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:58:34 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks Matt. And thanks everyone for a really thoughtful discussion. Looking forward to doing this again. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:03 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:03:32 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Good point from CTV, while the Web remains a promotional tool right now, it could turn into a big opportunity in the future. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:03 Comment From Ross McKie]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:03:37 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ah-- my connection cacked out from 2:30 on. Help me ISP!  Just catching up now. Thanks Jacob. Big help. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:05 inkcanada via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:05:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/inkcanada" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>Okay #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> chums; gotta split for the day.  To my civilian chums, tnx for your patience re my twimpertinent commentary today :) xx </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:07 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:07:51 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Rogers and CTV have had chats behind the scenes about a possible joint Web portal for online video. Interesting. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:07 Comment From Ross McKie]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:07:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Thanks all. Shout out tweep Karen. Thank you. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:16 Matt Hartley]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:16:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[CTV says it's easier to monetize sports traffic rather than drama or other kinds of traffic. Interesting. <br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:17 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:17:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Sports and local news will be the biggies for CTV ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:19 mattfrehner via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:19:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/mattfrehner" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>RT @klashton27: #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> ctv - good point CTV - due to traffic shaping policies ISPs must be able to measure video </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:21 mattfrehner via twitter ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:21:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><a href="http://twitter.com/mattfrehner" target="_blank" /><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/icons/twitter.gif"  border=0 /></a>&nbsp;</td><td>RT @tyffanie: Wireless providers aren't neutral in their choice of New Media content viewable by consumers. #<a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22crtc%22" target="_blank"  target="_blank" >crtc</a> Just look at Bell! </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:31 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:31:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[So, is it a bad sign for CTV if they forgot to include video in their poll? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:38 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:38:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@Geoff, the poll was based on <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wcomputers10/BNStory/National/home" href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wcomputers10/BNStory/National/home" target="_blank" >a story</a> about social networking out-pacing e-mail. But as someone who has to come up with online polls, I wouldn't put too much weight in the decision process behind them :-)<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:41 Comment From grey suit on cpac]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:41:52 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Does anyone have a link to the legal opinion on the legality of ISP levies ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:42 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:42:37 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@grey suit, I don't, but I'll try and take a look for it. Fyi, all the submissions are available <a _fcksavedurl="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/applicant.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&lang=E&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" href="http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/applicant.aspx?pn_ph_no=2008-11&lang=E&replyonly=&addtInfo=&addtCmmt=&fnlSub=" target="_blank" >here</a>.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:42 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:42:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Heh, very true. A pretty tame session compared to the one before lunch. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:45 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:45:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Agreed. And I think this will probably be all from us at the Globe today, as the other Matt's been sidetracked by a story for tomorrow's paper. I'll leave the chat open for a bit, though.<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:48 Geoff Whiting]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:48:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Appreciate you guys having this up, take care. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:52 Comment From J.]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:52:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[@greysuit, there have been 4 different legal opinions filed, 3 from cablecos.  download them from shaw (2), rogers or bell (1) on one side, cftpa on the other. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:56 Matt Frehner]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:56:07 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Should also mention that we'll be back to cover the <a _fcksavedurl="http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/pt2008-19.htm" href="http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/pt2008-19.htm" target="_blank" >Internet traffic management </a>hearings coming up in July. Any comments/thoughts/suggestions about the liveblog coverage thus far are welcomed. drop me an e-mail: <a href="mailto:mfrehner@globeandmail.com" target="_blank" >mfrehner@globeandmail.com</a> or on Twitter @mattfrehner<br> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[3:59 ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:59:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<div class="clearingspace" style="line-height: 3px;">&nbsp;</div><a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=register&referral_code=LiveBlogReferral" target="_blank"><img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/coveritlive/static/templates/coveritlive/images/cil_thanks_en.jpg" border="0" /></a><br><div class="clearingspace" style="line-height: 3px;">&nbsp;</div></div>]]></description></item></channel></rss>