Slashdot Mirror


Canadian TV to Adopt DRM-Free BitTorrents

An anonymous reader writes "Canada's public broadcast network, CBC, is to adopt DRM free BitTorrent distribution of one of its major primetime shows, Canada's Next Great Prime Minister. The effort has already been hailed by Canadian copyright guru Michael Geist, who expects the decision to add fuel to Canada's net neutrality debate. A CBC producer behind the show told CNET that the motivation for the move was that CBC 'wanted the show to be as accessible as possible to as many Canadians as possible, in the format that they want it in.' As for DRM, she said 'I think DRM is dead, even if a lot of broadcasters don't realize it.' She added that 'if it's bad for the consumers, its bad for the company.'"

62 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. throttling from bell and rogers by jmcnaught · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully this means that Bell and Rogers will both have to stop throttling Bittorrent downloads. Some days on rogers I would get faster downloads on dialup.

    1. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by AikonMGB · · Score: 3, Informative

      An excellent point that I didn't even think of until you mentioned it. I totally agree; I'm on Bell where I am and it's awful; ALL of my P2P traffic is capped to 30KiB/s and it's quite painful when I should be able to access that content in a matter of minutes as opposed to a matter of hours.

      Aikon-

    2. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try activating encryption in your bit torrent client. I'm certain you'll see a dramatic difference.

    3. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by TobyWong · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't need to inspect the packets to identify them as p2p. Encryption doesn't do a damn thing for me (Rogers) unless I tunnel it all through a VPN.

      --
      - Toby
    4. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by esaul · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fortunately, as opposed to the US, you do not have to solely depend on large ISPs as Bell, Videotron or Rogers. Remember this story? There are dozens of independent ISPs, and while they often use Bell's networks, I have not seen any throttling on P2P as of yet. I routinely get speeds of close to 500KB/s.

    5. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by BForrester · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm on Rogers, and it works for me. If there are sufficient seeders and peers, I regularly get up to 600 KB / sec on regular high-speed, up from 20 KB / sec without.

      Make sure you're using a non-standard port. Also, don't force encryption, just enable it. That will net you encrypted traffic + whatever low level of throttled traffic your ISP allows.

    6. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by TobyWong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let me clarify a little. I have encryption enabled and I do get high speed downloads, it's my upstream that is throttled to hell and back. Upstream usually floats around 1 - 4 k/s. Once in a while I will temporarily get a fast upstream connection to some other client and I assume what is happening here is I am connected to another Rogers user so it is exempt from the throttling rules. If I force all my traffic through a ssh tunnel then suddenly my upstream shoots up near where it should be (80+ k/s).

      My guess is that under normal circumstances Rogers is able to identify the traffic patterns of p2p (tons of connections to many different clients) without needing to look inside the individual packets. They then go ahead and close off most of the connections which results in the throttling. If I force it all through my ssh tunnel, it's all going to 1 host so it no longer looks like p2p traffic, just some unidentifiable high speed encrypted stream and therefore it's not subject to throttling.

      --
      - Toby
    7. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by jhylkema · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get Shaw, they don't throttle. I'm a Shaw customer and I've had great luck with them.

      And no, I'm not an astroturfer.

    8. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish P2P designers would take a cue from the internet worm designers and prioritize "nearby" IP addresses first when choosing from a list (IE, if someone is in the same /16 as you, choose them over someone in a totally foreign network). My guess is that it would improve your throughput enough to make it worth the effort, and it would be really simple to add the logic.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by tattood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhh, yes, they do. While, unless you're using a standard P2P port.
      They don't need to read the packets, because they can tell based on number of connections. A "normal" web connection to a website will probably only get you maybe 5-10 different IP destinations, depending on where and how many banner ads and images are on the site. They are also started and finished fairly quickly, so the total amount of traffic is not alot. All they need to do is look for a constant high amount of bandwidth from a single IP address to more than, say, 30 hosts, and they can be pretty sure that it is some sort of P2P traffic. All they do then is QoS that source IP, and you're throttled.
      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    10. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does that work ? I thought they were required by law to grant CLECs access to the lines. I obviously don't know the details in your case, but if they're not giving you good excuses, I'd verbally tear them several new assholes until you get what you want. From what friends have told me, TekSavvy is da bomb.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    11. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If by "locked", you mean you need to pay an ETF to get out, you're not really stuck. They're required by law to offer wholesale service, assuming you're hooked up to an ADSL or ADSL2+ DSLAM.

      You might still want to consider a $10/mth secondary login with TekSavvy (not advertised, but still available). 100GB of bandwidth per month. Not a huge amount, but it's still a lot better than what you're getting with Bell (and you can add another 100GB for another $10 per month).

      Of course, you'd still have to pay your full Sympatico bill, as the TekSavvy login is just a PPPoE account. If your Sympatico subscription is PPPoE-based, you can get a secondary login and avoid the throttling and ultra-low caps.

      I suggest you call in (1-877-779-1575) between 8AM and 2AM EST and discuss your options with TekSavvy. I'm sure they can work something out with you.

      If you'd be so kind, because your situation is quite interesting, it'd be appreciated if you could post about your story in the official TekSavvy forums (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/teksavvy), as I'm sure many of us would be very interested in hearing the details of your issues with Bell.

    12. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by taylortbb · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get a TekSavvy login-only account for $10/month. Your line is still with Bell but they give you a PPPoE login to their network so you use their transit and avoid throttling. It's not advertised but if you phone in and ask you can get it.

    13. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem, of course, is when P2P starts prioritizing same-network peers, ISPs will start throttling inside and piss on everyone's parade.

      It's never been about bandwidth, there's tons of bandwidth. It's about control.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    14. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have a Sympatico account. You sign up for Techsavvy as a secondary. Doesn't the 'last mile' still come through Sympatico? And won't you still be subject to their throttling?

      Not exactly. DSL services are handled by a division of Bell called Nexxia. ISPs, Sympatico included are all attached to the Nexxia infrastructure. If a consumer subscribes with an independent ISP, that ISP issues a service order to Bell to provision the copper 'last mile'. A Bell tech goes to the CO (Central Office) and hooks up some Nexxia gear to the subscriber's copper. Nexxia bills the ISP, the ISP bills the subscriber, and everyone's happy. Yes, Sympatico is a Bell Canada division as well, but they're effectively a subscriber to the Nexxia division just the same as any other DSL ISP.

      An amusing aside to all of this is that the end-user technically can't call up Bell and request removal of services, for instance in the case that they wish to change providers. They aren't the purchaser of the DSL service. Twisted, but true. The subscriber needs the current ISP to issue a service-removal order to Bell/Nexxia.

      I personally had an entertaining time moving off Sympatico to a local provider a few years ago. I called Sympatico and was told that there were exactly two days a month when I was ALLOWED to terminate my service, and I'd just missed my two days by a couple days. I'd be stuck another month. I told them I was content to lose the service for the remainder of the month and continue paying, but they wouldn't allow it. I spoke to Bell's DSL provisioning department, and they told me they couldn't accept service instructions from me. I talked to the owner of my (then) new ISP, and he placed a provisioning order anyway. A Bell tech went out, and disconnected my copper from Nexxia's DSLAM to one of his (this ISP has their own DSLAMs in some COs, still backend connected to Nexxia). The tech thought something was amiss but did the work. I was happy. My sync rates went up, everything was grand, and I started to wait until I could cancel Sympatico. Two days later, I lost sync. We made some calls. The tech had investigated and found out that I didn't have a cancel-service order from Sympatico, so went back and moved my copper back into Nexxia's DSLAM. My ISP made a phone call, spoke to the tech personally, who then re-corrected "illegally", and that tech knew to wait for and disregard the eventual Symaptico de-provisioning order when it came. Eventually I cancelled with Sympatico and everything's been heaven since.
      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    15. Re:throttling from bell and rogers by taylortbb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bell is split up into two sections, Bell Nexxia which provides DSL connectivity and Bell Sympatico which provides internet connectivity using DSL lines from Bell Nexxia. Nexxia doesn't sell their DSL connectivity service just to Sympatico, any company can buy service from them. The most common is use is for other DSL ISPs to offer internet service, but it would also be possible for a large company (it's expensive) to create a private WAN using this service. When you perform PPPoE authentication Nexxia examines the domain and determines which network to send your traffic too, with a TekSavvy login it goes there, with a Sympatico login it's routed to Sympatico's network. Nexxia doesn't throttle (this would really piss off their enterprise customers), it's Sympatico that does. So your last mile isn't really Bell Sympatico, it's Bell Nexxia. As long as someone is paying Nexxia for your DSL connectivity, they don't care about what PPPoE login you use. Nexxia owns the regional ATM network that DSL service connects to and all ISPs get gig-e links into the network to connect customers to their transit. It's between the gig-e and the transit that Sympatico throttles.

      When you buy standard ($30/month) internet service from TekSavvy you're basically paying $20/month for the DSL and $10/month for the login. Sympatico works the same way, $20/month is paid to Nexxia. Sympatico doesn't offer the login without the DSL service, TekSavvy (and other resellers) do.

  2. No Offense by AikonMGB · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I'm not sure I would have watched this on T.V. (if I had one), let alone downloaded it (legally or otherwise) =/

    Aikon-

    1. Re:No Offense by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Funny

      But come on, this is so cool, suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, etc etc. Is it just me or is canada suddenly awesome? Eh?

    2. Re:No Offense by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      What it means is that the **AA, seeing the writing on the wall, is going to BLAME CANADA!

      This time it will be Bush who accidently says into a live microphopne "We start bombing in 15 minutes."

      He'll tell the voters "We're liberating all our oil from their commie socialist rule."

      Plus, now that Canadian Tire money is worth more than the US Dollar ... what has he got to lose?

    3. Re:No Offense by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've been awesome for nearly a century and a half. People just didn't start noticing until now.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    4. Re:No Offense by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      one point on this. there is a Canadian TV show I really like. I cannot get it here in the States. Even their web page has a "This show cannot be viewed in your country" error when you attempt to load clips. Does this mean that soon the actually good programming in Canada will be legally viewable here? I sometimes see TV from S Africa, Argentina, Singapore and India. it pains me to think I may need to use not legal means to be informed about these countries and about Canada....

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    5. Re:No Offense by HungSoLow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Canada has a terrific history of human rights reform, health care reform and engineering excellence. The problem with Canada (I am one, eh?) is selling out to American politics and businesses. To name a few:

      - Canada should be charging the US with a slew of war-crime related offenses over Khadr.

      - We should bitch-slap your current administration over Maher Arar, who by the way, is an amazing person who I speak to daily (he's in the research lab next to mine).
      - We should be blocking purchases of Canadian companies by some 'US and A' companies that are the true scum of the Earth. (i.e. RADARSAT sold to ATK). Additionally, we sold THE oldest company in the world (HBC) to an American asshole.


      Some parts of Canada seem ready to become America Jr. (i.e. Alberta and Toronto) but where I'm from (Ottawa) there's a strong dislike for Americanism and American politics in general. I love Americans, I just hate your politicians and business leaders.

    6. Re:No Offense by Jaeden · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Canada, we often have the same problem when trying to view online content from American networks.

    7. Re:No Offense by corychristison · · Score: 2, Funny

      WTF is a mullet?

      I am Canadian. Honestly, I've never actually witnessed one in person.

  3. Finally, someone gets it. by Jax+Omen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best way to make money in the long term is to have happy customers. Period. Now if only some US companies would learn that...

    1. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Nos. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a gross over simplification. Best way to make me happy is to give me the product/service for free, without any ads. That kills most revenue streams, so how do you make money if you have no revenue streams? Happy customers are better than unhappy ones, but that's not the only factor to consider.

    2. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best way to make money in the long term is to have happy customers. Period. Now if only some US companies would learn that... Why is that important to a public company today? A privately owned company has tons of reasons to do that but a public company has few. Stockholders will sell their stock in a heartbeat and they would be more than pleased with the destruction of a company if they made a profit (like buyouts). High level managers and executives have little need to be loyal since they can easily jump ship at any time and even if they run the company into the ground their golden parachutes will ensure a soft landing. The only people who have a strong interest in the operation of a public corporation are the low level employees who hope to have job security and perhaps someday collect a pension. A public corporation only has to *appear* to have a long-term strategy in order to not scare of shareholders. Incidents like the Enron or Worldcom collapses aren't caused by especially evil executives who are extremely abnormal. They are caused by people who realize that executives who make major short-term gains while the company appears to be able to survive for the long-term are much more likely to be retained than executives who make minor profits while actually making the company able to survive in the long term.
    3. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure how this would exactly correlate to the US, unless the videos were to include commercials or some other form of revenue. This story says that the program in on the CBC, which is Canada's version of PBS, so they don't have the same commercial interests. Its naive to think that US broadcasters would give away content no matter how "happy" it would make you feel.

    4. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But hordes of furious consumers rallying the entire internet against all DRM is a significant factor to consider.

    5. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a lot of ways to make it work. A successful show could pay for itself with product placement, and this doesn't have to be offensive. Alternatively, a 5 second ad at the beginning of the show might be sufficient. We are talking about a global audience, nearly zero distribution cost. You'd make a profit on less than a penny a viewer.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    6. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Happiness for getting schwag is one thing.

      Happiness is also getting superior customer service with being treated like a customer (as opposed to thief).

      If it comes down for me to make a decision about getting some media and I can either pay for crippled set or download high quality free set, which do you think I'll get?

      If you treat me like a thief, I'm'a gonna do it.

      --
    7. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm. Variable content length (5-20 minutes) and a 5-15 second ad that ties into said discussion.

      Easy to watch, and a pain in the ass to remove. The AD companies get their stream of revenue, and we get our content. Win-win.. it seems.

      --
    8. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by kent_eh · · Score: 3, Informative

      CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, but it isn't the same as PBS. For one thing, they do run commercials in programming the same way the other commercial broadcasters do.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    9. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      CBC, which is Canada's version of PBS Not really. It's more like Canada's version of BBC. In fact CBC and BBC share a lot of programming with each other (torchwood and dr who being the ones I care about).
    10. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 3, Informative

      CBC is older than PBS by some 35 years. If anything PBS is America's answer to CBC, not the other way around.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  4. Add more shows! by Filter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    22 Minutes and jPod would be excellent!

    --

    "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

    1. Re:Add more shows! by FPCat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly, jPod has already been canceled.

  5. Oh Canada.... by molex333 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From healthcare to Hockey, why do the Canadiens constantly get things right where we can not. As an example, anyone who has ever gone to Niagra falls can tell you that the Canadiens are better than us at almost everything. The New York side of the falls is horriblly dirty and devoid of any decent food or lodgings, while the Canadian side is clean, has a vast number of resteraunts(including a Hard Rock cafe), and even has gambling. All this and you could eat off the streets! Why is this, does anyone even know?

    --
    Somewhere in a dark place you will find:
    www.m1
    1. Re:Oh Canada.... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although the GP was marked as Flamebait

      Technically it was a joke as I being an American would be the one most likley candidate to be offended by what I just said. ;)

      Its like saying that the reason the Canadian Government isn't as bad as the American Government is that the Canadian doesn't have American Politicians in it. Apparently someone took offense and none taking about that Cuba issue. Shame we Americans can't visit.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:Oh Canada.... by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why do the Canadiens constantly get things right where we can not. As an example, anyone who has ever gone to Niagra falls can tell you that the Canadiens are better than us at almost everything my personal favorite...

      Americans have the right to bear arms.
      Canadian women have the right to bear breasts.

      I believe the reason for us getting everything right while the US gets everything wrong, is that section 15 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms only extends rights to 'actual persons', not 'legal persons' like the US system (corporations are classified as 'legal persons') so we don't have the same problem of having to constantly welcome our evil corporate overlords.
      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
  6. CBC - It's Publicly funded by usedtolosing · · Score: 5, Informative

    Keep in mind folks.

    The good 'ole CBC is a publicly funded crown corp. So yeah, if they want to cut out a revenue stream...go for it...but we're paying for it in taxes.

    It's a novel experiment, and I love the idea. But I'm not sure that this exact model would work for a Private US broadcaster or private Canadian Broadcaster.

    Keep in mind. PBS has had documentary downloads available forever. PBS Frontline.

    1. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by boris111 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll answer my own question from the website:

      Corporate funding is provided by General Motors, Anheuser-Busch, and Bank of America. Major funding is provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc.; Public Broadcasting Service; National Endowment for the Humanities; Corporation for Public Broadcasting; The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations; The Pew Charitable Trusts; The Longaberger Foundation; and Park Foundation, Inc.

      Now I wonder if the corporate sponsors received a tax deduction. Wonder if they get a return on the DVD sales.

    2. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by Mantle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is with you and all the FUD?

      Is it cutting out a revenue stream? Or increasing the size of the pie? How do you know they aren't embedding commercials in the bt version and making MORE money by telling advertisers they are reaching MORE eyes? Show me.

      Even if we accept that they will make less money with this distribution method, is it going to be significant to overshadow the savings to the CBC by using bt as a distribution channel? About 1/3 of CBC's funding comes from non-taxpayer sources, according to their 2005-2006 annual report. Of that 1/3, only a fraction of it is from advertising. Of that fraction, only a smaller portion yet comes from TV advertising. Is that a significant amount? Show me.

      Why are you so ready to draw negative conclusions so early?

    3. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by j-beda · · Score: 2, Informative
      "What is CBC draw on Ottawa these days. $2.5B/year ?"

      It looks like it is about about $1.1 - 1.35 billion per year according to http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Entertainment/2008/02/28/4883040-cp.html Still not free, but considering the radio as well as tv coverage, not so bad. 22 minutes alone might be worth it...

    4. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by TheSync · · Score: 2, Informative

      PBS has had documentary downloads available forever. PBS Frontline.

      As PBS produces no content, they are dependent on obtaining streaming rights from the producers in addition to the limited broadcast rights they negotiate for terrestrial broadcast by public television stations. But most public television stations are not enthusiastic about paying PBS more to obtain streaming rights from producers just so those shows can be streamed from PBS.org rather than viewed on the local public television stations (cutting into ratings which hurt future underwriting deals and breaking up the donor/local station relationship).

      Thus there are few shows besides Frontline that PBS streams in full-length.

    5. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by Jardine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The good 'ole CBC is a publicly funded crown corp. So yeah, if they want to cut out a revenue stream...go for it...but we're paying for it in taxes.

      Except that pretty much any good show is going to show up on your friendly neighbourhood torrent site anyway. A lot of the shows are available in streaming clips anyway. By putting up a torrent themselves, they can save on bandwidth and provide a show that isn't as limited in video and audio quality.

    6. Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded by mxs · · Score: 2, Informative

      The experiment is not novel. The BBC is running circles around them. It is, however, a decent experiment.

      Furthermore, I do believe this could work for private broadcasters as well. Right now, you find all the shows out there on P2P without ads with decent seeding without hassle. If they actually came together to figure out how to provide a better user experience (even with ads), they'd win. Of course, boxed-in low-bitrate streams of mediocre quality on their homepage that disappear after a day or a week are not gonna do the trick. Flash-only websites usable only on 1 or 2 browsers and 1 OS are not gonna do the trick. Stuff you can't send to your appleTv are not gonna do the trick. Stuff you can't send to your media center mythtv-box are not gonna do the trick. Then again, they don't have to care yet -- they still get enough money from public broadcasts, apparently.

  7. Not a good example by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Niagara falls is not a good example becase nature itself is on Canada's side. The reason the Canadian side of the falls has grown into such a tourist attraction is the horseshoe falls, which are the most dramatic portion, is best visible from the Canadian side. You can hardly see anything from the New York side.

    So, over time, more and more money went to the Canadian side developing the tourist area. Think about it, if you are a developer spending $100 million on a hotel, you want it to have the best possible view - so you put it on the Canadian side.

    1. Re:Not a good example by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The view is one thing. New York doesn't even have volunteer "trash pickers" or anything. It's like the ghetto, but in nature, compared to Canada.

      --
    2. Re:Not a good example by molex333 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While this may in fact be true, as a native New Yorker(and usually proud of it) I am really upset about the fact that we can not even keep the American side clean! It is horrible and dirty. Having been to both sides, the dirtiness takes away from what is still a particullarly beautiful site!

      --
      Somewhere in a dark place you will find:
      www.m1
  8. Its a canadian thing... by Coraon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Guys, you may think that this is the rare exceptions, but in reality this is the way the wind is blowing in Canada. We have a privacy act in Canada that many legal scollars agree that DRM violates because it requires to much information about the user of the file. The long and short of it is this. In Canada you can buy a lawnmower take it apart and make something out of it, In the US if you did that you violate the DMCA...do you see the problem here?

    --
    -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    1. Re:Its a canadian thing... by diodeus · · Score: 3, Informative

      No healthcare bills
      No DMCA
      No "war on drugs"
      No billtiontrillion dollar deficit
      No gun-toting citizens ...and in Quebec the minimum drinking age (and rules of the road) are merely suggestions!

    2. Re:Its a canadian thing... by Jardine · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no province or territory in Canada that has a minimum wage close to $11. The highest minimum wage is in Nunavut ($8.37) where the cost of living is extraordinarily high. The typical minimum wage in Canada is about $8 (or less for what the province might consider inexperienced or student workers).

      Ontario's minimum wage will be $8.75 at the end of this month, $9.50 as of March 31, 2009, and $10.25 as of March 31, 2010. Of course, NCIX is located in British Columbia, where the minimum wage is $8 like you said.

  9. PBS buying shows - Hmph! by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Frontline... true, but I wanted to see Ken Burn's "The War". Guess they wanted to keep the DVD sales. Wonder if public money went into that program.

    That's one of the things that chaps my ass about PBS. Our local stations have to pay for these shows and some of those folks are making millions on businesses related to the show - Rick Steve's Europe for one. The local station buys the show, he advertises his travel company, which by his own admission on 60 Minutes soes over $20 million in revenues. It's the same with "Sesseme St." Jim Henson's heirs are also making millions off of the merchandising from the show. Ken Burns also.

    I think those shows that are pulling in the bucks via side or their primary businesses should at least give their shows to PBS.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  10. Which one? by camperdave · · Score: 2

    there is a Canadian TV show I really like. I cannot get it here in the States.

    Would that be Corner Gas?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Which one? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Food Jammers

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  11. CBC Mandate via Broadcasting Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The CBC's mandate, as provided in the Broadcasting Act (http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml), requires it to make its programming 'available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means.'"

  12. Change ISPs--you still have a choice by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm on Bell where I am and it's awful;

    Bell/Sympatico internet access is awful almost everywhere. I have seen two reviews and Bell was the bottom-of-the-barrel both times (the Marketplace story was pretty entertaining if lacking in technical details).

    If you can go with Shaw or Telus or Rogers you are going to be far better off. Even better than that, there are still a few independents out there that offer superior service and won't throttle your connection so badly (if at all). For example, even though it has to run over some of Telus' gear Radiant Communications offers DSL service that is superior to that Telus themselves provides.

    I'm not a huge fan of most of the CBC's programming, but it is encouraging to see them act like a proper public broadcaster once in awhile, while at the same time doing something innovative in it market. Being that Bell has had its ties with the CTV network and Shaw has interests in many television network and production properties (through its association with Corus entertainment) I'd have thought they'd be more keen to expand programming on the internet. I guess, however, that would mean people wouldn't have to subscribe to their delivery services to view their content...an you know it's all about "vertical markets".

  13. Next Great Prime Minister ? by georgeav · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Canada's public broadcast network, CBC, is to adopt DRM free BitTorrent distribution of one of its major primetime shows, Canada's Next Great Prime Minister. What's this ? The Canadian version of American Idol ?
    1. Re:Next Great Prime Minister ? by Retardical_Sam · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe that would be Canadian Idol, a fairly popular Canadian TV show.

  14. Don't get your hopes up. by jmenon · · Score: 2, Informative

    "one of its major primetime shows, Canada's Next Great Prime Minister."

    Not exactly.

    This isn't as big a deal as it sounds. Canada's Next Great Prime Minister isn't even a series: it is a single-episode special with an audience of mainly university students that covers a contest for aspiring young leaders which used You Tube videos as its main vehicle.

    So let's not over-hype this as proof why Canada is heaven and the United States is hell.

    --
    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" -- George W. Bush
  15. *NOT* the first (at CBC or North America) !! by ivar · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was a software developer on the CBC programme ZeD, and we torrented (and streamed and broadcast) our " New new media" episode almost 3 years ago (April 1st, 2005 to be exact). And while the torrent file still exists, sadly the torrent server is no longer running. I believe we used Xvid as the codec too (or was it divx?), but I am certain there was no DRM on the file. Anyway, ZeD was web 2.0 in 2002 !