Paul Martin’s prescription
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 19, 2011 - 16 Comments
In between cups of coffee—15 per day? Really?—Paul Martin explains how the world and Canada should be reacting to global economic turmoil.
In Canada, he would like to see the federal government take advantage of this country’s relatively strong finances to quickly make needed investments in infrastructure, education, and research and development. Those, he says, will be the key to Canada’s prosperity in a world where success will hinge on the ability to compete with, and tap into, Asia.
“Our economy is slowing down, we’re going to be affected by the [downturn in the] United States and we’re going to be affected by Europe,” he says. “We have to penetrate those rising Asian markets, and we’re not going to do that unless we have got the best-educated work force, unless we’ve got the best infrastructure, and unless we are creating our own Apples.”
-
A Canada without YouTube? It could happen.
By Peter Nowak - Friday, July 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM - 42 Comments
Photo by jonsson/Flickr
Here’s an interesting if somewhat disturbing thought: can you picture a world without YouTube? Or more specifically, a country without YouTube?
It seems improbable, almost impossible, but it’s entirely conceivable if the CRTC loses its collective mind and decides to regulate such “over-the-top” Internet services in Canada.
The regulator, answering to cajoling from traditional broadcasters, has now concluded its “fact-finding mission” on whether YouTube, Netflix and other OTT services should have Canadian content rules foisted on to them. At some point, it will decide on whether to proceed with a new, full hearing, or whether it will just drop the issue, at least for now.
-
Solutions for unsucking Canada's Internet
By Jesse Brown - Friday, May 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM - 21 Comments
Last week I asked you for help with my homework. I promised the folks at Mesh, Canada’s Web Conference, a presentation on how to “unsuck” Canada’s Internet. But while I’m pretty good at identifying the problem(s), I’m less confident about what strategy will actually set things straight.
Should change be dictated by the government through progressive new digital policies? Or has the government done enough harm already, and what we really need is for them to back off and deregulate? Should consumers speak up through petitions and online activism? Or are our interests better served through direct action, routing around the lousier aspects of our networks and voting with our dollars for services like VPN and Usenet access? How can we move past promises and towards Open Government? What’s to be done about all the geo-blocked content? How do we fight back against the erosion of our privacy and digital rights? So much suck, so many questions…
I put them to you, and also to a number of influential voices on the national tech scene. I left it up to each respondent to interpret the “suck” how they saw it. Here’s what folks said: Continue…
-
Maclean’s Interview: Jeffrey Immelt
By Jason Kirby - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 5 Comments
Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric, on greed, globalization and what it takes to wake up happy each day
Photographs by Simon Hayter
Jeffrey Immelt is the chairman and CEO of General Electric, one of the world’s largest corporations, and a member of U.S. President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Since the financial crisis he’s been an outspoken critic of corporate excess and failed leadership. But he has also faced criticism of his own from GE investors who’ve seen shares fall 60 per cent since he took over in 2001. Immelt spoke to Maclean’s during a visit to Vancouver for the Winter Olympics.
Q: In a speech at the West Point military academy in December, you said we’ve come through an era when business went from tough-mindedness, which is a good trait, to meanness and greed. What did you mean by that?
A: Over a period of time, not enough effort has been put forward to investing in the capability and long-term growth of the productive middle class of the United States. Less money has been invested in research and development and manufacturing, with more of a transition to financial services. When a country from 1980 to 2010 goes from being an export powerhouse to an unbelievably consumption-driven net importer, that’s not a good trend.Q: Can it be reversed?
A: It’s going to take lots of spending on R & D, and a real dedication to making our workforce more productive again. Seven per cent of U.S. GDP is exports. In Germany, it’s 35 per cent. Germany’s not a low-cost country. Germany is not Mexico. And there’s no reason why the U.S. can’t have some kind of destiny that’s like that. -
Gullible eager-beaver planet savers
By Mark Steyn - Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM - 208 Comments
‘The environment’ is the most ingenious cover story ever devised for Big Government
I’m always appreciative when a fellow says what he really means. Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry. After all, we all care about the environment, don’t we? So we ought to do something about it, right? And, since “the environment” isn’t just in your town or county but spreads across the entire planet, we can only really do something at the planetary level. But what to do? According to paragraph 38 on page 18 of the latest negotiating text, the convention will set up a “government” to manage the “new funds” and the “related facilitative processes.” Continue…
-
The CRTC Punts Again
By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 6:15 PM - 5 Comments
Update: Given the time stamp, nobody’s going to believe that I didn’t read this post first before coming up with the above subject heading. But I didn’t. Anyway, it’s the only subject heading that fits.
Every few years, the CRTC discusses what to do about “New Media,” and decides to do nothing for a few more years. (Also, at one point does it stop being referred to as “new” media?) Emphasis mine:
Canada’s broadcast regulator has decided to continue its hands-off approach to broadcasting content on the Internet and mobile devices such as iPhones and BlackBerries.
Rather than require that broadcasters adhere to similar rules online as they do on television and radio (such as producing and airing a certain amount of Canadian content) the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said it will leave the Internet and mobile platforms unregulated…
The CRTC said it will monitor evolving trends and will review the decision in five years.
The Writers’ Guild of Canada, which is the fastest press-releaser in the West when it comes to CRTC decisions, argued in response that “traditional Canadian broadcasting content is very difficult to find online” and that there needs to be regulation to make sure that Canadian content is accessible everywhere:
“New media content has become an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system,” says Maureen Parker, Executive Director, Writers Guild of Canada, “and we looked to the CRTC to ensure that Canadians have the ability to choose Canadian content online. The CRTC doesn’t believe regulation is necessary to ensure that choice – the CRTC is wrong. In our long experience working with Canadian broadcasters, we know that without regulation Canadian content falls by the wayside.”
Without opining too much (one way or the other) on something I haven’t really thought through, I will say only that we really are, in Canada, in the worst of all possible worlds when it comes to online content: we can’t get much of the great U.S. content online, even as Hulu and other sites become more and more important (eventually Hulu is going to have huge TV libraries, and we might still not be able to get it), and most Canadian broadcasters can’t or won’t catch up with their U.S. counterparts in terms of online content. (The most famous and obvious comparison is Comedy Central’s online library of every Daily Show and Colbert Report clip, vs. The Comedy Network’s confusing and all-but-un-embeddable system of Daily Show clips.)
-
Contrasting Canadian and U.S. banking, regulation
By John Geddes - Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 10:10 AM - 11 Comments
Reading Andrew Coyne never fails to make me to think harder. His current piece “Our so-called genius banks,” a welcome assault on conventional wisdom, is no exception. After mulling it over, though, I don’t buy key parts of my colleague’s bid to debunk the by now familiar story of how, in the financial crisis, Canada’s banking regulation and culture have proven superior to other systems, notably the American alternative.
-
What would Galbraith do?
By John Geddes - Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM - 14 Comments
I keep thinking about what John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) would have had to say about the financial markets meltdown.
In his later years, Galbraith used the term “innocent fraud” to describe the way the economy had fallen under the sway of corporate managers looking for short-term personal windfalls, rather than shareholders interested in sound long-term business strategies, or governments worried about broader societal interests.
-
WHO WILL RID US OF THESE MEDDLESOME PRIESTS?
By Andrew Coyne - Friday, May 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM - 0 Comments
The CRTC is thinking of regulating the internet. Seriously. It’s even going to hold…
The CRTC is thinking of regulating the internet. Seriously. It’s even going to hold hearings — sorry, a “consultation” — on the matter. And while CRTC commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein claims “our intention is not to regulate the internet,” it wouldn’t be the CRTC if it didn’t have regulation very much in mind.
So when von F. says “new digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn’t exist a few years ago,” and when he adds that the purpose of the exercise is “to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives,” you just know where this is headed.
