She says it on her sleeping alone and starting out early blog where she also says, “I studied creative writing and published some poems. Then I decided to get all up in education’s grill.”

But she’s still writing, thankfully.

“Actually,” she goes on, still talking about  her  failure to be in front of the mass culture curve,  instead of behind it, “this appears to be true only about a subgroup of TV shows that we might label THE MOST AWESOME TV SHOWS EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.”

Among the TV shows she “got around to watching after they’d finished their first time around” were Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly / Serenity, Jericho, Battlestar Galactica, she says .

Currently, Jenna is five episodes into the first Dr Who season and, “I’m head over heels. (the special effects! the character development! the joy with which Rose and the Doctor thrust themselves toward adventure! those radiant, radiant smiles!).”

“But enough about me,” she says, going on, Let’s talk about Hulu »»»

More specifically, let’s talk about the cheap and free media-streaming services that offer a kind of on-demand programming experience–movies, TV shows, digital shorts–to anyone with a computer and a moderately reliable internet connection.

Hulu, a joint venture funded by NBC and Fox, is the second most popular video viewing site on the web. (YouTube was tops, but then again it’s hard to beat the king.) It’s not hard to figure out why. Hulu features a deep vault of new shows and older classics, and it offers links to streams of shows not hosted on Hulu. (Because it’s affiliated with its parent networks, the Hulu-hosted offerings stick mainly to those owned by NBC, Fox and Hulu-affiliated networks.)

I still watch a few shows on TV so I can have that old-time “community of fans, in this together” experience (SAMCRO FTW), and I subscribe to Netflix, through which I receive about 2 DVDs a month and watch up to a dozen shows and movies online. But the rest — the rest comes for free, mainly through Hulu and other franchise-sponsored media sites.

Which is why I was so sad to hear that Hulu is considering a switch to a paid format for at least some of its content, at least according to News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey (News Corp. is a part-owner of Hulu). Here’s what he said recently about the struggles of making content available for free online:

I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that. It needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.

Hulu does have a revenue stream in the form of ads, and back in June the big news was that for the first time, it cost more to run a commercial during the Hulu version of The Simpsons than to air one on TV. Presumably, then, this could be a functional business model: On-air advertising + Hulu advertising = the cost of TV broadcast + streaming the show on Hulu.

Either it’s not enough revenue, or it’s not enough revenue to pay for the hulking television industry whose very structure willfully ignores that the 3-party entertainment system (ABC, CBS, NBC) is decades behind us, never to return.

The manager of a laundromat near my house has posted a sign informing customers something to the effect that “heating & electricity costs went up by $60,000 last year. We have to pass that cost on to our customers.” I wonder if the 17th Street Coin Laundry has tried cutting its own costs, as well: installing energy-efficient dryers, insulating doors and windows, sealing up the leaky washing machines. (Or maybe they’re trying to save money through the marked lack of laundry baskets, chairs, and bike racks.) Since there’s a rececssion on, though, it’s likely that long-term fixes have been shunned in favor of the immediate payoff of passing costs on to the customer.

I wonder if the same is true of the entertainment industry. Couple the recession with the tension over how to leverage new, cheaper technologies for mass circulation of media, and what you get is a morass so profound it’ll take years to dig out. We made TV content available almost for free once before, during the soft spot when TVs got so cheap that almost every American household had one and cable hadn’t yet taken hold. Doing that again will take time, money, and a commitment to free that Big Media hasn’t demonstrated.

I have previously written about the difference between “news” and “the news,” and have argued that making news (if not the news) available to everyone for free is an undergirding principle of a democratic society founded on the tenets of free speech and a free press. There is no similar right to entertainment, but it’s not a stretch to argue that making media content freely available to all citizens can be democratizing in ways that free news alone cannot achieve. Especially in an increasingly participatory culture, where civic engagement is as likely to focus on electoral politics as on the politics of entertainment, corporate control, and popular culture, more access to more content can mean more democracy.

But making this happen requires a commitment to sustainable economic models and revenue streams. And the work of establishing these appears to be out of the purview of many media types. Indeed, many — including Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes — are pursuing another approach: Offering flat-rate subscriptions to TV content across multiple media platforms. Presumably, a subscriber to this “TV Everywhere” program would have access to ‘premium’ Hulu material in addition to more traditional cable content.

I wonder if newspapers are getting on board with this. It seems likely that the bundling system we’re seeing in cable subscriptions might be a palatable model for news sites, which can make premium content accessible to subscribers on some sort of graduated system. A $29.95 monthly fee might, for example, get you basic cable, HBO, Hulu and the Washington Post. They might even offer a discount for the first year, with an option to renew!

“We stand together, poised at the edge,” says Jenna, adding:

” We can, together, walk the path toward greatness by embracing the free-access, free-content, free-communication model of the internet, and by devising alternate revenue strategies that pass the costs of such a model on to corporations and advertisers; or we can take the darker path, the one bordered by pay walls, peppered with the stones of micropayments, and clouded over by limited-access news sites.

“For a short while, the paths will run nearly parallel, so close that it will seem as if they’re practically the same; but eventually the paths will diverge too much and there will be no turning back.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

sleeping alone and starting out early – I worry that the internet will kill everything I love, November 3, 2009

And the votes, says Reuters, “came from the very people who made her a star, tweens and teens”.

“Cyrus, 16, took 42 percent of votes in the poll for AOL’s JSYK.com (Just So You Know) website aimed at 9-15 year-olds, pushing Britney Spears and rapper Kanye West into second and third places, respectively, in a section on worst celebrity influences of the year,” it says, going on:

“No reasons were given for the poor showing of the singer-actress and the popular star of Disney Channel’s “Hannah Montana” television series.

“But the ranking follows a year which has seen Cyrus controversially dating a 20 year-old model, making ’slant eyes’ in an informal snapshot criticized as mocking Asians, and being accused of pole-dancing on a teen awards show.”

Elsewhere, the story adds, “the stars of vampire movies ‘Twilight’ and its forthcoming sequel ‘New Moon’ dominated the JSYK.com poll.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Reuters – Miley Cyrus voted worst celebrity influence of ‘09, October 29, 2009

It’s just the latest example of how the industry’s “constant warnings of the dangers of ‘piracy’ frequently turn out to be baseless hysteria,” he says, continuing »»»

Remember 2001? Digital Video Recorders (”DVRs”) like TiVo and ReplayTV were poised to win mainstream adoption, allowing consumers to fast-forward past advertisements more easily than before. In response, the entertainment industry behaved predictably — it freaked out and filed a bunch of lawsuits.

Industry analysts claimed that DVR “potentially threatens the very lifeblood of how television is funded and how it’s used for marketing and advertising.” A coalition of television studios including Viacom, Disney, and NBC filed suit against SonicBlue, makers of ReplayTV, arguing that skipping commercials “effectively circumvents the means of payment to copyright owners for the programming being viewed… (and) thus constitutes copyright infringement.”

Fast-forward eight years, and these claims turn out to be — surprise! — wrong. This weekend, The New York Times announced that “DVR ratings now add significantly to live ratings and thus to ad revenue.”

A mystified NBC President Of Research called the situation “completely counterintuitive.” But the reason behind the revenue isn’t counterintuitive at all — it’s obvious: When consumers are granted the ability to watch television whenever and however they want, they watch more TV — not less. That’s a simple result which could only be “counterintuitive” to an industry that all too frequently treats its own best customers like criminals.

It’s a cycle that by now has become sadly familiar: When the industry meets a new technology, it panics and fights it tooth-and-nail. Eventually, the industry loses this fight, often squashing innovation or arbitrarily singling out a few citizens for punishment along the way. Finally, the same technology ends up benefiting the same short-sighted industry — but rather than learn their lesson, the same corporations are usually busy repeating the same cycle all over again with something else. It happened with the VCR, the audio cassette, and even the turntable.

With a track-record like this, it’s mind-boggling that the entertainment industry’s schemes to “fight piracy” retain any credibility whatsoever. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to the industry’s deep coffers, many in government continue to take their claims seriously. As a result, the UK is close to implementing a “three-strikes” policy of disconnecting illegal file-sharers from the Internet — even as a new poll reveals that those same file-sharers are the industry’s best customers. Here in the USA, Hollywood is once again lobbying the FCC to introduce “Selectable Output Control” — a scheme which would grant the industry veto-power over new technologies.

Until legislators learn to stop trusting the entertainment industry’s faulty “intuition,” laws will continue to hurt innovation, consumers, and — yup — even the very industry they’ve been designed to protect.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Deep Links – DVR is TV’s New BFF, November 2, 2009

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has been ordered to investigate the implications and advisability of implementing a “compensation regime” for the value of local TV signals.

The study will raise important considerations for customers regarding cable fees or taxation, and the preservation of local television.

But as usual, the people it’s all about are virtually invisible in the process.

Unlike the Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act doesn’t have mechanisms to ensure consumer organizations have sufficient resources to fully take part in these kinds of proceedings, says David Fewer, acting director of the CIPPIC.

But, consumers will, “ultimately pay the bill,” he notes.

“It’s simply a matter of ensuring that consumer voices inform the process, and so the result.”

In September, the CRTC asked the government to provide funding to ensure full participation by consumer groups in this consultation, says CIPPIC.

But the Government hasn’t, “publicly responded”.

Now, CIPIC has joined consumer organizations asking for action.

Including re the Consumers Association of Canada (CAC), Union des Consommateurs (UC), the Consumers Council of Canada (CAC), Option Consommateurs (OC), Canada Without Poverty (CWP), the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), and CIPPIC have signed a letter to Minister Moore asking his department to remedy these issues.

The Consumers Interest Alliance Inc. (CIAI) has sent in an additionally letter in its own name supporting the organizations’ request.

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

October, 2009

In January Joost  was supposed to have been reinventing itself by offering allegedly broadcast-quality content to viewers for free, ‘free’ being advertising-driven.

The site is still online but, “the office furniture of Joost UK Limited, registered in England and Wales with number 05821718, has apparently already found its way to another startup,” says TechCrunch.

UK subsidiary went into liquidation at the beginning of this month, says the story, noting:

“The reasons that are given are not all too surprising: the liquidator says the company has ‘failed to sustain a significant share of the internet video industry and was unable to address this effectively through a re-positioning of its services’.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

their music – Kazaa creators back in the music bidniz, October 14, 2009
reinventing itself – Joost ‘reinvents’ itself, July 2, 2009
TechCrunch – Joost UK dissolves, office furniture already in the hands of another startup, October 14, 2009

Happy  birthday to YOOOOO

Happy BIRTHday dear Monty …

Happy  birthday to YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Say na MORE …

… nod nod, wink wink.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

October, 2009

The past week saw a repeat of a special on the best and worst of Hogmanay tv shows, and the start of a light-hearted three-part documentary on technology through the past several decades.

“Electric Dreams”, part of the current “Electric Revolution” strand, sees a well-to-do family (Dad, the accountant; Mom, the  “Senior NHS Executive”; and their four incredibly spoiled pre-pubescent children) deal with daily life of 1970’s-1990’s Britain.

Each day is another year (1970-1979) in the first part. Their stately home is transformed into what the producers believe to be the typical British home of the 70’s: garish wallpaper in every room, shag carpeting, no central heating, b/w TV, transistor radio, etc.

All of their modern furniture, computers, microwave ovens, dishwasher, ipods, cell phones, etc., are taken away from them for ten days. Temporary walls are erected to block off rooms, or make rooms smaller. The family are reduced to having to share a single bathroom.

A single rotary phone in the hallway is their only way of communicating with the outside world.

Ah, the good old days: power cuts, strikes, no central heating.

They’re also provided with clothing from the era that they must wear.

A parcel arrives every day with a new appliance for the day’s year. One day a b/w TV, next a camera, then a color TV, a pocket calculator, a Pong console, and on. After a few days their portable record player is replaced with a stereo system that has a cassette tape deck – for recording purposes.

The producers instruct the family to take pictures and record a mixtape, which will be the entertainment for a party they’re to give at the end of the ten days, to which their friends are invited, and presumably will enjoy.

The show explains that in the 70’s, the ability to create a mixtape at home and carry an entire album around in your pocket to share with friends was a normal pastime.

The family were given a large collection of LPs, and the children were instructed – by Dad and the BBC technician on hand – in the mechanics of creating a mixtape on the vintage stereo.

At no point in the program was it ever mentioned that creating mixtapes infringes copyright – that’s because it doesn’t. Copying and sharing the tape with friends was also encouraged – in the 70’s and in this program. Again, no mention of copyright infringement or theft was ever implied, inferred, or stated.

Verdict: they loved the LPs and making mixtapes, but the kids didn’t seem to care for Pong.

A lot of 1970’s music was played by the family, but even in the end credits, there was no mention that the BBC had permission to use any of the music in the program.

In the next installment, the family enters the 1980’s. A lot of Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, and Madonna will probably be heard.

No doubt the family will again be encouraged to make mixtapes using tools and instruction provided by the BBC, as the Walkman is certain to be featured.

catflap – p2pet

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

October, 2009

Or was it her right one?

Either way, her, “magically, awesomely, mesmerizingly powerful nipple” was “revealed for less than one second to millions of half-drunk spectators on a Sunday afternoon in 2004,” Mark Frauenfelder reminds us on Boingboing.

Now, it’s a, “five-year-long absurdist theater performance” costing, “Millions of dollars and rising,” he says, going on »»»

Starring: the FCC, the highest court in the United States, major media companies, and a cast of thousands of lawyers.

Script: A 12-foot-high stack incomprehensible legal documents.

I hope the show never ends. Bravo!

A couple of years ago, “a Super Bowl half-time farce featured Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction,’ as it’s come to be known, and 20 CBS-owned TV stations were hit with the maximum indecency penalty of $27,500 for a total of $550,000, the largest fine ever imposed a TV broadcaster,” said p2pnet.

CBS challenged the $550,000 fine levied against it by the Federal Communications Commission. The “fleeting, isolated or unintended” images shouldn’t automatically have been considered indecen, said the Hollywood Reporter.

With that in mind, p2pnet wondered if  the Vanessa Hudgens incident should similarly be cited considering the 18-year-old Hollywood children’s star went a whole lot further than Jackson, and no one seemed to mind.

“Hudgens revealed not merely her left breast, but her all. And there was nothing fleeting about it,” we said, adding, “But her exposure was online, not at the Super Bowl …”

Now, “The FCC has reasserted its power to regulate fleeting nudity and says it wants to further investigate ‘whether CBS’ indecency violation [in the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl reveal] was willful’,” says Broadcasting & Cable, continuing

‘The evidence in this case strongly suggests that CBS had access to video delay technology at the time of the 2004 Super Bowl,’ the commission said Tuesday in a brief to the Third Circuit Appeals Court in the Janet Jackson Super Bowl reveal case. The FCC asked the court to remand the decision back to the FCC so it could investigate further its assertion that the violation was ‘willful.’

The Third Circuit, in reversing the FCC’s fine against the broadcast, said the evidence that delay technology was available at the time was ’scant.’ The FCC disagrees and wants the chance to determine ‘whether CBS was reckless not to use video delay technology for this broadcast.’

The commission also reasserted that the reveal was off limits for broadcast TV between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. ‘[The FCC] reasonably determined in this case that the graphic and shocking, albeit brief, exposure of Janet Jackson’s bare right breast to a nationwide audience composed of millions of children and adults was indecent,’ the FCC said.

Back in June, the court asked for new briefs in the case after the Supreme Court’s May 4 decision to vacate the Third Circuit’s ruling that the Jackson fine was arbitrary and capricious.

“The FCC relied  heavily on the Fox decision in its brief, saying that ‘as the Fox Courts interpretation of the pertinent regulatory history now makes clear, the  repetition requirement that exempted fleeting expletives from enforcement has  no logical application to images’,” B&C adds.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

p2pnet – Jackson vs Hudgens: $550,000 difference, September 11, 2009
Boingboing – The US Government’s bizarre obsession with Janet Jackson’s nipple, September 16, 2009
half-time farce – Janet Jackson’s mammary memory, November 9, 2004
Hollywood Reporter – Court hears FCC, CBS on indecency case, September 12, 2007
not merely her left breast – Disney forgives Hudgens’ nude lapse, September 12, 2007
Broadcasting & Cable – FCC To Further Investigate Janet Jackson Super Bowl Reveal, September 16, 2009

They were reportedly made to sign a contract that banned them from any outside contact and ordered them to pay a 50,000 Lira ($33,000, £20,000) fine if they left the show before two months, says the BBC, going on:

“Police stormed the building in Riva, reportedly after family members became concerned they were being prevented from contacting the women.

“According to local media, naked images of the women were sold on the internet.”

They were rescued by Turkish military police after two months confinement, says Reuters, quoting a police spokesman as saying, “Cameras in the villa filmed the women 24-hours a day, providing a live stream of images for Internet users who had paid to access the footage.”

HaberTurk newspaper, “says four people who lived at the villa with the women were detained,” says the BBC, adding:

“Police are still searching for the gang’s leader who sold images of the women on the internet, the newspaper adds.”

(Cheers, catflap)

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

BBC – Women rescued from Turkey TV scam, September 10, 2009
Reuters – Police free 9 from fake Turkish “Big Brother” house, September 10, 2009

Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music can get away with dragging young children through the mainstream media for unproven, non-existent ‘copyright crime’.

They can go after a dead grandmother, a single mum living on a medical disability pensions, a multiple sclerosis victim, a home health aide who doesn’t know one end of the computer from the other —- the line forms on the right, babe, as Mac the Knife puts it.

But now they’ve gone too far.

In what could turn out to be their worst PR disaster yet, they’ve sued the latest American Idol judge and darling of afternoon (and morning, and evening) TV, Ellen DeGeneres.

Well, they’ve sued her producers, anyway.

Named in the copyright infringement lawsuit are Arista Music, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Big Beat Records, Capitol Records, Motown Record Company, Priority Records, Rhino Entertainment Company, Sire Records Company, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Virgin Records America, Warner Bros.

In a court document reeking with indignation and self-pity, not to mention outraged innocence, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, in a nutshell, say the producers of the Ellen DeGeneres show have been using Big 4 ‘product’ without a licence since Day One.

More than 1,000 songs were used during the “beloved comic’s ‘dance over’ section – where the star strolls to her stage through the audience at the beginning of each show,” says Contactmusic.

Asked why they didn’t get sound recording licenses, according to the legal document, the producers said they, “did not roll that way”.

The lawsuit says the Ellen DeGeneres show has used “recordings by virtually every major current artist of popular music” since its start in 2003 which, incidentally, is when, in their hopeless efforts to gain complete control of all online music distribution, the Big 4 started terrorising the people who keep them in business with phony lawsuits.

But this time around, they’re represented not by their traditional extortion specialists, the RIAA, but by a Nashville law firm.

Will the DeGeneres show settle out of court? Or will they stand firm and be ordered to to pay a staggering amount in ruinous restitution fees?

Just like Jammie Thomas-Rasset who owes multi-billion-dollar corporate music industry $1.92 million not for airing the songs on international TV, but for sharing 24 of them online?

You know the answer to that.

Definitely stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

September, 2009

Neither their parents nor schools knew the dead teenagers were working as extras, “paid between 20 yuan (US$2.90) and 40 yuan a day,” says the Shanghai Daily.

More than 60 part-time actors were wading across the river when several fell in, it says, going on the third victim was 22.

Some  200 rescuers, including local fishermen, retrieved the bodies, says the story, adding:

“The local Safety Supervision Bureau blamed the drama team for the accidents, saying the crew had no emergency plan to cope with dangerous scenes like wading a river.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Shanghai Daily – Three extras drown during filming, September 3, 2009

If you’re in a hurry, here’s a Wikipedia summary »»»

On August 21, 2000, after five interventions from established broadcasters, the CRTC turned down Pachul’s application,^[1] on the grounds that it did not meet with the CRTC’s LPTV policy, but Pachul alleged that the CRTC was simply protecting established corporate broadcasters who had already failed in their responsibility to provide programming of community interest. On September 9, the station began broadcasting illegally as a pirate station.^[2][3][4]

Pachul appeared before the CRTC on September 19, 2001,^[5] and was ordered to shut the station down by November 15 of that year.^[6] In December, the CRTC published a new policy permitting the development of community stations on LPTV.^[7]

At one point in 2002, Star Ray broadcast on UHF 15 as text-only, based on a loophole by which it claimed text did not constitute “programming” and was therefore not prohibited.^[8] More recently, Star Ray has faced allegations that its operations interfere with VHF channel 13.^[9]

In recent years, the station has broadcast over the Internet. Pachul applied for another broadcasting licence on June 3, 2004, but as of 2008 the CRTC has not published a decision either approving or denying the 2004 licence application.^[10]

And here’s the full Monty »»»

From: Star Ray TV
Sent: May 7, 2001 9:13 PM
To: CRTC
Subject: Public Notice CRTC 2001-19

From: Jan Pachul, Star Ray TV 186 Main Street, Toronto, Ontario M4E 2W1

To: The Secretary General CRTC Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2

May 7, 2001

Regarding Public Notice CRTC 2001-19

1.The CRTC is tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias, which denies licenses to new entrants in television broadcasting. It has been reported that several commissioners are biased towards corporations hiring CRTC employees to manage regulatory affairs with the CRTC. This bias has resulted in several new entrants being denied licenses for new television broadcasting undertakings. Three new applicants in particular who had overwhelming public support where denied licenses due to industry opposition in the past year. The CRTC does not have the legitimacy to rule on the structure of or the licenses of new entrants in community television. Anyone studying the history of biased commissioners would be a fool to apply for any community television licenses offered. Assuming anyone could actually be approved for a license, how could anyone expect CRTC regulations on community broadcasting to be for anything but mediocre, marginal, poorly funded operations .

2. I organized a grassroots group to establish a local community oriented UHF television station in the Eastern area of Toronto called Star Ray TV. The station would have featured predominately local programming with 80% Canadian content overall with an 100% Canadian content in prime time. 2200 comparable stations are on the air in the U.S., thousands worldwide, and 1000 are on the air in Russia, yes Russia! It is ironic that Russian regulators are more progressive and liberal than the CRTC!

3. Originally in 1997 I had applied for a 3 year technical and marketing trial to run a station. I was turned down by the CRTC because “under certain circumstances (such an operation), it may have an impact on the ability of existing licensees to fulfill their regulatory requirements.” I actually believed that the CRTC would allow technical and marketing trials based on published policy: CRTC 1996-59 POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF EXEMPTION ORDERS.

4. In December 1998 I applied for a low power television broadcasting license from the CRTC. 43 interventions were filed in support of the application from the viewing public. Five opposing applications were filed by major broadcasters and industry groups these included: Rogers Cablesystems, Chum Television, CTV Network, Canadian Cable Television Association, and Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

5. On December 10, 1999 the CRTC conducted a hearing for the my application before Andree Wylie Chairperson, David McKendry Commissioner, Andree Noel Commissioner, Barbra Cram Commissioner, Jean-Marc Demers Commissioner.

6. After waiting an excessive eight months on August 21, 2000 I was denied a license by a 3-2 majority vote. The majority decision contained many false representations and did not respect the Broadcasting Act in any manner. The two dissenting commissioners David McKendry and Barbara Cram decision gave strong evidence that the application was supportive of the Broadcasting Act, serviced a need for the 20% of the community who don’t have cable, and the applicant assumed all risk. They also believed the application was not duplicating existing services nor outside of existing Low Power Television policy. McKendry and Cram’s full comments clearly determine that the rejection decision was not based on CRTC policy, but on the interests of the 5 industry opponents.

7. On September 21, 2000 the World Television Network was denied a license by the same 3 commissioners that denied the Star Ray application in a 4-1 majority vote: Andree Wylie, Andree Noel, and Jean-Marc Demers. The fourth commissioner was Martha Wilson a former Rogers Cable employee. A World Television Network’s Decision Analysis dated October 2, 2000 shows the majority decision also contained many false representations and did not respect the Broadcasting Act. Stuart Langford wrote a long dissenting opinion rooted in administrative law and the Broadcasting Act. The World Television Network also had opposing interventions from the Canadian Cable Television Association, and Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

8. On March 1, 2000 the Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TFO) was denied carriage on cable in the province of Quebec by a majority vote. This decision has the same 3-2 pattern as WTN’s and Star Ray’s applications with Commissioners Stuart Langford and Andrew Cardozo writing dissenting opinions. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier commented on the TFO application in a submission to the CRTC on Public Notice CRTC 2000-74 dated August 30, 2000. Sen. Gauthier called the decision as the “equivalent to a capitulation to the commercial interests of the Quebec cable industry.” This license denial had two dissenting commissioners, Mr. Andrew Cardozo and Mr. Stuart Langford. Common opposing interveners again are the CCTA and the CAB.

9. Mathew Fraser, a former CRTC employee and presently a professor at Ryerson University published a series of exposes on CRTC commissioners and the denial of Star Ray TV’s application in the National Post. In the article “High-power cabal snuffs out low-power television” Mathew Fraser notes The real reason for the denial of Star Ray TV’s application:

10.”The CRTC’s bureaucratic rationale was expressed in predictably opaque language, citing concerns about frequency management, cable carriage arrangements and conformity with existing regulations. The real reason, however, was that a clutch of big Canadian broadcasters with antennas in the Toronto market feared Mr. Pachul’s upstart TV station might steal commercial revenues and, worse, could trigger a contagion of similar low-power TV stations across the country. Mr. Pachul’s setback is a sad defeat for ‘local’ expression at a time when big media interests are exploiting concerns about ‘globalization’ to win regulatory approval for industry consolidation. It’s also symptomatic of Canada’s over-regulated, paternalistic and cliquish broadcasting system, in which the logic of monopoly invariably prevails over pluralism, competition and free expression. The CRTC, while piously evoking the values of ‘diversity’ to justify other agendas, once again has demonstrated its time-honoured reflex of blocking new market entrants.”

11. Order of Canada recipient Dan Iannuzi from the World Television network comments on their license denial:

“The Commission’s position is totally unsubstantiated and contradicts statements in the public transcript.

12. No other options or remedies were offered by the Commission. An examination of recent Native and French language applications indicates that this normal practice was not followed. In effect the CRTC indicates that it expected the applicant to ‘volunteer’ at its expense a solution to what is a commission responsibility.

13.There were over 4000 written expressions of support for WTN. These included teacher federations, unions, international development agencies, Premiers, MP’s, MMP’s, MNA’s, mayors, Multicultural organizations, Independent producers organizations, production companies, university faculties as well as students and citizens from every corner of the land. There were 13 opposing interveners…”

14.Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier comments on the TFO license denial:

“In the economic theory of regulation a strong possibility is presented for what is called capture of the regulators by the entities they are supposed to be regulating. Capture leads to regulatory decisions that are in the best interest of the incumbent firms in an industry and not in the best interest of potential competitors in the industry or, ultimately, of consumers. The CRTC has often been criticized for acting in the best interests of Canada’s major broadcasters and cable companies.

15.16. A prime example of this phenomenon is Decision CRTC 2000-72 the decision that rejected the application from the Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO) to have its French-language channel, TFO, distributed on cable in Quebec on a mandatory basis. In his dissenting opinion in this case, CRTC Commissioner Stuart Langford noted that less than 1% of the interventions opposed the application. Furthermore, of the 12 opposed, nine were from industry stakeholders ‘who in one way or another appear to view TFO’s interests as in conflict with their own.’ In addition, noted Langford, TVO had made its application to the CRTC for mandatory carriage of TFO because it had been having ‘great difficulty persuading Quebec’s major cable distributors to offer its service on acceptable terms…’

16.18. Thus, Decision CRTC 2000-72 seems, in short, to represent a capitulation to the market interests of the Quebec cable industry and not a decision consistent with the wishes of Quebec viewers or of the proclaimed public interest of all Canadians. As a precedent for future decisions on French-language television this decision could prove a disaster.

17.72. It is telling that of the 12 submissions opposing TVO’s application, several were from cable companies that have consistently resisted TFO’s efforts to negotiate an acceptable carriage agreement.

18.104. It is difficult to see the wisdom of Decision CRTC 2000-72 in the light of any serious attempt to preserve or promote the French language in Canada. The decision, as noted by a CRTC Commissioner in his dissenting opinion, appears to be a capitulation to commercial interests. It certainly ignores the non-market elements to Canadian broadcasting.”

19. Since March 1, 2000 there have been at least 9 CRTC decisions with dissenting opinions. I am told by industry watchers that never in the history of the CRTC have there been so many dissenting opinions by CRTC commissioners. The dissenting Commissioners have been Stuart Langford, Andrew Cardozo, David McKendry, Cindy Grauer and Barbara Cram. In a study of known hearing panels of the last year none of the dissenting Commissioners have been selected in a majority by Ms. Bertrand on any panel except the February 21, 2000 hearing in Vancouver were Mr. Langford, Ms. Grauer, and Ms. Cram were in a majority.

20. All of the CRTC decisions that have dissenting opinions where the panel is known have Commissioner Wylie in common. Many have either the CAB or CCTA or both in common as opposing interveners.

21. Evert Communications maintains a website of “Personalities in Canadian Technology” at http://www.evert.com/persons/. A review of this website shows a number of former CRTC employees presently employed by the CCTA including Janet Yale President and CEO who signed the CCTA intervention regarding the Star Ray TV application. According to Evert she: “held the position of Director General of the Cable, Pay and Specialty Services Branch at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). She was previously General Counsel with the Consumer’s Association of Canada for four years, as well as having four years experience as Director Telecommunications Policy at the CRTC.”

22. Other CCTA employees with CRTC backgrounds are:

Suzanne Blackwell – VP Economic Research CCTA: She held various positions during an eight-year stint at the CRTC, including chief of regulatory policy in the telecom branch.

23. Michael Hennessy – SVP, Policy and Planning CCTA: He was director-general of competition, convergence and social policy at the CRTC. In the latter role, Hennessy was responsible for providing advice on such matters as competition policy, deregulation, privacy and the convergence of telecom and cable activities.

24. Ian Scott – VP telecommunications CCTA: He joined the CRTC in 1990 and was involved in a senior advisory capacity in the proceeding that led to the establishment of a competitive long distance regime in Canada. More recently, Mr. Scott played a similar role in the CRTC’s landmark proceeding that established the current regulatory regime for telecommunications in Canada.

25. According to Evert Commissioner Wylie : “Prior to her appointment (to the CRTC), she was a lawyer with the firm Blake, Cassels, and Graydon in Ottawa. Since her calling to the Ontario Bar in 1979, Ms. Wylie has had extensive experience in issues dealing with regulatory tribunals. She was a member of our Legal Directorate from 1979-1984 and since then has represented third parties involved in matters before the Commission and other tribunals.”

26. Since Ms. Wylie had represented third parties before the commission before her appointment, she obviously has a conflict of interest as a CRTC commissioner. I would like to know if these third parties included any of the opposing interveners to the three applications under investigation here.

27. According to Evert Pamela Dinsmore, VP regulatory Rogers Cablesystems Limited who signed the Rogers intervention regarding the Star Ray TV application previously held a high position with the CRTC: “Prior to joining Rogers, Ms. Dinsmore held a variety of positions at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, including Chief of Staff/Special Advisor to the Chairman.”

28. WTN’s CAB intervention is signed by Sylvie Courtemanche, another former CRTC employee. The CAB’s website makes the following comments on Ms. Courtemanches CRTC employment: “Courtemanche gained broad respect and a deep understanding of broadcasting and telecommunications during six years front line service as legal counsel for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (1991-1997). 70. She took part in hearings on the structure of the broadcasting industry, Pay and Specialty applications, French-language license renewals, Direct-to-Home Satellites, pay audio, and other key issues. In 1993, she created the CRTC’s first mediation and dispute resolution mechanism for broadcasting. 71. In 1997, she went into private practice, specializing in communications and issues before the CRTC.”

29. Together, major media corporations and several Commissioners named herein have worked to block any attempts to diversify the type and size of television players. A continuing pattern emerges from the study of the TFO, WTN, and Jan Pachul Star Ray TV decisions and related documents.

30. The motive of financial gain from major broadcasting organizations is quite evident when the considering the number of former CRTC employees working on submissions before the CRTC for major corporations. The conflicts of interest are also quite evident. The CRTC cannot be trusted to include new entrants in television broadcasting.

31. There are also systemic barriers in place to prevent anyone but the very wealthy from participating in television broadcasting. Not many can afford to lose several hundred thousand dollars on an application. Who would want to invest in such a venture? The money wasted in the process is enough to put a low power station on the air. It is time the CTRC realized its biased policies have denied a voice in Canadian broadcasting to everyone except the wealthy corporate elite.

32. If the CRTC wants to regain any kind of credibility it should exempt community low power UHF broadcasters from the Broadcasting Act as long as they maintain local ownership and have at least 50% local content. The cable lobby doesn’t want to carry low power stations reducing the potential audience to about 20% of the population. This type of operation isn’t worth the “crap shoot” the CRTC has turned license applications into. An exemption spares would-be community broadcasters from the massive expense of preparing the required license application. Mired in red tape, stations now spend one hundred thousand to one million dollars just for the application, with no guarantee of ever receiving a license. An exemption would spur aspiring low power community broadcasters into giving it a try.

33.Presently the status of the community channel on cable amounts to an exemption from the Broadcasting Act since the community channel is not licensed to the cable company. There are also other exemptions available to cable companies, including Community Programming Network Undertakings: distribute portions of one licensee’s community programming to the licensees of other distribution undertakings serving a common urban area (Public Notice CRTC 1993-52). Low power television is specifically excluded from any exemptions from the Broadcasting Act, this must change.

“It’s a simple scam,” Jan wrote in How CRTC corruption works, adding:

“Big corporations needing special favours from the CRTC hire CRTC employees to manage CRTC regulatory affairs for them. That’s why all these interventions from major corporations are signed by former CRTC employees. The salaries that these ex-CRTC employees earn wildly exceed any possible amount they could ever make at the CRTC.

“Present CRTC employees ass-kiss the corporations doing the hiring because getting hired for a big super paying job for a CRTCer is like you or I winning the lottery.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

August, 2009

We say ‘theoretically’ because although August 31 is the deadline, staff on the receiving end of pink slips want to save the station.

Canwest Global Communications Corp says CHEK, BC’s oldest indie TV broadcaster, has to go but, “CHEK-TV employees have raised $500,000 in a Harmac-inspired bid to become owners of the Victoria-based television station where they work,” said Canwest, going on:

“Staffers have pledged the money in a bid to buy the station before it closes at the end of the month. The effort has support from their union and follows a presentation from Levi Sampson, who led an employInee takeover at the Harmac pulp mill in Nanaimo.

“Most of the CHEK’s 45 employees agreed to buy $15,000 shares to pool funds for a 25 per cent share in a new company to operate the station. The balance would be held by outside investors.”

CHEK reporter Kendall Hanson hoped a closure could be averted, “but has concerns about whether the deal will be allowed,” said an earlier Canwest shortly after the news broke

“I’m not 100 per cent sold that indeed Canwest-Global is thrilled about the idea of us being bought,” it had Hanson saying, adding:

“We’ve had interest from investors. Now I’m hoping there’s public pressure on both Global and the CRTC to get the deal going.”

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

p2pnet – CHEK-TV, BC’s first TV indie, goes down,  July 31, 2009
Canwest – Employees making bid for CHEK-TV, August 14, 2009
Canwest – CHEK employee takeover proposed, August 1, 2009

But it is.

A couple of years ago pix of Disney starlet Vanessa Hudgens, nekked as a jaybird,  hit the net.

Up until then, only a few teenyboppers knew who she was. But the nude photographs catapulted her to instant worldwide fame — to the benefit of Disney.

Now, “With another batch of racy pics of the 20-year-old High School Musical star hitting the web today, Ms. Hudgens finds herself facing Nudie Controversy 2.0,” says E! Online, going on:

“While her camp is staying mum, sources confirm to me that it’s definitely Hudgens in the pics.”

But they were, “apparently taken before her first naked photo controversy erupted nearly two years ago,” says the story.

“She hasn’t done anything like that since the first ones came out. These new ones are actually old.”

Oh.

The pic on the left is from the first exposure.

Also see Vanessa Hudgens as a naked hooker.

No need to stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

nekked as a jaybird – Vanessa Hudgens: naked again, September 21, 2007
E! Online – Hudgens: The Real Story on Latest Nude Pics,  August 5, 2009

Staff at CHEK-TV, based in Victoria, BC’s capital, had pink slips on Wednesday, along with the news the station is closing down after more than 50 years of delivering news and local programming.

“About 80 Canwest Global employees will lose their jobs as of Aug. 31 after the company closes two of its television stations,” says the Daily News, going on:

“Canwest Global announced Wednesday that financial losses at CHEK-TV and Canwest’s Red Deer station prompted the decision. The company’s Kelowna station will become part of Canwest Global’s larger Global television operations.”

Nanaimo journalist Kendall Hanson heard the news late yesterday morning, says the story, quoting him as stating:

“Even though the writing has been on the wall for some time, it’s still hard to believe it would come to this.

“CHEK News has been a pillar on Vancouver Island for a long time. It’s difficult to see how a station with such good ratings will close.”

It was British Columbia’s first private television station, signing on the air as a CBC affiliate on December 1, 1956, says the Wikipedia.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Daily News – CHEK TV is going off-air, July 23, 2009

Last week, Canada’s broadcast regulator issued a decision that will bring the era of free local television to an end for many Canadians. Whether through the elimination of local over-the-air broadcasts or via additional cable or satellite charges to cover a new fee-for-carriage system, free is out and new fees are in.

The changes are the result of two policy decisions by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.  First, the CRTC set the ground rules for the digital transition of Canadian broadcasting by determining that many Canadian communities are likely to lose their over-the-air signal as part of the change.

In just over two years, Canada is scheduled to bring its television broadcast system into the digital world with a mandated conversion from analog to digital.  The move is long overdue (the United States completed its transition last month) and will bring considerable benefits by introducing greater broadcast efficiencies and freeing up valuable spectrum that can be used for new wireless services.

Canadian broadcasters have resisted investing in the new digital transmitters, however, claiming that the additional costs are difficult to justify given the shrinking market share of over-the-air broadcasting.

With less than 10 percent of Canadians still relying on over-the-air signals (most use a broadcast distributor such as a cable or satellite provider), the broadcasters argued that the digital transition was economically viable only in major markets.

The CRTC largely agreed, ruling that broadcasters are expected to convert to digital transmitters only in major markets, which it defined as “the national capital and all provincial and territorial capital cities, as well as markets either served by multiple originating stations (including CBC stations) or with populations greater than 300,000.”

In Ontario, that covers Toronto, Hamilton, Barrie, Ottawa, London, Windsor, and Kitchener.  It excludes several important communities such as Kingston, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay.  Moreover, nationally every province has its share of exclusions, including Kelowna, Abbotsford, Red Deer, and Brandon.

As some communities face the prospect of losing their over-the-air signal, cable and satellite subscribers should prepare for paying for local signals.  After twice rejecting requests for a fee-for-carriage system for local broadcasts, last week the CRTC reversed course. Cable companies and their subscribers pay for premium channels such as TSN or CNN, but local signals are carried without compensation, resulting in a broadcaster-led campaign in support of the imposition of new fees for carrying the local signal.

The Commission did not set a fee, but it did order both the broadcasters and broadcast distributors to negotiate a settlement.  If the two sides are unable to do so, it promised to arbitrate a solution.

The policy reversal – coming just days after a House of Commons committee declined to establish fee-for-carriage – is sure to set off a battle between broadcasters who argue that the fees are needed for their long-term sustainability and the cable and satellite providers, who view it as a cash-grab that could add $6 per month onto many cable bills.

As that fight unfolds, it is Canadian consumers who find themselves stuck in the middle, with some paying more for the same services and others about to lose access to broadcasts altogether.

Michael Geist – Michael Geist’s Blog
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist @ uottawa dot ca]

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

July, 2009

While TiVo has certainly been winning this battle, it appears now that TiVo wants $1 Billion dollars, that’s with a B, from EchoStar in a sealed motion demanding sanctions for contempt and a permanent injunction.

While typical competition improves the final product and the customer benefits, it doesn’t seem to be the avenue of least resistance when it comes to huge corporations and their share-holders. Absolute market dominance is the trend of late, and the leverage of preferences is now a battalion of lawyers to extract every ounce of blood possible.

Marshall, Texas seems to be the venue of choice lately for litigation concerning patents and infringement on patents, and nobody knows this better than TiVo, who recently bought a cow in efforts for forward its’ agenda in this particular arena.

While the constituents of Texas are overjoyed that their prized Grand Champion Steer auctioned off in the Harrison County Cattlemen’s Ball went for a whopping $10,000 dollars, I fail to see how this improves relations with the rest of TiVo’s customers.

You can’t make this shit up!

surfer
Share The Wealth!

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

July, 2009

It’s a “nod that migration of content viewing is rapidly moving online and to the mobile phone,” says the Associated Press.

A nod? Rapidly moving? ROTFL.

“It’s clearly something demanded by consumers,” according to Time Warner boss Jeff Bewkes, “If this approach gets adopted … it will go past broadcast viewing (online), which is basically three networks on Hulu.”

The test will involve 5,000 Comcast customers who’ll get access to Turner Broadcastin’s TNT and TBS cable networks, says the story.

“Most cable shows are not available online,” unless they’re versions viewers share with each other over the Internet,” says AP with a straight face, adding:

“Time Warner and Comcast say that a successful outcome of their trial would open the floodgates for shows currently not easily accessible or available – such as full hours of CNN’s Larry King Live – for over 90 percent of households that pay for TV.”

And here’s the punchline:

“Bewkes and Roberts also said they’ll work on ramping up advertising deals for online video as a way to supplement the subscriptions viewers pay for TV.”

Jeez, they never give up, do they?

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Associated Press – Time Warner, Comcast to start online video trials, June 24, 2009

He’s seen on the right in a clip from one of his most recent appearances in two viral rap videos for a financial web site.

He was close to losing his Beverly Hills mansion, “the latest in a string of money woes that includes nearly $800,000 in court judgments,” said the Daily News.

“McMahon was Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show sidekick from 1962 until Carson retired in 1992,” says EW.com, adding:

“In addition to providing a ‘human laugh track’ for Carson, McMahon announced the host each night with his now-iconic phrase, ‘Heeeeeere’s Johnny’!”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

rap videos – Ed McMahon, credit bureau ‘viral rapper’, said September 25, 2008
Daily News – Hard times for Ed McMahon: fighting foreclosure on Beverly Hills home, June 5, 2008
EW.com - Ed McMahon dies at age 86, June 23, 2009

“From July, more than 4,000 hours of the channel’s archived content – about 10,000 programme titles – will be added to the 4oD catchup service,” says The Guardian, going on:

“There will be a selection of episodes of the now defunct soap Brookside, featuring what it calls its ‘most important storylines’, including the infamous body under the patio and the first lesbian kiss to be shown before the 9pm watershed. Six million viewers tuned in to see Anna Friel’s character, Beth Jordache, lock lips with Margaret Clemence, played by Nicola Stephenson, for eight seconds in 1993.”

Catchup currently offers viewers programmes for 30 days after they broadcast, ands the move, “could put pressure on the BBC, which offers programmes via its iPlayer service for only seven days after they air,” says the story.

But not all of 4’s content will be available online, “because of rights or legal issues,” says The Guardian, adding:

“US shows such as Friends will not be included, nor will Channel 4 News, because some bought-in news clips form part of a rights agreement which only allows the broadcaster to show them up to midnight on the day of transmission.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

The Guardian – Channel 4 to put back catalogue online for free, June 7, 2009