Importance of understanding District Magnitude within #EngagedInER discussions

I find the material on the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and Australian Malcolm Baalman's On Elections site far more informative than what can be seen on the (self-called) "Fair Vote Canada" site which is seen as Canada's primary promoter of Proportional Representation.

Once people move past thinking that Proportional Representation is a description of what they want, rather than only a description of what they don't want (single-member electoral districts), we can move to discussing some of the more critical questions.

• Do we want a system which satisfies only those who believe parties represent us, those who believe individual people represent us, or both? (See: PR doesn't necessarily "make every vote count").
• Do we want a system which only looks at the House of Commons, or do we want to look at the senate as well?  (Example: Bicameral Mixed-member Proportional Representation, or other proposals to have an elected Senate)
• Should the "District Magnitude" be fixed, or something that is made appropriate to the interests of specific districts?

It is this last question I think we need to discuss more than I've seen thus far.  From the PRSA:

DEFINITION: District magnitude is the number of representatives that voters in a particular electoral district are entitled to elect. In systems that use single-member electoral districts, the district magnitude is 1. At the other extreme, with party list systems, in which MPs are not directly elected, as in Israel and the Netherlands - where the whole nation is a single lower house electoral district - the district magnitude can equal the number of MPs in that house.

People have done the math on optimizing parliamentary representation.  As one example The Principles of Parliamentary Representation from 1884 suggested a mathematical optimal DM was 6.  The PSRA suggests that more modern analysis recommends an odd number be used.  (And yes, that is 1884 not long after Canada became a country in 1867, a reminder of just how out-of-date the First Past the Post system some Canadians seem to be nostalgic about really is.)

I do not, however, believe that mathematics alone should be determining the DM, and other regional factors should be included.

I grew up in Sudbury, which is in Northern Ontario.  While I moved to Ottawa when I was 19, I have kept family and other ties and remember the political climate as I was growing up.

Northerners don't trust the political views of southerners, and don't believe that they can represent them.   While I was on the "yes" side of the Ontario electoral reform referendum in 2007, I became quite aware that Notherners were strongly on the "no" side.  They believed that MMP would dilute their influence, both by increasing the size of ridings (they believed that the extra seats granted to Northern Ontario would be removed by the system) as well as their belief that "Southern Ontario political parties" couldn't represent them.  They didn't see the possibility that those 30% party seats could represent Northerners, so saw this as a Southern Ontario power grab.

Whether I agreed or disagreed with those sentiments doesn't matter.  What this did suggest to me was that if the government is to be seen as legitimate for the entire country that these regional differences must be accommodated.

A District Magnitude Proposal

An ideal system might be one where the District Magnitude is determined by the districts themselves.  District boundaries would be decided by Elections Canada as it is now, but whether neighboring districts would bind themselves to create a larger district magnitude would be locally decided.

The BC STV proposal had the Electoral Boundaries Commission decide the boundaries for the province-wide single member system (still First Past the Post) as well as the multi-member proposal (STV, but  with varying rather than fixed district magnitudes).  Under the BC STV proposal, some districts would remain single-member districts but with the use of the ranked ballot being province-wide.

With all the misinformation presented by Fair Vote Canada and others about single-member ranked ballots, fair discussion of a system which includes a mixture of single-member and multi-member districts becomes much harder.  Unfortunately, without allowing for the possibility of districts which for local reasons don't want to be multi-member we will always have disagreements.

I believe leaving the district magnitude up to the districts themselves would avoid this problem.  In larger urban areas, the areas that tend to most favor PR, the district magnitude will be high.  In remote or rural areas where the districts represent a massive geographic region, the district magnitude will be lower.  I do not believe this is something that urban areas should be imposing on rural/remote areas.

With this context we can more reasonably decide if we want to put restrictions on local district organizing.

• Is a district magnitude of 1 disallowed, or only discouraged?  I believe it should be allowed to accommodate the interests of rural/remote areas, but this appears to be divisive.  I am curious to hear from someone from outside of a urban area that wishes to disallow this option?
• Should district magnitudes being odd be enforced, or only encouraged?

Critical differences in forms of proportional representation

While not the primary topic of this post, I want to ensure anyone who supports PR is aware that there are wide differences in systems which fall under that umbrella.  PRSA has the following to say about STV, known there as Hare-Clark:

HARE-CLARK: Proportional representation using the single transferable vote is the only form of PR where the person elected is directly elected by the voters. Therefore the voters have  ultimate control over who is elected, as in the Tasmanian and Australian Capital Territory Assemblies, which use the superior Hare-Clark electoral system. In Australia's upper houses, however, political parties' self-serving overlays of stage management and regimented voting arrangements have been imposed, in a fairly effective attempt to reduce that control.

 For those concerned with the divisive nature of the recent US presidential election, they should be aware that it is the addition of indirection between voters that is at the root of much of the ongoing controversy.  In the US system they have an Electoral College for electing their President which in most states is non-proportional, and is stage managed to protect the bipartisan interests of the two large political parties.  Introducing political parties onto a Canadian ballot would bring us closer to the flaws we see within the US system by introducing an indirection between voters and representation in parliament.  While this additional indirection between voters and parliament is a feature of many forms of PR such as MMP, it is not a feature of STV.

We have the additional issue in Canada which is that we don't have a separate executive branch voted indirectly by citizens, but a system where members of parliament vote in the government.  In a well functioning Westminster system it is possible for the Prime Minister and/or the government to change without forcing a general election, offering more stable government.  Giving political parties seats in the House of Commons means there is yet another level of indirection from voters where parties rather than voters have additional influence.

While some organizations involved in electoral reform are only concerned about the fate of political parties in elections, there are other people who consider the influence of political parties on our democracy to be a critical problem that needs to be addressed. (See: On Elections: Elections should serve voters, not parties).

Fair Vote Canada gets US presidential election problems wrong

After the US election, Fair Vote Canada sent out an email blast that declared "The U.S. first-past-the-post system just elected the wrong winner".

Hillary Clinton got 47.7% of the vote.
Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote.
Donald Trump won the U.S. Presidency. 

Their misrepresentation of what happened in the US is important for deciding if they should be trusted to advise Canada.

How the Presidency is decided

While FPTP is used for other races in the election, it is the Electoral College that decides the US Presidency. Each US State is allocated a number of college votes that are not strictly based on the population of the state. Some states use a "winner take all" where they allocate all electoral college votes to one candidate, while a few allocate them proportionally.  The names that are on the ballot, ignoring write-ins which can't win, are names put forward by political parties. The names which are on the ballots in all states come from the two large political parties who in a bipartisan way run the elections (including televised debates).

The system used to determine the executive branch is not first past the post as most know it, but a system managed by political parties and determined by an electoral college.

Abolish the electoral college?

Fair Vote Canada appears to dislike a system where the person who won the popular vote isn't the person who won the election.  This means that they want to abolish the Electoral College, as a number of people have proposed over the years (and should continue to be pushed).

What would remain is a more common First Past the Post system.  It is odd to see this being the focus of what they thought was wrong,  suggesting Fair Vote Canada would prefer they used First Past the Post.

A proportional Presidency?

The Presidency is a single position, where that person (or realistically, that team) then appoints positions to be filled for the executive branch of government.  It is not the voting system which makes it "winner takes all", but the fact that there is only a single position available : there is only one thing to win.

In order to have a proportional system you need to have more seats with equivalent power to be filled.  Once you have grown the Presidency from a single position to enough seats to be proportional, you might as well have the existing congress (Senate, House, or both) take over the power of the executive branch.  They could select a subset of people to be the executive, much like how our parliamentary system allocates a subset of lower-house representatives to form cabinet.

While FVC weren't clear about what they meant, which I find to be typical in their mailings (more emotion than substance), Fair Vote Canada might be advocating for abolishing of the position of US President.

The real warning to take away from the US election

More influential this election than the electoral college was corruption within the political parties.  Back-room bureaucrats inside the DNC decided early in the primaries who their candidate would be and manipulated the process to ensure that their candidate won -- against the democratic wishes of the "Democrat" party membership.  The corruption was so bad that many Bernie Sanders supporters couldn't hold their nose and vote for the candidate the corrupt party nominated and either didn't vote or voted for "the other candidate".

The fact that Donald Trump won the nomination in a party where the establishment didn't want him to win suggests the RNC was less corrupt this election, but that is not a reason to be less concerned about corruption in political parties.

The fact that these two widely disliked candidates were what US citizens had to choose between, with the most credible candidates weeded out in the primaries within the political parties, is where the focus should be.

What the US presidential election should be is a warning to Canada about the corruption that can and does happen within political parties, and suggest that Canada reject any voting system which puts political parties on the ballot. While FVC is a big fan of Mixed Member Proportional which adds a vote for a party to the ballot, the US election demonstrates how such a system would be a harmful choice.

Appropriate US electoral modernization

While Canada badly needs electoral modernization, the US needs it even more. What they can do without is taking advise from one-trick ponies like Fair Vote Canada.  Fair Vote Canada is only willing to advocate for proportional representation even when it is an inappropriate option - like only having a hammer, and pretending that everything is a nail.

The top problems I see in the voting for the US executive branch are:

• Political Parties
• Money claimed to be "free speech"
• Vote splitting
• Electoral College

If I were to recommend a system it would be one which removes political parties and money from the election for the executive branch, abolishes the electoral college, and uses a system of runoff voting.

While instant runoff (ranked ballots, Alternate Vote) is cheaper as you only need to run one election, some countries use a two-round system, while votes for leaders of Canadian political parties tend to use exhaustive ballots (keep voting until someone wins majority).

This would mean more than 2 names on the ballot, and would likely favor candidates (teams) which are independent of the two largest political parties. These independent Presidents would likely work better across partisan political lines within Congress.

Fair Vote Canada dislikes Alternate Vote for reasons which don't hold up to scrutiny. Since they are more concerned about how political parties do in elections than making the voting system fair, they would oppose this obvious suggestion.

Since the US has a bicameral legislature with a Senate and House of Representatives they have an opportunity to explore appropriate voting systems for those two houses.  It might be that some form or party based ballot makes sense for one of those houses, but not both -- and clearly it is an entirely inappropriate suggestion for the Presidency.

Making sense of the #Netflix, ISP, ICT #DigiCanCon tax

There are a number of people active in the DigiCanCon debate that are claiming that Netflix isn't paying its fair share of taxes and also that Internet Service Providers (often meaning Internet transit routing providers, or access providers) and other parts of the Information and Communications Technology industry should pay special taxes to subsidize the content industry.

As there are a wide variety of issues being lumped together, I'll try to break them down and comment on each individually to make sense of them.  The types I have seen so far are as follows:

• GST/HST issues
• Canadian Media Fund contributions
• Copyright levies on content distribution mechanisms
• Because the ICT industries somehow owes the content industry

GST/HST issues

There are many flaws with the GST/HST, but I'm confused what these flaws have to do with a Heritage Canada consultation, the content industry, or parts of the ICT industries.  When people say they are against a Netflix tax, this is not what they are talking about.

There is an important matter of the perception of fairness, whether or not the amount of money is small.  There is no reason for Netflix to be called out as if they are somehow being dishonest when it comes to taxes.  Netflix should be treated as any other company offering a subscription to a digital multimedia library.  They should be treated as any other company headquartered outside of Canada that does business with many Canadians.   They should not be taxed as if they were delivering a physical product across the boarder as they are not.  They should not be taxed if if they were broadcasting as they are not.

Much of the rhetoric on GST/HST has little to do with taxes, and everything to do with trying to find fault with a foreign headquartered company providing Canadians (including content creators) an extremely valuable service.  One, I might add, that Canadian companies part of the vertically  integrated and concentrated Canadian media companies aren't even trying to offer.

If any Federal Minister outside the Finance minister should be active on the HST file, it should be the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Honourable Catherine McKenna.  We need to modernize tax policies to make repair cheaper than replacement, and one way is to increase taxes on products (the "Goods" part of GST) and remove taxes on services.  We should be encouraging digital distribution over the manufacture and distribution of physical product.

When the HST replaced the GST this increased taxes on services, when a much more environmentally responsibly policy would have been to remove services from HST entirely.

The payment of a membership fee that grants network access to a multimedia library is a service that I believe shouldn't be paying HST, while the manufacture of physical media and distribution via physical transport of physical media (a DVD rental service, like Netflix did in the past) should.

Canadian Media Fund

This is a fund established by the CRTC to levy broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) as well as receiving money from the department of Canadian Heritage (Canadian federal taxpayers).  As Netflix and ISPs are not BDUs, that should be the end of the conversation but it hasn't been.  There are those who are suggesting that the mandate of the CRTC should be expanded to collect levies from industries which are outside what the CRTC would normally be regulating such that entities which aren't broadcasters, BDUs, or telecommunications companies can contribute to the CTF.

In a longer submission that included 30 DigiCanCon ideas I suggested this is a counterproductive proposal.  Rather than expanding the role of the CRTC, all funding programs should be removed from the CRTC.  A funding program like the CMF should exist as far as the destination of funding is concerned, but the source should be tax money accountably flowing through Heritage Canada.

Some funding recipients don't like this idea as they are worried about ongoing cuts to government funding programs.  What they are essentially asking for is for their funding to be less visible and thus less accountable to Canadian taxpayers.  Rather than trying to get funding under the table they should be doing more to promote their value to Canadians.  This includes reducing animosity with the public, a topic I'll be discussing later in this posting.

Copyright levies on content distribution mechanisms

This is a close relative to the existing Private Copying regime that levies audio recording media for the purpose of compensating music authors, performers and makers of sound recordings for activities which would otherwise require permission under copyright.  The idea would be to extend a similar levy to other distribution mechanisms such as the Internet itself, applicable to a larger range of copyrighted works.

I believe the government, possibly outside of the Department of Canadian Heritage, should study the impact of the existing regime before contemplating a new one.  While this regime is claimed to increase revenues to creators, all evidence I've seen is that it reduces revenues.

• Indirect statistics based on different content distribution mechanisms are used to distribute royalties, so the wrong copyright holders are compensated.  This creates a disincentive for new entrants, and is generally unfair.
• The regime is hard to explain, and audiences presume it covers more than it does, so the regime induces copyright infringement
• The more types of copyrighted works that are included, the larger the levy, and the more visible the levy will be to audiences
• Levy redistribution will be primarily to the already richest copyright holding groups.  It won't be the small musician or literary author that will be receiving money, but the existing large business software and entertainment software industries, and motion picture and television studios.
• The more visible the levy, the more audiences will feel they have already paid for the content, and the more likely they are to do activities they are even aware infringe copyright.

This has been a discussion for decades, and I answered in the digital-copyright.ca forum a question about this in October.  I even debated the policy with Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister at the time when the regime was implemented in Canada.  She always had a closed mind about the subject, never being willing to study to determine the level of harm it was causing to the music industry.

I have for decades suggested that strong stable funding directed at Canadian artists, direct from funding agencies manged by each level of government, is the best solution for taxpayers and for fellow creators.  In the context of the existing Private Copying regime I suggested it be replaced with a regime modeled after the Public Lending Right.  I strongly opposed the counter-productive proposal of extending the existing levy from blank media to ICT devices, and obviously oppose this type of levy being applied to the Internet.

While I'm convinced we need to expand government funding programs for Canadian creators, I believe any tie to any distribution mechanism or technology is counterproductive.  Special taxes or levies on distribution systems, media or devices will induce audiences to activities considered infringement, whether or not the new tax/levy comes with a change in the copyright act to exempt any activities.

Because the ICT industries somehow owes the content industry

Possibly the most infuriatingly misinformed comment made during these consultations was from the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself.

Thoughtful words from @patrickwatson "Without culture, nobody would be on the internet" #DigiCanCon #cdnpoli https://t.co/jRr5w7eXoy

— Mélanie Joly (@melaniejoly) October 29, 2016

This received many replies from people reminding the Minister that accessing the products of the cultural industries represent only one of an infinite number of activities carried out on the Internet.  The idea appeared to be new to the Minister, but it is all to familiar to anyone who has been involved in this area of policy for even the smallest amount of time.


We have been having this debate since the creation of the printing press, through player pianos and audio and video recording, to digital editing and distribution technologies, past the Internet and onward to the wide variety of technologies that have emerged in recent years and will emerge in the future.

The cultural industries owe their success, and in most cases their very existence, to advances in information and communications technology.  As each technology has been invented the artists and industries formed around those artists have opposed the new technology or any changes it might bring.  This has been true even when it is clear that the new technology will greatly benefit the cultural industry.

This round we don't have people claiming that our "vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape" as John Philip Sousa claimed about recording technology, but the emotion being expressed seems to have the same basis.  At least we are only taking about inappropriate taxes on technology, rather than even more harmful attempts to control ("technological measures" inappropriately added to copyright law) or outlaw advances in technology.

If we did a fair and full accounting of "who benefit from who", I believe it would easily be found that the cultural industry owe more to the technology industry than the other way around.  And yet it has been the cultural industry that has been allowed by government to demand compensation from, and in far too many cases allowed control over, the ICT industry.


It is not the amount of the money that is the issue, so this is not about a possible small increase in the costs of Internet access or Netflix media library subscription fees.

As a taxpayer I am quite willing to pay more in general taxes to all levels of government that flows into funding programs for the arts.

As a software author, system administrator managing Internet connected servers, and part of the ICT sector my entire career I am continuously offended by those in the cultural sectors who believe the ICT sector somehow owes them something because of some odd perception on their part that we wronged them.

This discussion only creates animosity between sectors that should be working together, and is an animosity that the Government of Canada (and specifically the department of Canadian Heritage) should be actively seeking to minimize  rather than inflame.  This animosity can only be detrimental to creating a cultural ecosystem in which Canadian artists, content creators and cultural entrepreneurs can thrive -- or any of the other stated goals of the consultation.

I've spent decades involved in the copyright reform process trying to protect the interests of independent creators including software authors.  While I find infringing copyright offensive, I understand how frustrated some in the ICT sector and many in the general public feel when this blame game crops up again and again.  I know that if the Heritage Minister approves a special tax/levy on the Internet that is directed to funding programs for Canadian creators that this will backfire through inducing more copyright infringement.  This perpetuates a vicious circle where the increased infringement will further be blamed on technology rather than on the harmful rhetoric as well as failed policies and business models of the cultural sector itself.

Note: I'm not suggesting every company in the ICT sector is innocent of harm to creators, but rather than Netflix and independent ISPs they should be going after companies like Bell, Rogers and Telus.

Defend #DigiCanCon through Modern Management of Communications Convergence

The Canadian content in a digital world consultations are underway, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has indicated that everything is on the table.

Unfortunately there is a large group of people who have been dominating the consultation with what I would consider to be minor details of an issue that is far broader than they seem to be aware of.  Their focus has been sources of funding for creating Canadian content -- both on the variety of government programs as well as the ongoing claim that stronger copyright aimed at audiences will somehow better protect the economic interest of creators.  I believe discussing mandating Netflix become a contributor to the Canadian Media Fund is as helpful as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

These consultation participants appear to have missed the elephant in the room, which also represents the greatest threat to the interests of creators,  which is the concentration of vertically integrated communications companies.  I've been writing for years how these companies see creators as pawns, and they are quite willing to sacrifice the interests of creators in order to advance their conflicting interests.

I strongly believe the origins of this problem comes down to a failure in how the Canadian government managed the convergence of communications technology.

Communications Convergence

I have been excited about convergence since I first heard of the idea in the early 1990's.  The idea was that as communications technology moved digital we would be able to move to a neutral communications infrastructure rather than the purpose built analog networks of the past.

It always made me feel uncomfortable that we had one wire into our homes for two-way voice communication (telephone) and a separate wire for one-way video communication (cable TV).  I considered this an unfortunate side-effect of the technology of the day, and through convergence we would be able to build a communications system that was much more like our road system.  We did not build special medical roads you needed to use to get to hospitals separate from political roads you would need to get to city hall, which would also be separate from food roads used to get to get your groceries.  We had one road system that was managed by individuals (their driveways) and appropriate levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) that was agnostic to the specific source or destination.  We did not allow companies in the food industry to dictate road policy which would impact our ability (slower lanes, differentiated pricing, etc) to get to a hospital (or only the food industries preferred brand), or allow any specific industry to influence other industries that were built on the neutral road infrastructure.

One or two way voice or other audio communication, one or two way audio/video communication, queued text and other data communication (email/etc), and other services would all run on top of this neutral network. We would no longer need to care about what type of traffic was being routed -- only how much of it for capacity reasons as we do for our road system.

With the connection into our homes being neutral I also assumed we would finally end the communications exception.  All the other connections into our homes (water, sewer, natural gas, electricity) are managed by the public sector (most often distribution public sector, but contents private sector), while the purpose-built telephone and cable TV connections were managed by companies that thought of themselves as private sector.  While the companies representing these communications exceptions exist because of government largess (exceptions to property law for right-of way access, spectrum monopolies, considerable grants, and even specialized exceptions to copyright), they managed these networks for their own private gain often at the expense of wider public policy goals, the interests of other businesses in other sectors, and the interests of Canadian citizens.

Failed Government Policy

All the talk in the 90's about the "information superhighway" lulled me into a false confidence that the government saw a similar vision of managing our communications infrastructure as we do the road system. What emerged in Canada was the opposite in many ways.

Companies who previously offered telephone services now offer BDU services, and have purchased broadcasters, publishers and other media producers.  The same happened with BDU companies which now offer telephone services and own media producers.  While this transition was happening, the silos that exist within the CRTC made it incapable of properly regulating a "phone" company offering cable+data services or a "cable" company offering phone+data services. The CRTC had one part that dealt with broadcast companies and a different part that dealt with telecommunications companies, even though outside the agency in the real world these had converged.  Regulation needed to be for activities, not companies.

These new vertically integrated companies would leverage their claimed "ownership" of the underlying network to impose specific policies on the network.  These companies would privilege their brands of services over all competitors, and seek to block disruptive innovation.  I have always felt that phone and BDU companies are in a conflict of interest with providing proper Internet services and have always purchased my Internet from competitors to the vertically integrated telecom/BDU companies (as much as they are allowed to exist in Canada).  To do this the government still forces me to use the "last mile" into my home provided by a traditional "phone" or "cable" company, rather than being able to purchase neutral services over a municipally owned connection into my home.

To make matters worse, the CRTC was allowed to create and administrate funding programs.  While companies using public right-of-way for wired and public spectrum for wireless should always have been taxed for that privilege, the CRTC was the wrong agency to then be distributing these funds.  This created the environment for regulatory capture where the CRTC saw those it was funding as its stakeholders, rather than the public being stakeholders where some of those it was funding are the very entities the CRTC needs to more strongly be regulating.

Many creators have fallen into what can only be described as a form of Stockholm Syndrome, believing that what is good for the incumbent broadcasters and their owners is good for them.  I believe this is the source of the suggestion that the mandate of the CRTC should be further expanded to include taxing non-broadcast entities like Netflix to feed money into the Canadian Media Fund. While this expansion would help the owners of the incumbent broadcasters in their anti-competitive efforts to block non-vertically integrated companies from flourishing in Canada, it is to the detriment of independent creators whose ability to create is further manipulated by incumbent broadcasters/BDUs. Better for creators would be stable and accountable funding directly from government that is targeted at creators (and not intermediaries), and the removal of the conflict of interest created when the CRTC is involved in any funding programs.

We now have an open debate about whether we should be abolishing or reforming the CRTC. Unfortunately, without common ground on what should replace the CRTC I worry that a regulatory vacuum will be created which will make the existing policy failings leading to excessive special economic interest control over Canada's communications infrastructure even worse.

(See CRTC transcript from 2009 when I was a witness on what I consider to be the same same area of policy. At that time they called it the "value for signal" consultation.)

Consultation questions

Whether I am reading the 3 questions in the "have your say" section of the consultation website, or reading the "pillars of the approach" from the consultation paper, I feel much is dependent on a more modern management of communications convergence.  While the Canadian Media Concentration Research (CMCR) project discusses some of the impacts of media concentration in Canada, I believe policy makers should at least in the short term focus closely at some of the root causes rather than being overly distracted by the effects.

I disagree with those who suggest media concentration is no longer relevant in the age of the Internet, a perspective that appears to presume convergence happened the way I believed it would in the early 1990's rather than how it actually occurred in Canada.  We need to recognize this open competitive marketplace that is in the control of individual citizens as a goal to achieve, not a reflection of the current state of affairs.

Media concentration is not an effect of a free market, but an effect of failed government policy which has continuously manipulated the market to favor incumbents.  These failed policies must be corrected in order to support creators, respect citizens, create cultural systems where creators and citizens thrive, and promote a strong democracy.

Policy ideas

1. Much of the required modernization of policy is outside of the jurisdiction of Heritage Canada.  This is an area of policy that requires coordination between multiple departments and multiple levels of government.  Having Heritage recognize the benefits of a modern management of communications convergence is an important first step as Heritage policy has often been at odds with this beneficial modernization.
2. As single entities can carry out some, all, or a combination of communications activities, activities should be taxed and regulated rather than the entities as a whole.  When an entity is carrying out activities which are "broadcasting" then that activity should be regulated as broadcasting. When an entity is carrying out activities which are more like offering membership to a library of multimedia content, then that activity should be regulated as such.  When an entity is carrying out "retransmission" that activity should be regulated as such.  When an entity is carrying out two-way voice communication that interfaces with the PSTN as managed through the ITU, then that activity should be regulated as such.  (These are only examples of the higher profile activities, and should not be thought of as exhaustive)
3. For clarity, Netflix offers a service which is a paid membership to a library of multimedia content. Netflix continues to have more in common with the DVD rental system it originated as than broadcasting, and its activities should be taxed and regulated for what it actually does and not for what people (often misinformed by special interests representing BDUs) misunderstand them to be. Claiming services like Netflix are broadcasting "because video is put on a screen" is like claiming that Netflix is a video game which also puts video on the screen. Given many people use game consoles to watch Netflix, is this further proof that Netflix is a video game and should be regulated/taxed like one?
4. The definition of "broadcasting" should be clarified to include programmed streams of audio or video (where the broadcaster makes the content choices and pushes the same content stream to multiple recipients), but to not include private or public access to audio and/or video libraries (where the audience makes the content choices, and pulls contents from the library).  Whether this communication happens "by radio waves or other means of telecommunication" should not be the determining factor if an activity is labeled as broadcasting or not given the underlying digital network is "by radio waves or other means of telecommunication".
5. The Canadian Content quota systems should be applied in direct proportion to the strength of the gatekeeper function of the activity being regulated. An activity which programs what is seen by Canadians, and/or at what time, especially on a technology with limited or monopolized spectrum, would be highly regulated. An activity which allows Canadians to make their own content programming choices would be minimally regulated (if at all). (See also DigiCanCon idea: Return CanCon policy to being centered on Canadian audiences)
6. Government regulations, including any Canadian Content quota system should never be abused to impose culture on Canadians. Regulations should be used to protect the right of individual Canadian citizens to make their own choices about what products of the cultural industries they wish to access, specifically regulating intermediaries that limit that right. Recognize that citizen choice protects creator rights (DigiCanCon idea).
7. Canadian Content quota regulations should not be narrowly applied only to specific types of activities (broadcasting), but any type of content distribution which is seen to have excessive influence over what content Canadians can access.  In some cases, the placement of promotional material by retailers like Walmart should be considered for Canadian Content quotas, or the production of plays in a theater.  As the regulation would no longer be specific to entities regulated by the CRTC, the Canadian Content quota system should be moved from the CRTC to an appropriate regulatory body or branch of Canadian Heritage. (Note: The quota system may be abolished entirely if untested experimental non-free trade policy such as seen within the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified in Canada).
8. Broadcast standards (whether government or self-enforced) should only be applied to the activity of broadcasting where content is programmed and pushed to audiences, and not to activities where audiences make their own programming choices.
9. While non-broadcast activities should not be expected to (or possibly even allowed to) edit or filter content (such as for adult themes, profanity, nudity, violence, or sex), these activities should be mandated to use robust content descriptors.  The MPAA rating system should not be considered sufficient (G, PG, 14A, 18A, R, Adult), but require a system which is more specific such as being developed for pay television (indicates "Adult Content", "Adult Language", "Graphic Language" as separate descriptors). Some regulation may be required of those offering hardware/software to access these services to expose the ratings as well as offer client-side filtering controlled by individual audiences. Clear labeling of technology that doesn't offer robust parental controls should be required.
10. Whatever the future of the CRTC, we need to remove any funding programs.  This should not be done by canceling the Canadian Media Fund but by replacing with an accountable and transparent fund administrated by Heritage Canada rather than the CRTC. The sources of funding should be from the use of public infrastructure (more on spectrum and right-of-way taxation later) and general revenue.
11. The target of media funds intended to support creativity should be to content creators, and not intermediaries or non-creator copyright holding entities. Public contributions should be conditional on the wide public access of the results, such that content that is intended to be tied to a specific distribution brand would be eligible for less public funding than content that will be distribution brand neutral. (DigiCanCon idea: Ensure results of government subsidized creativity is available to all Canadians)
12. The "broadcast" and content creation aspects of the CBC should be separated. Public subsidies to the broadcasting arm should be focused on those geographic areas where OTA broadcasting is still a critically important way to reach Canadians.  In this CBC radio is far more important than CBC television.  Content created by the CBC such as scripted programming should be neutral in how it is distributed, and specific distribution brands should not be allowed to be favored. 
13. If distribution of content is to be taxed it should be done fairly and consistently. It must not be based on people incorrectly believing any specific distribution is like broadcast TV. 
14. If a private sector company is granted right-of-way to put wires above and below public and private property, they should be expected to compensate the public for that privilege in the form of specialized taxes and licensing fees.  The same should be true of over-the-air spectrum. Currently spectrum licensing (IE: government granting and protecting a monopoly on the use of specific radio frequencies) is inappropriately hidden in general revenue, rather than being earmarked for communications related funding programs including infrastructure and media funds.  Payments should not be one-time, but ongoing as the public resource (right-of-way or spectrum) is used. Spectrum which has been been granted a monopoly and unused should be taxed at a higher rate than spectrum actively used to provide services to the public. 
15. Private sector users of right-of-way or spectrum should be strongly regulated, including mandating competitive third party access to service agnostic (neutral) networks.  The underlying digital networks should be presumed to be under common carriage policy which requires they offer services to the public without discrimination.
16. Canada should remove monopolies from more spectrum.  So-called "unlicensed" spectrum which is available to be used by any vendor as long as they follow specific technical regulatory requirements provides far more opportunity for innovation.  The idea that spectrum needs to be granted as a monopoly to be useful is outdated as modern technology allows for far more efficient use of "unlicensed" spectrum than monopolized spectrum.  WiFi is one well known example, but we could see far more, faster, better wireless communications services if spectrum was not being monopolized.
17. All parts of government must recognize that the narrow policy areas they have traditionally been involved in (Heritage Canada's preoccupation with commercially created cultural works) is only a small part of what the network is used for.  It is simply wrong to claim that nobody would use the Internet if not for movies, TV and music. This is no more true than a claim it is only a replacement for letters and postcards (email, etc), only for electronic commerce, only for academic research, only for medical information, only for interacting with government services, or an infinite number of other uses a neutral network can provide.  No one sector should be allowed to manipulate the underlying network to privilege their private interests, and no government department should regulate and/or tax the network as if it were only used for the narrow purposes that fall within the mandate of that department.
18. Government manipulations of the ICT sectors allegedly for the benefit of the content industry, such as legal protection for encrypted media and non-owner locks on technology (so-called "technological measures"), have a profound impact on other aspects of our society.  As one small example, non-owner locks on devices make those devices insecure from the perspective of their owners and allows the third party manufacturers who retain keys to remotely control devices. This has a direct implication for policy proposals such as online voting (DigiCanCon idea)
19. As the Internet is used across all sectors, and has impacted all sectors, it must not be taxed to cross-subsidize sectors impacted by it.  This is counterproductive policy that will either lead to unfairness (only a tiny subset impacted receiving compensation) or would make digital services too expensive for any Canadians to afford.  
20. Much of the content industry owes its success, and in many cases its very existence, to advances in information and communications technology (ICT).  The ICT industry has never suggested the content industry be taxed or levied in order to compensate the ICT industry.  This is as appropriate a proposal as suggesting that all or parts of the ICT sector should be taxed or levied to subsidize the content industry. While I believe the content industry has benefit more from advances in ICT than ICT has benefit from the content industry, I believe this question is counter-productive as it creates animosity between sectors which should be collaborating for the benefit of all citizens.
21. For clarity, while private sector entities using right-of-way or spectrum should be taxed for that privilege, and some of that money might be allocated to media funds, entities providing services on top of that network should not be taxed to contribute to those funds.  We should not be taxing companies offering Internet routing services.  While the incumbent vertically integrated companies have been deliberately blurring the lines between what is the converged neutral network and "over the top" services (including competitive ISP services), government regulation and taxation needs to be more nuanced in order to promote a competitive marketplace which includes fair taxation policy. (No ISP or Netflix tax.)
22. If a "Netflix" tax is created (and it should not), it must be conditional on results being available through Netflix. (DigiCanCon idea)
23. The government must do proper analysis on the blank media levy (Canadian Private Copying regime) before contemplating any levy related to digital distribution.  While some claim these levy systems increase revenues to creators, all evidence I have seen suggests this reduces revenues to creators. This question has not been properly studied by the Canadian government, and we need to be making evidence based decision making.
24. Canada should recognize the benefits of what convergence could have brought us, and create regulations and funding programs to help modernize our communications infrastructure in that direction.  This should include tax and regulatory policy to minimize control over the underlying network infrastructure by favoring independent services and reducing harmful influence by specific sectors (such as traditional BDU or phone service providers).
    
25. Laws should be clarified such that a municipality contemplating providing communications infrastructure cannot be claimed to be in competition with private sector companies and disallowed, but actively encouraged.  A model would be how electricity is managed in Ontario where generation is private sector but distribution is public sector. Municipalities should be encouraged to build communications infrastructure, including by receiving infrastructure money and not being taxed as private sector entities would. All public sector entities should be actively discouraged (legislated against?) providing services on top (Internet transit, audio and/or video services other than of government business such as council meetings, etc). The network should be neutral, allowing any entity that follows specific regulatory requirements to provide over the top services via this network.  While this public sector provision of the underlying network wouldn't be taxed as the private sector would be, it should still be regulated to ensure it remains service agnostic, neutral, and follow common carriage policies.
26. All levels of government should recognize that all digital services are "over the top" of the underlying digital network. Current policy inappropriately privileges specific products from vertically integrated brands and treats services from competing brands as "over the top". The technological differences between Netflix and Bell's IPTV (FibeTV) service are minor and primarily relate to network addressing and routing.  The private network routed services of the vertically integrated companies should be regulated the same as third party services operating over digital networks.  (Note: While Netflix offers access to a media library, and Bell's FibeTV offers both retransmission and media library features, there are aspects of Bell's service such as its network PVR which needs to be given special attention.  I'm also not convinced Bell's access to media libraries are being appropriately regulated.)
27. Canada needs to recognize that the core of the "Network Neutrality", as well as the current differential pricing debate in front of the CRTC, are effects of failed management of convergence and vertical integration.  If we had truly competitive service providers which weren't able to manipulate one service area based on the special interests of another service area we wouldn't have these controversies. These are market failures that could be solved by proper application of competition policy and other public policy which favor service agnostic networks that are not tied to "over the top" services.
28. Differentiated pricing should only be allowed if there is open competitive access to the underlying network.  A service provider should be able to purchase their own connectivity to the neutral municipal network and not have provider imposed bandwidth charges applied to either themselves or the customers of that service provider.  Under Canada's current vertically integrated network, differential pricing is inappropriate because the vertically integrated providers can leverage one service to manipulate markets for other competitive services.
29. Bill C-11 from the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session should be repealed or fairly applied.  This was a backward-facing anti-competitive measure abused to protect incumbent BDU's from competition, and is based on a misunderstanding of the technology.  The digital transition was a transition from analog purpose-built communications infrastructure to services being built on top of a neutral data service. Rogers digital TV, Bell's Fibe TV, and all the digital BDU services all fall under "new media retransmitter". Canada should either enable open competition for these services, or declare as copyright infringement what the incumbents are doing.  (Note: Special attention should be given to Bells network PVR function and whether it should be offered the retransmission exception to Copyright.)
30. Canada's copyright act should be amended to clarify that a licensee of copyrighted content is a contributory infringer when they hide legal alternatives to their own branded services from audiences. While Bell is the worst Canadian example of a contributory infringer, this problem is not specific to them.  As an incentive for copyright holders to pursue all business and legal avenues against these contributory infringers, Canada's Fair Dealings should clarify that access by private citizens of these works for non-commercial purposes through unauthorized sources is not an infringement when authorized sources are unavailable or hidden.  This should include disallowing the use of Canada's "notice and notice" system to harass private citizens when the cause of the infringement is a commercial licensee. (DigiCanCon idea: Modernise Copyright law to focus on "low hanguing fruit" of contributory infringers)

Canadian Subsidies to HBO's Game of Thrones #DigiCanCon

Despite Bell Canada's desire for me to not watch Game of Thrones unless I was a cable subscriber or willing to infringe copyright, I completed watching the 2016 season this weekend via Google Play Video and TV.

One part of the closing credits has always peaked my interest, and that was the fact that a few provinces and the Canadian Federal government provided assistance in the form of media funds and/or tax credits.

A quick search returned a related article that discussed some of the basis for additional contributions this year: Season premiere of ‘Game of Thrones’ was very Canadian.

I expect some of the most active participants in the Canadian Content in a Digital World Consultations suggesting they represent the "artist" position will find this offensive as they appear to only want their sector (most often writers and actors) to receive subsidies.  They don't appear to see the value to Canada when our technical talent including visual effects crews contribute, or possibly when the actor happens to be a wolf. Complex cinema and television includes far more than a few writers and actors, with sets and locations often in a variety of countries. I believe it is quite appropriate to recognize and nurture Canadian artistic talent beyond writers and human actors.

Personally I'm proud that Canadians are involved with artists of other citizenship in such an internationally known series like Game of Thrones.  I've not been proud of what I've felt is quite xenophobic ideas expressed during the consultations and in the #DigiCanCon twitter feed, including what appears to be a misplaced dislike for Netflix Canada.

This should be a reminder of the fact that we have a wide variety of funding assistance for creators at all levels of government.  I have been concerned that so much energy is being expended in the DigiCanCon discussions focused on whether one company (Netflix Canada) pays into one fund (Canada Media Fund) managed by what should be an arms-length regulatory body (CRTC). This is the wrong basket to be putting any eggs in considering many believe that the CRTC requires massive reform given how it mismanaged communications convergence. Some believe the CRTC should be abolished entirely. At the very least the conflict of interest created by a regulatory body also trying to be a funding body, falling under regulatory capture, needs to be solved by removing any tax or spending capabilities from the CRTC.

Space (Bell) has no Class when it comes to protecting copyright

To say I am a fan of the Doctor Who universe would be an understatement.

I've been watching since childhood.  In preparation of the 50th anniversary in November 2013 I did a re-watch of every episode since 1963.  I purchased the DVD of every story available in DVD format, listened to the soundtrack for those where video has been lost, and  in one case listened to the audio book of the novelization.  I have all the DVD's for spin-offs Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, many CD's of audiobooks and soundtracks, and am a subscriber to many audio play series via Big Finish (Doctor Who main range pre-paid through to October 2019).  I even get a daily briefing from Doctor Who News sent to my email.

I heard the rumors, read the announcements, watched the trailers and interviews, and was eagerly anticipating the launch of spin-off Class. While I would prefer to have watched Saturday when the first episodes were released, I've become familiar with having to wait until the next day to stream from Space.ca which is where the BBC points fans from their Class website.  When all I could see from the Space show page for Class last night was rave reviews and a trailer, I started to look for details.

On the Facebook page for Space a representative wrote the following when asked about streaming options.

Space Unfortunately, episodes of Class will not be available on space.ca. If you are a Bell, Rogers or Telus customer, you can watch past episodes OnDemand now!

I've asked on Twitter, hoping to get a more relevant response:

. @SpaceChannel @bbcclass How do you legally stream in Canada? I can't find it on the space.ca site or the SPACE GO app..

— Russell McOrmond (@russellmcormond) October 24, 2016

The infuriating "reply" I received was:

@russellmcormond Episodes of Class are not available on space.ca. If you are a Bell, Rogers or Telus customer, you can watch OnDemand now.

— Space (@SpaceChannel) October 25, 2016

Cable vs Streaming

Streaming is a replacement for cable in the same way that automobiles were a replacement for horse drawn carriages and indoor plumbing was a replacement for outhouses.  It is a one-way modernization that once someone makes the transition they will not be interested in going backwards.

Telling people to "sit down, shut up, and get a cable package" whenever fans ask for legal streaming options doesn't drive them to cable.   For those who have modernized away from cable television they have a few options for the programming they want to watch.

• Legal streaming/download options
• Later release on DVD or second-run streaming services like CraveTV
• Don't watch the show
• Unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options

Did I mention I was a big fan of the Doctor Who universe?  Not watching the show or waiting months for the DVD release (or possibly even longer for it to eventually show up on poor services like CraveTV) are not options I'm willing to tolerate for this show.

This leaves me with only two options:

• Legal streaming/download options
• Unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options

I find infringing Doctor Who related copyright offensive

I am an author of software and non-software copyrighted works, so understand the importance of respecting author rights.  I spent more than a decade active with the copyright revision process (including hosting digital-copyright.ca) trying to protect the rights of independent creators like myself.

More than that, I am a fan of the Doctor Who universe and wish it to continue for another 50 years -- well beyond how long I'll be on this planet.

This is why I find what Space (Bell) is doing so offensive.  Rather than informing fans of legal streaming/download options they are driving them to unauthorized/illegal streaming/download options.  In this Bell is not the victim, but the perpetrator of contributory copyright infringement.

Lobbiests from intermediaries like Bell and their subsidiaries like Space, HBO Canada and CTV lobbied the government heavily during the last copyright revision process to get more power for them to blame fans for infringement these companies are causing.  They mutated the "inducement" concept where those like Bell who induced infringement would be liable for contributory infringement to a quite different "enablement" where only those who enable unauthorized access are liable.

The claim was the worst contributory copyright infringers in Canada were entities like ISOHunt, when I have always believed that dishonor belonged to Bell and similar companies like Roger, Telus and their subsidiaries.

In the ministerial briefing documents for the new Minister of Heritage Honourable Mélanie Joly included discussion of blocking the use of VPN's to bypass region restrictions to otherwise legally access content.  This blocking only increases infringement, and if anything Canadians should be assisted in cross-border shopping for content when Canadian distributors are blocking and/or hiding legal options.

The BBC should be forced to go after Bell, not Canadians

Copyright keeps coming up in the Canadian Content in a Digital World Consultations and Canada will be starting another round of copyright revision consultations soon.

One obvious suggestion to massively reduce copyright infringement in Canada is to have copyright holders, such as the BBC, be forced to pursue all business and legal avenues against contributory infringers like Bell before they are allowed to avail themselves of Canadian Copyright law against private citizens.  This should include our Notice and Notice system, so citizens are not harassed when they are induced to infringe by Canadian re-distributors.

On February 23, 2016 Bell Media and BBC Worldwide North America announced a multi-platform exclusive agreement. I first became aware of the agreement when past seasons of Doctor Who were announced to be removed from Netflix Canada starting on September 15.  Essentially, Bell is removing legal streaming options for fans of the Doctor Who Universe, forcing services like Netflix to block lawful cross-border shopping for content, and is refusing to advertise legal alternatives.

Clearly Bell is not a partner to BBC that is doing what it can to protect BBC's copyright in Canada, but the perpetrator of contributory infringement.  If BBC wishes to protect its copyright in Canada it should amend its agreement with Bell to demand they offer and advertise legal streaming options.  If Bell isn't willing to fix this problem, BBC should revoke their exclusive license and offer non-exclusive licensing to non-infringers.

Bell is hiding legal options

Space is not the only subsidiary of Bell which is the exclusive distributor of popular content where fans will gain access to unauthorized alternatives when legal options aren't made available or known to them.

While less than Doctor Who, I am also a fan of Game of Thrones which is distributed by HBO Canada. HBO Canada is also owned by Bell.  I have waited months (nearly a full year for some seasons) to watch GoT when the DVD was finally released because I was told that Game of Thrones wasn't available for legal streaming in Canada.  I was shocked to learn this weekend that GoT was available for legal streaming in Canada, only hidden by HBO Canada/Bell.

There was even a series of articles on the CBC talking about how "upset" Bell was claiming to be that people were going to unauthorized streaming sites.  They claimed to be upset people were cross-border shopping and accessing legally in the USA from HBO GO using VPNs, and upset that people were going to infringing sites.  In none of the interviews of Bell representatives were legal streaming options mentioned that were not tied to a cable package.

Given I was shocked to learn that HBO Canada is offering many HBO programs, including GoT, on Google Play, I thought to look for Class. It is available, with a "More from Space" on the page listing other Space programming available for legal streaming/download (Supernatural, Doctor Who, Orphan Black, Being Human).

I paid $17.99 ($2.49 per episode, $23.99HD or $17.99SD), and last night watched the first two episodes.  This is one of those services where new episodes are delivered to me as they are released weekly.

You would have to purchase more full seasons this way than I have time to watch in order to compare to going backward in time and getting a useless cable package.  This is especially true when added to a Netflix subscription.

Why was this not mentioned on the Space.ca website?  Like Bell's HBO Canada website, Space has an obligation to HBO, BBC and fans to inform Canadians about all legal options, with all legal streaming options being prominently listed on the official Canadian website being a minimum.


It seems obvious to me that Bell, as a BDU and owner of broadcasters, is in a conflict of interest when it comes to the legal distribution in Canada of copyrighted works.  They are far more interested in trying to abuse BBC and HBO's popular titles to protect their cable business than they are in protecting BBC or HBO copyright or maximizing revenue streams for their partners.

It is long past time for HBO, BBC, and other copyright holders to go after Bell and their subsidiaries and demand change.  If Bell continues to disrespect creators rights then licensing should be revoked and offered to entities that have far more respect.

In the case of HBO and BBC they should be offering HBO GO and BBC iPlayer directly to Canadians, avoiding relying on dishonest Canadian re-distributors.

For copyright holders which don't have their own streaming service, and want to offer their content on a service based on fixed monthly fees for a wide variety of programming, Netflix has demonstrated it can do that well and protect the interests of creators.

I don't want to subsidize a contributory infringer

Given I don't think of Bell as a legitimate Canadian source of programming, but a contributory infringer of programming I'm a fan of, it is very hard for me to stomach being a customer.  Like paying money to a ransomeware scam artist, it repulses me to be financially rewarding bad behavior.

It was uncomfortable purchasing GoT and Class from Google Play knowing that Bell subsidiaries would be getting a cut.  It is disturbing to be a CraveTV customer, and I'm doing it mostly to be participating in government consultations and interacting with policy makers while having experience with the so-called "Canadian" brands the government seems to want to force on us.

There are few ways for me to offer feedback.  One thing I have done is refuse to get interested in shows which are produced by Bell.  One example, produced in association with BBC America and Bell Media's Space, is Orphan Black.

Orphan Black is shot on location in Toronto, and is promoted by many as "Canadian Content".  I find it embarrassing that "Canadian Content", especially in the SciFi/Fantasy area I'm most interested in, has become synonymous with a close association with one of Canada's contributory infringers.

While I know that Orphan Black is a show I would enjoy, I refuse to watch it because of its close association with Bell Media.

This is also why I don't want to see cross-subsidies where services such as Netflix or Google Play would be levied in order to allegedly "promote Canadian Content".  I don't for a second believe these levy systems, designed for the broadcast era, would be promoting Canadian content but subsidizing Canada's top contributory infringers as they block Canadian stories from being easily and legally accessed by Canadians.

Modernize Canadian Content policy

Canadian Content policy should return to its roots of ensuring that Canadians can access stories told by fellow Canadians.

The CanCon quota system was designed to protect audiences from intermediaries (broadcasters, etc) who were favoring cheaper foreign content over Canadian.

Any tax policies, including levies, should have a similar aim.  Intermediaries which are blocking Canadians accessing content of their choice -- including but not exclusively Canadian content -- should be prohibited and/or levied. Intermediaries which are promoting access to Canadian content (whether headquartered in Canada or elsewhere) should be subsidized. 

CanCon should not be treated as a form of unconditional welfare handout, all too often granted to wealthy intermediaries who already largely exist due to government largess.  CanCon should be public policy serving the interests of Canadian citizens and accountable to Canadian taxpayers.  Most Canadian taxpayers are audiences, and the policy should be focused on bringing audiences what we want -- including convenient access to new Canadian authored and produced content.

We must not expand an outdated broadcast-era policy which would tax/levy services like Netflix to subsidize companies like Bell and their subsidiaries. We should subsidize services like Netflix which make content conveniently and cheaply available to Canadians, and taxing/levying contributory infringing intermediaries like Bell which are trying to filter access.

#DigiCanCon Comments on @shomicanada @whoismrrobot @GooglePlay TV , @HBOCanada @GameOfThrones

I've been a happy Netflix customer since 2011, dropped cable TV in 2012, and frequently purchase DVD's of movies or seasons of scripted TV programming. This year I've reviewed CraveTV,  CTV GO and Showcase's website, and decided to subscribe to Shomi to do a review.

As with other services offered by broadcaster or BDUs (cable companies) I didn't expect to be happy with Shomi.

What I (and a growing percentage of the market) want is to be able to conveniently watch the shows I want, at a location I want, at a time of my choosing, on devices of my choosing, and at a reasonable price.

What the broadcast industry wants to offer is programming of their choosing, at a time of their choosing, on devices of their choosing, and at the maximum price they believe the market will bear.  The digital transition for cable was several steps backward from analog where subscribers could choose their own brand of tuners to digital where the tuner brand is imposed.  They are not offering services based on sound market analysis as they claim that if anyone doesn't want to purchase their products and services the only reason could be they are "pirates".  This scapegoat is blocking them from offering services that their potential customer base actually wants, and the more "copyright" talk that blames audiences that happens the less likely the market can ever mature.

Shomi

As far as content is concerned, Shomi is similar to CraveTV in that it is older scripted TV programming that was broadcast much earlier.  I scanned the catalog and didn't see anything I could recognize as current seasons.  CraveTV and Space TV are both owned by Bell, and I wouldn't be surprised if exclusive licensing by Bell blocked the Shomi Partnership from licensing a larger catalog of Sci-Fi and Fantasy scripted TV. That said, there would still be shows I would watch if Shomi were going to be around longer.

Technology

Shomi's technology is far more advanced than CraveTV.  Unlike CraveTV where the website can't cast to a Chromecast using a recent Chrome browser, Shomi had no problems streaming directly from the website.  I have also downloaded the Shomi for phone to my Nexus 4 and Shomi for tablet to my ASUS Flip chromebook, and it works well on both devices watching on-screen and casting to my TV.

HDMI CEC is supported by the Shomi Chromecast application.  This may seem like a minor feature, but it is very important.  It allows for pausing and resuming of programming using the TV's remote control.  This avoids having to get the device that initiated the show opened - screen blanked so I need to log in, and a good chance you have to battle the app to get the pause to work.  By then the phone call/etc is over and you need to fight the interface to rewind.

Shomi always seems to remember which episode of a series I was on, and unlike CraveTV doesn't require that I search for the series to choose a different episode. The "Shomi later" bookmarking and "Recently watched" listings work well and allow you to easily see which episodes you have seen and (re)watch whichever episode you want next.

Both the browse (by category) and collections (themed, not sure who the creators are) are a great way to discover other content on the site.

While Shomi isn't as advanced as Netflix and Google (YouTube and Google Play), the interface and technology is considerably more advanced than what Bell offers with CraveTV or other subsidiaries( CTV.ca, space.ca sites and CTV GO, SPACE GO apps).   In an ideal world it would be CraveTV/etc shutting down and all that content made available on the Shomi platform, but that isn't what is happening.  Maybe Bell will purchase the platform to upgrade their services, if they have any interest in improving them.

Mr. Robot

The show I decided to watch on Shomi was the first season of Mr. Robot.  Very interesting political drama with quite a bit of technology embedded in the story. This is not your annoying abuse of technology where it is as magical as Harry Potter, but where real-world technology is being used.  You have advanced computer users using what they actually would -- Kali Linux on laptops, OpenWrt in routers -- and you see real code in real programming languages (and real apps and shell commands) popping up on screens.

You have these people using these advanced skills for political aims. How you would classify them (Hacker vs cracker, hero or villain, freedom fighter or terrorist) is really up to the viewer and having the viewer thinking about this appears to be an important part of the narrative.

I'd be posting spoilers if I said any more, and I want to recommend the show without spoiling any of the quite large number of sometimes quite twisted twists.

After watching the first season I was immediately drawn to the second season. It was aired on Showcase back in July, and is no longer available from that website. In some ways I was glad as the Showcase website is the worst streaming site I've used in decades.

I looked up in watchincanada.ca and it only suggested the second season was on iTunes.  In context, that was amusing -- many politically active advanced computer users, such as myself, consider Apple to be a political opponent and not a vendor we would ever consider using.  To put a show that would appeal to us only on a service that many of us find offensive didn't make sense.

Google Play Movies and TV

I decided to look Mr Robot up on Google Play (with Google sitting above the line of what I find politically tolerable) and found Mr Robot Season 2 for $16.99.

While Google Play Movies and TV streams like Netflix does, it is organized and priced more like DVDs with purchase and rental.  There isn't a fixed monthly price, but different pricing for different content.

As an example, Mr. Robot season 1 and 2 are $1.99 per episode, or $16.99 for the entire season (10 episodes for season 1, 12 episodes for season 2).    Game of Thrones episodes are $3.49 per episode, or $33.99 per 10 episode season which is comparable to the DVD pricing ($42.99 on Amazon.ca at the moment, but that price will likely be lower by the time it ships November 15).

Game of Thrones and Bell Media

Wait a minute? What?

Yes, I did just list Game of Thrones, which really surprised me when I saw it. I didn't even think to look for it on Google Play because everything I read and heard from fellow GoT fans suggested that Bell was blocking GoT from access to non-cable subscribers in Canada -- meaning I had to wait as with previous seasons for GoT to eventually be released on DVD in order to not infringe.  Last year the DVD was finally release in March with the next season starting broadcast at the end of April.  It was almost a full year with other fans blurting out spoilers in my presence, making the series less enjoyable for me as time went on.

I saw no mention of Google Play in a series of CBC articles in April,  May and June where Bell was claiming it was easy to pay and yet Bell representatives only spoke of cable-tied options. When you look at the Game of Thrones page on the HBO Canada (Bell) site there is no mention of non-cable alternatives for paying for the series. Not even a mention of DVDs of older seasons.  The HBO Canada site mentions TMN GO which offers GoT for streaming, but their FAQ clearly states "At this time, TMN GO is only offered as part of a subscription to The Movie Network through a participating Television Service Provider. It is not available directly through us."

When did this show become available on Google Play for Canadians? Canadians are often blocked from content available to US customers from services like Netflix and Google Play -- and there is no equivalent to Hulu or Amazon Prime Video, so I quite legitimately assumed all talk about US alternatives including HBO GO didn't apply to Canadians.  Has it been available for a few seasons, just hidden from fans, or only made available this year?  Was it only made available some time this summer because of media attention made to the fact that HBO Canada (Bell) has been refusing to allow fans to pay?

Similar to shows which offer new episodes weekly during the broadcast period the GoT Google Play page says "Purchase Season 6 and it will be available for playback and added to your library as soon as it's available for release".  Did I really have a legal option to watch starting at the end of April which Bell deliberately hid from me?  Why no mention in the interviews that CBC did of Bell representatives, potentially informing fans of the option back in May when it was first being released?

Like most of my interactions with the "Canadian" broadcasters I feel frustrated at how disrespectful I'm treated as a fan.

To confirm that Google Play wasn't talking about the timing of the DVD release next month and that it was already available, I purchased the season and immediately confirmed episode 10 is playable (just the start of opening sequence -- spoilers!).  I then logged into Amazon.ca and canceled my pre-order of the DVD box set.

These are market problems that must be discussed as Bell likely sees Google Play as competition for cable, putting them in a conflict of interest situation which makes them unsuited to own "HBO Canada".  The lack of mention of non-cable alternatives by HBO Canada (Bell) is something that the competition bureau, CRTC and HBO should be watching closely.  The HBO Canada site should be focused on the widest possible distribution in Canada of HBO content, not be a way for Bell to try to push people to legacy BDU services - that's tied selling, not a legitimate business practice, and is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated in Canada.

If our Copyright Act was modern the lack of even mentioning legal alternatives would clarify that Bell is at the root of infringement in Canada (not fans), and Bell (or the copyright holder who inappropriately gave them an exclusive license in Canada) shouldn't be allowed to complain about infringement which Bell is inducing.

Bell isn't the victim, but perpetrators of contributory copyright infringement.

Saying "sit down, shut up, and get a cable package" is a matter of control and conformity, not compensation, and copyright law shouldn't be able to be abused by companies which demonstrate they are uninterested in compensation.

If Bell was the slightest bit interested in protecting HBO's copyright in Canada they would be featuring all methods of paying clearly on the HBO Canada website.  In my mind one way to tell when copyright law is modern is if it forced copyright holder like HBO to go after contributory infringers like Bell first before they would be allowed to go after private citizens.

Technology

The Google Play Movies and TV's technology has features even beyond Netflix. Like Netflix its Chromecast app supports HDMI CEC, and as the same company that created the Chromecast devices will always support each new feature with advancing revisions of the device and software.  While Google Play has its own app, purchased content is also visible through the YouTube app so that convenience (or distraction depending on your preferences) is available.

Missing from Netflix, Google Play has an offline mode where you can pre-cache episodes and watch offline - such as when flying or other travel when Internet connectivity is unreliable or not fast enough for streaming.

There is a really cool feature I hadn't seen before when watching GoT episodes. While casting to the larger TV screen, circles were popping up on the tablet with the names of the actors (and characters) as well as the names of songs that are part of the soundtrack as they were part of the scene. This is a great use of the 2'nd screen beyond showing how far I am in the video. I couldn't find what this was with quick searching, so if anyone already knows I would appreciate links/etc. This is an amazing feature for shows like GoT that have many different story lines and many different characters moving forward in parallel. Now all I'd love to see is a map of Westeros in the background showing where people are :-)

Unfortunately you can't watch Google Play purchased content on all YouTube compatible devices. My Samsung Smart TV indicated "Video not playable on this device" when I tried to watch Mr. Robot episodes. Searching pointed me to the following answer on Google Video distribution settings which suggests that the copyright holder deliberately decided to disallow the content to work on this type of device.  This means the full remote control functionality (rewind, etc) is not available like it would be for regular YouTube or Netflix content using the Smart TV apps.

Market issues

When viewing the Mr. Robot content on the YouTube app I noticed it shows "NBCUniversalShowsCanada" as the user.  This got me thinking about who the supplier is for this content.  I looked up DC's Legends of Tomorrow and on a side-bar it indicates "More from CTV" and shows Arrow.  The Flash doesn't indicate who the distributor is, and Supergirl indicates Showcase.

This opens an obvious question: what will motivate broadcasters to fix their streaming sites when they can point to the expensive access via Google Play as if it were an alternative? I was considering paying for Supergirl season 2 to get away from the horrible Showcase website, but now that I know that it is Showcase that would get part of my money I dropped that idea.  I feel like I'm being pick-pocketed, not treated as a potential valued customer.

I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that any part of my GoT payment is going to a contributory infringer (Bell) rather than only to HBO.

When I dropped cable I did so with the understanding that I would be redirecting as a minimum the money I was spending on cable to streaming services and DVDs.  I've been very happy with Netflix for new and older programming, have recently learned to hold my nose (try to forget it's Bell) and tolerate CraveTV and would have tolerated Shomi for older shows.  If CTV GO allowed me to log in via my CraveTV subscription it would make both services more valuable.

Google Play as a technology works great, and I would use it often if the broadcasters and/or copyright holders were more reasonable on pricing.  For about the same amount of money I am left with a trade-off between waiting for a late DVD release or purchasing through Google Play.  Google Play works on fewer devices, and because files are encrypted it is unknown when my paid library will cease to be "legally" accessible. As with other similar proprietary encrypted file formats, content available through Google Play cannot be trusted to be playable as long as a DVD will.

One option copyright holders should consider is appropriately priced bundles (Play now, receive DVD at release time) so that the ephemeral nature of encrypted Google Play content wouldn't deter purchases.  I have seen the reverse with recent "DVD + Digital HD" purchases where the "Digital HD" can be redeemed through Google Play.

The inclusion of Google Play among other options is much improved over purchases where you could only redeem through iTunes, which is useless to me. The DVD boxes and retailers don't indicate what service the "Digital HD" version is tied to, so I need to presume it doesn't exist and thus that possibility never adds value when I'm determining whether to purchase.  It is sad just how poor the studios are at marketing their own products, and how ignorant they are of how much the distribution medium matters.