With the enormous groundswell of protest building up amongst the Canadian population, it seems as though Internet metering (or usaged-based billing) is going to wind up as a mere footnote in Canadian telecom history. At least, let’s hope that’s the case.

The concept of billing Internet customers according to how much bandwidth they use isn’t a particularly new concept. Years ago, I signed what was a early version of the current Stop the Meter petition to call on regulators to say ‘no’ to companies setting strict limits on their customers and then charging enormous fees for overages. Back then, it was the big Canadian telecoms, Rogers and Bell, who moved to reduce the amount of bandwidth their customers could use and hitting them with fines for every gigabyte they went over. The rationale then was that the Internet was growing too fast and that a select few customers were “hogging” the pipelines. These so-called heavy users were the kind of geeks who lived in their parents’ basement and downloaded full seasons of television shows, full-length movies, and pirated music. At first, they were painted as sinister delinquents who wanted to ruin the fun for everyone else. But then Rogers and Bell rolled out even more strict limits on downloading and the “regular” users began to feel the pinch as well.

With study upon study revealing that more Canadians are ditching their landlines for cellphones, and abandoning their cable and satellite subscriptions for Internet-based movie and TV streaming, strict limits on how much Canadians could actually download every month became a growing concern. Rogers and Bell argued that their limits were generous and that the average user would never come close to their cap each month, but others disagreed. Anyone who’s signed up for Netflix, downloaded TV episodes of iTunes, or even tried to use services like Rogers TV to stream World Cup matches or stream television from CBC will know that the tiny bandwidth limit imposed by the big telecoms is quickly eaten up.

Read the rest of this article »

Catfish is the kind of movie that you can’t say a lot about without giving away some serious spoilers.

The film is a documentary, but unfolds like one of the best psychological thrillers this year. It follows a designer, Nev Schulman, and his relationship with a young artist, Abby, and her family. Nev’s brother Ariel and a mutual friend Henry follow Nev as his relationship with this young painter, her mother, and then her older sister develops and blossoms into something serious. As Nev and Abby’s sister Megan get more serious, things get a little strange and doubts begin to creep into the picture about the authenticity of Megan and, in turn, everything he’s been told by this family to date.

Throughout the course of the film we follow Nev, Ariel, and Henry in the most casual of ways. We’re sitting in the hotel room after a long day of work. We’re waking up in the morning. We’re following a GPS. The first-person perspective of the whole movie, the sense that we’re just another friend in the car along for the ride, goes a long way to make the whole thing feel more engaging and honest and emotional. It’s great, and the pay-off in the end of the film is pretty huge.

Catfish is a great film that’s really outside of the box. It’s refreshing, it’s interesting, and it’s definitely worth your time.

I apologize to readers who are bored to death by two politically-minded articles in a row, I promise to provide you with the lighter stuff tomorrow.

A little over a month ago I warned you of the upcoming copyright reform proposed by our politicians. I warned you that it imposes certain restrictions on how you own things and what you can do with those things. I mentioned, too, that it wasn’t the first time that the Conservatives tried to pass this kind of reform legislation,

The last time the Tories tried to pass new copyright legislation was two years ago. Jim Prentice was the Minister in charge back then and he was widely seen as being in the pocket of American interests. In fact, the Bill he originally introduced was so backward, so heavily favoured towards huge American media conglomerates that the public outcry was simply impossible to ignore. As a result of the outcry, the Conservatives put the legislation on the back burner and, last summer, went on a whirlwind tour across the country soliciting public opinion and feedback on copyright.

That Bill died, on the table, after Parliament adjourned for the summer because it had no support, because it wasn’t the result of consultation with the public, because it was seen as merely pandering to American big media, and because the government clearly underestimated the powerful and vocal grassroots fair copyright movement in Canada.

Well it appears that this second attempt at copyright reform is also going the way of the Dodo.

After declaring war on the “radical extremists” who were opposed to the new reform bill, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore is now refusing to comment on the legislation according to copyright watcher, author and blogger Cory Doctorow.

Is this a sign of what happens when an unpopular bill is introduced, and introduced again, largely ignoring public consultation?

Like many, I agree that this most recent reform bill included some of the aspects that came out of the public consultation but at the same time it ignored many important aspects as well. The legislation, like its predecessor, still includes significant rights-impeding digital lock provisions—the same kind of provisions which were protested in the last incarnation of the bill. But despite all that consultation, the Conservative government chose to ignore the rights and requests of the Canadian population and again include those provisions. And again the ground swell of support for fair copyright reform has grown and immediately after announcing the bill, and in the time since, media focus has largely centred around the controversial digital locks.

But, if Moore’s refusal to comment is any indication, this bill is fit for the same destiny as its fore bearer. Let’s just hope that, if this is truly the case, the next time around the government will get things right. This second time around, the media was well informed on how and what to report—they got their focus right by honing in on the digital lock provision—and, as a result, the public has been kept up to date, and kept well informed themselves. If the Conservatives tried to sneak a copyright bill through the House of Commons the first time, they failed. This second time the media and copyright watchers the world over were ready, and they spoke loud and clear. If this bill dies there will be a third attempt, no doubt, and maybe then they’ll finally get it right.

So I made this permanent switch this week from Mozilla Thunderbird to web-based Gmail.

In the past, I’ve used web-based Gmail when I’ve been away from home, or on campus, or on a different computer, say in a library, but I’ve always maintained my e-mail accounts using an e-mail application. In the days of old it was Eudora (see above). In more recent years it’s been Thunderbird. Since as long as I’ve had the Internet I’ve always used an e-mail application.

Read the rest of this article »

So if you haven’t gathered just yet, I’m a big fan of the World Cup.

Even if you aren’t a huge fan though, Twitter’s World Cup coverage is nonetheless very interesting to follow. They’ve set up a very ingenious website which displays soccer-related tweets from both countries while their teams play. Presently, I can watch live tweets from Greece and Korea, displayed head-to-head, as these teams play their first World Cup match. It’s neat seeing the tweets roll by from the two countries. Less interesting because neither of these teams, and therefore countries, speak much English so most of the tweets are in languages that I don’t understand.

Still, it’ll be interesting to see how things look for the USA v. England match up this afternoon. Should be very cool to see opposing tweets from either side of the Atlantic.

Another incredible use of this kind of technology.

I can’t wait!

This afternoon the Conservative government introduced a new copyright bill in the House of Commons.

The last time the Tories tried to pass new copyright legislation was two years ago. Jim Prentice was the Minister in charge back then and he was widely seen as being in the pocket of American interests. In fact, the Bill he originally introduced was so backward, so heavily favoured towards huge American media conglomerates that the public outcry was simply impossible to ignore. As a result of the outcry, the Conservatives put the legislation on the back burner and, last summer, went on a whirlwind tour across the country soliciting public opinion and feedback on copyright.

Lots of us spoke out, hundreds of thousands, during these public hearings and it seemed like the government was truly listening. However, today’s Bill indicates that while some of what we said got through, serious and fatal flaws remain in the law.

Read the rest of this article »

Douglas Coupland is one of my favourite authors, not to mention an absolute Canadian gem, but his last novel, The Gum Thief, felt tired and phoned-in to me. So, when I began to read his latest novel, Generation A, I wasn’t wholly optimistic. What I found though, as I went, is that Coupland is far from tired and while I don’t think he’s been at the top of his game recently—since jPod, I’d say—Generation A is nonetheless a winner.

Read the rest of this article »