recentpopularlog in

jerryking : crtc   7

Nokia a lesson for backers of Canada’s nanny state - The Globe and Mail
Oct. 17 2014 | The Globe and Mail | BRIAN LEE CROWLEY.

How did it all go so wrong? And what might Canada learn from Finland’s downfall?

One obvious conclusion is not to put all your eggs in one basket, but it goes well beyond that. There was a time when economic change worked slowly enough that you could get a generation or two’s employment out of an industry before it was overtaken by innovation. Detroit dominated automobile manufacturing for many decades before its own complacency and the innovativeness of European and Asian producers came into play. In a similar vein, Nokia allowed itself to believe in its own infallibility, and Finland meekly followed suit. But the forces of change are now so powerful and lightning fast that sometimes a single product release from a competitor can signal the death knell of a previously healthy company or industry....Canada is rife with industries with their heads stuck in the sand, almost invariably because they believe they can shelter behind a friendly bureaucrat with a rulebook.

Examples abound in fields as diverse as telecoms, dairy, airlines, broadcasting, taxis and transport. Could there have been a bigger farce than the CRTC’s attempt to manhandle online content provider Netflix?...The real lesson of Nokia’s demise was that there is no substitute for being driven by what customers want, which is quality products and service at the lowest possible price...Every deviation from this relentless focus on what customers actually want makes your market a tasty morsel for the disrupters.
concentration_risk  Nokia  Finland  mobile_phones  disruption  Netflix  Uber  CRTC  complacency  accelerated_lifecycles  protectionism  nanny_state  customer_focus  change_agents  Finnish  demand-driven  lessons_learned  automotive_industry  downfall  change  warning_signs  signals  customer-driven  infallibility  overconfidence  hubris  staying_hungry 
october 2014 by jerryking
It’s time to be honest: Netflix is parasitic - The Globe and Mail
SIMON HOUPT
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 03 2014,

Most industrialized countries subsidize domestic television and film production, partly because of scale: It costs a lot of money to make shows look even half as glossy as the stuff coming out of Hollywood, and if there’s a limited audience (say, because you’ve set your miniseries in the shipyards of Gdansk because you think it’s important that your fellow Poles know about their history), you’re probably not going to make your money back. American film and TV studios have global marketing machines to get their shows in front of consumers.

As it happens, Canadians do watch plenty of homemade TV, and not just hockey: Last month’s season finale of The Amazing Race Canada on CTV was the most-watched show of that week, with more than three million viewers. (Necessary disclosure: CTV’s parent company BCE Inc. owns 15 per cent of The Globe and Mail. Unnecessary disclosure: I’ve never watched The Amazing Race Canada.) Scripted dramas and comedies are popular, too – though they certainly don’t pull in the numbers here that Big Bang Theory does. Millions still tune in to domestic news and current affairs shows. And just try telling Mike Holmes, Sarah Richardson, Debbie Travis and, frankly, Ben Mulroney that Canadians don’t watch Canadian-made TV.

If you’re fine with all that disappearing because hey, Netflix is awesome and a sexy disruptor, so be it: That’s your choice, and you’re free to make it. Plenty of people love their weekly pilgrimage to Walmart and Costco, too.

But please, at least be honest with yourself and recognize that Netflix, like the retail disruptor Walmart before it, is a parasitic enterprise. Netflix is currently pocketing an estimated $300-million a year from Canadian consumers. Its total investment in original Canadian programming so far? One season of Trailer Park Boys: 10 half-hour episodes of cheaply made TV.
Netflix  CRTC  Simon_Houpt  television  disruption  Wal-Mart  parasitic 
october 2014 by jerryking
The CRTC needs to start thinking outside the idiot box - The Globe and Mail
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Sep. 27 2014,

...Watching CRTC commissioners questioning cable-company executives and other stakeholders about whether Canadians should be able to choose which channels they pay for made it painfully clear that the commission’s usefulness is being outstripped by technology. ..The new scarce resource is not bandwidth, but viewers. Broadcasters and cable carriers that once had captive markets now compete with Netflix, Youtube and other Internet-based services that exist outside CRTC regulations. These newcomers, including millions of people producing and posting their own content, from Vines to videos, are stealing viewers and changing Canadians’ habits.....the reason why the CRTC still talks "television" – is because it remains the only avenue for Canada’s heavily regulated broadcasters and cable companies to hold onto their current revenue streams while they buy time and figure out what their next move should be. The CRTC’s most critical role – ensuring Canada’s stories are told, as required under the Broadcasting Act – has lately transmogrified from obliging broadcasters to produce Canadian content, and making sure the cable companies prioritize it, to something a little less noble: namely, temporarily protecting Canadian companies from the stateless, unregulated, market-driven onslaught of the Internet....There are significant advances coming down the pipe that are going to get here faster than the end of your next two-year cable contract. This is where the CRTC should be focusing its energies. The future is not “pick-and-pay”; the future is fibre-optic Internet in every home that is magnitudes faster than the current co-axial standard, and which will become the backbone of the digital economy.... The future is not limiting access or enforcing nationalistic content rules; the future is more border-ignoring services with more content than ever, some of which will inevitably be Canadian. The future is asking the question, Do we need a national television broadcaster, or would we be better off subsidizing a national content producer that sells its programming to the highest bidder? Or produces it with a taxpayer subsidy – and then instead of broadcasting via a traditional TV channel, simply posts it online for anyone to watch on Youtube and other sites?

Talking about TV – about pick-and-pay and basic packages and Canadian content – is at best a distraction while the future barrels down on us.
Netflix  Canada  CRTC  streaming  data  roaming  CATV  television  scarcity  statelessness  bandwidth  Youtube  future  Vine  content  DIY  bite-sized 
september 2014 by jerryking
He wants to put mandatory Canadian movies on TV. Do we want them? - The Globe and Mail
Jan. 24 2013 | The Globe and Mail | STEVE LADURANTAYE AND SIMON HOUPT

Canadians rarely venture to the theatres to see Canadian films. Data for 2012 compiled by the Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada show that while the country’s box office pulled in $1.1-billion in 2012, Canadian movies accounted for less than 3 per cent of that, or $25-million. And the country’s broadcasters have largely ignored the movies as well, opting to fill their Canadian-content requirements with dramatic series that are easier to market....
Simon_Houpt  Steve_Ladurantaye  films  Canadian  filmmakers  entrepreneur  CRTC 
january 2013 by jerryking
CRTC paints picture of Canada’s Netflix boom - The Globe and Mail
SEAN SILCOFF

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 04 2012,
Netflix  Canada  CRTC  streaming  data  roaming 
november 2012 by jerryking
CRTC sounds alarm over controversial phone apps - The Globe and Mail
RITA TRICHUR - TELECOM REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 04 2012
mobile_applications  CRTC 
september 2012 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read