My parents discouraged spending endless hours watching TV. It was considered to be “anti-social” to sit in front of the tube. Ericsson has released a study showing that TV viewing is increasingly being accompanied by use of social media, providing kids worldwide with quantitative evidence and a snappy retort to parents who tell the kids to go out to play with their friends. The report, “TV AND VIDEO: An analysis of evolving consumer habits“, finds that TV viewing increasingly accompanied by use of social media. Among the key findings:

• Social TV is exploding – 62 percent of consumers use social media while watching TV. This has increased by 18 percentage points since 2011.
• Consumers are not cutting their traditional TV subscriptions on a large scale – in fact only 7 percent have canceled their TV packages since 2011.
• HD quality remains key – 41 percent of consumers are willing to pay for HD quality. The importance of high-quality images increases on devices with bigger screens such as TVs and tablets.
• Mobile devices are an important part of the TV experience – 67 percent use tablets, smartphones or laptops in their everyday TV viewing, both for video consumption and to enable a social media experience while watching TV.
• TV anytime and anywhere is finally a mass market service – 60 percent of consumers watch video on-demand on a weekly basis. New, easy-to-use services trigger mobile viewing habits.

The report is based on analysis of viewing habits around the world: the US, UK, China, Taiwan, Germany, Spain and Sweden. These are countries with diverse cultural ties to traditional TV, different internet and mobile broadband competitive industry models. As such, the study provides an interesting snapshot of trends in the evolution of multi-screen viewing.

There are many observations in the report worth exploring in greater depth.

Did the CRTC try to telegraph a message to Bell regarding the Astral deal in its approval of the sale of the broadcasting assets of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment? That is a question that Greg O’Brien asked in Cartt.ca last week.

The Cartt.ca article cited two paragraphs from the decision:

54. As set out in Public Notice 1999-97 and Broadcasting Public Notice 2007-53, applicants are generally expected by the Commission to direct tangible benefits to the communities served and to the broadcasting system as a whole. Further, in order to be accepted as a benefit, the proposed expenditure must be incremental to expenditures that would generally be considered ongoing normal responsibilities of the existing licensee.

55. The Commission, in applying its benefits test, has been consistent and rigorous in requiring that (1) expenditures proposed as tangible benefits be truly incremental; (2) such expenditures be directed to projects and initiatives that would not be undertaken or realized in the absence of the transaction; and (3) applicants demonstrate that expenditures proposed as tangible benefits flow predominantly to third parties, such as independent producers.

In my post last month on tangible benefits, I suggested that there is an argument for Bell’s proposal for certain northern broadband upgrades to be considered incremental. And as any of us who watched the Olympics could attest, expenditures for broadband service expansion is indeed providing benefits to the broadcasting system as it evolves from linear over-the-air to the delivery of on-demand across multiple platforms.

So, with regard to items (1) and (2) from paragraph 55, I think that Bell could make an argument – in fact, a convincing argument. It is item (3) that becomes more difficult: that “applicants demonstrate that expenditures proposed as tangible benefits flow predominantly to third parties.”

I expressed concerns about the use of public benefit funds for broadband expansion: “in a multiple service-provider environment, how can the CRTC grant the benefits funding without distorting the competitive landscape?”

Perhaps the broadband expansion funds were placed in the hands of a competitively neutral third party administrator – a kind of broadband contribution fund administrator – for distribution to service providers based on their market share. Alternatively, the funds might be distributed directly to customers of broadband service providers in certain eligible geographic areas, perhaps based on financial need. But this is just tinkering with a program that will deliver benefits to an extremely limited number of Canadian households.

As I wrote last month, “I am still hoping that a major carrier will show the leadership to launch a program for low income households to acquire connected computers. Perhaps this can be a fallback tangible benefits program?”

More than 2 million Canadian households lack a computer, let alone broadband connectivity. These are households in our urban core, not in remote communities. If broadband is important for households in remote communities, why are we not concerned with the embarrassingly large number of households that can’t afford service in our urban centres?

I continue to believe that a Canadian equivalent of the Connect2Compete needs to be launched.

Across Canada, in the next two weeks another school year will get underway.

As parents head out to buy back-to-school supplies, think about the kids who won’t have access to a connected computer for doing homework.

A connected computer in every household with school aged children has to become a national objective.

Despite the prominence of touchscreen smartphones, Nokia released the results of a poll that claims consumers prefer keyboards for input on their smartphones.

Nearly half of the respondents prefer a QWERTY keyboard while only a third prefer a touchscreen. Does this poll indicate a potential upside for RIM?

About two years ago, I asked:

Is RIM hedging its Blackberry bets to extinction?

By offering so many different models and user interfaces for the Blackberry, I wonder if RIM has created too fractured a marketplace for itself – is RIM playing it too safe for its own good?

A year ago, I wrote about data out of the UK that also seemed to be indicating a popularity for physical keyboards.

Personally, I prefer a real keyboard for data entry, but touchscreen for photos, media and web browsing. The Nokia blog acknowledged this: “The touchscreen is fantastic for looking at photos, browsing the web and watching video, but is it really that good for typing?”

There is a crowded marketplace for touchscreen devices. Will Nokia or RIM be able to recapture a sizable share of the market by effectively marrying a traditional physical keyboard with a high resolution touchscreen?

President’s Choice released a new survey this morning on issues for mobile phones and kids. Nearly half of Canadian parents with children aged 11 and older say their kids carry a personal cell phone.

About three quarters of parents are setting rules for their kids to follow:

• 33% said they set ground rules, such as no talking while driving or walking;
• 32% limit use to where it’s appropriate;
• 27% use password protection;
• 18% program emergency contacts into phones and discuss when and how to use them;
• 12% try to conceal their phones in public;
• 9% set parental controls on devices; and
• 8% use GPS to track the whereabouts of family members.

However, a quarter of Canadian parents apparently haven’t set guidelines.

In fact, the survey found there is a gap between the habits that annoy us and those in which we engage ourselves:

• While 86% of Canadians say they are irritated by others typing, texting or calling while driving, nearly a third (31%) admitted having done so themselves in the last year;
• While 77% complained about others not turning off their ringers in public spaces such as theatres or restaurants, approximately 14% acknowledged doing just that; and
• While 57% complained about others texting or talking and not paying attention to their surroundings while walking, 32% admitted to engaging in precisely this behaviour.

“These results show us that for a great number of Canadian parents, it’s a matter of do as I say and not as I do,” according to parenting expert Kathy Buckworth, Chief Family Advisor to PC Financial.

When did you get your kids their first phone?

What rules and tools have you provided to them?

Stingray Digital operates a pay music service under the brand Galaxie. Stingray didn’t like the idea of competing against CBC’s free online music service, CBC Music, and it asked the CRTC to shut it down, arguing that CBC was granting itself undue preferential treatment thanks to government funding and access to a preferential copyright license fee.

In a decision earlier today, the CRTC rejected Stingray’s application.

The CRTC received hundred of interventions, mainly supportive of the CBC’s service, but most failed to address the actual issues being adjudicated:

While very few addressed the substantive undue preference/disadvantage arguments advanced by the parties, a very large number of the interventions highlighted the uniqueness of the CBC’s service, including its distinct emphasis on the promotion of Canadian artists and emerging Canadian talent.

I am somewhat biased. My son is an avid user of CBC Music, using it as a link to Canada while he attends school away from his home and native land. But, the CRTC needed to assess the Stingray application on its regulatory merits.

In the end, the Commission determined that CBC did not confer a preference to itself in either case: the receipt by the CBC of government funding; and payment by the CBC of different copyright rates than those paid by Stingray.

With respect to government funding, the Commission noted that CBC’s funding is set by Parliament and it is quite clear that it is not under the CBC’s control. Since its inception, CBC has had government funding to operate, often in competition with commercial broadcasters. With respect to the copyright rates, the Commission noted that these rates were set by the Copyright Board, not the CBC.

As such, the CBC did not engage in any action to give itself a preference, so the Commission had no choice but to deny Stingray’s application. It is important to note that granting a preference to itself would not necessarily have been a violation of the rules. The rules say that the preference cannot be “undue”. In this instance, the CRTC did not have to test whether a preference was undue, since no preference was found to have been granted by CBC to itself.

I wrote last week that “People like free“. What if the CRTC had found against CBC?