So are consumers ready for 3D HDTV? The technology really only hit theaters in the past couple of years and has been a real hit with some titles such as Avatar and UP. Previous 3D attempts – think back to Jaws and those old Red and Blue paper glasses – were lack luster and often troublesome for viewers. So while the technology of 3D has improved it is not ready for wide spread home adaption.

The main reason for my argument against 3D HDTV now is basic economics. For the average Canadian family an HDTV has been a recent addition to the home. My own parents still use a 36” tube TV from Hitachi that renders fantastic image quality even 15 years after it was first purchased. So while people are replacing their old long lasting tubes with LCD and Plasma displays, they are also investing significant cost for such screens. The average cost for a 42” LCD is still in the $1200 range. To quickly turn around and replace that set with an 3D HDTV, with the often prohibitive new technology price, is a great recipe for consumer rejection.

So while 3D HDTV is coming and CES is a great chance to show consumers what is coming down the pipe. Don’t expect to see the 3D experience in your local sore anytime soon.

What do you think? Will the home version of 3D entertainment catch on or will it be regulated to the theater experience?

Well this week brings us news that the popular Kindle is now available in Canada. Not only is it available but you can get your daily copy of The Globe and Mail or National Post via the device. But the launch is not as simple as it should have been.

A few important things to note about this launch are what features are not available on the Kindle. The device uses the 3G cellular technology to download content from the Amazon store. In the United States this is done via Sprint network but here in the great white north it is done by? Well we don’t quite know right now. It could be the Bell/Telus network or the Rogers network. Either has their pro’s and con’s. Another feature available to our southern neighbors and not us canucks is the ability to surf the web or subscribe to blogs via the eReader. A handy feature that makes the product more of an attractive buy.

In what I feel is the biggest failure to Canadian buyers, is the rollout is the Amazon store. Amazon operates stores in various countries selling books, items, and other products in that regions currency and with specific national items of interest. In order to get a Kindel in Canada though, one will have to go to the US Amazon store and pay an import fee to have the eReader. Not only that, but the device seems to be paired still to the Amazon US store which sells no Canadian content. Want an electronic copy of The Bishop’s Man, 2009 Giller Prize winner? No luck! While it is available in the Canadian Amazon store, Canadian Kindel users will be out of luck.

This is where Amazon misses the boat on a successful rollout to a new region. eReaders have all the promise of a successful product paired with great content but with deployments like this, it will be a slow adoption if adopted at all.

While this is disappointing I still believe that the evolution of the local paper can be done using this technology. This incident however will be a stalling point for anyone who was considering the moving in this direction.

They define the events with a line “This isn’t an industry or professional event, it’s just a bunch of people who like this whole ‘internet’ thing and want to hang out with like-minded folks” which is exactly what social media/new media is about. It is about bringing people together around a common idea or goal.

At last night’s 3rd Wednesday event a question was posed to the group, is there a wrong way to use social media? While the question is a valid one to ask it also implies there is a correct way to use social media. Which leads me to think about why you are using social media?

This is where the answer lays in my mind. Social Media tools like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Myspace, etc are about engaging and connecting people in a new way. Twitter is limited to 140 characters per message to get your ideas across. Facebook allows the sharing of video, pictures, and a variety of other information. Blogs are a beast onto their selves. But their fundamental purpose is all the same. The spreading of ideas in an interactive way.

The real power of social media is not in what tools you use – although they can add clarity to your message – but in how you use them. There were many brand experts in attendance last night who made very valuable contributions to the discussion about building a brand using these online tools. Though I think the fundamental principal of engagement was the key to the whole discussion.

Like the discussion that was happening in the room the discussions that happen online are most effective when people engage each other. Discussions where people talk and don’t listen. Well, we all paid our tuition for those! And like the course I took on the romantic poets where I was lectured to for 4 months those conversations did not have an impact like the discussions we had over Feminist Philosophy.

Others made valid points on honesty, authority, and even clarity. All valid points, all worth considering. But how are online discussions different from in person ones in that respect. You can say what you want but if you are being dishonest you will be caught and loose any authority you had. You effectively destroy your message or goal.

So is there a wrong way to use social media? Yes, that is to be disengaged from your potential audience. Is there a right way? Not really, because the varied goals of each user will dictate how they use it. But use, without engagement, is rarely effective. If you are building a brand, personal, corporate, or otherwise, not engaging the people who will give your idea power will prove to be a fruitless endeavor.

What do you think? Is there a right or wrong way to use social media tools?

In casual talks with employers and managers around the city the predominate feeling is that if an employee or potential employee has a blog, facebook, twitter stream, or any other online presence the it is the employers right to know. While no one would admit to actively hunting these resources out the reactions did indicate a certain “right to know” attitude. The reality is that some employers are doing extensive searches of current and potential employees online habits. A recent Deloitte survey found that 30% of employers were informally monitoring social networking sites for employee’s habits. People have even been dismissed for content they have posted online. A quick search for “Fired for blogging” will give you an easy dozen links to choose for with related stories.

Now on the flip side many employees will argue that their online actions are none of their employers business. According to the same Deloitte survey 53% of employees think that their social networking habits are none of their employers business. Even though over 70% understand it is easy to damage their employer’s reputation online. I think the reasons for this is quite obvious and do not warrant an in-depth discussion. Employees do not want to be held accountable at their employment for things they do off the company time. The basic social contract of mutual financial success, that is I perform a set of duties to assist the company in being profitable and am justly paid for those services, is the underlying principal of this. For many people the employee/employer relationship ends there and unless the employees external actions prevent or inhibit that process, what the employee does is their business.
So where do you stand? Where does the employee/employer relationship end? At what point do you feel the employer is overstepping its bounds of intruding into your personal life? Leave your comments below. I would love to hear from employers and employees alike on this.

This has not grabbed mass media attention yet since it really, only affected users of programs like bear share, limewire, and torrent’s. Since the introduction of new policy on the Bell network on March 14, it has now expanded to Third Party ISP’s who wholesale buy their internet access from Bell. A notable example of this is an Ontario ISP, Teksavvy Solutions.

A few things are important when framing this conversation. One note to keep in mind is that the internet’s current foundations were built on public monies through grants to universities to become interconnected. Money the universities used to buy data connections from companies like Bell. This allowed an infrastructure to develop that eventually was taken over, and vastly expanded on, by telecommunication and cable companies. I doubt either would have taken place without that initial funding from the government.

Another thought to keep in mind is the inherent conflict of interest Bell and Rogers has by providing a data connection that can be easily used to avoid their other products. You can use your internet connection to get television shows, movies, make and accept voice and video calls. This would allow you to avoid watching Rogers or Bell Global Media (owners of CTV) channels, Bell’s telephone service, or either of their on demand movie services.

Now an annoying network management technique has turned into a business and potentially legal problem as it will affect the bottom line of another business. Since the options are limited as to where else you can get this access, any terms of service they [Bell/Rogers] require become default standard. Keep in mind, both companies operated in a federally regulated and permitted monopoly situation. One that could be pulled if it is seen in the best interests of the citizens.

They will argue that the reason for this network management is due to the pressure placed on their systems. Yet, neither company has done major increases in network capacity for a number of years. Another argument being batted around is the legality of such peer-to-peer services, even though major players like CBC have recently begun offering legal media over these services.

So what now?

The answer is clear. It is time to send a signal to the CRTC that Canadians desire more competitive solutions to what is vastly becoming a necessary communication an entertainment tool. It is time to send a signal to Bell and Rogers that such practices will not be tolerated and are wildly being viewed as interference not management.

Telephony companies were not allowed to discriminate against users who used their phones to dial into the internet – in a bygone era – over those who used it for voice conversations. It should also not allowed to discriminate against users who download every movie available or just casually surf. More transparency is needed in this service and more standards are required. How I use my connection, or how much, should not matter or come with strings

The above link in the Ottawa Citizen indicates that one of the largest employers in Atlantic Canada (the largest private employer in St John’s NL) will be closing up all it’s Canadian operations.

Comcast customers – which is one of Convergys largest contracts – will see support go from bad to worse. Including a very distinct cultural language barrier.

A WiMAX network could deliver highspeed data at up to 50Km from the tower but the more realistic deployment would be 2Km in urban settings. This is a vast improvement over existing consumer wireless standards that have 250m range and expensive EVDO or 3G mobile offerings.

Budding billionaire Paris Hilton was arrested in September of 2006 for driving under the influence. She was given 36 months probation for her infraction and in February of this year she was caught speeding at 70mph in a 35 zone (That is 112 in a 56 zone for you Km/h folk). The bonus was part of her probation involved a suspended drivers license. So here we have what is a highly educated woman – at least one who can afford to get a high level of education – offensively breaking the law twice in a 6 month period. Her obvious disregard for the law ended up getting her a 45 day sentence in jail where she was sequestered from the general population and after 3 days of time she was released to serve the rest at home.

How is this justice? Not only did she break a law by behaving in a manner that society condones heavily (driving under the influence) but she disregards her sentence and is caught doubling the speed limit. Might I put in to context that the 35 zone was 35 for a reason, not because some person at the city hall decided they wanted people to drive slowly there. So we have a woman who is quite happy to risk people’s lives twice in a short period serving virtually no time at all. Contrast that against the hard time, not sequestered from the general population that Robert Downey Jr. did for snorting some coke.

Why is it we would send him to jail regardless of his star status but would let her basically walk free for what I consider a more serious offence (consider the results of someone stepping in front of her at that speed)? Justice was certainly blind in this case. Blind and ignorant! If it were me or you we would be rotting in jail for a few years, not a few days. I hope the public outcry is loud on this one.