Along with all the discussion, there’s been lots of road construction/traffic analogies that try to explain the decision in more ‘real world’ terms — this article even suggests that UBB will somehow allow ISPs to free up cash to invest in better infrastructure to support all of us driving “the Hummer versions of bandwidth vehicles” (according to the article). Unfortunately, reality is somewhat different.

What UBB really allows, is for ISPs (and in some cases, even forces ISPs that don’t want to) to charge Canadians more for something they already provide. What Bell has asked for is essentially the ability to charge more money for what they have (in most cases contractually) signed up to provide their customers. All with the nebulous promise from Bell that all this cash will be turned around and invested into infrastructure.While it’s easy to demonize Bell, I think that most companies would love to be allowed to charge more for something they already provide — I’m sure a car manufacturer would be happy to get double the current price for a car through a governmental policy change. However, it’s the CRTC’s job to ensure that Canadians are protected, and too often the CRTC’s interpretation of their mandate is that that should include Canadian corporations (a long standing idea in policy in Canada where the belief that handing money over to Canadian companies is going to benefit us all).

Michael Geist points out the importance of competition (or in this case, lack of competition) in the Canadian ISP market. Decades of strict foreign ownership rules have stifled innovation and kept prices artificially high in Canada, and now the few choices that Canadians have for alternatives from the big ISPs are being threatened. While these types of policy decisions seem difficult to comprehend to Canadians, they are part of an ongoing trend in this country. Little or nothing is done to protect new entrants (see this week’s reversal of the decision allowing foreign-owned WIND Mobile to operate in Canada) into telecommunications markets in Canada, yet policy moves like UBB are adopted to protect the larger companies that already provide over 90% of internet service in this country.

There have been some positive comments about foreign ownership in particular from those in the government — now what we really need is action. The Canadian telecommunications market is in dire need of reform, and the CRTC should be spreadheading that reform for Canadians — instead of pushing policy decisions that aim to protect the status quo.

My father, who’s done his fair share of public speaking over the course of his career as a manager, wrote up the 10 points I’ve detailed below. I thought these points were great and wanted to share them. So here you go:

Tip #1: Remember that no one in the audience knows as much as you do about the topic. You are the expert.

Tip #2: The audience is interested in what you have to say. Slow down and take the time to think between the points you want to emphasize. This will demonstrate your confidence and the depth of your knowledge of the subject.

Tip #3: Practice, practice, practice.

At the venue before your presentation:

Tip #4: Check out the room. Walk up to the podium and simulate the presentation in your mind before you have to give it. This can be done the night before, during a lunch break, or during the natural break prior to your presentation. (Note: The more time you have between this and the actual presentation, the better.)

Tip #5: Meet the technical people. Make sure that they know what your material consists of (PowerPoint, videos or audio). Be prepared for an IT meltdown – have some hard copies of your presentation to handout if the IT fails. Above all, don’t apologize for a failure in the technology – have a backup plan. In my opinion, this is the most common failure in presentations: not having a plan.

During your presentation:

Tip #6: Make eye contact. Look for the friendly faces of people that you know or have spoken to. This will help you use spontaneous examples to support your presentation. And remember – stay on track! Keep the examples brief, but connect with those in the audience that you know are supportive of you personally and what you are presenting. This will connect you with the majority of the audience.

Tip #7: Relax. All of the tension has occurred 2 or 3 days before the presentation. You know the material, you have done the planning, and you have friends and supporters in the audience. You have an important message for them and they want to hear it.

Tip #8: If questions arise, be polite and answer them, but don’t let questions throw you off your presentation plan. Let the questions flow, but there will be a natural break when you can bring the presentation back to your control. Audience interest and discussion is a very positive thing, but ensure that you regain control and finish your material.

Tip #9: If you don’t know the answer – be honest! “I don’t have all of the information on the point you’re making, but I will make some inquiries and get back to you with an appropriate answer.”

At the conclusion of your presentation:

Tip #10: Thank the audience for their attention and interest. If there are outstanding issues or unanswered questions, pledge to do the follow up. This is normally a time when questions are asked. When they are finished, reiterate what a pleasure it has been to present the important information to the audience.

“We wanted to be sure that when we do come out with our (new) major message, ‘Life Without Walls,’ more people would be paying attention than they would otherwise,” contends Mathews. “My goodness, did we do that.”

You sure did, Mich. While Microsoft did at first focus on the improvements it had made to Windows Vista, it has now not only gotten Seinfeld and Gates talking nonsense — it’s also tried the old bait-and-switch approach to Vista marketing.

While I can’t argue that the latter approach is an innovative way to market their new operating system, why not just come up with a slogan like ‘Windows Vista: really, it’s not that bad.’ Maybe Microsoft should have stuck to their guns and just kept touting Vista’s improvements?

While I agree that Microsoft has often adopted some less than competitive business practices and promoted closed technology standards, I don’t see the company as pure evil — they’re simply a software company that has created software products.

But with all the criticism that has been mounted against Windows Vista, it seems odd to respond with a set of ads that, well, don’t really talk about Windows at all. I talked about the first Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates team-up, so here’s the latest installment:

Are you as lost as I am at this point? If you’ve seen the Mac versus PC ads that Apple has created, they’re extremely critical of Windows Vista — and I understand that as the big kid on the block, Microsoft doesn’t want to appear reactive or like a bully by directly criticizing Apple or its operating system.

But seriously guys, your ads at least need to make some kind of semblance of sense. While Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld doing menial everyday things may be mildly entertaining for about 30 seconds (and I mean mildly), it doesn’t really carry a whole ad campaign.

I just hope Apple doesn’t go the same route and respond with a 4-minute spot of Steve Jobs doing his laundry.

So what does all this have to do with Microsoft and their Sir William of Gates’ (as Ricky Gervais called him) plan to dominate the global software market? Well, if you can figure that out from this ad, you should probably start picking lottery numbers.

I’ve been a Seinfeld fan for a long time, and while Jerry’s Seinfeld’s nihilistic and often-egocentric brand of humour works most of the time, I’d argue that this time it falls flat on its face. If you don’t believe me, you can watch the ad for yourself.

I talked a little while ago about an old Windows 386 ad that I just found completely disturbing — but if you really want to see Microsoft at its funniest, check out this faux Microsoft training video (yes, starring none other than Ricky Gervais, creator of the British version of The Office).

Much, much funnier, isn’t it (and there are 3 other parts that you can take a look for on YouTube if you’re keen on that video)? Rumour has it that Microsoft wasn’t too happy about this video making it out onto the web (it wasn’t available on YouTube for a long time, but seems to have returned).

Funny enough (or in this case, not really funny at all) is the fact that advertising firm Crispin Porter + Bugowsky came up with the spot — the same firm that was responsible for inventing that creepy Burger King (if you haven’t seen the ads, it’s just a guy in a Burger King mask). Well, Bill Gates, you’re no Burger King — sorry.

This article focuses mostly on growers using the information provided via aerial and satellite images to get better acquainted with their own crops — they use near-infrared images to determine the grape vines’ vigor before the grapes are harvested.

The technology is called Oenoview, and it provides detailed information and imagery to wineries about their products — but wouldn’t a competitor be just as interested in what the neighbouring winery is producing? It seems a bit unfair on the surface, doesn’t it?

While this may seem to be putting some wineries at a competitive disadvantage (wineries not using this technology, for whatever reason, would be less informed about their own vines and their competitors’), it could also potentially improve crops as a whole, making the entire industry operate more effectively.

This is often the case where one group figures out how to leverage a particular type of industry or competitor information — the practice often becomes widespread and is adopted industry-wide, thus leading to advances that span that entire industry.

And who can complain about even better French wines (and potentially better wines from other regions)? Ultimately, it’s the consumer that stands to benefit.

I’m always still amazed that there are hosts out there that are able to offer unlimited bandwidth and unlimited sites; I guess we’ve come a long way in terms of what it costs to maintain a site (and I’m only talking from when I was looking for hosting in 2006).

I guess now the real trick is to compare the hosting review sites to each other and see which one offers the most comprehensive and honest reviews.

This is comedian Don McMillan talking about what you shouldn’t do in PowerPoint — and definitely strikes a chord with anyone who has sat through a ton of presentations.

It’s estimated that every individual worker spends about an hour and a half a week browsing sites that have nothing to do with their jobs, which they reason costs employers about £1000 per employee per year.

Steve points out the obvious flaws in the CBI’s logic — that workers who are prevented from shopping on eBay or checking their Hotmail accounts are not necessarily going to become productive, and that the very definition of ‘work-related’ is problematic (is reading the newspaper work-related for example?).

While I agree completely with both of Steve’s points, I think there’s another angle to consider here as well. Companies can easily restrict workers access to sites, and those workers have little recourse. Very few people could legitimately claim they need access to sports scores or whatever else they might want to read in the course of a day.

On the contrary, restricting workers’ access to other ‘time-wasting activities’ is often more difficult to do (it’s hard to prevent people from going to make a cup of coffee every hour or spending too much time going to the washroom). Restricting access to the time-gobbling internet sites seems like a quick and easy way to boost productivity.

I would argue however, that there are two unintended consequences to these restrictions. The first is that employees who are wasting their time at work are usually doing so for other reasons (besides an overwhelming desire to shop on eBay or whatever they do online), and will thus continue to waste time whether it’s online or offline.

And if employees are surfing the web at their desk, it’s far easier to get back into their work than it is if they’re out getting coffee or chatting with their friend on the phone. Restricting the internet could hypothetically have them wasting more time (just in different ways).

I’m willing to admit that what I’m proposing purely hypothetical here. My point is that there’s no real evidence on either side of the argument — no one has any proof of what those employees are going to do with their newly-reclaimed 90 minutes a week.

The second, more important, unintended consequence of restricting browsing is that it sends a clear message to employees: we don’t trust you. I talked about this before in terms of instant messaging.

It’s difficult to put a dollar value on trust (just as it’s difficult to put a dollar value on ‘wasted time’). Is it not better to assume that employees are willing to commit some extra time when they need to (which perhaps would more than compensate for the 90 minutes they ‘wasted’ during the week)?

Ultimately, if you don’t trust your employees, and think they’re not working hard enough or getting their work done, you’ve got bigger fish to fry. Letting employees know that the organization trusts them to manage their time shifts responsibility to the employee to perform.

While I’ve never been much of a Mac/Apple fan myself, I was the proud owner of a 1 gigabyte iPod Shuffle at one time, until it met its demise in a washing machine accident.

Speaking of shuffles, Rogers has pulled off some fancy footwork when it comes to how they’re going to be charging people for data on their phones. But first a little background.

Consumers haven’t exactly been overly pleased with Rogers’ handling of the iPhone, especially where data usage is concerned. And rightly so, considering the Canadian iPhone is the 2nd most costly in the world.

With Rogers, the most data you can get is 1 gigabyte a month (which they don’t advertise by the way, you have to ask them about it) for $60 a month (plus tax of course). Pretty expensive huh? Well, wait Rogers has something better up their sleeve.

Rogers recently unveiled that they’re going to be providing new a new data plan, which will give you 6 gigabytes of data usage for only $30 a month. Sounds pretty good so far, right?

Well, as long as you’re a new activation (and not an existing customer who’s currently overpaying for data) who’s willing to sign up for 3 years, then you can get the plan, as a promotion, until August 31st. Wait… what?

Once again, it’s another step backwards for the Canadian telecommunications industry.

With some industry analysts calling foul, and saying that the whole thing has just been engineered to build buzz about the iPhone, other analysts have tried to set us straight:

Analyst Carmi Levy said Rogers didn’t do a “knee jerk reaction” in response to consumer outrage.

“Carriers of this magnitude do not change course on a dime and you don’t simply introduce a half-baked plan into the market without weeks and-or months of study,” said Levy, of Toronto AR Communications Inc.

“I believe it was part of their plan all along to introduce this in the run-up to the launch, almost as an additional sweetener or additional incentive to boost awareness of the 3G (network),” Levy said, referring to Roger’s network.

So Carmi is essentially agreeing with the assertion that Rogers had planned this all along — but it’s actually to boost awareness of their 3G network? Well, Telus and Bell both have 3G networks as well, so I’m not sure what Rogers is bragging about.

Sascha Segan, of PC Magazine, has heralded this as an overwhelming victory for the consumer against the mighty Canadian telecom. But didn’t Carmi just tell us that Rogers was planning this all along? So instead of feeling victorious, the Canadian consumer should feel manipulated.

Did I just mention Telus and Bell? With the spotlight focused on Rogers’ data bait-and-switch, Telus and Bell seemed to think it was a good time to start charging 15¢ per text message for incoming messages (which have always been free).

Did they say Telus and Bell? How is it that two independently-operated public companies both decided to start charging exactly the same rate at exactly the same time for a service they had always provided for free?

Not to mention the fact that the rationale offered makes even less sense:

Wireless technology expert Ken Chase said he does not accept the rationale from Bell and Telus that the volume of text messages places great demands on the networks. The consultant with the Torontobased firm Heavy Computing said that while 45.3 million text messages sent daily sounds like a lot, the amount of space this takes up on a network and related costs to a telecom company are minuscule. A text message sent via mobile phone can be no more than 160 characters, and each character is about a byte. If 45 million text messages are sent throughout Canada every day and each message is about 100 characters, this totals 4.5 gigabytes. This amounts to about the same amount of gigabytes required to download two or three high-resolution movies from the Internet.

Just in case you guys need it, I have an 8 gigabyte MicroSD card in my phone. I’d be willing to sell it for around 100 bucks. Hey, I’d be happy to just give it away, but I’ve got to pay my Rogers data bill.