Google doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone OS's. Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PC OS's

Correct, but you don't need calculus.

c+dc = 2*pi*(r+dr)

substitute 2*pi*r for c & expand
2*pi*r + dc = 2*pi*r + 2*pi*dr

simplify
dc/dr = 2*pi

assuming dr>0. i.e. we are not dealing with a poodle singularity.
Which by remarkable coincidence have recently been shown mathematically to not exist

Did you even read the article?!? Yes, women as a whole are making more, because more are going to college

From your own damn article:
"These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census."

and more importantly:
"women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level,"

No, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" is still not with us.

If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.

Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.

You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?

Except this has nothing to do with the disclosure of information.

What's really happening is Netflix want's to know is whether the CRTC can actually do anything if Netflix decides to not play by their rules. This opportunity provides a safe test-bed for that idea.

Netflix will not release the information at all. They will claim it's due to CRTC being unable to provide confidentiality (which strictly speaking is true....CRTC is subject to requests under the Information Act if the information can be shown to be of public interest). The actual reason is to see what the CRTC does about Netflix not playing ball and whether the government allows the CRTC to do anything about it.

Personally, I'm hoping the CRTC tries to do something and is slapped down hard due to public opinion.

Wow, you are really ok with the government mandating what type of information flows over the internet? That doesn't seem very Canadian at all of you.

Actually, the best arbiter of this would likely be the CRTC themselves. As they said back in 1991:

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

The current conflict is pure posturing on the CRTC's part in an attempt to maintain some sort of relevancy. They should just go away now.

This is about Canadian companies (not Netflix USA, who Netflix doesn't let Canadians use)

No, it isn't. There is no company named "Netflix Canada". Netflix is an entirely USA owned company that has a "Netflix Canada" branding for content they have licensed for distribution in Canada.

CRTC should have no more mandate here than they should over Youtube. In fact, they themselves said in 1999 that they should have no mandate over internet media:

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

No, it it doesn't necessarily end with "healthier content" unless you consider "dead" to be a healthy state.

It's a healthier state than the current one: "laughingstock".

I'm all in favor of free health care, free education, and social assistance for those who require it. I find the idea of a socialized entertainment industry a ludicrous and disgraceful waste of tax dollars.

My guess is that Canadians would react in horror to the loss of Canadian content regulations and the resulting return to the dark ages of complete media dominance by huge American corporations who wouldn't spend a penny in Canada.

My guess is that you are completely wrong. Most of us are completely confused as to how spending tax dollars to subsidize TV shows and movies that nobody watches actually helps Canadian culture.

If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.

Yes, Canadian TV broadcasters are under CRTC regulation as they are Canadian broadcasters (i.e. Canadian companies). I don't like it either, but I agree they are under the purview of the CRTC.

Netflix is not. They are also not broadcasting. And as the CRTC decided themselves in 1999, should not require a license:

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

Except as everyone is noting here, they are NOT broadcasting.

Exactly, as the CRTC themselves decided in 1999

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

The CRTC is just posturing.

Then every website in Canada would require a license because it's broadcasting.

No, the CRTC does not license broadcasting that occurs primarily in textual form. That being said, they excluded themselves from "the new media" in 1999.

  From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act. ....
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

Exactly.

A party that pledged to rid us of the CRTC could also declare Thursday's "burn a kitten" day, and still likely be voted in.

Canadians are pretty pissed off at a legislative body that continually bends over backwards for the telecommunications industry, fails to promote a competitive marketplace and consumer choice, and uses our tax dollars in order to tell us what our culture is.

And to make things better, the minute some foreign company comes in to offer us something Canadians actually want, they start rattling their bureaucratic saber. What a joke.

don't know the FCC but this case is exactly what the CRTC is supposed to be regulating.

The CRTC is supposed to regulate Canadian broadcasting. Netflix is not Canadian. It has no presence in Canada. Regardless of the industry-paid-for legislation over grey-market satellites, the CRTC should not be regulating this at all.

Should the CRTC also be legislating Canadian content on YouTube? Twitch? Instagram? Any random site with a podcast? If their legislative powers exist beyond Canada, then the answer would be yes. That is insanity.

Other broadcaster have to chip money into the pot for, yes, our socialist approach to fostering local arts. Many Canadians *support* this idea and we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.

And many Canadians do not.

I hope Netflix entirely wrecks the system of local content production. The idea that that society should pay to produce crap content in order to support culture is ludicrous.