This year, Tuesday January 28 is Bell’s “Let’s Talk Day“.

On January 28, Bell will donate 5 cents to mental health programs for every text message sent and every long distance call made by Bell and Bell Aliant customers.

People who aren’t Bell customers can participate by Tweeting with #BellLetsTalk or sharing the Bell Let’s Talk image on Facebook.

The 2013 campaign generated $4.8M, nearly 25% more than the year before. Bell has now committed $62,043,289.30 to Canadian mental health based on its
original $50-million donation plus the results of the last 3 years of Bell Let’s Talk Day: $3,303,961.80 in 2011; $3,926,014.20 in 2012; and $4,813,313.30 in 2013.

Yesterday, a $2.5M donation was announced by Bell to mark the 25th anniversary of Kid’s Help Phone, to support the mental health and well-being of young people across Canada.

But this is about so much more than the money being donated and distributed.

Bell Let’s Talk Day is about talking. It is a day for talking about something that makes many people uncomfortable.

One in five Canadians will suffer from a mental illness at some point in their lives, yet still, mental health is an issue that most of us avoid talking about.

With its advertising campaign leading up to January 28, Bell Let’s Talk is about ending the stigma associated with mental health issues, or as I wrote in 2010, getting people talking about un-mentionables.

There are very few national brands that are powerful enough to take the lead in being an anchor supporter of mental health research and treatment; Bell’s approach – getting people to talk about it – aligns with communications, which is what the company does for a living.

Anti-stigma is one of the four pillars of the program. Overcoming the stigma is one of the biggest hurdles for anyone suffering from mental illness. Bell Let’s Talk Day is driving a national conversation, helping to reduce the stigma, promoting awareness and understanding as a first step toward lasting change.

I’d like you to support this initiative. Visit Bell’s website for more information or check out the press release.

On Tuesday, January 28 – Let’s talk.

Deloitte is releasing its “Technology, Media & Telecommunications Predictions 2014” this morning and it is 80 pages of solid reading. The main report provides a global perspective, but there are predictions that provide a focus on trends in Canada.

Among the highlights of the report are Canada’s top 10 predictions:

1. Phablet are not a Phad
   • Deloitte predicts that in 2014 shipments of phablets, smartphones with 5.0-6.9 inch screens, will represent a quarter of smartphones sold
2. Wearables: the eyes have it
   • Deloitte predicts that smart glasses, fitness bands and watches, should sell about 10 million units in 2014
3. Doubling up on pay TV
   • Deloitte predicts that by the end of 2014 up to 50 million homes around the world will have two or more separate pay-television subscriptions
4. Narrowing the gap: seniors embrace the smartphone
   • Deloitte predicts that in 2014, the over-55s will be the age group experiencing the fastest year-on-year rises in smartphone penetration across developed markets
5. eVisits: the 21st century housecall
   • Deloitte predicts that in 2014, there will be 100 million eVisits globally, potentially saving over $5 billion when compared to the cost of in-person doctor visits and representing growth of 400 percent from 2012 levels
6. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): not disruptive yet, but the future looks bright
   • Deloitte predicts that by 2014, student registrations in MOOCs will be up 100 percent compared to 2012 to over 10 million courses, but the low completion rates mean that less than 0.2 percent of all courses completed in 2014 will be MOOCs
7. Death of the voice call – but only for some
   • Deloitte predicts that in 2014 that about 10-20% of Canadian cellular customers will spend only 3-4 minutes per day talking on their phones
8. Those who like TV like it a lot
   • Deloitte predicts that by the end of 2014, the 20 percent of English-speaking Canadians who watch the fewest minutes of traditional TV (both live and playback ) will fall to just over 30 minutes per day, down from nearly 60 minutes in 2004
9. The Converged Living Room: a plateau approaches
   • Deloitte predicts that global sales of smartphones, tablets, PCs, TV sets and videogame consoles will exceed $750 billion in 2014, up $50 billion from 2013 and almost double the 2010 total
10. TV sports rights: extra premium
    • Deloitte predicts that in 2014 the value of premium sports broadcast rights worldwide will increase to $24.2 billion, a 14 percent rise, or $2.9 billion over 2013

The list above provides just the opening teaser for each of Deloitte’s predictions. Many of the items have interesting, but not necessarily intuitive twists associated with them. For example, the decline in TV viewing by the bottom quintile of viewers will have virtually no effect on the average English Canadian TV viewing of 3.8 hours per day, expected to change by less than 10 minutes (up or down) versus the same period in 2013. And, French-speaking Quebecers who watch the least TV are predicted to watch about 70 minutes daily, unchanged from 2004 levels, attributed to the lower availability of over-the-top content.

What are the implications and opportunities that arise from these trends?

The full report is packed with data, references and colour commentary. Try to attend one of the Deloitte briefing sessions taking place across the country this month, starting today in Toronto. Be sure to follow Duncan Stewart, Director of Research for Deloitte Canada, on Twitter.

The news that Wind Mobile withdrew from the 700 MHz auction on the eve of its start was a deeply disturbing signal that Canada’s telecom policy framework is broken.

Rita Trichur, in the Globe and Mail, wrote “VimpelCom decided not to fund Wind’s purchase of 700-megahertz spectrum because of ongoing conflict over Ottawa’s foreign investment rules that, to date, have prevented it from taking formal control of the small Canadian carrier.”

For months I have been suggesting that it is time for a reset. As I said to IT World Canada, “Unfortunately Canadians are paying the price for … rules that are simply too unstable, inconsistent and at times incomprehensible.” For too long, our telecom policy framework has looked like the Calvinball rulebook.

As I told Business In Vancouver: “Wind’s withdrawal should be ‘a wakeup call’ that Canada’s telecom policies aren’t working.”

He added it calls into question the Harper government’s telecom policies, including its rules around foreign investment in the Canadian wireless space.

As he points out, Vimpelcom-Wind was the only new entrant in the Canadian wireless space that already has spectrum and the financial wherewithal to acquire more.

“These guys have spectrum, they have an opportunity to be the only new entrant bidder in Canada’s three most prosperous provinces and yet they can’t make the business plan work to continue investing in Canada.”

I told Mobile Syrup this situation is “an unfortunate outcome of a wireless policy where the rules are changing too frequently and are leading to an unstable investment climate.”

We are long overdue for the 5-year review of our telecom policy, recommended by the Telecom Policy Review Panel. We need to understand the market landscape, take stock of the conditions that have inhibited the build out of competitive networks, and develop policies that work for Canadians, encouraging investment in new technologies, products and services.

I get no pleasure from saying “I told you so.”

The United States has taken the first steps to review its Communications Act, which had its last overhaul in 1996.

According to an article on The Hill, the US Act didn’t look at the Internet in a “forward looking” manner.

Representatives Fred Upton and Greg Walden, who head up the US House Energy and Commerce Committee and communications and technology subcommittee released a white paper to kick off the review process. According to The Hill:

The committee’s white paper also criticized the “siloed” nature of the current law, which has different rules for different kinds of communications. This has created a problem with providers that now offer, for example, combined communication services, such as making calls through an Internet connection.

Silos? In Canada, we have different Acts for Telecom versus Broadcasting. Both Acts pre-date the 1996 US Communications Act; the Telecom Act dates back to 1993 and the Broadcast Act precedes it by two years. Further silos are created by other Acts, such as the Radiocommunications Act.

Perhaps it is time for a holistic review of the governance of the sector?

AT&T got critics’ keyboards activated by announcing plans for a Sponsored Data service, enabling websites to pay for their end-users data consumption. The service has been characterized as a type of toll-free or “1-800” style service for mobile data.

Does this contravene network neutrality principles? AT&T says the traffic from the sponsoring sites will be treated the same as other traffic on the network. A US public interest group, Public Knowledge, claims this is precisely what a net neutrality violation looks like.

I don’t think it is quite so clear. Via Twitter, I asked for careful thought on the implications of the evolution of internet transport business models:

AT&T has provided these examples of enabled capabilities in its press release:

• Encouraging customers to try a new smartphone or tablet app.
• Promoting movie trailers or games.
• Providing patient healthcare support via wellness videos.
• Encouraging customers to browse mobile shopping sites.
• Allowing businesses with ‘Bring Your Own Device’ policies to pay for the data employees use for specific business-related apps and services.
• Enhancing customer loyalty programs by providing sponsored data access to products and services.

AT&T has indicated that among its first two clients are Aquto, which has an app that rewards users with extra data if they watch ads or download specific apps, and health insurance company UnitedHealth Group.

Is it possible that Aquto, or app providers like them, might enable data access to customers who cannot afford a data plan?

Could “sponsored data” facilitate the development of data-intensive health telemetry applications, paid for by the healthcare insurer or provider, instead of burdening the patient with the costs? According to Techcrunch, the intent is to provide low-income users access to health information videos.

Could such a “toll-free” data model enable more equitable treatment of data use by Video Relay Service consumers?

Should regulators intervene or allow the marketplace to work to enable evolution of network business models?