The Globe and Mail has launched a new look today for its print edition as well as its award winning website.

In an editorial introducing the new Globe, the paper explains the investment at a time when many are forecasting a bleak future for for old media. “Globe journalism relies upon its authority and credibility.”

This echos an observation I made more than 4 years ago:

To get back to the future of newspapers: the challenge in a fully democratized publishing universe, with no barriers to entry enabled by a global broadband distribution network, is for the voices of trust, authority and depth of knowledge to not only float to the top, but to be recognized and valued.

The new look of The Globe and Mail is an investment from which all of us will benefit. We look forward to continuing to access news and commentary presented with the recognition of our trust in the Globe’s authority and credibility.

On Tuesday, a report from an insurance industry funded Highway Loss Data Institute caught my eye.

I saw a quote that mirrors language that I used 2 years ago. Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said HLDI’s new findings about texting, together with the organization’s previous finding that hand-held phone bans didn’t reduce crashes,

call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes. They’re focusing on a single manifestation of distracted driving and banning it. This ignores the endless sources of distraction and relies on banning one source or another to solve the whole problem.

In October 2008, I wrote:

The body of literature really seems to be pointing to a broader problem: driving while distracted – distractions coming from many sources. Some papers (for example and this example) refer to distractions caused by being engaged in conversations – even those with someone else in the car.

… Does this raise questions about whether legislation that targets only mobile phone use is missing the mark?

Driving while texting legislation may be popular with voters, but did it really accomplish what was promised?

Along these same lines, I continue to question the efficacy of the current anti-spam legislation. Will it really stop the garbage coming from bad guys, or simply increase costs for legitimate business?

A few weeks ago, BMO hosted its annual Media and Telecom Conference.

The transformation of the delivery of video content was a recurring theme from many of the speakers. As recently as 5 years ago, most of us received our video content from conventional cable companies on our TV sets.

As we have been hearing at The Canadian Telecom Summit, the speakers at the BMO event referred to the evolution of video over three screens – TV, computer and mobile devices. Bell CEO George Cope observed that content has been one of Bell’s fastest growing costs. Bell’s acquisition of CTV was a result of Bell not wanting to be in a position of having to pay broadcasters and telecom competitors Rogers, Shaw or Videotron for the material that has been feeding its fast growing video business.

Videotron is looking to mirror its offerings across its cable, internet and new mobile platforms. It also suggested that owning content allows it to negotiate access to other content from a position of strength.

Will TELUS be able to rely on regulations to ensure that it has sufficient access to content at a cost effective price? Will other non- integrated service providers be able to compete, operating solely in mobile or internet markets?

Quick reference to two items of interest regarding electronic commerce in Canada from Stats Can and yesterday’s debates in Parliament.

Yesterday, Statistics Canada released information about how much internet shopping was done by Canadians in 2009. Last year, Canadians placed $15.1B in orders for goods and services, up 18% from the $12.8B we spent in 2007. This represented 95 million orders last year, up 32% from the 70 million orders in 2007 – meaning that the average value of each purchase declined from $183 in 2007 to $158 in 2009.

In that same period, residential internet users increased by about 8%, according to the CRTC’s Communications Monitoring Report, making the growth in e-commerce even less impressive. an increase of 18% over 2 years should be disappointing.

So, to restore confidence in electronic commerce, we received word that Bill C-28 was introduced: the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act.

Despite its name, the Bill goes beyond what is needed to fight spam and it remains to be seen whether it will actually fulfill its core purpose:

to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating commercial conduct that discourages the use of electronic means to carry out commercial activities

My concerns regarding the previous incarnation of this Bill have been set out before [here, here and here]. Here is the rub: I look at the real junk that is clogging my email filters and getting past the automated filters. None of it is from legitimate businesses. All of the spam can be characterized as having some variant of fradulent information: the sender is fake; the subject line is false, there is some form of misrepresentation.

None of the pharmeceutical ads or physical enhancement ads or porn or trojan horse emails with fake links to banks present themselves truthfully. Why does the legislation go beyond a prohibition on such fraud? How can this legislation be portrayed as enhancing electronic commerce when the law prohibits sending out a request for consent to be sent commercial messages.

I have trouble understanding how we can plan to prohibit communication in digital form that is perfectly acceptable on paper; our post office depends on revenues generated by the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail. This legislation, as currently written, will increase the cost of conducting electronic commerce in Canada.

---

Unlike other international anti-spam legislation, the prohibition against unsolicited commercial messages in the ECPA is not limited to messages sent with some element of fraud or misleading information, sent with an “intent to deceive or mislead,” sent to addresses that were gathered using “automated means,” or sent in bulk.

I grew up on the grounds of a children’s psychiatric research institute in London, Ontario, the son of a child psychiatrist.

Two of my siblings are in the “family business”.

So, I was really taken with Bell’s announcement last week that it has launched a 5 year, $50 million initiative to support mental health across Canada, with Canada’s Olympic hero, Clara Hughes, acting as spokesperson for a national Let’s Talk campaign.

Last year, I wrote about the longtime association between the telecommunications sector and community service; much good work is being done by the companies and individuals working in our industry. Indeed, this year’s Telecom Hall of Fame ceremony will recognize the work of the Telecom Pioneers of Canada, preparing to celebrate the milestone of a century of community service work.

Bell’s multi-year commitment to support mental health is especially important in many ways. Mental health isn’t something people like to talk about; one of the four pillars of Bell’s Mental Health Initiative deals with Anti-stigma. Public perception is the leading reason that most of those living with a mental illness do not seek help. Bell’s willingness to have its brand associated with helping Canadians deal with mental illness is a brave and bold statement to open the national conversation about mental health.

For me, I took a special interest in this announcement. Maybe I liked seeing such an important player in my business – telecommunications – take an active interest in my family’s main line of work – mental health.