Last Friday, I was frustrated by a Toronto window company ignoring the national do not call list and calling me. They just didn’t care.

And it made me think even more about what I have written in the past about the flaws in the Electronic Commerce Protection Act. McCarthy’s had also warned about restrictions being too broad.

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.

Typically, we see internet communications as being less restrictive than traditional media. We have so many people that talk about open access to information and actively promote it. I see so many cases of civil libertarians up in arms over attempts to block digital communications – even in cases where hard copies are stopped at the border or seized by police.

We are less likely to impose restrictions on digital content than print or other forms. But the previous version of the act goes far beyond protection from spam. It prevents commercial contacts in digital form from businesses with no intent to defraud – communications that are perfectly legal in a paper format. Why would Industry Canada want to prevent a legitimate company from acquiring a electronic mailing list, when this is completely acceptable in print form?

As it is written, the bill would be better titled the Electronic Commerce Restrictions Act: it discourages many efficiencies that should be available to businesses of all sizes in reaching out to new customers.

The re-introduction of the bill in a new session of Parliament will enable Industry Canada to fix these deficiencies to encourage confidence in e-commerce without choking off incentives for Canadian business, legitimate businesses, to adopt innovative business models using electronic communications.

Industry Minister Tony Clement will deliver the opening keynote address on June 7 at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit. Will he use the opportunity to announce a new and improved version of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act?

The parliamentary industry committee (known as INDU) is wrapping up its review of foreign ownership of telecom carriers later this week with an appearance by Industry Minister Tony Clement on Thursday.

Last week, the CRTC appeared and it delivered a message consistent with what it has said in the past: that Canada needs a common Communications Act (to replace the Broadcast Act and Telecom Act), and that foreign companies should not be permitted to control Canadian carriers.

Two years ago, I wrote about the CRTC’s position submitted to the Competition Policy Review Panel. At the time, the Commission wrote:

The economics of Internet production do not favour local content. As localism is eroded, the maintenance of Canadian capacity in the form of Canadian-owned and –controlled companies will become more critical. A branch plant economy for cultural production and distribution is difficult to envisage. Multi-national enterprises would have little incentive to create uniquely national content.

The CRTC does not appear to have modified its view. I think it is wrong. The presence of Canadian versions of global websites (Google, MSN, Yahoo among many others) demonstrates that attracting viewers has been an incentive to create “uniquely national content.”

Of course, no one seems to be screaming for liberalized ownership of broadcasters – the content masters. As Ken Engelhart of Rogers pointed out in its testimony last week, there is a different license for broadcast distributors (cable, IPTV and satellite companies) as contrasted with the broadcast licenses held by TV and radio stations. It is pretty easy to see how we can liberalize ownership on the carriage side, while retaining protections for content.

As William Watson asked in the National Post last week, “Do you sleep better at night knowing our communications companies are safely in Canadian hands?”

We aren’t going to have a unified Communications Act as quickly as we need to see liberalized ownership rules for the communications industry. With continually increasing capital requirements for network upgrades, why shouldn’t all carriers be able to increase their access to foreign capital?

Michael Hennessy of TELUS has posted his testimony on his blog.

Before our brochures went into the mailbox, we have already updated the online version!

The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit is enhancing its discussion of Canada’s Digital Strategy.

Ambassador David Gross is joining our panel (chaired by Jerry Brown of PricewaterhouseCoopers) looking at international perspectives on ICT strategies, joining Bernard Courtois of ITAC, and professors Len Waverman (Dean of University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business) and Catherine Middleton (Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson). This panel will lead into a session chaired by Helen McDonald of Industry Canada, with CRTC vice-Chair Len Katz, Gerri Sinclair (Centre for New Media), Jonathan Daniels (Bell Canada) and Peter Lyman (Nordicity). These leaders are all appearing on Tuesday afternoon, June 8.

The 3 day conference opens Monday June 7. If you are interested in Canada’s national digital strategy, you won’t want to miss The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit. If you work in communications or information technology or new media, you need to be there.

Have you registered yet?

A month ago, I wrote about Public Mobile’s launch plans, which include advanced sales and special promotions for customers who are willing to take the risk and sign up prior to the network being opened for service.

At the time, Public Mobile said that CRTC approval of its ownership structure was imminent, and a spokesperson at the CRTC confirmed that it was expecting to release a decision in March or early-April.

But here we are, a month from the scheduled launch, and there is still no word from the CRTC on the ownership review file.

As I have written before, Mobilicity’s ownership structure is also under review.

Did Tuesday’s remarks by the CRTC Chair at the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology contain any foreshadowing?

On Monday evening, I was at the Sony Ericsson launch for the Xperia X10 – partly to be up close and person with Jay Malinowski of the Bedouin Soundclash. It was great to check out the new device that will be released soon exclusively on the Rogers network.

The X10 uses the Android operating system, meaning that all sorts of applications can be added by users to personalize and enhance their device. This represents the first time that Sony Ericsson has gone with an open operating system.

Monday was also the day that news was widely released that Palm, the company that pretty much created the smart phone segment, was looking for a buyer. 

Mobile devices are part of the frequently fickle consumer electronics marketplace. We have seen a number of companies fall in and out of fashion over the years. Design sizzle and marketing hype can be as important as technological functionality in making a consumer product a winner.

So, if a company with such a strong consumer electronics legacy like Sony has recognized the value of leveraging a global cadre of creative app developers, it makes me wonder how much longer it will take for RIM to develop an Android powered Blackberry? Will the Blackberry software suite become a licensed app on other consumer electronic devices? Will RIM look at a hybrid model like Microsoft – some licensed software and some devices (such as the new Kin) under total development and control?

There will be a panel looking at developments in smart phones and mobile services on Monday June 7 at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit, including leaders from RIM and Microsoft.

Have you registered yet?