When I first got started in the telephone business, I remember the prominence of the Telephone Pioneers, a group that continues to operate under the banner of TelecomPioneers of Canada. They “are leaders in volunteerism, commited to improving the quality of life in our communities.” It is a group with a long standing tradition of volunteerism.

Bred out of a different era – perhaps encouraged by the long-lost safety of rate of return regulated monopolies – there is a history of community involvement by many of the companies in the telecom sector. It is a soft form of advocacy; a subtle form of corporate marketing. Most important, it is the right thing to do.

Community action by members of the industry ranges from Rogers’ Pumpkin Patrol at Halloween, to Wind Mobile’s deployment of volunteer resources during its licensing uncertainty, to last night’s celebration of the 20th anniversary of Kids Help Phone, founded in part by Bell Canada.

And now, TELUS is continuing to roll out its social networking services to children who are stuck in hospital beds across Canada. A couple months ago, I wrote about TELUS’ activities in delivering Upopolis.com, at that time being rolled out to IWK Health Care in Halifax. The service was already running at McMaster in Hamilton, CHEO in Ottawa and at the BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. On Wednesday, it appears that TELUS will be announcing the addition of Canada’s largest children’s hospital, Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children.

Continuing a long, proud history of community service in telecommunications. It is the right thing to do.

Last Thursday, I wrote about the call for comments that the CRTC issued, accompanied by a YouTube video appeal for participation.

The CRTC has a hearing starting today with the intent of having the public participate, live or by teleconference. The Commission notes on its website:

In addition to the 16,700 comments posted on the CRTC Website for this hearing, approximately 173,000 comments were submitted through the third parties/campaigns listed below. These comments have been placed on the public record of this proceeding and are available at the CRTC’s Documentation Centre and at the hearing.

Stop the TV Tax (see comment no. 18404 – Revised on 30 November 2009)

Local TV Matters (see comment no. 18405)

Cogeco (see comment no. 18406)

Other campaigns (see comment no. 18407)

Over 4000 comments were received by the CRTC AFTER the deadline for comments had elapsed. Therefore, they will not be taken into account in preparing the CRTC’s report to the Government, but are available on the public record of this proceeding for general information to the public.

It could not have been easy trying to pull together the agenda of appearance for this proceeding.

It should be entertaining to follow along.

So, contrary to our predictions earlier in the week, Industry Minister Clement did not announce the resolution of the various appeals that are on his desk.

That is taking us down close to the wire. The Telecom Act says:

12(1) Within one year after a decision by the Commission, the Governor in Council may, on petition in writing presented to the Governor in Council within ninety days after the decision, or on the Governor in Council’s own motion, by order, vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration of all or a portion of it.

Two of the decisions under appeal were released December 11, 2008 which means the deadline for the Minister to act will be next Thursday.

We’re watching for a sign.

The CRTC is seeking input from individual Canadians on the issue of compensation for the value of local TV signals. It has opened a new website that is soliciting comments from the general public with guidance to focus the input under broad headings: Affordability of local TV; Choice in services; Access to local programming in a digital environment; and, Other issues.

The website will be open until December 21.

I told Luann Lasalle of the Canadian Press that it isn’t surprising that so many of the early comments being filed are opposed to paying more.

Telecom analyst Mark Goldberg said asking consumers if they want to pay more automatically brings in a negative response.

“So unless there’s some real value being put forward, I don’t think that you need to canvass 30 million Canadians to ask them if they want to pay more for anything,” he said.

In the end, consumers will be in the driver’s seat, said Goldberg, of Toronto-area Mark Goldberg & Associates Inc. Telecommunications Consulting.

“We’re going to choose to watch whatever content we want when we want to. One way or another it’s available in various formats.”

A public hearing opens next Monday. It will be available by webcast and you can follow a number of us on Twitter – hash codes #crtc and #vfs.

Industry Minister Tony Clement will be speaking at The Canadian Club of Toronto on Thursday, which could provide the backdrop for his announcement on the appeals of a number of CRTC Decisions from late 2008.

On December 11 of last year, the CRTC issued decisions dealing with a variety of wholesale services issues. These were the main subjects of the cabinet appeals [officially called Petitions to the Governor in Council].

Decision 2008-117 dealt with speed matching – the requirement for ILECs to provide wholesale customers with access to all upgrades in speeds offered to retail consumers. Decision 2008-118 was a determination by the CRTC that its findings in Decision 2008-17 were correct.

The appeal of 2008-118 is a procedural last gasp – the timing for appeal of the original 2008-17 decision had expired. The Cabinet review included another CRTC Decision, Order 2009-111, which was a follow-up to 2008-117.

Got it straight?

It is appropriate to have Cabinet provide guidance on these decisions. At issue are questions of consistency with government competition policy. The essence of the appeals goes to the vision of how to foster a sustainably competitive telecom industry. To what extent will companies with advanced access infrastructure be required to share it on a regulated basis?

Thursday’s speech from Minister Clement should be examined to see how the current government views the future of competition in the communications sector: will the Minister continue to encourage facilities-based competition? How does this policy manifest itself in stimulating investment in next generation infrastructure?