Yesterday’s posting seems to have struck a chord with some people, based on calls, emails and formal blog comments.

In the coming days, I’ll be continuing to explore some issues in relation to privacy issues and the telecom industry.

In the meantime, let me suggest that folks who are truly concerned with these issues should consider attending a conference run by my good friend Stewart Dresner, who heads up the advisory firm ‘Privacy Laws & Business’. For 19 years, Stewart’s firm has successfully helped organisations integrate data protection and privacy law into good business practice.

His conference takes place July 3-5 in Cambridge (UK).

I don’t usually read the obits in the paper… I’m not sure what drew me to that page in the Star yesterday afternoon.

It was with great sadness that I read of the passing of James Christian McDaniel, an anchor of consistency in the turbulent waters of competitive telecom in Canada.

Jim was Mr. CNCP – a dignified gentleman who personified customer service and attention to detail. Always impeccably dressed, I recall that he usually had a cigar in hand when I would see him in the garage at 200 Wellington early in the morning when we both would get into work.

The obituary sums up his career:

Jim began his career in 1934, in the heart of the ‘depression’ as a telegraph messenger with what was then known as the Canadian National Telegraph Company. Jim rose through the ranks to become Head of Sales and was at the heart of the last century’s technology revolution from Morse Code through to fibre optics. During the 1970s and 1980s, Jim was a pioneer in the way he acted as Chief Customer Advocate in television commercials – for what had come to be known as CNCP Telecommunications – becoming Mr. CNCP. Later in the 1990s, after a brief retirement, Jim agreed to become a member of the senior management team at Unitel Communications, where he contributed his powers of persuasion and national presence to the effort to bring competition to Canada’s long distance telephony market.

I’ve said in the past that the sign of a balanced CRTC decision is one that equally annoys the incumbents, new entrants and consumer groups.

I don’t think the same measure can be used for legislation. A Senate Committee in the US has proposed the Communications, Consumers’ Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 and it promises to provide lots of fodder for my writings this summer.

Let’s start with the Consumer Internet Bill of Rights that appears 145 pages into the document:

These are well meaning and they even sound good, until you stop to think a little bit about item (1): “access and post any lawful content…”.

What does it mean to allow each subscriber to post any lawful content of that subscriber’s choosing? To start with, it would invalidate Acceptible Use Policies and force ISPs into hosting content that they find to be offensive, unless it is actually illegal.

Extremists, purveyors of adult content and their ilk are interesting bedfellows for the ‘Save the Net’ crowd that are behind this provision.

In a non-digital world, this section says that the manager of a local grocery store would be forbidden from taking down ads for escort services that get posted on the community bulletin board at the store’s entrance.

Sounds to me like the store is losing control of their private property and their ability to apply discretion over the type of business they want.

Exactly which consumer’s rights are being defended in Section 903(a)(1)?

Mike Urlocker has a posting on his blog about 7×24 accessibility versus downtime.

His conclusion merits discussion.

As a self-employed, independent consultant, one of the services I offer is always being available. As a result, I find that mobile access is an enabler of downtime, not a detractor from family time.

In my pre-Blackberry days, I can recall helping a client negotiate a contract during the weeks leading up to the school March break. We planned a vacation in Colorado with the kids. The contract wasn’t signed, but I had my cel phone and my client knew how to reach me.

On the slopes at Loveland, the phone rang and I stopped to deal with an issue that arose during the drafting of the agreement. 15 minutes later, I was done and got to enjoy the rest of the vacation.

The point: accessibility didn’t interfere with my ski trip; it enabled me to go on the vacation. The alternative was for me to stay in the city waiting by the phone.