The United States is on the verge of implementing tough junk-fax legislation, while the Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has taken a detour to give telemarketers time to voice their concerns.

In May 2004, the CRTC announced that companies sending unsolicited faxes to businesses or individuals on behalf of corporate or not-for-profit advertisers must provide caller identification in legible typeface at the top of the first page.

They also must provide anyone who complained about the faxes with a unique registration number that would be added to a do-not-call list. This edict was to take effect Oct. 1 last year, and scofflaws faced speedy disconnection of their phone service.

The CRTC expressed interest in a Canadian do-not-call list, but lacked enforcement power and the authority to create funding.

Canada's telemarketing community protested the May 2004 measures at a decibel level high enough to inspire the CRTC to announce in September 2004 it would suspend enforcement indefinitely to allow time to hear the groups' concerns.

In December, Parliament introduced legislation that makes provision for a Canadian do-not-call list and - more importantly - provides the CRTC with the regulatory tools it would need.

The bill - an Act to Amend the Telecommunications Act - remains at the House committee stage.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have lowered the boom, passing bills that prohibit unsolicited faxes from being sent unless the recipients have given written consent or an existing business relationship can be shown.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for years has been developing regulation, pursuant to the country's Telephone Consumer Protection Act, to bring such a ban into effect.

Now, with the weight of the Senate's Junk Fax Prevention Act and similar House legislation backing it, the FTC has announced the ban will go into effect on Jan. 9 next year.

The FTC previously had set deadlines, the most recent being July 1, but postponed them to give the telemarketing industry more time to submit requests for reconsideration or to adapt to the new regulatory regime.

In Canada, the CRTC has worked for more than a decade to develop regulations that would address the concerns of fax-machine owners who insist that the telemarketers' Charter right to freedom of expression does not extend to their paper and toner.

In a move paralleling the CRTC's work under the Telecommunications Act, Parliament introduced Bill C-37 last December that addresses the requirements for a Canadian do-not-call list that previously were identified by the CRTC.

The list would be similar to the National do-not-call Registry that the FTC has had in place for two years.

Richard French, the CRTC's vice-chairman of telecommunications, told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology last April that three barriers have impeded a do-not-call list in Canada.

They are:

* Startup and ongoing funding: The creation of such a list would cost as much as $1.9 million plus ongoing operating costs. (The FTC's National do-not-call Registry operating costs totalled about $14 million during fiscal 2004.)

* Effective enforcement powers.

* Delegation of the list to a newly created administrator. "The CRTC's expertise is not as a creator or operator of large databases," French noted in his speech.

Bill C-46 addresses all three issues. The earliest possible date for full launch of a Canadian do-not-call list would be 19 months after passage of the legislation, said French.

"The magnitude of total estimated costs is not insignificant and the process for recovering some of these costs is not certain at this time," he said, adding that when Parliament passes the law, "the commission will immediately commence a public process seeking public input ... " Currently, the majority of industry members appear in favour of such a registry, which, given public antipathy, is probably a wise stance. According to a poll cited by Industry Canada, 97 per cent of all Canadians claim to have been annoyed at one time or another by such faxes or calls.

"We believe a compulsory do-not-call service for all companies that use the telephone to market their goods and services ... is the most effective means to curtail consumer annoyance with telemarketers," Canadian Marketing Association CEO John Gustavson says in a news release.

"At the same time, such a service will help protect the viability of a marketing medium that employs over 270,000 Canadians and generates more than $16 billion in sales each year."

Meanwhile, the public is left with some protection while the CRTC processes submissions from dozens of interested parties that have commented on the heightened public protection the commission announced in May 2004 and then shelved.

For instance, calling parties must maintain their own do-not-call lists and must cease calling within seven days of the called party's request.

Callers must also identify the person or organization on behalf of whom the call or fax is made, including the telephone number, fax number and name and address of a responsible person the called party can write.

If and when enforcement is re-implemented, the new rules would afford further protection.

For instance, there would be a requirement that fax calls disclose the originating time and date in addition to the sender information, and that this information be provided at the top of the first page in 12-point font or larger.

When this information is faxed on behalf of a client, the fax would identify both the agent and the client.

The biggest change would be a requirement that the sender provide all persons requesting to be added to the do-not-call list with a unique registration number, and that requester names and numbers be added to the list within seven days of the recipients' request.

Telephone service to all lines used in connection with faxes that contravene these rules may be suspended or terminated two business days after notice from the telephone utility.

In an August 2004 application to have these new measures stayed, the CMA pleaded that the harm that would befall the economy would outweigh any benefits achieved by businesses and consumers. It also pointed out the cost would be burdensome.

(Brock Ketcham is an Edmonton-based writer who specializes in consumer and public policy issues. He can be reached at brock@businessedge.ca)