Just before the holidays, I had the opportunity to speak with Gianni Burzi, who is the managing partner at Adivent, a Swiss-based company that can be considered to be a virtual European sales organization.

The economic challenges facing us in North America are being felt around the world, but not all telecom markets are in the same state of competitive development. Various national governments are promoting increased capital spending in next generation infrastructure and others are welcoming new carriers placing initial investments.

As a result, I suspect there are opportunities to be found for companies that are able to navigate the processes that are unique to each culture – both national and corporate.

Enter Adivent, a sales outsourcing company specializing in European telecommunications, which guarantees that it can put a sales team in operation within four weeks of signing on, far faster than you could achieve in-house and avoiding a lot of red-tape.

To establish a basic sales team in any European country requires tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, taxes, recruiting costs and travel expenses. Year to year, operations require almost the same amount. With Adivent, there are no startup costs and no recurring fixed costs.

It seems to me that outsourced sales solutions like Adivent provide opportunities for Canada’s innovative technology companies to rapidly adjust to challenging markets in North America and explore the other side of world.

We have colleagues working on similar ventures in China. How are you managing these days?

Technorati Tags:
Adivent, Europe

A loyal reader, frequent commenter and fellow eater of kippers for breakfast sent me a link to a release from the US Chamber of Commerce, describing two new major studies showing the economic benefits of delivering broadband to all consumers, especially senior citizens.

The papers recommend that the federal government should adopt policies to incent investment in broadband infrastructure.

The two reports, Network Effects: An Introduction to Broadband Technology & Regulation [pdf 288K] and the first of 4 companion reports: The Impact of Broadband on Senior Citizens [pdf 482K], provide a number of policy recommendations with a US focus but relevance for Canada. Other companion reports to be released will review the impact of broadband on telemedicine, people with special needs, and education.

These US Chamber of Commerce reports are worthwhile reading over the holiday period.

We will want to look at them further in the new year – especially in preparing for the CRTC’s internet network management proceeding.Here is a sample of what the US Chamber has to say:

Network regulation would serve only to slow innovation and discourage continued network deployment by increasing regulatory uncertainty and decreasing financial incentives to deploy advanced infrastructure.

The Chamber also suggests some guiding principles for ensuring that all U.S. consumers have access to broadband and broadband-enabled tools. So far, Canadian initiatives have been provincial initiatives.

In recent months, we have seen 3 provinces announce universal broadband access plans: PEI, Saskatchewan and last week’s announcement from New Brunswick.

What will be the role of the January federal budget in launching national broadband infrastructure initiatives? How will we create an effective, pro-competitive national broadband strategy for Canada?

The government was clearing out files in the past couple weeks. Cabinet rejected a couple appeals of CRTC decisions, allowing the decisions to stand.

In one, the Cabinet rejected an appeal by Imagine Canada and the Association of Fundraising Professionals, who wanted to overturn the CRTC’s Decision 2008-6 requirement for charities to register and pay fees in respect of violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

In the other, Cabinet denied two concurrent appeals of the Deferral Account decision (2008-1). TELUS wanted an additional process to file further broadband proposals to avoid rebating remaining funds in the deferral accounts to residential subscribers; Axia SuperNet wanted to preclude TELUS from using deferral account funds to subsidize construction of competing transport facilities.

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to subsection 12‍(1) of the Telecommunications Act, hereby declines to vary or rescind Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1 or to refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration.

The Deferral Account proceeding is still the subject of a case before the Supreme Court.

Both decisions by Cabinet demonstrate an endorsement by this government for the current Commission and its chair.

---

Update [December 23, 3:30 pm]
More background on the Deferral Account appeals process and history can be found here.

With so many readers taking a break over the next two weeks, my own writing will also slow down. Try to shake things up a little to break the routine – maybe a new variation for your traditional holiday recipes. Earlier this week, I made two variants on the traditional latke potato pancake: Cajun latkes, made with extra pepper; and, Acadian latkes, topped with cheddar cheese and pareve gravy. Both sit just as heavy.

I plan to resume daily blog articles January 5.

Let me wish all of you a happy and healthy holiday season with hopes for a peaceful new year.

Have you registered yet for The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit?

The CRTC issued a series of cost awards today that appear to take aim at CAIP’s failed application to have the Commission reverse Bell’s traffic shaping of wholesale internet services.

It is possible to apply for an award of costs in a CRTC proceeding if you: (i) represent a group of subscribers that have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding; (ii) participate responsibly; and, (iii) contribute to a better understanding of the issues [note: the procedures are set out in CRTC PN 2002-5].

The Commission found that 3 groups met these tests: the Campaign for Democratic Media ($10,355); l’Union des consommateurs ($14,950); and, Public Interest Advocacy Centre ($13,709).

Frequently, the CRTC divides the costs among the telecommunications services providers based on their relative size, measured by telecom services revenues. However, in this case, the CRTC decided to have CAIP pay 20% of the costs in order to make the amount “meaningful.” Bell is ordered to pay the other 80%.

The Commission also notes that CAIP has, relative to Bell Canada, a very small share of the telecommunication revenues. However, the Commission considers that CAIP’s contribution should be meaningful.

As a result, CAIP is going to pay about $7500 towards the costs of the third party participants in their dispute.

This may be an indication of how the costs could be apportioned for the bigger network management proceeding that is underway.

Bell had originally suggested that costs be shared two-thirds to one third, or alternatively, with 100% of the costs paid by the losing party [the arguments were filed prior to the CRTC’s decision]. On one hand, CAIP may be wondering why the Commission is varying from its apportionment on the basis of revenues. On the other hand, it could have been stuck with 100%

The Telecom Policy Review Panel made two recommendations to change the way costs are handled in CRTC proceedings. It said:

Recommendation 9-29
The CRTC should enact a rule or regulation establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs in proceedings before it. The criteria should be based on the principles that costs shall be awarded to successful complainants in clear cases of inappropriate behaviour and against them in clear cases of frivolous complaints.

Recommendation 9-30
The government should review the issue of public interest group participation in telecommunications regulatory proceedings. Funding for such participation should come from a multi-year commitment by government to subsidize such participation, rather than costs awards imposed by the CRTC on individual telecommunications service providers.

Should these recommendations be moved upon?