Just how can one value Vodafone shares?

The business section of the Sunday Times once again gets me scratching my head about City valuations.

It is early days in the stewardship of Nick Read as CEO and it will be years before we discover if he was more like Arun Sarin than Vittorio Colao. Yet he is in control of an International Telecoms business that is far better placed than BT. Vodafone has stated that it's plan's for 5G mobile is focused on a slow and stead deployment rather than a race to be first. It does not have the issues that Three and Telefonica face in terms of access to capital to fund the building of infrastructure. It has the scale to be able to get not just better prices but also better service from its suppliers.

Somethings to ponder

The Google future is one that means you only need to speak one language. Alongside showing the Phone that Google hopes will "incentivise" Android Handset Makers they showed off a headset that allows real time translation. Will this be the Babble Fish of Douglas Adams fame or is it going to lead to mistakes that a Comedy Writer could only dream of?

Interesting round up on the current state of UK's next round of Spectrum Auctions over at Telecoms.com gives Ofcom more credit that they are due, but I also think that a delay might not be a bad thing given that most Networks are still trying to figure out just what they are going to do with 5G.

Softbank investment in to the UK post purchase of ARM is highlighted in this report. Whilst the UK headcount has grown so has the non-UK headcount and I expect that the increase will be greater outside of the UK going forward given the politics of a post Brexit UK.

Technology Review has an interesting post on the problems being a Futurologist that is worth a read. Almost all of the thoughts about the potential for AI could have been written by the staff of Orange's Imaginerium in 1999 when they modelled what customrers would be using the 3G network for once it launched.

So just how many Mobile Networks does a country like Britain need?

Today the Competition and Markets Authority published a letter to the European Commissioner calling for the merger of Three and O2 to be blocked to protect the consumer. I had to check that it was not written ten days ago, the current government believes in the Free Market and the market has shown that the UK is not large enough to support five and now four network owners.

If the CMA wanted to protect the consumer then was BT allowed to buy EE and why was it not forced to spin out Openreach?

The role of Ofcom should be to provide assurance that the market for Mobile Infrastructure is not manipulated by the players in the market and that they are fulfilling the terms of licences granted via spectrum sales by Government.  The failure is not that Overseas Investors can no longer justify investment in an extremely competitive market but rather Regulators are under resourced and qualified.  The 2010 spending review by George Osborne and subsequent budgets has seen the money available to manage Ofcom fall and the remit rise this means that a regulator that had been struggling now is not fit for purpose.  Rather than resource the service correctly we have a Government that is taking others to undertake the role for it.

The second generation of mobile expansion saw just four networks build the industry at the fastest pace, with innovative product launches which the CMA now feels is a risk to the consumer! Alongside the network owners we also have a number of MVNOs that offer services to customers at a range of prices.  We might have fewer retail options on the high street with the demise of a number of independent retailers for the time of mass adoption of mobile but we are unlikely too see price rises as a result of Three buying O2.

I hope that the European Regulator has far more economists than the CMA and Ofcom and realises that the UK consumer is not able to fund adequately four mobile network operators.      

What do we do about O2?

Over the last few days the FT has focused on the potential for regulators to stop the disposal of O2 in the UK by Telefonica. They are now saying that the UK must not drop to just three networks but the market requires four.

This is such a simple belief in competition that you have to ask how much time have they invested understanding why two of the four incumbents courted BT when they signalled a wish to return to the mobile sector?  When former state owned players cannot make the numbers work to operate in one of the largest economies in the world then the market has failed!

The current level of competition means that at a consumer level the numbers are marginal.  The Infrastructure requirements to roll out 4G makes the market subprime. Rather than opt out of regulation Ofcom should seek to acknowledge that the solutions required needs them to take decisive action to improve the cost base whilst raising the quality of the networks.

If the Infrastructure can be improved and better wholesale terms can be achieved then at a retail level we might se more competition.  Over the past 15 years we have seen a decline in the number of retailers offering consumers mobiles as Independent players have gone to the wall and Networks have closed a number of there stores.  The exit of Tesco from the MVNO space can be seen as a warning flag that the consumer might have won on price but has lost on quality.

I would allow Three to buy O2 on the basis that Telefonica is current in a debt reduction cycle rather than investment mode, thus all the while it holds the UK asset it under invests meaning that it falls behind it competitors.  Without Three buying O2 the business would face a slow death.  Once we have consolidated the market to three players we require Ofcom to invest in staff with a deep knowledge of Mobile who are prepared to take action before breakfast, before lunch and after dinner to borrow a phrase from Michael Heseltine. At the dawn of Mobile thirty years ago we had a duopoly that was regulated in such a way that consumers had choice and a number of people became MultiMillionaires serving the consumer.

An act of stupidity by a desperate Prime Minister

I picked up my morning paper and almost tore it in two reading the latest stupid PR stunt from David Cameron. When Ed Miliband made his Conference Speech this September we were told that price controls could not work and were wrong. Yet with his back to the wall Dave has decided that all utility companies need to be told that his government will not accept price rises in the run up to the 2015 election.

This is an act akin to King Canute except the Prime Minister does not understand that he cannot turn back the tide of price increases.

An analysis of the players in the market will show that many are subsidiaries of  overseas businesses rather than British and thus have little loyalty to local politicians. They are in the majority investing in significant infrastructure programs that mean that rather than pay taxes they have losses to cover.

What the Prime Minister should be doing via the offices of the Department of Culture Media and Sport and Ofcom is making sure that telecoms networks are able to deploy high speed broadband to the majority of the population in the majority of places. It is with such a network that the economy will grow and income rise at such a level that people do not feel price rises.