For the past two weeks I have been fighting with my new Smartphone. My HTC One was over two years old and so I was "eligible" for an upgrade, I visited a store just off Oxford Street hopeful that I might pick up the latest HTC One.
The first problem was that they didn't have any in store, if I came back in two days I could have one. "They are very popular you know," I was told by the girl who was born after I started working in the mobile industry. I was also going to have to pay something up front, something I have never done. As a mobile network I would say that EE is overstocked as she then tried to sell me on an iPhone with a pitch that even Phones-4-You would have found aggressive at it's peek.
I looked at the Huawei P9 on the stand all shinny and new and unlike any of the others in I could have it for the same monthly tariff I was on and NO money up front. The Sales Assistant then gave me another sales pitch telling me that this phone had the BEST camera as it was a Leica and I would not be disappointed if I went for this model.
I thought that what could be that different between the Huawei and the HTC they were both running the latest Android software and the last few months I've been using it on the old handset. It came with twice the capacity in terms of memory and whilst it was not using Qualcomm's chips it much of an impairment was it going to be day to day? So I said yes I'll take one for the next two years.
The box I was handed spoke of higher quality that the one my last phone turned up in. The slimline handset looked good as a SIM card was inserted. But a few things seemed to be missing in the box, not protective case or film for the screen but hey I can buy those online. I had to dash for a meeting and so didn't have time to unbox everything and so left the shop.
After my meeting I turned on the Huawei and the UI was something of a surprised in looked liked a device from 2012. The icons of Apps that I reinstalled from the Google Store were displaying retro logo, were they also outdated in terms of functionality? I attempted to look through the menu to find a transfer tool that would allow me to copy over some/all of my personal data from the HTC alas no joy! This was something that I had on my Nokia before 3G surely the engineers at Huawei realised that consumers expected some assistance moving to a new handset. It takes a long time to rekey all the things that are important and it's hard to remember passwords that you've not had to use for two years plus.
Back home and with time and space to complete looking at what was in the box and more surprises! The first thing that strikes me is that the cable in order to fit in the small package is half the length of what I used to and rather than a microUSB it is the new Micro Fitting. the distance from the power socket to my desk is further than the cable so until I can but a 2M replacement the phone lies on the floor whilst it charges!
Next we have the headset it looks like something I would pick up a Petrol Station for under £5 to replace a lost one no something I'd associate with a Premium Handset.
The Huawei P9 is so new that third parties are yet to produce any accessories and so finding a decent case is proving an issue the first two bought on line have been returned because the didn't look like it did on line.
The first weekend of "testing" the Huawei was an education. Standing at the Tube station I logged on to the Virgin Media Hotspot and thought that I was set for the day. But unlike my HTC the Huawei does not scan and login in as we pull into each station rather you have to manual scan, select and connect or just scan. This process becomes a test between the train driver and myself as to speed to move on.
Having taken a few snaps with the "BEST Camera" on the market I grab a coffee and start to edit them using my favourite Apps and after 10 minutes I become aware that when Winter comes I'm not going to need gloves as the phone is now "warm" I don't want to see how soon it becomes hot! This weekend I tested out the panoramic function and it failed to stitch the image cleaning five times out of five regardless of speed at which I pan the camera. With the HTC I have about five failures in two years and I take a lot of photos. The next issue with the Leica enabled Huawei is that the angle of view is less than that of the HTC and so I now have to stand back to get the same view I've become used to. Then I posted the edited pictures on to Flickr and Instagram to see the difference between phones old and new. The Huawei does not record itself as a P9 on Flickr rather it is a "HUAWEI EVA-L09" so much for Brand Management helping to grow sales.
How much memory does your phone have? Well despite claims I have less free space on my P9 than I had on my HTC, yet it's supposed to have twice the capacity and I have installed less Apps and the phone has no bloatware installed by my Mobile Network.
What can I say that is positive about the P9 well the battery is excellent on the basis that I am getting two days use between charges. BUT that is because the user experience is so poor that I am using it less than I did my HTC.
What have I discovered from the whole sorry experience? The idiots that review new handsets are not journalists, they conduct a few simple tests rather than actively use handset and then sell the device or returning it to the PR company they are sitting in front of. The margins within Consumer contracts are so slim that Mobile Networks no longer have any interest in Customer Service and so if you make a mistake with your handset choice you have to live with a lemon for two years. Huawei are a VERY long way from being able to compete with Sony let alone Apple, HTC and Samsung when it comes to PREMIUM handsets. Google does not give much assistance to Handset manufacturers and care even less about consistent user experience.
I am still looking for a 2M cable, quality leather case and headset to use with the P9, if you have any recommendations then please leave a comment. If you are in the market for a new handset give Huawei a few years to improve before picking one up.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Ofcom BT proposal is a fudge rather than regulation that UK will need following the EU referendum
Whilst having breakfast today Ofcom published it proposal for BT Openreach following the year long review of how structural separation is servicing the market a decade after it's creation. Ofcom's Chief Executive Sharon White spoke on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to explain what the thinking was on fixing the failed provision of broadband and the fastest way to to turn things around. Her key message was that spinning out Openreach was too complex and would take too long and so forcing BT to create an independent Chair and improved reporting was going to allow changes to take place faster.
BT didn't seem to have any problems splitting Cellnet out and thus should not have issues with Openreach. The problem this time is the state of the Pension scheme and complex contracts.
After White had left the radio studio her place was taken by BT's CEO and his opposite number at Talk Talk to have their say on the proposal. As could be expected Dido Harding was disappointed that Ofcom did not take a harder line. Gavin Patterson's response could have been a comedy routine at the BT managers away day, his best line was, "BT does not game Ofcom".
Over the past ten years BT has spent £10Bn investing in Broadband Services and in an effort to hold off break up offered to spend £6Bn in the next three years. Too often consumers and businesses in Britain are complaining that the current infrastructure is woeful and the offer to double spending in the next three years is not going to raise satisfaction.
The 2010 spending review by George Osborne resulted in budgets cuts to Ofcom which means that a review that should have been completed in 12 months will take over two years. BT and its rivals all have more lawyers and economists than Ofcom and are capable of gaming the regulatory processes.
Some on Twitter seem to think that this is another victory for BT
John Singleton is the former head of the OFT and he seems underwhelmed by the proposals.
If we want better infrastructure for broadband then it's best served by Openreach becoming a business in its own right and being able to raise capital on its own behalf rather than competition for budget with other BT subsidiaries and group commitments such as Pensions which at the moment is £12Bn in debt. Theresa May's new Industrial strategy hopefully will see the Government reject the proposal and seek BT's break up.
BT didn't seem to have any problems splitting Cellnet out and thus should not have issues with Openreach. The problem this time is the state of the Pension scheme and complex contracts.
After White had left the radio studio her place was taken by BT's CEO and his opposite number at Talk Talk to have their say on the proposal. As could be expected Dido Harding was disappointed that Ofcom did not take a harder line. Gavin Patterson's response could have been a comedy routine at the BT managers away day, his best line was, "BT does not game Ofcom".
Over the past ten years BT has spent £10Bn investing in Broadband Services and in an effort to hold off break up offered to spend £6Bn in the next three years. Too often consumers and businesses in Britain are complaining that the current infrastructure is woeful and the offer to double spending in the next three years is not going to raise satisfaction.
The 2010 spending review by George Osborne resulted in budgets cuts to Ofcom which means that a review that should have been completed in 12 months will take over two years. BT and its rivals all have more lawyers and economists than Ofcom and are capable of gaming the regulatory processes.
Some on Twitter seem to think that this is another victory for BT
yes, it is BT 1: Ofcom 0. Conduct regulation has failed, and this is just more failure. @AnnRobinson8— John Fingleton (@JohnFingleton1) July 26, 2016
John Singleton is the former head of the OFT and he seems underwhelmed by the proposals.
If we want better infrastructure for broadband then it's best served by Openreach becoming a business in its own right and being able to raise capital on its own behalf rather than competition for budget with other BT subsidiaries and group commitments such as Pensions which at the moment is £12Bn in debt. Theresa May's new Industrial strategy hopefully will see the Government reject the proposal and seek BT's break up.
Monday, April 11, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Think outside the box
Conversations since the return to work seem to focus on the presumption that the answer is Apps when it comes to mobile.
I fear that those I am speaking to are extremely short sited and need them to starting thinking about the end of the current smartphone OS ecosystems. I think that more individuals are removing Apps from devices than adding them and too many new apps are clones rather than innovative. As 4G coverages becomes more widespread we have an opportunity to change the current power structures. But this is only possible if those in the Mobile space change their mindset.
I fear that those I am speaking to are extremely short sited and need them to starting thinking about the end of the current smartphone OS ecosystems. I think that more individuals are removing Apps from devices than adding them and too many new apps are clones rather than innovative. As 4G coverages becomes more widespread we have an opportunity to change the current power structures. But this is only possible if those in the Mobile space change their mindset.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Valuing Vodafone
Yesterday Vodafone reported that it was no longer talking to Liberty Global about an asset swap and many analysts called it a mistake. I have always seen it as a foregone conclusion, Liberty Global wants to exit Europe it has very little of interest to Vodafone and the pricing was always out of sync.
Earlier Malone had said that no deal was likely to happen with Vodafone as despite an investor roadshow pitching the "benefits" of such a deal to stockholders he had been unable to convince Executive inside Vodafone that a deal made sense and the price was right.
What has been a surprise to me is the rent a quote brigade who are all happy to say that it was an error on Vodafone's behalf. Telecoms in Europe is a marginal one when it comes to profitability and more customers does not necessarily mean that the odds are better for success. Investments are high and prices are falling, this could explain why Liberty wishes to exit before it can no longer pay debts, and competition is intense. Vodafone under Colao has not been about market share at any price rather it is about effective management of assets and seeking to maintain margins. Thus taking on Liberty's properties in Holland and Germany was not going to survive an introductory discussion.
Earlier Malone had said that no deal was likely to happen with Vodafone as despite an investor roadshow pitching the "benefits" of such a deal to stockholders he had been unable to convince Executive inside Vodafone that a deal made sense and the price was right.
What has been a surprise to me is the rent a quote brigade who are all happy to say that it was an error on Vodafone's behalf. Telecoms in Europe is a marginal one when it comes to profitability and more customers does not necessarily mean that the odds are better for success. Investments are high and prices are falling, this could explain why Liberty wishes to exit before it can no longer pay debts, and competition is intense. Vodafone under Colao has not been about market share at any price rather it is about effective management of assets and seeking to maintain margins. Thus taking on Liberty's properties in Holland and Germany was not going to survive an introductory discussion.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
3UK Launches free VoLTE
Read this today and thought that once again Networks don't understand that Voice is the key product and whilst innovation is welcome, this is not it! To be fair to 3UK they are not the only ones to play games with the Customer EE have a similar VoLTE service that is only available to those taking a new HTC or have an iPhone 5/6.
The first thing that gets my back up is that what is basically a software product has been launched on a single handset. It is not a marketing product to be used to force a different purchasing decision it's a service that should be capable of launching to ALL existing customers with a Smartphone not because you have bought a Galaxy S5.
Then we have the issue that the Executive put up to promote the launch is the CTO of 3UK rather than a dedicated executive for Voice. If a mobile network cannot appoint a Board Member to oversea and promote a CORE product then just why should the customer respect it?
Since using a 4G handset I have experienced very poor quality phone calls. The ability to drop calls reminds me of the early days of Orange and One-2-One when in an effort to overcome such a poor experience Orange offered "free calls" if you had to redial as a result of dropped calls.
For a long time I have spoken in private about the fact that voice revenues have declined in Mobile Networks because very little time is spent reviewing Voice as a product at Board Level. I have not met a senior executive in Europe who sits on a board and has sole responsibility for Voice for the past ten years. As a result we have Customers not bothering to make phone calls on a mobile because the experience disappoints.
I had hoped that by now Mobile users could have an active directory service which highlighted if a number in you contacts list was engaged before you called or inactive for a number of hours prior to your call. Such a service could mean that rather than dialling the user could chose to send a text message. I also hoped that the audio quality would have been upgraded to a level that allowed noise cancelation enhancing the ability to hear what has been said without asking the other person to speak up.
The first thing that gets my back up is that what is basically a software product has been launched on a single handset. It is not a marketing product to be used to force a different purchasing decision it's a service that should be capable of launching to ALL existing customers with a Smartphone not because you have bought a Galaxy S5.
Then we have the issue that the Executive put up to promote the launch is the CTO of 3UK rather than a dedicated executive for Voice. If a mobile network cannot appoint a Board Member to oversea and promote a CORE product then just why should the customer respect it?
Since using a 4G handset I have experienced very poor quality phone calls. The ability to drop calls reminds me of the early days of Orange and One-2-One when in an effort to overcome such a poor experience Orange offered "free calls" if you had to redial as a result of dropped calls.
For a long time I have spoken in private about the fact that voice revenues have declined in Mobile Networks because very little time is spent reviewing Voice as a product at Board Level. I have not met a senior executive in Europe who sits on a board and has sole responsibility for Voice for the past ten years. As a result we have Customers not bothering to make phone calls on a mobile because the experience disappoints.
I had hoped that by now Mobile users could have an active directory service which highlighted if a number in you contacts list was engaged before you called or inactive for a number of hours prior to your call. Such a service could mean that rather than dialling the user could chose to send a text message. I also hoped that the audio quality would have been upgraded to a level that allowed noise cancelation enhancing the ability to hear what has been said without asking the other person to speak up.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
BT has got NO friends!
Over the last few weeks it seems that the current Ofcom review of BT is unlikely to follow the pattern of "business as usual" when it comes to outcomes. These could mean that the chickens finally come home to roost at BT.
Over the course of a week BBC Radio4 featured the failures of Broadband Britain to live up to promises on the Today programme. It was not until 4 negative features that BT CEO Gavin Patterson finally agreed to an interview and that was not face to face rather it was prerecorded and broadcast on a Saturday morning. You have to ask just what the PR team were doing, was it a failure or arrogance?
This weekend Chris Bryant wrote to The Telegraph calling for the break-up of BT because it had failed to provide the Broadband needed of UK PLC despite £1.8bn of grants to do so. This is a shadow minister prepared to outline Labour Party policy in the middle of a Leadership election!
These events on there own might lead you to think that BT will be alright, it might find itself facing tighter regulation but it's unlikely that a break-up will be forced on it. However take a look at the fact that industry rivals that are also calling for a split are also donors to the Conservative Party and you might start to thing that BT could be facing years of legal challenges and disruption. Given that Ian Livingston's time in Government was shorter than a contract for one of BT's services you have to ask what friends they have?
Over the course of a week BBC Radio4 featured the failures of Broadband Britain to live up to promises on the Today programme. It was not until 4 negative features that BT CEO Gavin Patterson finally agreed to an interview and that was not face to face rather it was prerecorded and broadcast on a Saturday morning. You have to ask just what the PR team were doing, was it a failure or arrogance?
This weekend Chris Bryant wrote to The Telegraph calling for the break-up of BT because it had failed to provide the Broadband needed of UK PLC despite £1.8bn of grants to do so. This is a shadow minister prepared to outline Labour Party policy in the middle of a Leadership election!
These events on there own might lead you to think that BT will be alright, it might find itself facing tighter regulation but it's unlikely that a break-up will be forced on it. However take a look at the fact that industry rivals that are also calling for a split are also donors to the Conservative Party and you might start to thing that BT could be facing years of legal challenges and disruption. Given that Ian Livingston's time in Government was shorter than a contract for one of BT's services you have to ask what friends they have?
Monday, August 10, 2015
The decline and fall of HTC
Over the last week a number of people have been speculating on the future of HTC saying that it is at risk of disappearing. The problem is that having climbed the mountain of volume sales of phones to number three it has failed to ascend to the top and rather has slipped back as a result of poor sales for the flagship HTC One (M9).
The problem for HTC is that the "upgrade" to the M9 was judged by most not to be significant enough from the M8 and so growth stopped.
The creation of the mobile phone mass market was achieved by a few manufacturers who offered a range of handsets. The manufacturers of my early days in mobile are now consigned to museums rather than still major players, Motorola, Erricson and Nokia. But then others older than me will say the same about car manufacturers of the early 20th century and we still have cars.
The global dominance of Nokia was achieved not on a single handset but rather on a platform of devices that were conceived thanks to long term analysis and developed not just internally but also using the skills of the IDEO Group. This meant that both hardware and software evolved dependent on the markets that the handsets were sold in to.
The Android Ecosystem leaves very little room for customisation by manufacturers and contract manufacture means that common components leave devices looking very similar.
The shame is that the early days of HTC saw it make a range of handsets that made use of touch AND keyboard. Why then now are we faced with a single form factor in just two sizes? Perhaps we can expect contract manufacturing will give HTC some space to recover rather than it fail but it is more likely that it will pass into history.
The problem for HTC is that the "upgrade" to the M9 was judged by most not to be significant enough from the M8 and so growth stopped.
The creation of the mobile phone mass market was achieved by a few manufacturers who offered a range of handsets. The manufacturers of my early days in mobile are now consigned to museums rather than still major players, Motorola, Erricson and Nokia. But then others older than me will say the same about car manufacturers of the early 20th century and we still have cars.
The global dominance of Nokia was achieved not on a single handset but rather on a platform of devices that were conceived thanks to long term analysis and developed not just internally but also using the skills of the IDEO Group. This meant that both hardware and software evolved dependent on the markets that the handsets were sold in to.
The Android Ecosystem leaves very little room for customisation by manufacturers and contract manufacture means that common components leave devices looking very similar.
The shame is that the early days of HTC saw it make a range of handsets that made use of touch AND keyboard. Why then now are we faced with a single form factor in just two sizes? Perhaps we can expect contract manufacturing will give HTC some space to recover rather than it fail but it is more likely that it will pass into history.
Monday, July 20, 2015
How Apple Pay highlights ALL that is wrong with the App ecosystems
So last week Apple Pay launched in the UK on a wave of hype, the Usual Suspects were interviewed on now simple it was to use to buy coffee and travel on The Tube and now disruptive it was; using just an iPhone or your iWatch. To watch the reports the mobile phone was finally going to replace your wallet doing away with the need for plastic payment cards and finally mobile payments were going to take off after years of false dawns.
But hang on Apple Pay only works on Apple Hardware and quite a few people I see out in public don't have an iPhone preferring to have an Android device. Also there is an issue with just what banks payment services are available at this moment as not all card issuers are set up on Apple Pay. So far nobody I have seen has spoken about how Apple Pay will allow the user to ditch their wallet as with this version of the App it allows only one card to be associated with the service at any time. But hang on the thing it seeks to replace has more than one payment card and so rather than a replacement at present the service is an alternative as most wallets are see have six plus cards in.
The first week of use, judging by my twitter stream seems to be users explaining how those in retail did not know that you can pay by phone or the service failing to work as the EPOS didn't confirm payment and so they are having to revert to traditional contactless cards.
Rivals to Apple are now promoting that they have or will have there own App that allows the user to do just the same and so you can add that to Apple Pay on your phone or remove and replace it.
What we are not told is that the service is not a full replacement for Internet Banking, the lack of interface with Payment Service Providers means that it will not allow you to confirm account balances, review all transactions on your account or make direct payments. These services should be available and they potentially could be very secure however the Banks and Mobile Networks are at a standoff as to pricing such interactions. The Banks wish to pay the Mobile Networks 0.0001p per transaction, The Mobile Networks want 5p per transaction because the massive volumes make it necessary to invest in more infrastructure. Given that the Banks charge retailers over 50p per transaction it does seem that the Banks are attempting to rip of the Networks, but then I would say that because I work for MNOs rather than Banks.
Why should be accept such a limited service in a mobile payment app? I want something that allows me to replace cheque writing at the start of every school term with a simple system that allows me to send money by text. It's not difficult Africa and Asia have had such services for years now.
Does Apple have a roadmap that means they will upgrade the services as volumes increase and users demand more features or will Apple Pay be a service like visual voicemail a flash in the pan that is quietly killed off? Apps are not the disruptive innovation a journalist will have you believe they are compromises because infrastructure for different markets does not have the ability to talk to one another and the owners of the different systems demand so form of entry fee.
But hang on Apple Pay only works on Apple Hardware and quite a few people I see out in public don't have an iPhone preferring to have an Android device. Also there is an issue with just what banks payment services are available at this moment as not all card issuers are set up on Apple Pay. So far nobody I have seen has spoken about how Apple Pay will allow the user to ditch their wallet as with this version of the App it allows only one card to be associated with the service at any time. But hang on the thing it seeks to replace has more than one payment card and so rather than a replacement at present the service is an alternative as most wallets are see have six plus cards in.
The first week of use, judging by my twitter stream seems to be users explaining how those in retail did not know that you can pay by phone or the service failing to work as the EPOS didn't confirm payment and so they are having to revert to traditional contactless cards.
Rivals to Apple are now promoting that they have or will have there own App that allows the user to do just the same and so you can add that to Apple Pay on your phone or remove and replace it.
What we are not told is that the service is not a full replacement for Internet Banking, the lack of interface with Payment Service Providers means that it will not allow you to confirm account balances, review all transactions on your account or make direct payments. These services should be available and they potentially could be very secure however the Banks and Mobile Networks are at a standoff as to pricing such interactions. The Banks wish to pay the Mobile Networks 0.0001p per transaction, The Mobile Networks want 5p per transaction because the massive volumes make it necessary to invest in more infrastructure. Given that the Banks charge retailers over 50p per transaction it does seem that the Banks are attempting to rip of the Networks, but then I would say that because I work for MNOs rather than Banks.
Why should be accept such a limited service in a mobile payment app? I want something that allows me to replace cheque writing at the start of every school term with a simple system that allows me to send money by text. It's not difficult Africa and Asia have had such services for years now.
Does Apple have a roadmap that means they will upgrade the services as volumes increase and users demand more features or will Apple Pay be a service like visual voicemail a flash in the pan that is quietly killed off? Apps are not the disruptive innovation a journalist will have you believe they are compromises because infrastructure for different markets does not have the ability to talk to one another and the owners of the different systems demand so form of entry fee.
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Which way does Microsoft turn when it comes to Mobile?
Yessterday Microsoft wrote off the full cost of the Nokia purchase confirming that the addition had failed to change its fortunes within the Mobile sector. I have watched Microsoft continuely fail in the mobile space for over 15 years with either poor software or limited hardware. So what does Microsoft do now, walk away from the sector or can it be an effective player?
I think that it has one last roll of the dice. Look at Microsoft as a whole and whilst it does have some exposure in the consumer space it is predominately an Enterprise business. If it is to be a success then it should embrace the Enterprise market for mobile solutions and buy BlackBerry. In doing so it would have an operating system capable of interfacing with Exchange Servers and open up a wide range of poosibilities for itself and its partners. A BlackBerry that is part of Microsoft would be able to move into the Blue Collar sector and stop losing Professional customers thanks to imporoved Channel Partners who could deliver customers in the tens of thousands.
In the early days of Mobile Data Windows CE was used in the majority of handheld terminals used in logistics, field service engineering and government sectors. As mobile has become more important to businesses Microsoft has lost its focus and whilst some have attempted to eat into the market with the launching of Apps. These Apps are a compromise given that iOS and Android do not have enough APIs to open up all the functionality needed for Enterprise Mobility.
The rise of Apple and Android has lowered the valuation of BlackBerry and Microsoft has a large cash pile that it can use to fund a purchase. BlackBerry can be happy with a new owner that is unlikely to closedown it's Canadian offices and make large redundancies rather they will have someone likely to invest and increase the workforce so Regulatory approval will be easier than say selling to a Far East Manufacturer or Software company.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Don't believe the spin BT will not manage EE any better than it's current owner
The Chief Executives if BT and EE have recently been on a charm offensive aimed at getting us to buy into the view that BT buying EE is a good idea for more than the shareholders of Orange and DT. They have presented interesting scenarios about Network Investments whilst managing to limit details about pricing and product strategy.
Looking from the outside I fear that in becoming a division of BT Retail the mobile tallent will walk away from the business rather than stay and execute on the plans of the Chief Executives. Nobody is talking about staff retention for EE and if BT fail to do so then they will be serious trouble. BT's history in managing Mobile assets is not a good one and for the past 15 years they have not had to, which means they have very little understanding of 3 and 4G Networks. The Civil Service mentality within BT means that very few within EE will feel comfortable but their knowledge is vital is any progress is to be made post acquisition on the development of Radio Access Networks.
The addition of Mobile to the regulatory mix will give Ofcom the chance to balance the advantage that BT has held recently in gaming investigations. The EE regulatory team will not find the present relationship carried forward and they might find that they are queried more about network coverage and quality. Becoming the largest operator in both Fixed and Mobile Networks means that BT will need to demonstrate that it is meeting access requirements as well as investing in upgrades. The Consumer may well benefit in the short term from BT taking over EE in that I expect that a significant investment will be made in Subscriber Acquisition budgets in an effort to retain EE customers and switch BT ones to the Network. Will shareholders be happy with gifts of subsidised smartphones and tablets? The increased load on BT Wifi hotspots will also be an interesting traffic light on current investment in the BT Broadband network and upgrade cycle.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Is it possible to fix BT?
Ofcom has started another review into how BT effects the UK telecoms market, so 10 years after the first review. At the same time the CMA are looking at it's plans to buy EE.
This regulatory overview gives a chance to review how BT operates in the UK and what could be done to improve things. Since the Privatisation of British Telecom the market has failed to offer an effective competitor rather it has seen a race to the bottom.
Consumers in the UK have been very poorly served when it comes to keep up with Continental rivals when it comes to Infrastructure. Whilst the cable industry did attempt to build out an alternative network it failed to do so with a sustainable business model and so we are faced with the situation that more households are not pasted by Virgin Media than are. The provider of the last resort is thus BT and as such is highly regulated with an obligation to wholesale network access to rivals.
Thirty years ago Britain got its first mobile networks, one of those had access to enough rooftops to build infrastructure needed up until 2000 thanks to it's only property portfolio and captive business accounts. The other was Vodafone, a small start up based at the end of the Thames Valley with a sleepy parent focused on the defence industry. Yet because BT focused on doing things that impeded its rival rather than do what was needed they failed so sceptically that they were forced to divest the Mobile business.
When it comes to the Broadband business it has repeated the same mistakes, rather than invest in the Network so that it was the best possible it has played games with rivals seeking to do just enough to avoid sanction. We thus find ourselves in the UK operating behind the curve when it comes to digital services because of slow speeds and over capacity.
The last review took Ofcom two years to complete and saw the creation of Openreach as an effective remedy. Hindsight has proved that the actions have not worked and BT rivals are now asking for the business to be spun off from it's parent in an effort to improve capital investment. Such a option will not solve the investment lag rather it will make it worse.
I saw recent analysis of the performance of BT shares over the last fifteen years which highlight that the Management had managed to offer a negative return of some 20+% one of the worse performance with the FTSE 100. Thus shareholder seem just as ineffectual as regulators to force the Executives to run the business.
Monday, March 02, 2015
GSMA Mobile World Congress 2015
So today the Mobile World Congress officially opened in Barcelona and I fear that it's days are numbered as an event because the Circus that is the exhibition is now too big and the Conference of little relevance to the Mobile Network Operators who make up the GSMA. For many MWC15 started on Sunday with a number of handset makers holding Press Events to launch new devices.
The GSMA in an effort to raise funds has grown the exhibition event to a size that it is no longer controllable. Yet it has failed to attract the likes of Apple to attend either to exhibitor or talk at the conference. Every year the GSMA attempts to set the agenda and fails, it leaves me feeling disappointed and questions just what datapoints they select in an effort to predict the future. This year they are focusing on the Internet of Things which I have to ask just what does that have to do with Mobile Networks over the next 5 years?
Just before Telecoms World collapsed we saw Internet Firms descend on Switzerland spending $1M+ on stands getting all the attention rather than presentations on the Conference stage. I fear that we are witnessing the same with MWC. At the end of this week I am sure that the GSMA will announce ever more visitors attended, more press attended and the whole thing was a success. I think I will say that the event has become somewhat like a Conservative Party Conference all be it on a large scale. We took a trip to the seaside to walk around a massive soulless space and feel that we are close to the powerful only to discover that we have no influence let alone power to shape the future!
The GSMA in an effort to raise funds has grown the exhibition event to a size that it is no longer controllable. Yet it has failed to attract the likes of Apple to attend either to exhibitor or talk at the conference. Every year the GSMA attempts to set the agenda and fails, it leaves me feeling disappointed and questions just what datapoints they select in an effort to predict the future. This year they are focusing on the Internet of Things which I have to ask just what does that have to do with Mobile Networks over the next 5 years?
Just before Telecoms World collapsed we saw Internet Firms descend on Switzerland spending $1M+ on stands getting all the attention rather than presentations on the Conference stage. I fear that we are witnessing the same with MWC. At the end of this week I am sure that the GSMA will announce ever more visitors attended, more press attended and the whole thing was a success. I think I will say that the event has become somewhat like a Conservative Party Conference all be it on a large scale. We took a trip to the seaside to walk around a massive soulless space and feel that we are close to the powerful only to discover that we have no influence let alone power to shape the future!
Thursday, February 05, 2015
So BT have finalised a deal for EE
We woke this morning to the news that BT had agreed terms to acquire EE. I have to say that if feels that I am in some strange fantasy world rather than one that understands the massive risk such a deal is.
Those that make a living as public analysts have all been very quick to jump on the bandwagon that this is wonderful news. I feel somewhat differently.
If I were a shareholder in Orange I have to ask just how owning shares in BT is going to fund purchases in France aimed at consolidation? It is also difficult to see how DT can say it got a fair price for finally exiting the UK mobile market (they bought One-2-One for £8.4bn).
But lets look at just what BT have bought and how they are unlikely to be able to execute an strategy that offers a return on the investment.
BT back in the retail game.
Part of the "prize" for BT is the fact that they will take over the stores of EE and thus have a presence on the High Street through which they can upsell other services. BT used to have retail stores that they closed because they could not make them work. I do not think that they have significantly changed so that they can offer a presence where you can talk people into Quad play services. If they can sell Quad play then it will be on the basis of discounting rather than quality.
What can BT do will all the 4G Spectrum?
In the 4G auctions BT purchased spectrum that it was going to used for fixed mobile services and now has spectrum refarmed and purchase by EE. The regulator will have demands about forfeiture of some of the Spectrum. Whilst divisions other than BT Retail will have requirements for Mobile Spectrum of its own, can these be met by the new holding?
BT's ability to invest in Fibre
If BT can find the money to buy a Mobile asset then why can't it find the money to better roll out Fibre Broadband, is likely to be the simplistic view of politicians. Thus demand that BT deals speedily in building out Fibre to the 50% of households not covered by Virgin's footprint will increase. Alongside the calls for faster upgrades to the Fibre estate will be demands that they wholesale access prices fall.
Talent blackhole when it comes to Mobile
BT does not have the Executive experience required to manage a Mobile Operation and the Management at EE is unlikely to want to work for BT. This means that once the deal closes they will face a mass exit of know how just at a time that they need to up skill. If they wish to stop that then they will be over paying, if they don't then they will discover just how complex managing the build and maintenance of a Mobile Network is.
Everything just got a lot more expensive for BT
Anyone with something to sell to BT has just seen that they are happy to pay top prices. So in order to close any significant move they will discover that the price has just risen by 15-20%. If they can spend £12.5bn for EE they must have the money for ...
BT Executives are in my experience very far from reality. They might feel that they are offering the consumer an enhanced product range that they should be happy to pay for. The reality is that for the last fifteen years telecommunications has been a commodity that the user demands at an ever decreasing price. Look at the UK retail space and you see a blood bath, experienced hands like Tesco, M&S and Topshop are hurting an BT thinks that they can be successful. BT adverts for Broadband services may win awards and get people talking but they do not seem to get people signing up for service. If you pay out £12.5bn how long can you offer BT Sport free of charge to your Consumers? What will the price be and how many will pay it?
Rather than telling the CEO and Chairman that they have struck an excellent deal if I would a significant shareholder I would be selling off my holding as it is unlikely that I will see an increase in dividends from helping Germany and France exit the UK Mobile market.
Those that make a living as public analysts have all been very quick to jump on the bandwagon that this is wonderful news. I feel somewhat differently.
If I were a shareholder in Orange I have to ask just how owning shares in BT is going to fund purchases in France aimed at consolidation? It is also difficult to see how DT can say it got a fair price for finally exiting the UK mobile market (they bought One-2-One for £8.4bn).
But lets look at just what BT have bought and how they are unlikely to be able to execute an strategy that offers a return on the investment.
BT back in the retail game.
Part of the "prize" for BT is the fact that they will take over the stores of EE and thus have a presence on the High Street through which they can upsell other services. BT used to have retail stores that they closed because they could not make them work. I do not think that they have significantly changed so that they can offer a presence where you can talk people into Quad play services. If they can sell Quad play then it will be on the basis of discounting rather than quality.
What can BT do will all the 4G Spectrum?
In the 4G auctions BT purchased spectrum that it was going to used for fixed mobile services and now has spectrum refarmed and purchase by EE. The regulator will have demands about forfeiture of some of the Spectrum. Whilst divisions other than BT Retail will have requirements for Mobile Spectrum of its own, can these be met by the new holding?
BT's ability to invest in Fibre
If BT can find the money to buy a Mobile asset then why can't it find the money to better roll out Fibre Broadband, is likely to be the simplistic view of politicians. Thus demand that BT deals speedily in building out Fibre to the 50% of households not covered by Virgin's footprint will increase. Alongside the calls for faster upgrades to the Fibre estate will be demands that they wholesale access prices fall.
Talent blackhole when it comes to Mobile
BT does not have the Executive experience required to manage a Mobile Operation and the Management at EE is unlikely to want to work for BT. This means that once the deal closes they will face a mass exit of know how just at a time that they need to up skill. If they wish to stop that then they will be over paying, if they don't then they will discover just how complex managing the build and maintenance of a Mobile Network is.
Everything just got a lot more expensive for BT
Anyone with something to sell to BT has just seen that they are happy to pay top prices. So in order to close any significant move they will discover that the price has just risen by 15-20%. If they can spend £12.5bn for EE they must have the money for ...
BT Executives are in my experience very far from reality. They might feel that they are offering the consumer an enhanced product range that they should be happy to pay for. The reality is that for the last fifteen years telecommunications has been a commodity that the user demands at an ever decreasing price. Look at the UK retail space and you see a blood bath, experienced hands like Tesco, M&S and Topshop are hurting an BT thinks that they can be successful. BT adverts for Broadband services may win awards and get people talking but they do not seem to get people signing up for service. If you pay out £12.5bn how long can you offer BT Sport free of charge to your Consumers? What will the price be and how many will pay it?
Rather than telling the CEO and Chairman that they have struck an excellent deal if I would a significant shareholder I would be selling off my holding as it is unlikely that I will see an increase in dividends from helping Germany and France exit the UK Mobile market.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
More thoughts on the BT purchase of EE
Reading today's Telegraph I start to see analysis that BT returning to the Mobile Market might not be a great idea. Whilst this is a start I don't think that it highlights the problems such a deal presents to BT.
The investment that in buying EE BT is making is 3 times that they have made in Superfast Broadband AND Sport. This is just the table stakes, having joined the Mobile poker table they will have to double down if they are to fulfil the terms of the 4G Spectrum Licience. This is at a time when the sector is shrinking rather than growing.
The way that EE was formed has seen the culture of the business very much free of Civil Servant style management, something very different to BT. Thus in buying a Mobile Network will the Executives be brave and allow it to stand alone, would they be allowed to by the Regulators? If they place the mobile unit as a subsidiary of BT Retail I predict that many of the members of staff that make the business work will exit in frustration if they can be persuaded to join in the first place. Most are likely to seek redundancy before the transaction closes.
In Gavin Patterson BT have a CEO who is all about Marketing with little understanding of Engineering. This could well be a problem when it comes to developing products that utilise the new Mobile Asset. At this moment in time BT are building three 4G core networks for use by customers in the UK thanks to the structure placed upon it by Regulation. These networks will be used to deliver different products none of which have a proven demand. The last time BT owned both fixed and mobile assets it saw potential for converged mobile phones and invested heavily in projects such as the BT Bluephone which were commercial flops. I fear that they did not learn for such follies and will once again squander millions that could be spent upgrading fixed networks or boosting the income of sportsmen and women.
The investment that in buying EE BT is making is 3 times that they have made in Superfast Broadband AND Sport. This is just the table stakes, having joined the Mobile poker table they will have to double down if they are to fulfil the terms of the 4G Spectrum Licience. This is at a time when the sector is shrinking rather than growing.
The way that EE was formed has seen the culture of the business very much free of Civil Servant style management, something very different to BT. Thus in buying a Mobile Network will the Executives be brave and allow it to stand alone, would they be allowed to by the Regulators? If they place the mobile unit as a subsidiary of BT Retail I predict that many of the members of staff that make the business work will exit in frustration if they can be persuaded to join in the first place. Most are likely to seek redundancy before the transaction closes.
In Gavin Patterson BT have a CEO who is all about Marketing with little understanding of Engineering. This could well be a problem when it comes to developing products that utilise the new Mobile Asset. At this moment in time BT are building three 4G core networks for use by customers in the UK thanks to the structure placed upon it by Regulation. These networks will be used to deliver different products none of which have a proven demand. The last time BT owned both fixed and mobile assets it saw potential for converged mobile phones and invested heavily in projects such as the BT Bluephone which were commercial flops. I fear that they did not learn for such follies and will once again squander millions that could be spent upgrading fixed networks or boosting the income of sportsmen and women.
Monday, December 15, 2014
BT buying a mobile network
Yesterday The Sunday Times ran another story on BT buying a Mobile Network for £10bn. The story outlined the options faced by the CEO and his team without asking the questions a shareholder might want answered.
If the Mobile sector offers such riches to BT why are the two largest Networks prepared to pull up sticks and exit the market?
How do the Customers of EE or O2 overlap with those of BT and are they likely to remain given a change of ownership?
If BT were to buy either Network what will be the response of OFCOM when it comes to regulation?
After 14 years not managing Mobile Infrastructure Assets does BT have the Management expertise needed to make a return on the Investment given the vast changes over that period?
On the basis of just these questions then the rational response is thanks for the opportunity but I think BT is better served NOT doing the deal. Those likely to benefit from any deal in the short term will be Investment Bankers, Lawyers and Accountants who will be able to charge large fees for the transaction. In the medium term the beneficiaries are likely to be the rivals of BT.
If the deal were to work for BT it would have to be able to convince the Consumer that buying all your connectivity requirements from a single provider is worth paying a premium for rather than a discount. It would need to hire Executives capable of building and running Mobile Networks and then given them the space and power to do so rather than hamstringing them as a subsidiary of an Operating Unit. Whilst spending vast sums on Marketing and Engineering in the Mobile Business it would need to also do so in the Fixed Business or face Investigation and Sanctions by OFCOM and Politicians. These challenges are greater than those faced by the Board in the Dot.com era when failure saw the sale of Cellnet.
If the Mobile sector offers such riches to BT why are the two largest Networks prepared to pull up sticks and exit the market?
How do the Customers of EE or O2 overlap with those of BT and are they likely to remain given a change of ownership?
If BT were to buy either Network what will be the response of OFCOM when it comes to regulation?
After 14 years not managing Mobile Infrastructure Assets does BT have the Management expertise needed to make a return on the Investment given the vast changes over that period?
On the basis of just these questions then the rational response is thanks for the opportunity but I think BT is better served NOT doing the deal. Those likely to benefit from any deal in the short term will be Investment Bankers, Lawyers and Accountants who will be able to charge large fees for the transaction. In the medium term the beneficiaries are likely to be the rivals of BT.
If the deal were to work for BT it would have to be able to convince the Consumer that buying all your connectivity requirements from a single provider is worth paying a premium for rather than a discount. It would need to hire Executives capable of building and running Mobile Networks and then given them the space and power to do so rather than hamstringing them as a subsidiary of an Operating Unit. Whilst spending vast sums on Marketing and Engineering in the Mobile Business it would need to also do so in the Fixed Business or face Investigation and Sanctions by OFCOM and Politicians. These challenges are greater than those faced by the Board in the Dot.com era when failure saw the sale of Cellnet.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Will Apple's iWatch be your friend?
Have been thinking about wearables since GSMA World in Barcelona this February and with the launch of Apple's iWatch I have started to formalise my opinions.
Setting aside the questions of does the device look suitable to take a place on my wrist the biggest question is what does an iWatch offer that I don't get from my handset?
The majority of Optimists tell me that if offers the opportunity to open a wide range of health benefits thanks to the App developer ecosytem taking the lifeloging data and improving what I do day to day. I have looked at eHealth for quite some time and on the whole the processes that have been designed to make medicine better via technology have failed because of the silo nature of the stake holders. What has happened is that the increased data available has been used by the Insurance industry to raise premiums and or decline treatments.
Given what we have seen about breaches in data security by technology firms I do not hold out any hope that my data in anonymised given that the registration/purchasing functions used by Apple. Given that my working life requires long periods sat down and limited opportunities to exercise it would not be a surprise if the Actuary placed me in a high risk group and incentivised changes by financial penalties. Why should I make it easy for them by fitting a monitoring device that records how poor my time is used when it comes to health?
If I want to improve I think that I would invest in a Polar HRM system for the periods of the week when I am active and record the results in a Notebook rather than online rather than strap on an iWatch and give away health data.
Setting aside the questions of does the device look suitable to take a place on my wrist the biggest question is what does an iWatch offer that I don't get from my handset?
The majority of Optimists tell me that if offers the opportunity to open a wide range of health benefits thanks to the App developer ecosytem taking the lifeloging data and improving what I do day to day. I have looked at eHealth for quite some time and on the whole the processes that have been designed to make medicine better via technology have failed because of the silo nature of the stake holders. What has happened is that the increased data available has been used by the Insurance industry to raise premiums and or decline treatments.
Given what we have seen about breaches in data security by technology firms I do not hold out any hope that my data in anonymised given that the registration/purchasing functions used by Apple. Given that my working life requires long periods sat down and limited opportunities to exercise it would not be a surprise if the Actuary placed me in a high risk group and incentivised changes by financial penalties. Why should I make it easy for them by fitting a monitoring device that records how poor my time is used when it comes to health?
If I want to improve I think that I would invest in a Polar HRM system for the periods of the week when I am active and record the results in a Notebook rather than online rather than strap on an iWatch and give away health data.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Time for the Mobile Networks to change their Business Model?
Here in the UK we are starting to see increased take up of 4G services and as a result the Mobile Networks are looking to tweak their relationship with the consumer.
Over the past few weeks I have received a number of text messages telling offering me various offers. None of these offers are of any interest to me and I am now concerned that my Network Provider now feels that it is entitled to SPAM me. I have "opted out" of such marketing however it seems to take 5 days for my request to be acted on. Having opted out will my number now be sold to third parties to try there luck directly with me.
I have stopped taking calls from Private Numbers and those that are not in my address book because of nuisance callers prospecting for claims firms. It has resulted in less minutes of voice use. I fear that the actions of my Mobile Network could now result in a situation that I start to look at a way to remove messaging.
I am paying at the top end of the tariff structure and think that such charge should entitle me to be left alone by my Mobile Network when it comes to marketing of third party offers.
They are attempting a number of new services, for example they now offer the chance to jump the que on calls to the contact centre for a fee.
What I would like is the ability to make a quality voice call that does not drop out and be capable of using the 4G data connection more than I am using WiFi. Lets face it despite a relationship that is over ten years old my Mobile Network knows very little about me, it does not seem to be interested in retaining information I do share with them, so what makes them think that it is capable of selling things to me that are from others?
Over the past few weeks I have received a number of text messages telling offering me various offers. None of these offers are of any interest to me and I am now concerned that my Network Provider now feels that it is entitled to SPAM me. I have "opted out" of such marketing however it seems to take 5 days for my request to be acted on. Having opted out will my number now be sold to third parties to try there luck directly with me.
I have stopped taking calls from Private Numbers and those that are not in my address book because of nuisance callers prospecting for claims firms. It has resulted in less minutes of voice use. I fear that the actions of my Mobile Network could now result in a situation that I start to look at a way to remove messaging.
I am paying at the top end of the tariff structure and think that such charge should entitle me to be left alone by my Mobile Network when it comes to marketing of third party offers.
They are attempting a number of new services, for example they now offer the chance to jump the que on calls to the contact centre for a fee.
What I would like is the ability to make a quality voice call that does not drop out and be capable of using the 4G data connection more than I am using WiFi. Lets face it despite a relationship that is over ten years old my Mobile Network knows very little about me, it does not seem to be interested in retaining information I do share with them, so what makes them think that it is capable of selling things to me that are from others?
Thursday, June 12, 2014
European M&A rumours....
Here is the text from an email I got today....
Posted: 12 Jun 2014 02:35 AM PDT
Does anybody else find it a bit odd that today's media coverage of the failed merger talks between Orange and Bouygues Telecom pretty much all fail to mention the bigger industry tale that has been rattling around European markets all week - the talk of a EURO 90 billion merger between Deutsche Telekom and Orange.
I know this one has been knocking around for the last few days and a bit of an 'old chestnut' of a deal story. But this time I think there may be something in it, so it's worthwhile a mention on Betaville this morning.
Indeed, Gary Parkinson, the market reporter over at the The Times, tweeted on Monday he had been hearing rumours Deutsche Telekom is preparing a takeover bid for France's Orange. And on Tuesday Bryce Elder and Paul Murphy over FT Alphaville said on their execellent Markets Live show they have heard similar things but people close the situation have been playing the gossip down.
Well, I hear that several investment banks have lined up on either side of this potential EURO 90 billion combination, adding credence to the scuttlebutt.
Deutsche Bank, Bank of American Merrill Lynch and Citigroup are said to be working with Deutsche Telekom on the possible merger. Orange is believed to be working with Credit Suisse, Lazard and Credit Agricole.
Rothschild is likely to advise the French government, which owns 27pc of Orange, on any merger deal although the venerable corporate adviser was mandated to work with Bouygues Telecom on its EURO 6 billion sale talks to Orange, whose shares fell yesterday about 4pc.
Anyway, that's the extra detail I have managed to glean from my sources. The idea of Deutsche Telekom and Orange combining has been around for several years (the two companies have already merged their British businesses into EE) but my sources tell me things are now "hotting up".
In part, this is because Deutsche Telekom is close to securing a deal to sell its 67pc stake in T-Mobile USA to Sprint, which is controlled by Japan's Softbank. Here is a link to last week's report on the matter: http://uk.reuters.com/
Some of my sources reckon Deutsche Telekom will secure an upfront cash break fee payment of over EURO 1 billion from Sprint as it will take a long time for the US regulators to clear the sale.
Any deal between Deutsche Telekom and Orange is likely to see the German company pay for the French business using its own stock and a little bit of cash, claimed one source.
Bankers also tell me there is a political will to see both Deutsche Telekom and Orange come together to create a European telecoms champion that will be able to compete on a global stage. The German government owns 14.5pc of Deutsche Telekom and France has a 27pc stake in Orange.
I have to admit, though, I don't know whether this deal is just a glint in Deutsche Telekom's eye or whether talks - albeit informal, early or late stage - are "live". Market participants can make their own mind up what price Deutsche Telekom will/would have to pay for Orange
Deutsche Telekom and Orange both declined to comment although people close to the latter said there is "no project" being worked on.
I know this one has been knocking around for the last few days and a bit of an 'old chestnut' of a deal story. But this time I think there may be something in it, so it's worthwhile a mention on Betaville this morning.
Indeed, Gary Parkinson, the market reporter over at the The Times, tweeted on Monday he had been hearing rumours Deutsche Telekom is preparing a takeover bid for France's Orange. And on Tuesday Bryce Elder and Paul Murphy over FT Alphaville said on their execellent Markets Live show they have heard similar things but people close the situation have been playing the gossip down.
Well, I hear that several investment banks have lined up on either side of this potential EURO 90 billion combination, adding credence to the scuttlebutt.
Deutsche Bank, Bank of American Merrill Lynch and Citigroup are said to be working with Deutsche Telekom on the possible merger. Orange is believed to be working with Credit Suisse, Lazard and Credit Agricole.
Rothschild is likely to advise the French government, which owns 27pc of Orange, on any merger deal although the venerable corporate adviser was mandated to work with Bouygues Telecom on its EURO 6 billion sale talks to Orange, whose shares fell yesterday about 4pc.
Anyway, that's the extra detail I have managed to glean from my sources. The idea of Deutsche Telekom and Orange combining has been around for several years (the two companies have already merged their British businesses into EE) but my sources tell me things are now "hotting up".
In part, this is because Deutsche Telekom is close to securing a deal to sell its 67pc stake in T-Mobile USA to Sprint, which is controlled by Japan's Softbank. Here is a link to last week's report on the matter: http://uk.reuters.com/
Some of my sources reckon Deutsche Telekom will secure an upfront cash break fee payment of over EURO 1 billion from Sprint as it will take a long time for the US regulators to clear the sale.
Any deal between Deutsche Telekom and Orange is likely to see the German company pay for the French business using its own stock and a little bit of cash, claimed one source.
Bankers also tell me there is a political will to see both Deutsche Telekom and Orange come together to create a European telecoms champion that will be able to compete on a global stage. The German government owns 14.5pc of Deutsche Telekom and France has a 27pc stake in Orange.
I have to admit, though, I don't know whether this deal is just a glint in Deutsche Telekom's eye or whether talks - albeit informal, early or late stage - are "live". Market participants can make their own mind up what price Deutsche Telekom will/would have to pay for Orange
Deutsche Telekom and Orange both declined to comment although people close to the latter said there is "no project" being worked on.
The sender is a journalist.
I think that it is highly unlikely that any such deal will happen as the French are unlikely to accept the sale of Orange to the Germans. If the deal was to happen I think that the EU regulators would have a serious look at what measures would be needed to make sure that wholesale access were fair and open to all as well as price regulations. I cannot see where the New Co can make savings aimed at making the deal work medium to long term.
Whilst many Bankers are running models for consolidation I think that politics and personalities will make any such transactions limited to smaller markets or lesser players rather than former State Operators taking one another out. That said I would welcome either DT or Orange buying BT.
I think that it is highly unlikely that any such deal will happen as the French are unlikely to accept the sale of Orange to the Germans. If the deal was to happen I think that the EU regulators would have a serious look at what measures would be needed to make sure that wholesale access were fair and open to all as well as price regulations. I cannot see where the New Co can make savings aimed at making the deal work medium to long term.
Whilst many Bankers are running models for consolidation I think that politics and personalities will make any such transactions limited to smaller markets or lesser players rather than former State Operators taking one another out. That said I would welcome either DT or Orange buying BT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)