"One cannot judge the value of opinion simply by the amount of courage that is required in holding it," wrote George Orwell to Evelyn Waugh

The last few months public promotion of 5G by Ben Wood and his colleagues at CCS Insight have caused me to question my sanity. Have I lost my faculties or has Ben been bought as a "Social Media Influencer" by EE? Today's activity around the launch of 5G by EE has caused me to conclude that he has been bough lock, stock and barrel by BT and he should tag his posts as paid promotion. In Financial Services his approach would be called in for review and it should not be different in the telecoms world.

Clear advantages to #5G if you want to download an album on @Spotify in "very high" quality. Here's a 4G vs 5G comparison on @Qualcomm powered @OnePlus 6T (4G) vs @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G. Hard not to be impressed by the @EE 5G network. #5GEE (test conducted in #Cardiff) pic.twitter.com/iceFy5Zkqm

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 30, 2019

I've been using the @EE #5G network in London and Cardiff over the last few days with the @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G. When in 5G coverage I'm consistently getting 200Mbps to 400Mbps with the fastest speed peaking at around 700Mbps. #5GEE pic.twitter.com/DXdfgtY3iQ

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 30, 2019

Wow. #Stormzy live (and live steamed over 5G) on The Thames in the shadow of @TowerBridge for the launch of @EE #5G network in the UK. #5GEE @bt_uk pic.twitter.com/L1vZIIS9nx

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 29, 2019

Here's @EE's 5G smartphone line-up: @SamsungMobile's #GalaxyS10 5G, @Oppo Reno 5G, @OnePlus 7 Pro 5G and @LG V50 ThinQ 5G with Dual Screen accessory. #5GEE pic.twitter.com/fNRxb5iSxt

— Ben Wood (@benwood) May 26, 2019

I would expect a first year GCSE Economics student to provide better coverage than Ben is currently doing as they would offer some balance and critical thinking about the recently launched 5G handsets and the launch services Mobile Networks are promoting in launching 5G. The issue is that Ben Wood has spent twenty years developing a brand and networking so that at the moment he is frequently quoted in the media. Some of this is that CEO's of Networks and Equipment Manufacturers are not as vocal as they were and so Journalists pressed for time to create a "package" seek out Ben for easy quotes.

EE are first to market with 5G in the UK, but not in Europe, they are less than a week ahead of Vodafone in launching and have chosen a network strategy that will require more base stations but not necessarily more capacity than Vodafone by the year end. The first subscribers for 5G are unlikely to have connected to the network for more than 15% of their usage by the end of the contract in TWO years. The "leadership" that EE claim to have established in the launch of 4G was such that if left it's then Parents seeking an exit from the UK and accepting a financial loss when sold to BT for equity alongside cash. BT was first to market with the launch of 1G, it had a property portfolio that meant that every base station needed up to 2000 could sit on it's estate rather than deal with third party landlords. Yet by 2000 it had been overtaken by Vodafone AND Orange in terms of leadership and had put Cellnet up for sale.

Thus the launch marketing for 5G by EE can be described as "brave" given the overwhelming demographic of BT's customer base and the very early stage we are in for 5G in terms of business case for consumers adopting the new service. For Ben Wood to take the optimistic view that EE are right to dash forward with a strategy he called "build it and they will come" requires a naivety greater than "the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind". 

Why it is wrong to talk about 5G as if it is a race

Looking at a lot of the coverage this year about the Mobile Network Operator's plans to launch 5G services and they are framed a winning the race to 5G, the prizes for those that are first. This is at best simplistic in the extreme; it frames the argument in a metaphor that is simply WRONG.

Is everyone starting in the same place?

Are the covering the same distance? 

Will the encounter the same hurdles?

Are the subject to the same rules and arbitration?

What is the mythical prize that the winner might expect?  

Might the effort to complete the marathon of launching 5G result in the same outcome as the ancient greek who was the first to run the distance, and the victor expires on crossing the finish line?  

Here in Britain EE was seen as the "winner" in the "race" for 4G. It was such a success that three of the four mobile networks were fighting one another to be rescued by BT when it was looking to buy it's way back into the mobile space. The margin of victory was so slim that the General Public were unable to see it. This has to be the definition of a Pyrrhic victory!

The Mobile Network Operators cannot afford to make the mistakes they did with the launch of 3G and 4G over the past 15 years if they are to survive and deliver on the prospects that 5G is supposed to offer. Thus they themselves need to close down the use of the phrase "race to 5G" and reset expectations that this is not just another G rather it is a step change in what is possible and over time data connections will have improved that life will be different in ways that at present cannot be envisaged.      

Handset upgrade time. Be careful out there!

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.

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.      

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.      

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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?

European M&A rumours....

Here is the text from an email I got today....

A German Orange

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/article/2014/06/05/us-tmobil-sprint-corp-idUKKBN0EF2DG20140605

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.

Will the real BT stand up?

Over the weekend I read three stories about BT which paint a confused view of just what it's future might be. On Saturday the Guardian reported that thanks to BT TV complaints have shoot up. The Yesterday's Sunday Times had two stories in the Business Section about the return of BT Mobile and a feature on NEW CEO Gavin Patterson's £2bn bet on sports TV.

If you read on paper you get the view that BT's retail strategy is in need of a major review. The customers are unhappy with the failings of not just it's TV product but also it's Broadband product. The only provider that gets more complaints for it's Broadband is EE.

Read the Sunday Times and all is good for BT it's about to get back in the Mobile Phone business after leaving in 2001 and BT TV has seen 3M on Virgin and Sky take the service. Then a full page feature on new CEO Gavin Paterson and his £2bn bet on sports TV is a bold gamble that aims to grow the business after a period of cost cutting. He will use a Quad Play offer to drive up incomes having bought some 4G spectrum and struct an MVNO deal with EE.

The problem is that Simon Duke in the Sunday Times does not seem to understand that BT has had MVNO agreements with O2 and Vodafone ever since it sold of it's mobile arm after over paying for 3G spectrum in 2000. He also does not seem to understand that since 2008 BT has failed to invest the money need to provide the long term upgrade in super-fast fibre to the curb rather than cabinet just as it failed to match European spending in ADSL deployment ten years previously.

When you start to understand that last week OFCOM reported that the UK has the lowest consumer prices for Mobile services in Europe you start to ask it's not just Duke that fails to understand the realities of a very competitive telecoms market but BT also.  For too long the Company thinks that one of its prime roles is to defend itself against the regulator rather than invest in it's Network so that it survives long term.  

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.

A bad day for Britain's Mobile Ecosystem

Today at the Science Museum Everything Everywhere entertained the dumb and witless of the British Press to its "plans" for the launch of LTE services in the UK.  Next month they will give the opportunity to a few to have a service that is so far away from 4G standards that it's laughable. EE are offering the consumer the chance to experience a Mobile Broadband experience of up to 8Mbps which is slower than some with HSDP+ devices on Vodafone are capable of getting.

This launch has every opportunity of being an even bigger disappointment that 3G was in 2003 when coverage was very poor and devices were not best suited for the improvements offered by the new technology.  The real benefit of 4G is not in services to "smartphones" rather it will be improved connectivity for laptops and tablets or it will be delivering highspeed broadband to rural areas. Everything Everywhere has no intention of offering such services any time soon.  Perhaps that is because at present it has problems giving 3G services to these markets.

The UK Government has so far managed to fudge and fiddle the sale of 4G spectrum and hopes that in allowing Everything Everywhere rights to run a second rate service they can force Stakeholders to participate in a flawed sales rather than seek judicial review and see yet more delays.  I would rather have a delayed launch of 4G that gives Britain a significant uplift that enables it to compete with rivals that a glitzy marketing launch of an inferior service that history will see as willy waving - all be it with a shinny new iPhone.