Don't cry for Charles Dunstone...

Yesterday TalkTalk reported it's results to the City and people were not happy with what they were telling them.

The once wonder of the telecoms industry is turning into his idol Richard Branson, but not in the way he dreamed. It's only a question of time when TalkTalk is no more rather than one of if.

Dunstone has built his fortune on the spin that with him you get the best price be it Mobile phones, fixed line telephony or broadband like some spiv working the crowd in Romford Market. The problem with TalkTalk is that the customers are now not prepared to pay the actual cost of delivering fibre broadband and having seen an exodus of customers because of poor service and hacking it has had to offer contracts at below cost to keep the numbers respectable.  The perfect storm has also seen it now having to fix the holes in its finances with a cash injection almost equal to 12 months income.

Since the days of FreeServe I have said that the issue with UK Broadband investment that needed to be addressed was that the Retail Price never reflected the cost of the service or offered a Return on Investment that justified major spending. The TalkTalk partners in a project to bring superfast fibre to York have got their fingers burned from working with Dunstone to the extent that don't wish to undertake anymore work with him.  Dunstone thinks that because he has a large customer base someone else will provide the money. that might have worked 20 years ago but not today.

As others invest in the building of Superfast Broadband Dunstone will be on the sidelines shouting that its a rigged market and BT has failed to invest in Wholesale services that would allow him to stay in business. TalkTalk's strategy in terms of maintaining it's customer numbers means that he will invest in marketing and promotions at the expense of infrastructure and customer service which means that he will have difficulty in get those customers to pay more. Thus we are looking at decline to the point of bankruptcy nobody will buy them out of the hole they have dug for themselves.

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.    

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.  

Network Coverage Issues....

A few weeks ago Ofcom published maps for all five UK Operators coverage of the UK with a 3G Signal. At the time I thought that the maps were interesting but suspected that they were overstating the situation.

With the change of handset and the fact that this Summer England are playing an interesting cricket competition I have been more concerned that usual about coverage.

I have chosen to trial the Sky Sports service on my Orange Handset. In order to be able to watch mobile TV I have to be able to get a 3G signal. If all I relied on was Orange I'd have thought that England played well in Leeds last week as all that I saw was the first three overs on Friday and 15 minutes of Broad and Swan hitting the ball to all corners. The other attempts to watch whilst I was out and about were all failures because I didn't have coverage. The issue was that I was not at home where I know Orange has coverage issues but rather I was in Central London, Oxford and around the M1. The other issue is that Ofcom says that Orange has the widest coverage.

With my T-Mobile handset I find that the traffic management is an issue in the daytime the push email on my handset does not function and email is downloaded in blocks however between 20:00 and 07:00 it does work. So just what is happening to the T-Mobile Network if it is drifting in and out?

I have "free" mobile broadband from BT which uses the Vodafone network and I have to say that on my commute into London they seem to be the only people capable of providing coverage along the Metline all the way out to Hertfordshire. The dongle also seems to function well in places where I cannot find wifi. In terms of mobile broadband Vodafone is not only faster than 3 but also has a greater footprint.

Why is this an issue?

Well in an effort to get UK working better we want to use Mobile to provide coverage to those that chose to live in a rural setting that is not covered by ADSL or Fiber-optic networks in order to give speeds of 2 Meg/Second. If those inside Government are to believe the regulator or networks that they offer British Telecom a get out clause we are in for a shock.

I don't blame the Networks completely for the failure of their coverage. Some of the blame has to be accepted by NIMBY local Governments who refuse planning for new base stations. My Lib Dem controlled council as a matter of course refuse all applications and so appeals are need to grant them. The fact that we have an over supply which has seen prices collapse makes it difficult to justify the return on investment needed to cover all of the UK. However the auctions required commitment to cover the UK with a suitable service. Today that service can be seen as a hybrid network that offers a basic connection and at times a high speed one. The regulator needs to raise the speed of the basic connection.

Without a suitable network how can a provider expect me to pay for a service. Given what I have experienced over the first week of testing mobile TV I don not expect to keep it after the free period is over. In order to attempt to use my handset as a mini-computer I have to use the wifi radio. In doing so I consume power too fast for my phone to operate all day. If I am using wifi I am not mobile but rather wireless and so might as well use my iPod Touch if all I need is small screen access or my Laptop if I want a bigger view.