Hutch – O2 Ireland acquisition approval: Hutch plays it well, the “Connected Continent” loses out

The conditions attached by the Competition Commission to the clearance of the acquisition of Telefónica Ireland by Hutchison 3G shows that the Commission is still desperate to maintain network based competition. H3G offered a package facilitating the market entry of two mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), with an option for one MVNO to morph into a mobile network operator by subsequently purchasing spectrum from the merged entity. “H3G committed to sell up to 30% of the merged company’s network capacity to two MVNOs in Ireland at fixed payments. The capacity is measured in terms of bandwidth and the MVNO entrants will obtain a dedicated “pipe” from the merged entity’s network for voice and data traffic.”

H3G probably has the first MVNO customer lined up, or else the acquisition cannot go ahead. The likely candidate is UPC. UPC is one of the few telecoms providers in Ireland with a large enough customer base to be comfortable to take on the fixed cost associated with becoming an MVNO under these terms. With that, UPC would become a quad play company. This means that at retail level competition will remain vigorous while costs are taken out of the mobile industry. So far, so good.

However, it is highly unlikely that the MVNO would want to become an MNO with all the cost implications as well as the daunting prospect of participating in future spectrum auctions to stay competitive. Therefore, just like in Austria, Hutch played it well by making a spectrum divestment offer that is unlikely to be taken up. The Commission does not get it: In mature markets new network based market entry does not make sense. Consolidation is the name of the game for the European mobile industry.

MNOs are dominated by fixed costs. Because around 75% of their costs are fixed, profitability comes through scale. In contrast MVNOs are dominated by variable costs with the proportions of fixed to variable costs roughly reversed compared to an MNO. This means an MVNO is not operationally geared, has a lower risk of not achieving break even, and can operate profitably at a lower scale. Hence an MVNO can play in niche markets. The fixed cost deal offered by Hutch Ireland is clever from Hutch’s perspective because it offsets Hutch’s fixed costs with a fixed revenue stream, and is probably betting on a limited impact because only one player in Ireland is likely to have the ability to commit to a five year fixed cost deal.

The Commission missed an opportunity. In addition to the fixed cost MVNO condition, it could have requested a similar variable wholesale price undertaking as in the approval of Hutch’s acquisition of Orange Austria. A low wholesale price (€0.002 per Mbyte for data) not only serves as an insurance against unwarranted retail price rises, but creates the opportunity for players who are not MVNOs in the traditional sense. Innovative business models would use mobile access as part of a service, such as smart metering, automotive services, home security, M-Health, etc. and might even include handset manufacturers such as Apple or Samsung as well as OTT players. If innovators could find the same wholesale price and access conditions across the EU, we would be well on the way to overcoming the disadvantages associated with the fragmentation of the EU mobile industry and truly leverage the value of LTE mobile broadband.

By adopting a country by country approach to set conditions to clear consolidation among mobile network operators, the Competition Commission might address country specific competition concerns but does nothing to advance the “Connected Continent” agenda. Next up is the proposed acquisition of E-Plus by O2 Germany. Let’s hope for a better set of conditions which signals a harmonised, fast track merger approvals mechanism with the aim of advancing mobile industry consolidation in the EU for the benefit of consumers and investors.

 

By Stefan Zehle, CEO, Coleago Consulting

Consolidation in the European mobile industry is inevitable, but what path will it take?

It has been pointed out many times that the EU with around 100 mobile operators, serving a roughly similar size population as the USA, is hugely fragmented compared to the mobile industry in the USA. The historic reason is easy to understand, but the fight put up by Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission to halt in-country consolidation is harder to understand.

In the model used to analyse the impact of mergers on retail prices, the Competition Directorate, assumes that retail prices will always go up as a result of a merger between two MNOs in the same country. It does not assume that the efficiencies brought about by a merger would, at least in part, be passed on to consumers in form of lower prices or better service in terms of coverage or access speeds.

Network sharing is encouraged under EU rules as long as it is limited to the Node B and RNC and excludes spectrum and the core. A great deal of cost sits in the RAN, and hence RAN sharing could be termed “merger lite”. With LTE, it is efficient to deploy the technology in as wide a band as possible. Hence significant additional savings could be brought about if spectrum is shared.  This reduces competition at network level, but also delivers consumer benefits in form of higher access speeds.

The transactions now awaiting approval by the Competition Directorate are the O2 and Eplus tie-up in Germany, Hutchison’s takeover of O2 in Ireland and, if the acquisition of SFR by Altice fails, then also the Bouygues – SFR take-over in France.  The conditions the European Commission attached to the Hutchison 3 take-over of Orange Austria may serve as an indicator as to the conditions that might be imposed to allow these deals to go ahead. Among other conditions, Hutchison Austria had to publish a wholesale access price reference offer for MVNOs. By regulating wholesale prices, the Commission in effect bought insurance against sharp increases in retail prices because it would allow MVNOs to undercut these.

The conditions imposed on Hutchison Austria may be a first step towards the structural separation of the mobile industry into Netcos and Retailcos. In a world where mobile network operators share much of their network and perhaps spectrum, these mobile operators start to look more like MVNOs on a shared network. Structural separation may not be a “horror scenario” for mobile operators if returns on invested capital can increase as a result.

Looking at what business mobile operators are actually in, it seems that they are to a large extent hire purchase phone vendors. Comparing SIM only postpaid tariffs with postpaid plans that include a “free” smartphone, it appears that the price for SIM only deals is 50% below plans with a bundled handset. Therefore roughly 50% of a mobile network operator’s business is not about running a network but about selling phones on credit. Other than marketing and selling phones and SIMs, customer care and billing are a big cost bucket attributable to the retail activity of an MNO.

Retail activities are scalable, i.e. can be done profitably at different volumes. In contrast the Netco activity is not scalable because costs are fixed. Netco returns are a function of network utilisation. By structurally separating retail and wholesale activities in exchange for being allowed to merge networks including spectrum, MNOs might see lower costs and as a result higher returns, all the while prices at retail level may not move or even decline.

Barriers to entry and exit in the Mobile Netco activity are extremely high. We are now in the maturity stage of the industry life cycle, and it is normal for consolidation to take place. Furthermore, regulators have hastened the need for consolidation because they took billions of Euros out of the industry through spectrum auctions. This had the effect of dramatically reducing returns to investors. And yet, the Directorate responsible for telecoms, DG Connect, ceaselessly points out the benefit to European industry of increased investment in mobile broadband networks. How can the policy objectives of DG Connect and DG Competition be delivered simultaneously?

From the industry perspective, if structural separation allows returns to increase despite increased competition at retail level, then structural separation might be the way forward. Competition might drive down margins in the retail activity, but this is not problematic because in contrast to the Netco activity reducing capital or even exiting the retail activity is possible.

The proposed consolidation in Germany is most interesting in this regard. Eplus pioneered a multi-brand wholesale and MVNO strategy precisely because E-Plus was sub-scale. As can be seen by leafing through some older KPN investor presentations (KPN E-Plus Seminar, Delivering profitable growth, Sep 2006), this resulted in lower subscriber acquisition costs and higher EBITDA. The strategy brought about a flourishing MVNO and reseller activity, thus increasing consumer choice. This means within Eplus the set-up exists to take the concept forward to full structural separation.

From the mobile industry perspective a further benefit of consolidation at network level would be that governments can no longer pit competing operators against each other in spectrum auctions, such as the forthcoming second digital dividend. High spectrum reserve prices would finally be seen for what they are: a tax on the mobile industry that ultimately has to be paid for by the consumer. Furthermore it may be better to be in a regulated industry with reasonable returns rather than in an industry with wafer thin returns, high investment needs and continued technology risk.

Written by Stefan Zehle, CEO Coleago Consulting