Hong Kong’s hybrid approach to 3G spectrum renewal creates a “freerider” problem for the incumbents

Hong Kong’s Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) has decided to adopt a hybrid approach to the renewal of incumbents’ 3G spectrum. OFCA will distribute two thirds of the spectrum to the incumbents through an administered allocation process and the remaining third will be put up for auction. The incumbents have the opportunity to reacquire the spectrum through the auction but it also opens up the opportunity for a new player (and many are speculating the China Mobile Hong Kong is the primary candidate) to acquire the spectrum.

When incumbents value spectrum one of the most significant sources of spectrum value attributed to spectrum in an auction is the ability to block new market entry. This “blocking value” can be very high for incumbents, especially in mature markets, as a new player seeking to win share to drive economies of scale often sparks a value destroying pricing or commission war – the experience of Three entering the UK market is a good case in point.

China Mobile may place a high strategic value on gaining access to 3G spectrum in Hong Kong and so the cost of blocking in the auction could be high. All the incumbents have an incentive to block new market entry. However, in an ideal world an incumbent would prefer “freeride” and rely on another incumbent to pay any premium for market entry. This creates a coordination problem for the incumbents and this risk is that they fail to “reach agreement” through their bidding strategies as to who will take the responsibility for blocking. The result may well be that new entry occurs despite all incumbents being heavily incentivised to avoid it.

Written by Graham Friend, Managing Director, Coleago Consulting

European commission proposal ignores the fundamentals: We need to create an environment that attracts capital into the EU telecoms sector

The European Commission’s adoption of regulatory proposals for a Connected Continent announced by Neelie Kroes on the 11^th of September 2013 are as polemic as can be expected from a politician. The headline grabbing proposal deflects from the failings of member states to adopt sensible policies with regards to developing the telecoms sector. In its opening paragraph the proposal declares that “The overarching aim is to build a connected, competitive continent and enabling sustainable digital jobs and industries; making life better by ensuring consumers can enjoy the digital devices and services they love; and making it easier for European businesses & entrepreneurs to create the jobs of the future.”

To achieve these objectives substantial investments are required. Only 12 days prior to the Commission’s proposal, on Thursday 05 September 2013, PwC published a detailed analysis which showed that mobile operators cannot make adequate returns on capital employed. For the past three years the return on invested capital (ROIC) made by Europe’s telcos was below the cost of capital of around 8%-9%. In the mobile sector this is in part due to the high spectrum licence fees charged by national governments.

And yet with statements such as “It is also essential that citizens … are protected from unfair charges and practices such as roaming rip-offs and opaque contracts” the Commission conjures up an image of ultra-profitable telecoms operators which fleece consumers.

What the European telecoms sector needs most is a climate with the regulatory certainty which is favourable to investment. Only investment in the sector will achieve the Commission’s aim – which we all agree with – of excellent fixed and mobile internet connectivity and communication without borders within the EU.

Furthermore, the Commission proposal contains contradictions. Vice President Neelie Kroes said “The aim is to gradually make the telecoms sector a “normal” economic sector with limited ‘ex ante’ rules and responsibility shifting to ex-post regulation” and then demands that “Operators will have to charge no more than a domestic long-distance call for all fixed line calls to other EU member states. Any extra costs have to be objectively justified.”  “Normal” economic sectors do not “objectively justify” prices based on cost but charge what the market will bear. The image of the Coca Cola bottle in the proposal is a fine example. The price per litre of Coca Cola varies hugely between a discount supermarket and a beach club on the Cote d’Azur. And yet, nobody suggests regulating prices for Coca Cola.

On the positive side, the proposal highlights member states’ regulatory failings and tardiness in allocating spectrum for LTE.  This, with a call for a European authorisation for telecoms operators – and by implication European telecoms regulation – is a very positive development. This is a prerequisite for the much needed consolidation in the EU telecoms sector which will then give investors a chance to earn adequate returns.

Written by Stefan Zehle, CEO of Coleago Consulting

EU in a muddle over roaming rules

The FT commented on the effect of profitability the proposed EU roaming rules may have on EU mobile operators, not least because mandated wholesale prices open up the possibility of arbitrage.  It is evident from the Case M.6497 “Hutchison 3G Austria Holdings GmbH / Orange Austria Telecommunications GmbH, Commitments to the European Commission 11 November 2012”, that the European Commission is well aware of this issue.

As part of the Commission’s approval to acquire One Austria, Hutchison Austria entered into certain commitments, notably to publish a Reference Wholesale Access Offer and host up to sixteen MVNOs.  The interesting bit is the data pricing stated on page 29 of €0.002 per Mbyte. This sets an extremely low benchmark.

In order to prevent this low rate from being used by operators outside Austria, clause 36(l) on page 25 of the Reference Wholesale Access Offer states that the MVNO, “The MVNO shall not seek to sell MVNO services to any customer whose residence or place of business is outside Austria.”

Here the European Commission has contradicted its avowed aim to create a single telecoms market. Effectively the consumer who lives in Austria could buy a service from an MVNO, but not for example a customer in Germany. A German MVNO might also wish to buy services from Hutchison Austria at these rates to offer a seamless service that covers both Germany and Austria.  This would be a very practical benefit of the single market in telecoms. However, the Commission put rules in place which prevents this from happening.

This is an extraordinary contradiction which shows that the Commission is in a muddle over the issue. At the core is that the part of the commission dealing with competition appears to be out of step with that part that works on telecoms.  It also highlights that the fears voiced by EU mobile operators are real.

I wonder what would happen if a customer of an Austrian MVNO using the Hutchison Network moved from Austria to Germany. If the MVNO does not disconnect the customer Hutchison Austria would complain.  The MVNO might then sponsor that customer to bring a test case that on the grounds of single market provisions, the MVNO does not have the right to disconnect the customer.

Neelie Kroes has made the roaming proposals without having thought through the full impact on the mobile industry.  This deserves much greater consultation.

Written by Stefan Zehle, CEO, Coleago Consulting

Misguided approach to EU intervention on roaming charges

In her speech on the 9 July 2013, Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, reiterated her assault on roaming charges within the EU. There is talk of regulatory intervention to eliminate roaming charges within the EU.

While mobile operators may earn good margins on roaming, a mandated elimination of roaming charges is ill conceived because mobile operators in different EU countries face different costs. One of the most significant investments made by mobile operators is in buying spectrum.  For example, for the 800MHz digital dividend spectrum, operators in Denmark paid €0.30 per MHz per head of population (€/MHz/pop) whereas in France, operators paid €0.67/MHz/pop i.e. 123% more.  Some cash strapped EU countries set high reserve prices for spectrum €0.58/ MHz/pop in Italy vs. €0.10/MHz/pop in Denmark. Coupled with differences in deploying 4G LTE coverage, this translates into hundreds of million euro differences in capex.

Furthermore there are significant differences in the timing of spectrum allocations and hence the deployment of LTE which translates into huge cost differences for mobile data. Assuming investors like to earn similar returns, these cost differences will result in different wholesale and retail prices. Therefore it does not make sense to mandate the same retail prices regardless of the country in which the traffic occurs.

If the EU and its member countries are really so keen on a single telecoms market, why not start by allowing operators regardless of their country of operation to select a national telecoms regulator of their choice to regulate them.  I suspect the Danish regulator would attract quite a few “customers” whereas the Italian and Greek regulators might go out of business. The resulting reduction in regulatory costs could be passed on consumers in form of lower retail prices.

Written by Stefan Zehle, CEO, Coleago Consulting