Will KPN pull out a wild card?

It's the time of year to make predictions. On December 15, KPN is set to clarify its FTTx Roadmap, but it doesn't look like there will be any fireworks. Here are a few possible outcomes that don't seem to be on anybody's cards:

• MAYBE they will accelarete FTTH. That would be a u-turn to previous statements, and construction capacity (currently at an annual run rate of 250k homes per annum) doesn't have much room to grow.
• MAYBE they will bet the farm on VDSL2. It is what they have announced, but it could be more than just an interim strategy (in theory).
• MAYBE have an acquisition to report. BBned is for sale and would add a handsome business provider (the wholesale provider would lose all its customers no doubt, and the retail business may have to be sold on). Still, they could replace BBned on a couple of FTTH networks.
• MAYBE they have a retail partnership to report. Perhaps Online Breedband is finally ready to live up to its promises (made in April). Or Tele2. But the real big fish would be Ziggo. Imagine Ziggo becoming an operator/RSP on the Reggefiber FTTH networks! (UPC would be a harder nut to crack - they suffer from a severe case of incumbofobia).
• MAYBE they have a content deal up their sleeve. Connected TV is all the rage. This would enhance the triple play.

UPDATE But the biggest surprise would be:

• MAYBE there will be a switch to GPON technology (in the larger cities), in order to be able to re-use VDSL investments.

Structural separation revisited

Apparently, the regulator nor many a competitor thinks structurally separating the incumbent is needed. In the Netherlands, the situation could be the same. Still, I believe there could be a point in moving the issue up the political agenda. Yes, it's a huge issue, but precisely that may require huge steps.

• Half of the employees of this regulator are former KPN employees. Most munifiber networks have recently become KPN partners. Are the representatives still objective?
• Structural separation is seen as a remedy, whereas I would see it as good for business. As long as this doesn't change, structural separation will likely not happen. Unless the incumbent totally screws up (Australia), or regulation suddenly changes (US). KPN is well respected (perhaps even too much so), also among competitors. It has a good wholesale portfolio. Further, competitors are not asking for separation. And any competitors still around seem to have doubtful commitment to the Dutch market (BBned was put up for sale by Telecom Italia; Tele2 is facing large investments in mobile and broadband but hasn't made any commitments yet; Online doesn't sit very well in T-Mobile's portfolio, but there are simply no buyers).
• Separation is unlikely as long as regulators think that competition is at a decent level. In the broadband market, KPN has a 45% share, cable has 40% and unbundlers have the other 15%. The EC is rightfully worried over ongoing incumbent dominance. It looks like the 15% share of altnets will be going down, especially when the market moves toward FTTN/VDSL.
• The advantages of structural separation are not about pricing only. Incumbents like to drag their feet; let's not forget that Openreach's P&L still is included in BT's. Also, separation opens the way to attract third-party funding, or even nationalisation.
  
• Why do incumbents object to structural separation? Not just because of the disruption and the one-off costs. Surely, it must be because they fear the loss of any synergy benefits of being vertically integrated. And that is precisely why they must be separated: this inequality of enjoying these benefits will only go away once the incumbent is separated. In other words, if incumbents object, they implicitly say they have advantages over competitors. This is not good for true, long-term competition.
  
• If you think that proper wholesale prices are the way to avoid structural separation, look again. BBned (active operator in Amsterdam's Phase 1) pays only about half of what is proposed now by her employer (14.50-17.50 EUR/mo/line for ODF access to passive FTTH lines). Going forward, active operators and service providers will have to recoup about 10 EUR/mo more from their customers than currently is the case in Amsterdam. Does FTTH have this kind of pricing power? It certainly paves the way for low margins at service provider businesses. KPN will be the only service provider that can afford this kind of pricing.
• KPN will not ony be a service proviser, but it also is co-owner of the passive layer (with a call option to a majority stake), and possibly the monopolist of the active layer (which is not regulated), which could lead to serious re-monopolisation. I would like to call upon the regulator to make sure that the active layer doesn't turn into a monopoly (as it will in Singapore). If it does, the wholesale tariffs mentioned above should fall. Further, an active operator monopoly is not good for competition, because true service differentiation arises on the active level. Otherwise, we are stuck with WBA only.
  

Some thoughts on KPN's vertical integration

Amsterdam finally published the Phase 2 plans, with the KPN/Reggefiber joint-venture, for its munifiber Citynet network. Phase 1 included 43k homes. Some notes:

• No timescale for the 100k homes, let alone the final 250k ones.
• I asked Ad Scheepbouwer about his views on KPN's stake in the passive layer. It has an option to acquire a majority in the Reggefiber joint-venture, but it could also allow it to dilute by raising third-party funding and ultimately get out of the infrastructure business altogether. Alas, Ad keeps his options open at this time. Reggefiber, for that matter, has no ambitions whatsoever to become a service provider (they do have a stake in the XMS joint venture with BBned).
• I liked mayor Job Cohen's referral to earlier PPP projects: the Amsterdam banking industry (400 years ago), the North Sea - Amsterdam channel, Schiphol airport and the wildly interesting AMS-IX.

KPN will also be operating the active layer (BBned is the active operator on the Phase 1 section), and be service provider as well. In other words, it will be a vertically integrated operator/provider once more. No exclusivity in the active layer, though (which BBned has). Some more notes:

• It remains to be seen if it works. The regulator should monitor KPN's actions (pricing) very closely.
  
• Will only SPs compete, or will there be alternative active operators as well? In the Phase 1 areas, competition is limited to SPs, because of BBned's exclusivity. However, the number has gone down drastically, and two (Alice and InterNLnet) are owned by BBned itself. Is there no interest in competing in the services layer only?
• Competing in the active layer is a lot more expensive, but I believe this is equivalent to LLU investments in the DSL world (cutting out the wholesale payments to KPN to improve the business case). This implies two things: 1. You need scale. 2. Since FTTH is the end game, there is no risk of becoming obsolote (which has happened to LLU operators, who were subsequently hoovered up by KPN). In other words: a new entrant, operating the active layer (and bringing its own SP) could alter the Dutch landscape dramatically. I see a big opportunity for other incumbents to first buy BBned (it's for sale!) and then expand.
  
• Obviously, some things stand in the way of operators expanding into the Netherlands: 1. The global financial crisis, 2. focus on expansion into emerging markets.
• Still, there is also a case for European incumbents to enter the Netherlands as service providers only: find some extra growth from an infrastructure-light approach, get experienced in an open access FTTH environment, hurt your competitor (KPN), etc. Now, of course you would ideally need a good brand name to make such a move. KPN is expanding Simyo (its MVNO) across Europe, which could serve as a mobile equivalent. How about Skype (it seems to be for sale ...)? It could be used as a vehicle for any incumbent and subsequently be enhanced with new products, turn it into a pan-European SP (and next get into the active layer).
  

The EUR 100 trillion FTTH investment opportunity

FTTH is a hot topic already and it is only a matter of time before investors start realizing the true potential by launching special products or investment funds. The only trouble is, there are few FTTH pure plays in the public realm (unless you count any telco as such, because FTTH is the inescapable way forward). However, direct investments may come into play.

The Swedish Ventura Team recently reported on usage, which provided some reassurance to anybody displaying scepticism over what to do with all that bandwidth. Here is a link to the presentation sans graphics, or mail me for the original PDF.

Their main findings:

• Nielsen's Law (available speed increases at a 50% CAGR) generally holds. The Ventura Team expects it to hold for at least another decade. This means that 100 Mb/s will be available in France in 2008, in Poland in 2012 and in the UK in 2015.
• The mass market lags the high-end user by 2-3 years.
• FTTH customers generate >3x more traffic. Surprisingly, the inbound/outbound traffic ratio seems to be similar to the one for ADSL networks (notwithstanding an expected P2P concentration on FTTH networks).
• P2P and video are the most important applications.
• Operators will need to invest and upgrade (a EUR 100 trillion wave of capital investment).

Here is a short overview of the elements of the FTTH market:

• Benefits: social, economic, environmental.
• Business models: PPP, separation, open access, layere model (netco, opco, servco).
• Revenue models: pricing, revenue sharing, etc.
• Value-added services: ranging from P2P and internet video to e-health, teleworking, monitoring and IPTV/HD/3-D.
• Participants: network operators and service providers, vendors, construction companies, consultancies.
• Technology: active/passive, standards, performance, components, architecture, tools etc.
• Practicalities: plan ahead (or be behind Korea, Japan, Sweden), VDSL for interim, rights of way and construction labor availability are bottlenecks.
• Regulation: open access, wholesale, interconnection.

The interesting thing to me is that the investment opportunities reach far beyond the traditional telco ecosystem of operators and vendors.

Even in the Netherlands, we have a very diverse range of (not all public) companies involved in what no doubt is the most important development for the next few years:

• Operators and service providers: KPN, Reggefiber, bbned (Telecom Italia).
• Vendors: Wavin, Draka, Daily Media.
• Construction companies: BAM, Volker Wessels Telecom (thanks Rudolf).
• Consultancies: Arcadis.

KPN and Reggefiber roaring ahead

It looks like 2007 was the breakthrough year for FTTH in the Netherlands. Two players have emerged as leaders, Reggefiber and KPN. They co-operate in Almere and now appear to be dividing up the rest of the country among themselves.
Meanwhile, cablecos (mainly UPC and Zesko) are fighting rearguard action.

News of the last few days underscores these trends:

• KPN will build a network in Haaksbergen (24k people), not far from their current Enschede project in the east of the country. Add Almere, and we have 3 towns already planned by the incumbent.
• Reggefiber is involved in OnsBrabantNet (in the south of the country), which is looking to expand to Valkenswaard (13k homes) and Best (11k homes). One of the ISPs on the string of Reggefiber networks, Alice (part of the Dutch Telecom Italia family, including bbned, InterNLnet and Pilmo), is claiming success and is looking to expand from Amsterdam to Rotterdam. Meanwhile, the Deventer project is progressing nicely, with 3.5k homes connected and 1k subs.
• Meanwhile, cablecos are fighting on two fronts: DOCSIS and marketing - not FTTH. UPC is trialing DOCSIS 3.0 (much like Comcast), but for now they appear to have resorted to localised marketing efforts. No more national pricing, but local promos aimed at frustrating fiber initiatives. Usually, new projects are given a go-ahead when 50% of the addressable market signs up. UPC and Zesko are trying their utmost at locking their subscribers into long-term contracts at low price points.

KPN: away from network ownership and toward FTTH

Today I had the honor to meet with Joost Farwerck, director of Wholesale and Operations at KPN. Most striking were unequivocal belief in FTTH ('the endgame', as I have referred to it before) and an apparent decline in interest in being a network operator.
Joost very tellingly was able to see me in between a trip to Australia and New Zealand and a meeting with bbned (Telecom Italia).

Here are my edited notes.

1. All-IP

• KPN is planning the migration to an NGN, as I have written about before. Many MDF locations, LLU and ADSL2+ will be phased out and replaced by SDF locations, SLU and VDSL2. Fiber will be pushed deeper into the network, to reach all the way to 28k street cabinets (FTTC) and bypassing 1300 MDF locations. No FTTH as yet, only in greenfields and selected towns (Enschede and Almere).
• Currently, details of an MoU are worked out. The MoU was signed over the summer by both KPN and the main unbundlers (bbned, Tele2 and Orange). The new agreement is to be published around December 15. The details are about phasing out the MDF locations, the migration and KPN will present an alternative to line sharing (this product is on the way out anyway, as it is replaced by full LLU). Apparently, street cabinets offer enough space for SLU. Bbned is going the way of SLU.

2. Network operator v. service operator

• KPN believes WBA (wholesale broadband access) is a good product that will ensure competition, based on equivalent access.
• Joost seems to think that OPTA nor the new EU regulations, will lead to functional separation. I think KPN is a case in point where proper accounting separation and a good wholesale strategy + portfolio can fend off functional separation.
• By the way, accordin g to Joost, a wholesale customer can be more valuable than a low-end retail client.
• Outsourcing is becoming a major part of KPN's strategy. At Joost's division up to 50% of current employment levels will disappear.
• Joost seems to be much more of a services man than a network operator. I have noticed this before at both Tiscali and Telecom New Zealand. Network control is less important in a regulated all-IP world.

3. Co-op

• I am a big fan of cooperation. So is Joost, but challengers seem to think differently. KPN tried to team with Tele2/Versatel several years ago, but was turned down. Also, unbundlers are sub-scale in many cases, but (foreign) owners appear to be 'believers', as Joost put is. They all seem to think that they can make it work on their own. Too bad that there are few G9 (Australia) type of intitiatives.
• Joost seems to be similarly at a loss when it comes to long-term commitment of the large Dutch unbundlers. Tele2 is selling off many assets; T-Mobile may sell on the Orange BB unit; Telecom Italia may get rid of bbned.

4. FTTH

• "FTTH is the endgame". I couldn't agree more.
• However, VDSL gets deployed 5-7 times faster (and is written-off in 3-4 years), so it cannot be skipped. Here Joost is very much on the same track as Belgacom.
• KPN recently teamed with 'public enemy #1', Reggefiber, for the city of Almere. Joost told me they will own the passive infrastructure together (I was under the impression it would be 100% Reggefiber); KPN will serve as network operator; KPN (and others, if they wish) will be service provider.
• KPN beefed up its Belgian mobile operator by acquiring Tele2 Belgium. That obviously begs the question: will E-Plus make a similar move in Germany? Joost seems to see better business opportunities for some German expansion (out of the Netherlands), e.g. to the Ruhr area, than for doing FTTH in some rural Dutch areas.

FTTH ultimately drives separation (2)

Will functional (or even structural) separation happen to the European telcos?
Several countries (Poland, Italy, Australia), operators (Telecom New Zealand, TeliaSonera, eircom and of course BT) and the EC seem to be moving in that direction.

Here are the external forces driving or slowing down the movement. They differ from country to country, but the end-game is the same everywhere (FTTH), so separation will happen - sooner or later.

• Cable competition (i.e. inter market): forestalls separation. Sufficient BB market competition was a reason for OPTA to say that KPN needn't be separated (aside from OPTA not having the legal means to enforce it).
• Intra market competition: drives separation. BT is a prime example. The creation of Openreach kickstarted LLU.
• Wholesale offers: forestall separation. Here KPN is the perfect example. Moving from LLU (with fiber to the MDF locations) to SLU (with fiber to the cabinet), it managed to agree on MoUs with the nations largest unbundlers (Tele2/Versatel, TI's bbned and DT's Orange). In other words, no need to kickstart SLU by separating KPN.
• FTTH: drives separation. As this is the end-game, separation I believe is inevitable.

Here is my view of the future:

Nobody wants two FTTH networks, even duct sharing isn't sufficient. KPN resorts to being a service provider in Almere on the Reggefiber network, and UPC will be marginalized unless it follows KPN. The physical layer (the fiber) will be a monopolist utility. It will need to be regulated only once service providers start complaining over rates or services.

Whither Orange NL's broadband unit?

When France Telecom finally sold its Orange NL unit to T-Mobile NL, the focus was on the mobile unit. Deutsche Telekom will, over the next few months, decide what to do with the broadband unit (the former Wanadoo NL, an unbundler).

Here are the possible outcomes I envision:

• Hang on to it. T-Mobile could kick-off a major strategy shift, away from being a mobile pure-play and go the way of Orange and Vodafone. Not impossible, but highly unlikely, I believe.
• Sell it to KPN or Vodafone. That's a double no. KPN has reached the limits of its market share, and Vodafone has just launched a complicated resale arrangement with the former Tiscali NL (now part of KPN). Also, T-Mobile wouldn't want to strengthen a competitor!
• Sell it to another unbundler, i.e. Tele2 or Telecom Italia's bbned. Why not. In time, it could be a way for cooperation between T-Mobile and the buyer of the Orange BB unit. Also, Tele2 is selling lots of assets (Denmark, Portugal, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Austria), and in the meantime focuses on other regions (Scandinavia, Baltics, Russia). It will be interesting to see if Tele2 is really committed to the Netherlands, where consolidation is making the market a lot more attractive. Sort of the same goes for bbned. Or is Telecom Italia only readying the unit for a sale, by beefing it up first?
• Sell it to Reggefiber. Unlikely, since Reggefiber focuses on building infrastructure (FTTH), and it doesn't seem to have access to unlimited cash. However, the argument could be: add a service provider business and in due course migrate the customers to the Reggefiber network (where possible).
• Sell to a new entrant. A wild card. Maybe Telefonica is willing to do a relatively small deal, since it turned away from larger ones. Also, Belgacom could be a candidate (as I have hinted at before).

So, my order of likelihood would be:

1. Sell to Tele2 or bbned (TI).
2. Hang on to it.
3. Sell to a new entrant like Telefonica or Belgacom.
4. Sell to Vodafone, Reggefiber or KPN.

Is Telecom Italia serious about the Netherlands after all?

FTTH Update

Planet Multimedia reports that bbned, the Dutch wholesale unbundling operator owned by Telecom Italia, has bought InterNLnet, an ISP affiliated to Nijmegen University. InterNLnet's portfolio is geared toward both ADSL and FTTH networks. The latter include networks owned by Portaal (housing corporation) and GNA (Amsterdam Citynet).



I sort of expected a move like this. If TI do not sell the unit (as was rumoured at some point), why not add a service provider business to the network operator and get the broadband strategy aligned across Europe (Italy, France, Germany)? Also, bbned is among the unbundlers who are working out the details of 'regulation 2.0' (SLU) in the Netherlands with KPN, and they are already conducting a VDSL trial - with InterNLnet and SURFnet.



Taking this speculation one step further, one could envison TI beefing up its bbned operation even more. The market is consolidating, but there are numerous opportunities left:

• ISPs, such as SURFnet, mentioned above (if it would be up for sale)
• Reggefiber (once Dick Wessels would be interested in selling out or swapping)
• Orange NL's broadband unit (once France Telecom finalises the deal to sell the company to T-Mobile)

That would add not only ISP capabilities and subscribers, but the inevitable road to FTTH as well.

Finally, an overview of recent FTTH activity (click to enlarge):

Does anybody want to compete in the Netherlands?

As I've written before, LLU is coming to and end in the Netherlands. France Telecom yesterday in a way referred to this, meandering on its strategy regarding Orange NL.

The consequences of the next stage in copper-based competion:

• KPN thinks it's so clever, forcing the competition out of the market. Only a player like KPN can afford to build a FTTC + VDSL network ('All-IP'). However, the plans could backfire: OPTA could go the separation route; OPTA could allow UPC to merge with @Home to form an MSO with near-national coverage (and create a duopoly US style); altnets could band together Australian style (the G9 consortium, proposing a FTTN network of its own).
• OPTA, the local NRA, together with all market participants, is studying a Full Alternative for LLU. Could it be SLU (FTTC + unbundling from the street cabinet)?
• Altnets have invested very little over the past two years or so. Coverage of their ADSL-networks has not expanded.
• Municipalities are cleverly moving in, building FTTH. There seems to be kind of an arms race between KPN (also buying up ISPs) trying to get involved and Reggefiber (the Dick Wessels company).
• Orange NL was put up for sale in February (rumours, but I had them sort of confirmed). Then in March, at the final 2006 results, it was denied. Now, at the Q1 results, France Telecom acknowledges all options are open. The same happened to Telecom Italia subsidiary bbned: for sale, and then all of a sudden it wasn't. This can only mean one thing: FT and TI want out, but they can't. And with market regulator NMa still studying the KPN takeover of Tiscali NL (report due May/June), KPN is no longer a buyer.

No potential buyers and LLU coming to an end - do I hear monopoly? Is duopoly the simplest answer to this? Or can altnets overcome their cultural differences and build a joint G9-style network?

Telecom Italia starts SLU trial in the Netherlands

Telecompaper reports that bbned, the Dutch wholesale internetprovider owned by Telecom Italia, is starting a VDSL trial in three Dutch towns in the Amsterdam area. For now, it appears to be a technical trial.
The infrastructure exists of fiber connected street cabinets, in which bbned installed VDSL gear. In other words, it uses SLU (sub-loop unbundling), instead of the more traditional LLU (running from MDF locations).
InterNLnet and SURFnet will retail the service. Speeds are 40/10 Mbps.
Bbned is also involved in munifiber projects.

Some remarks:

• As KPN is planning and building it's All-IP network (including nationwide FttExchange + VDSL2 by 2010), bbned appears to be the most committed altnet. This comes as no surprise. Orange (which denied being for sale, much like bbned itself) and Tiscali NL (which will be bought by KPN if the competition regulator NMa allows it) are on the sidelines. Tele2/Versatel is committed as well.
• When it comes to VDSL services, bbned is actually beating KPN. KPN is targeting a May launch, which is questionable now that the telecoms regulator OPTA is reviewing the All-IP plan and the market's response to it (due June). However, a bbned launch could support the case for an early KPN launch, as this shows that SLU is viable after all.
• Talking of which; Analysys produced a report which all but ruled out SLU conducted by altnets for lack of scale. In other words, as LLU becomes unavailable (when KPN closes and sells MDF locations), SLU may be realistic after all. This will make matters much easier for OPTA, which has to come up with an alternative to LLU.

REGULATION://Fully-fledged Alternative for LLU v. Structural Separation

The press in the Netherlands has taken interest in KPN’s statements ahead of OPTA’s decision on its All-IP network. KPN wants to charge competitors for MDF locations that it would have to maintain for their use only; KPN is interested in being a reseller on cableco networks and FTTH networks; KPN says its network has been and always will be open to resellers, so there is no need for structural separation (to any degree, be it the equivalence/Openreach model or full separation as may happen in Ireland and Denmark). Also, the press picked up a statement form OPTA (about looking into splitting up KPN), which wasn’t new at all.

The important thing about this is that it is OPTA who will decide, not KPN. I believe KPN is trying to convince everyone of its reseller potential. I’m sure they have it, but I’m equally sure that KPN in reality isn’t serious about those efforts. I do not believe KPN would limit itself to service-based competition, i.e. competing on price alone. Also, KPN is trying to convey the message that there is nothing wrong with service-based competition.
It’s all about politics and creating some negotiating space. The same goes for those juicy statements of altnets, which unfortunately didn’t get any media exposure.

To name a few (not literal):
- Regulation should be abolished altogether (T-Mobile). Sound familiar? (hint: Deutsche Telekom).
- Selling MDF locations is not necessary for KPN’s All-IP network and it probably is illegal (ACT).
- KPN isn’t investing at all, they are not contributing to the general economy; all they do is relocate assets by selling certain ones (MDF locations) and buying back others (All-IP) (bbned).
- Should KPN be allowed to sell MDF locations, then we want to share in the proceeds (bbned).

By the way, I outlined here where we are right now. OPTA is due to publish the timing (sometime early 2007) of its findings this week: 1. Policy rules (‘Beleidsregels’) related to the closure of MDF locations. 2. A memorandum of findings (‘Nota van bevindingen’) related to a host of other matters, still to be resolved

What it comes down to, I believe is this.
- The All-IP network effectively means that LLU as we know it is coming to an end. This will happen in all markets, eventually, because fiber will be pushed deeper into networks and because everybody will switch over to IP.
- OPTA (or any other regulator) has to decide on a Fully-fledged Alternative (‘Volwaardig Alternatief’). If none is found, structural separation (to some degree) will be considered.
- The outcome will be the result of (1) creativity on the part of OPTA and politics (see above), (2) market conditions. The latter are comprised of several items: cable reach; FTTH reach; scale economies on the side of altnets, necessary for replicating SDF backhaul; KPN’s lead over altnets, since KPN started building the All-IP network in 2004. Of course, at some point regulators could say (as they did in the US): it is time to end regulation; altnets have had their chance; now if they want to compete, they have to build their own networks, or negotiate a reseller deals with network operators.
- In markets such as the Netherlands full separation will probably not happen, for the simple reason that cable networks have very high reach (as is the case in Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, etc.).
- Partial separation (Openreach is still part of BT, but at an arm’s length) is a possibility.

It remains to be seen if all market participants can work out a Fully-fledged Alternative; if not, splitting up KPN is unavoidable.