The barren years are forecast to end as 5G profits close in

Research from Gartner suggest the 5G spending boom is almost within the grasp of the beaten and battered vendors, with 5G infrastructure spend set to increase by 89% over the next 12 months.

The last three to four years have been a frustrating time for most of the network infrastructure vendors. Those selfish telcos halted the lavish spending on 4G infrastructure, choosing to try and muscle some ROI to keep investors happy, while 5G has seemingly been hovering on the horizon for an age and a day.

“5G wireless network infrastructure revenue will nearly double between 2019 and 2020,” said Gartner’s Sylvain Fabre. “For 5G deployments in 2019, CSPs are using non-stand-alone technology. This enables them to introduce 5G services that run more quickly, as 5G New Radio (NR) equipment can be rolled out alongside existing 4G core network infrastructure.”

Gartner is forecasting 5G spend from the CSPs will increase to $2.2 billion over the course of 2019, up from $612 million last year. In 2020, this number will jump 89% to $4.1 billion and then up-to $6.8 billion in 2021. There will of course be a significant spend on maintaining and improving 4G networks, though the vendors will want to gain returns on 5G R&D sooner rather than later.

The next two years are expected to be an increasingly aggressive scrap between the network vendors to secure valuable 5G contracts. With early launches of 5G networks in the UK, US, South Korea, Italy and Switzerland (amongst others) taking place this year, there will be a horde of fast followers over the next 12-18 months, before everyone else starts to catch-up.

These deployments will of course be focused on the larger cities to start with, though it won’t be long before some telcos start scaling. However, what is worth noting is the nationwide deployment of 5G will not be as fast as previous ‘Gs’.

“To maintain average performance standards as 5G is built out, CSPs will need to undertake targeted strategic improvements to their 4G legacy layer, by upgrading 4G infrastructure around 5G areas of coverage,” said Fabre. “A less robust 4G legacy layer adjoining 5G cells could lead to real or perceived performance issues as users move from 5G to 4G/LTE Advanced Pro.”

Although 4G spend will also increase to prepare the underlying networks for 5G, few of the vendors will complain as long as the dollars start flowing into their banks accounts not out of them. It does appear the barren years might be coming to a close.

And for the network vendors, the moment of 5G euphoria will bring with it a sense of relief, as you can see from the financial figures below.

2015 2016 2017 2018
Huawei Revenue 55.736 73.594 85.171 105.191
Net income 5.208 5.228 6.695 8.656
Ericsson Revenue 25.56 23.04 21.26 21.82
Net income 1.42 0.2 (0.65) (3.35)
Nokia Revenue 29.537 26.583 25.697 25.049
Net income 3.205 2.411 0.017 (0.065)
Cisco Revenue 12.8 12.6 12.7 12.8
Net income 2.3 2.8 2.4 3.8
ZTE Revenue 14.136 14.284 15.353 12.066
Net income 0. 527 (0.198) 759 (0.98)
Juniper Revenue 4.857 4.990 5.027 4.647
Net income 0.633 0.601 0.306 0.566

Figures in US Dollars (Billions), taken from Annual Reports

It is also worth noting that some of the numbers in this table are slightly misleading. For example, during the period above Huawei’s smartphone business surged, while Nokia’s numbers also include fixed line revenues. We’re not exactly comparing apples with apples; however, you can see there is a general slow-down across the vendor community.

Aside from a few exceptions, many of the figures above are not the end of the world. Executives will point to over-arching trends and suggest that while there is no growth, maintenance of revenues (or managing a slight decrease) is an acceptable performance. However, this cannot go on forever.

The likes of Rajeev Suri at Nokia or Chuck Robbins at Cisco have been keeping themselves employed by pointing towards the 5G bonanza. The telcos are sweating 4G assets for ROI while making preparations for the world of 5G; profits are on the horizon for many of these firms, they just need to hang-on a little bit longer.

You do get the impression some investors are starting to get a bit frustrated with the continued quest through the barren connectivity desert, though if Gartner is to be believed, there is an Oasis forming on the horizon. Let’s hope

Cisco hits expectations once again, but disappoints on forecast

Cisco has released financials for the final three-month period of 2018, beating market expectations for the 21st consecutive quarter.

He might not be the most flamboyant of CEOs, but like Satya Nadella over at Microsoft, Chuck Robbins is letting the business do the talking. Since his appointment in 2015, the vendor has gone from strength-to-strength, with these results adding another feather to the cap.

Looking at the financials, total revenue for the three months reached $13.4 billion a 5% year-on-year increase, while net income was down 42% to $2.2 billion. Although the latter figure might shock some, CFO Kelly Kramer has suggested this is only a blip on the radar, with the hole attributable to US Treasury Regulations issued during the quarter relating to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

In terms of the numbers across the year, total revenues stood at $51.7 billion, up 7%, while net income was $13.8 billion, an increase of 9% compared to the previous year.

However, it is not all glimmering news.

“Let me reiterate our guidance for the first quarter of fiscal ’20,” Kramer said during the earnings call. “We expect revenue growth in the range of 0% to 2% year over year.”

Considering the ambitious plans set-forward by the business over the last few years, this would not seem to be the most generous of forecasts. The dampened forecast might well disappoint a few investors. What is worth noting, it that despite having strong and stable foundations, Cisco is not immune to global trends.

Looking at the telco customers, Asia is demonstrating weakening demand for Cisco. The China telco business is weakening, while demand in India has dropped off as aggressive network roll-outs in 2018 are not being replicated today.

In terms of working with enterprise customers, the team had two major software deals in 2018 which are “tough to compare against”, according to Robbins, while the Chinese and UK markets are demonstrating weakened positions thanks to events which are outside of the control of the team. No prizes for guessing what those events might be.

What is worth noting is that while it is easy to point the finger of blame towards China in the current political climate, take    this explanation from Robbins and Kramer with a pinch of salt. Cisco’s revenues in China might have declined by 25% this year, though the market only accounts for less than 3% of total revenues.

Cisco is no different from any other vendor in the telco space right now. It might be performing healthily, though it is reliant on telcos getting their act together and pushing network investments forward. The 5G bonanza to boost profitability in the telco ecosystem is yet to appear, though there are hints it might be just around the corner (as always…).

“I would say don’t anticipate that being a huge profit driver off of the 5G transition that’s going to come when they build more robust broader 5G infrastructure where they’ll deliver enterprise services and that’s going to come after they do the consumer side,” Robbins said.

“So, it’s a bit unclear when that will take place. I’d say we’re not modelling and don’t anticipate any significant improvement in this business in the very near term.”

This is where the 5G hype can be slightly misleading. There are of course telcos who are surging ahead, but these are only a fraction of the networks around the world. It is promising, but the market leaders or fast followers are not going to flood vendors bank accounts with profits.

There are numerous markets who are still in the testing phases of 5G, with the telcos aiming to figure out the commercial business model to make the vast investments in future-proofed markets work. When we start getting to the steep rises of the bell curve, this is where the profits will start rolling in.

That seems to be the message from the Cisco management team today; we’re in a healthy position, but don’t expect this quarter to blow anyone’s mind away. The 5G euphoria is on the horizon, but investors will have to wait just a little bit longer.

Appeals court halts FCC red-tape cutting quest

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has put the brakes on FCC attempts to reduce bureaucracy surrounding small cell deployment in the US.

In March last year, the FCC introduced new rules which would remove certain approvals required for the deployment of small cells. In short, telcos would no-longer have to seek review from the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to deployment.

In response to the new rules, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the Blackfeet Tribe, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) objected, suggesting the FCC should not be allowed to remove the approvals with such ease and with a lack of consultation.

In this case, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has agreed. Certain aspects of the order have been upheld, however, the removal of this red-tape has been condemned by the Federal Judges.

“We grant in part the petitions for review because the Order does not justify the Commission’s determination that it was not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments,” the courts opinion states.

“In particular, the Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments and the reality that the Order will principally affect small cells that require new construction.”

For the FCC, this is a loss, despite a positive statement from Commissioner Brenden Carr.

“I am pleased that the court upheld key provisions of last March’s infrastructure decision,” said Carr. “Most importantly, the court affirmed our decision that parties cannot demand upfront fees before reviewing any cell sites, large or small.

“We are reviewing the portion of last March’s decision that the DC Circuit did not affirm and look forward to next steps, as appropriate.”

This might sound positive but let’s not forget the objective of the FCC in introducing these new rules; speed-up deployment of 4G and 5G infrastructure in regions which might fall into the digital divide.

As we move forward into the 5G era, new opportunities are going to emerge for all economies around the world. The financial benefits are constantly being thrust into our face by telco lobbyists, however for these economic surges to be realised the right infrastructure needs to be in place.

This is where the FCC plays the most significant role. Pai has taken a machete to red-tape in recent years to offer more freedoms to the telco and media industry on the whole, and this was another step in that direction. Removing certain tick boxes would help the telcos roll-out new networks faster, though it seems it has over-stepped its mark in this instance.

Huawei defies waves of accusations to 23% growth

It seems not even the White House can stop the progress of Huawei as the vendor records 23% H1 year-on-year growth despite being the focal point of the US/Chinese dispute.

It’s been banned in some market, ignored in others, entered onto the US trade Entity List, the subject of espionage accusations and faced continued scrutiny over the security credentials of its products, but somehow Huawei has managed to register another period of financial growth.

Just to put these results into perspective, Ericsson grew its revenues by 10% over the first six months of 2019, while Nokia’s sales increased by 4% year-on-year during its latest quarter. Huawei might be having a tough time of it, but it still managed to eclipse its rivals with 23% revenue growth over the first six months.

“This has been a unique period in Huawei’s history,” said Huawei Chairman, Liang Hua.

“Given the situation, you might think that things have been chaotic for us. But that’s far from the case. We have been working hard to ensure smooth operations, and our organization is as sound as ever. With effective management and an excellent performance across all financial indicators, our business has remained robust in the first half of 2019.”

With 50 commercial 5G contracts and 150,000 base stations shipped, there still appear to be interested customers despites the efforts of the US and its propaganda campaign to undermine the reputation of the network infrastructure market leader. This is a metric which Huawei has always been confident in publicly stating, though it is difficult to compare apples with apples as neither of its main rivals are prepared to declare the number of base stations shipped.

What will continue to surprise many around the world is the continued growth of the business despite the on-going storm of controversy which is swirling above. Some might also be gobsmacked about the inability of Ericsson and Nokia to capitalise of the situation. This is not the end of the 5G race for the network infrastructure vendors, but Huawei is still the clear leader.

What we don’t know is where these 150,000 5G base stations are being shipped. As more Western nations surge towards the 5G economy Nokia and Ericsson might be able to steal market share. For all we know, the 150,000 base stations are being shipped to Chinese telcos, with the other 40-odd contracts simply accounting for a few here and there.

Looking at the smartphone business, this is also remaining remarkably resilient despite the worries it will not be able to work with a number of key suppliers in the US. Google is the biggest concern as its Android operating system is unrivalled outside of the iPhone.

“In our consumer business, smartphone shipments (including Honor phones) reached 118 million units, up 24% YoY,” Liang said. “We have made great progress delivering services to our consumers across all scenarios, and have seen rapid growth in shipments of tablets, PCs, and wearables.”

Once again, the Huawei business has seemingly been able to defy trends in a way which has only associated with Apple. Smartphone shipments are declining all across the world, but in China this impact seems to be very notable. That said, no-one seems to have told Huawei.

According to Canalys, total smartphone shipments in China declined 6% year-on-year for the second quarter, though Huawei managed to increase its own sales by 31% in the market. This will explain growth in the consumer business, with Canalys suggesting 64% of its smartphone shipments in Q2 were in its domestic market.

“Huawei’s addition to the United States Entity List caused uncertainty overseas, but in China it has kept its foot on the accelerator,” said Canalys Analyst Mo Jia. “Its core strategy remains investing in aggressive offline expansion, and luring consumers from rival brands Oppo and Vivo, while unleashing a wave of marketing spend to support new channels and technologies.

“But the US-China trade war is also creating new opportunities. Huawei’s retail partners are rolling out advertisements to link Huawei with being the patriotic choice, to appeal to a growing demographic of Chinese consumers willing to take political factors into account when making a purchase decision.”

While growth is growth, if these estimates are accurate few Huawei executives will be thrilled by a dwindling influence on the global markets. Huawei might be able to be a very profitable business by focusing on its domestic market, but that is not the ambition of anyone involved; it has established a leadership position worldwide and it will not want to lose it.

For the moment, Huawei is in a healthy position. It is seemingly maintaining relationships with telcos around the world, but these are still early days. US aggression towards the vendor does not look like it will subside at any time in the near future, quite the opposite in fact. It remains a much more likely outcome this assault will intensify over the coming months, especially with President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, rousing supporters into a frenzied euphoric state of patriotism and xenophobia.

Vodafone Italia and TIM join the network sharing bonanza

Vodafone’s Italian business and Telecom Italia are the latest pair to join the sharing euphoria which seems to be sweeping the Vodafone group.

After network sharing agreements were signed in Spain with Orange and O2 in the UK, Vodafone has swept across to Italy to join forces with market leader, albeit a stressed business currently, Telecom Italia.

“This agreement will enable us to step up the rollout of 5G for the benefit of our customers and the community as a whole,” said Aldo Bisio, CEO of Vodafone Italia. “5G has a key role to play in modernising the country.

“It will provide the technology platform from which to launch innovative new services capable of making business models more efficient and improving productivity throughout the value chain, helping to build a more competitive digital economy. Network sharing reaps the benefits of 5G and at the same time reduces the impact on the environment and lowers rollout costs, allowing more investment in services for customer.”

This announcement actually has two components to it. Firstly, in pursuit of an accelerated 5G deployment plan, Vodafone Italia and TIM will enter into a network sharing partnership which will include active equipment. Secondly, the Vodafone passive tower business will be merged with INWIT, TIM’s own tower business.

Starting with the first component, once again Vodafone has decided to go down the route of sharing active equipment. This was the case when pooling resources in the UK with O2, though it is a slightly unusual approach as the only differentiator now is the spectrum which the duo has acquired individually. However, like the UK the larger cities will be excluded from the network sharing partnership.

Although sharing active equipment has been viewed as relatively unusual in the past, perhaps this is an indication of Vodafone’s position in both of these markets. In the UK, it is sitting firmly in third place in the market share rankings with a lot of ground to make up, while in Italy there are financial pressures thanks to the pricing disruption of Iliad. In both cases, Vodafone will welcome opportunities to free-up cash.

Using this approach, Vodafone suggests it will be able to free-up €800 million over the next 10 years which will certainly be useful for other R&D or reallocating for customer acquisition efforts.

The second aspect of this deal will see the Vodafone Italia tower business merge with TIM’s INWIT, with Vodafone taking a 37.5% and a lump sum of just over €2 billion. What we’re not too sure about is how this will impact the potential spin-off of Vodafone’s tower business in the future.

This was an announcement which got investors excited last week, as Group CEO Nick Read suggested monetizing the tower infrastructure business alongside declining revenues for the latest quarterly statement. This seemed to have forced a positive reaction from the market, though presumably any Italian assets would now have to be excluded from a European-scaled tower infrastructure business.

Coopetition is becoming permanent fixture of 5G world

It might be a management consultant phrase, enough to have some clawing their eyes out, but coopetition is quickly becoming the norm as telcos drive towards the elusive goal of ROI.

The latest firms to enter into the new-era relationship are Orange and Proximus. Announced this week, the duo has signed a term-sheet to enter into a mobile access network sharing agreement by the end of the year. The scope of the partnership will be to meet raising demands in terms of mobile network quality and indoor coverage.

“The signing of the term sheet is an important step in reaching a final mobile access network sharing agreement between Proximus and Orange Belgium,” said Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus. “It will allow us to embark on a faster and broader 5G roll-out while improving mobile network capacity and coverage to the benefit of our customers and while keeping a strong and differentiated customer experience.”

“Mobile access network sharing is a trend in Europe which benefits consumers, as it enables more efficient investments to cope with the increasing data consumption,” said Michaël Trabbia, CEO of Orange Belgium. “The timing of this mobile access network sharing agreement is important as it will allow us to accelerate 5G roll-out, while bringing significant environmental benefits by reducing the combined energy consumption by 20%.”

This is a very simple partnership ultimately. The two telcos will enter into a shared infrastructure agreement, it seems both passive and active infrastructure is included but will rely on their own spectrum to differentiate on customer experience. This does appear to be an increasingly common strategy across the European continent to drive the commercial appeal of the connectivity business.

Another example of such business is in the UK, where the telcos have paired off to create joint-ventures to own and manage passive infrastructure in certain regions. CTIL and MBNL are the JVs in question and allow the four MNOs to share the expensive job of civil engineering but differentiate their offerings on the active equipment being installed on the masts and spectrum assets.

One of the reasons such partnerships are becoming more common across Europe is scale. With more than 100 different telcos across the continent, the telcos cannot achieve the same subscriber bases as counterparts in the likes of the US and China. This impacts procurement strategies as well as the ability to drive ROI in the mid-term.

Bearing this in mind, densification and network rollout into the rural communities becomes a problem. 5G is eventually going to force the telcos to acquire more mobile sites in the urban areas, to deal with the traffic increases but also to compensate for shorter spectrum ranges on higher-frequency bands. The rural environments are of course less commercially attractive due to the lower population density, but there are both commercial and regulatory demands to prevent a digital divide.

“The deal between Orange and Proximus is just the latest in a series of network partnerships designed to keep a lid on costs and accelerate deployment,” said Kester Mann of CCS Insight. “This is particularly important at the start of the new 5G era as operators continue to scratch their heads over the business case for investment.

“Although the approach could limit opportunities for operators to differentiate based on connectivity, it could free up investment in other areas such as content, vertical markets and new services. This can only be to the benefit of the consumer.

“We should expect further industry collaboration going forward. This could include the possibility of more innovative models such as shared networks between all operators in a single market or ownership of assets such as spectrum and infrastructure by independent third parties or even government.”

Another recent example of this type of coopetition is in Japan. Last week, KDDI and Softbank came to an agreement to share infrastructure in rural environments. This initiative is also geared towards reducing the burden of capital expenditure in delivering 5G to every corner of society. TIM and Vodafone Italia are another duo exploring the coopetition play to tackle the issue of rural 5G connectivity.

Elsewhere in the telco world, coopetition is emerging in the services game.

There are numerous examples of telcos buddying-up, for most cases with telcos outside of their commercial jurisdiction, to jointly develop services for 5G epoch. As it stands, 5G is nothing more than a ‘bigger, badder, faster’ version of 4G, though if the financial promises are to be realised differentiation is needed. For most, this means venturing into the murky world of enterprise services.

Last month, SK Telecom and Deutsche Telekom announced a partnership which would develop various technologies to improve indoor coverage and explore low-latency media services. A long-standing partnership between DT and Orange has led to the emergence of Djingo, a smart-assistant to challenge the dominance of the OTTs in the smart home.

Coopetition might sound like a buzzword fit for boardrooms of coffee drinkers and overpaid management consultants, but it is a trend which is slowly emerging in the telco world. And in some cases, it might just be the perfect solution to drive towards the long-overdue profits.

Competition is a problem, removing Huawei could be disastrous – Vodafone CEO

With all eyes in directed towards Mobile World Congress this week, Vodafone CEO Nick Read took the opportunity to vent his frustrations.

Competition is unhealthy, accusations are factually suspect, protectionism is too aggressive, the trust with customers has been broken, collaboration is almost non-existent. From Read’s perspective, there are plenty of reasons the 5G era will be just of much of a struggle for the telcos as the 4G one.

And of course, it wouldn’t be a telco press conference if there wasn’t a reference to Huawei.

“I would like a new contract for the industry, I want to go out and build trust with consumers and businesses,” said Read. “This will require us to engage government and build the vision of a digital society together.”

Read has reiterated his point from the last quarterly earnings call, there needs to be more of a fact-based conversation around the Huawei saga. There is too much rhetoric, too much emotion, and perhaps, too much political influence.

Huawei is the punching bag right now, but any ban or heavy-handed response to US calls for aggressive action would be a consequence for everyone.

As Read points out, Huawei is a significant player in almost everyone’s supply chain, controlling roughly 28% of mobile infrastructure, while Nokia and Ericsson also have market share in the 20s. Removing one of these players from the market will further compound a problem which plagues the industry today; the supply chain is too concentrated around a small number of vendors.

There simply isn’t enough diversity to consider removing a key cog to European operations.

Of course, you have to consider the status quo. The US is happy to ban Huawei as it has never been a significant contributor to its infrastructure. Should the same ban be enforced in Europe, negotiations would be de-railed, and operations disrupted. Read suggests this would set 5G plans back by two years across the bloc.

The issue here is of confidence to invest. Why would telcos enter into deep negotiations when future conditions have not been set in stone. This is already evident in Vodafone’s decision to pause work on the core with Huawei; delaying these important initiatives could push Europe further behind global 5G leaders. Telcos need confidence, certainty and answers. The longer reviews go on, the more precarious the situation becomes.

This is one of the many challenges the industry is facing. There is an ‘us versus them’ mentality when it comes to telcos. Read is referencing the relationship with regulators and government, suggesting a lack of collaboration which is negatively impacting the ability to operate, but it is also evident in the relationship with the consumer and competitors. Collaboration is a key word here.

One example of collaboration is in the UK where the National Cybersecurity Centre effectively monitors Huawei equipment. This model could be rolled out across Europe, though Read’s stressed the point that there would have to be a harmonised approach. Fragmentation is the enemy here, and it would stifle progress. If there is a European level of monitoring, or even if it is taken down to nation states, it doesn’t actually matter as long as it is consistent.

The Huawei ban is set to become one of the talking points of this years’ MWC, that is not necessarily an idea anyone will be surprised about, but what we are not sure about is the disruption. Will it slow 5G development? Has the uncertainty already slowed 5G development? Will the anti-China rhetoric, dilly-dallying and confusion kill Europe’s ambitions in the global digital economy?

The Africa Conundrum: OTTs can’t be allowed to screw telcos again

The last decade has seen the rise of the OTTs at the expense of the telcos; if the Africa connectivity issue is going to be addressed, this is a trend which cannot be replicated.

If you head back to the 90s and early 00s, the telcos ruled the world. The mobile revolution was in full swing, with the telcos hoovering up cash through tariffs built on text messages and voice minutes. It was a glorious time, but then came the OTTs, and some would say the telcos felt a bit used and abused.

Nothing has changed over the last couple of years; the OTTs still enjoy a much more lenient regulatory environment allowing them to monetize data and services on a different scale to the telcos. This is unfair, after all the telcos have mountains of data waiting to transform into fortunes, but this isn’t the point we are getting at. The point here is much more basic; OTTs reap the rewards of the digital age without having to build the networks which facilitate it.

All over the world this is a relationship which ultimately screws the telcos. They spent billions on building the infrastructure, but the OTTs are the ones getting rich. It is the status quo which many operators have come to accept, however grudgingly. But it cannot happen in Africa, and there is one simple reason; incentive.

During the 90s and 00s, the telcos built the infrastructure and had an opportunity to monetize it. Years passed where we paid a fortune to the telcos for SMS messages and voice minutes, and then the OTTs came along. This might have destroyed the traditional telco business model, but at least they were given the opportunity to generate some ROI in the early days.

In many places on the African continent, the basic infrastructure is not there. This means there are greenfield projects without the promise of monetization; forking out the cash with the fear there might be a few OTTs out there just waiting to take advantage of your hard work and significant investment. If this trend continues in Africa, there is no incentive for the telcos to build the infrastructure in the first place.

“To tackle the infrastructure challenge, you have to go back to the root cause; it isn’t commercially viable,” said Charles Murito, the head Googler in Kenya.

Google seems to be one of the tech giants who are helping address the basic issue of connectivity. Across the continent, there are numerous projects where Google is contributing hard cash to roll out infrastructure. But there aren’t many other supporting voices from the OTT community.

During one of the panel sessions at AfricaCom this week, the topic of discussion was network sharing. It sounds like a good idea, one which has been floated in other regions as well, but there has been little evidence of it been taking beyond glorious promises so far.

One of the jobs of the government should be to encourage investment. In Africa, this is especially true considering the connectivity issues which the continent is facing. One of these responsibilities should be to create a regulatory environment which demonstrates to the telcos that there will be a ROI.

This is certainly easier said than done, but Airtel’s Purumedh Gupta highlighted this should come with cross-border infrastructure projects, the harmonization of SIM registrations, rural connectivity and the removal of fragmentation across the continent. In short, a consolidated effort.

Sometimes this will start with government funding into infrastructure projects. In this sense, it reduces the financial burden, but also provides the telcos with a  bit more security; there is confidence from the government behind these projects. It also creates an independent focal point for network sharing. Don’t forget, most of the time these telcos are fierce competitors; getting them to play nice is a tricky task.

Ultimately, the telcos need to see there is an opportunity to make money, which brings us back to our original point. The OTTs, who so readily benefit from connectivity, need to create a model where they assist the telcos. This could be from upfront investment in the infrastructure, like Google has done, or assurances there will be some sort of revenue sharing scheme moving forward. The connected economy could easily be known as the sharing economy; if the wealth is not dispersed throughout the ecosystem, it fails.

The OTTs have made billions off investments made by the telcos; that is the operating model of this fast growing segment. It might be a successful business in Europe, but it won’t work in Africa; the basic infrastructure is not in place, and it never will be if there is no incentive for the telcos. In short, the OTTs cannot be allowed to screw the telcos again.