India: operator space to consolidate while handset market gets more fragmented?

Maarten Pieters: Vodafone India CEO predicts market consolidation

Last week, a broad range of news outlets were carrying the claim that just 31% of the population of India were known to have access to a toilet and 'improved sanitation' in 2008. This is clearly a regrettable state of affairs, with dire consequences for public health, life expectancy and economic development.

Ordinarily, however, it does not follow that the seriousness of an issue always correlates strongly with the willingness of the global media to give it coverage. It was a welcome surprise, then, to see this particular issue given some space even by the website of the thin, brightly coloured newspaper given free at UK railway stations to daily commuters such as myself. After all, this is an organ whose print version dedicates just a few pages to what I would really call 'news' - far more space is given over to celebrity tittletattle and TV listings.

How, then, did this story successfully compete for space even in that kind of context?

The key seems to have been handing the global media an compelling, ready-written headline. The person responsible for doing so in this case appears to be Zafar Adeel, Director of the United Nations University’s Canada-based think-tank, the Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

So how did Dr. Adeel manage to craft a headline sufficiently eye-catching so as to propel this important but unglamorous issue up the news agenda last week? He did so by building it around the assertion that more Indians have access to a mobile phone than to a working toilet. Presumably, the desired effect on readers in Europe and North America was to stimulate a thought process along the following lines: 'More cellphones than toilets? That's crazy! Toilets have been around forever and are one of the most basic facilities expected for a civilised life -  but the mobile phone is a recently invented luxury item.'

Such a characterisation of the mobile device would be understandable when articulated by someone who ticks the following boxes:

• lives in a wealthy, developed country and has not had the opportunity to see mobile phones being used on the city streets or in the villages of (for example) Kenya, India or Bangladesh
• is old enough to remember when mobile phones were seen as an expensive status symbol used only by wealthy executives
• has not thought about how access to communications services can improve the lives of poor people by connecting them with time-saving information and services

Regular readers of this blog, and anyone working in or around the telecoms sector in emerging markets/developing countries, however, would be much less likely to think of mobile phones in this way. They would probably be inclined to realise that is precisely because developing countries have weak infrastructure that the mobile phone has rapidly become a truly vital part of the lives of even very poor people in such nations. Numerous examples of this have been decribed in DTW posts passim. Rather than trawl through all of those, readers might like to look at a nicely succinct round up of observations on this topic, made recently Anand Giridharadas, writing for the New York Times.

Giridharadas observes that there is "a global flowering of innovation on the simple cellphone" and that "from Brazil to India to South Korea and even Afghanistan, people are seeking work via text message; borrowing, lending, and receiving salaries on cellphones; employing their phones as flashlights, televisions and radios." He goes on to assert that "many do all this for peanuts", noting that "in India, Reliance Communications sells handsets for less than [USD] 25, with one-cent-a-minute phone calls across India and one-cent text messages and no monthly charge — while earning fat profits."

Readers of this blog, particularly any working in India's mobile sector, might on one hand take pride in seeing such achievements talked up but may, on the other hand, not fully recognise the idea of an industry revelling in 'fat' profits.

Certainly, the feeling in India may be that at the very low tariff levels referred to by Giridharadas, not all operators may continue to be viable. Sypmathetic to this view is Maarten Pieters, CEO Of Vodafone India. Speaking to the Economic Times last week, Pieters observed: "It’s all about scale because we have very low tariffs here. If you compared the tariffs here, it’s about 10% or what we get in Europe in the Vodafone Group as an average tariff. So, how can you survive as an operator on those low tariffs that is by creating scale and it is very clear that it will not be able for 10 people or 10 operators to create that scale, which means there needs to be some form of consolidation".

Pieters does not expect this consolidation of the mobile market to happen overnight, however, because it would not be facilitated by India's current M&A rules. "So, we first need to see some changes of the rules and then you will probably see consolidation."

Indian mobile operators, then, have to strive for profitability in an extremely tough environment. Quite often, I have heard industry watchers articulate the view that this should equip the country's cellcos very well for meeting the challenges of extracting a profit from developing countries elsewhere in the world. Also out there is the feeling that any Indian MNOs with international ambitions will need to be mindful of quite different challenges they may face.

Writing last month for telecoms.com about the purchase of Zain's African opcos by Bharti Airtel, for example, Matthew Reed observes that "Bharti will be looking to reinvent Zain Africa by introducing the low-cost business model that it has pioneered successfully in India" and "will also be hoping to achieve economies of scale across its Asian and African operations, which together will make it the fifth-largest mobile operator in the world".

Reed does offer words of caution, however, arguing that "operating in Africa does present particular challenges, some of which will be new to Bharti, despite its credentials as an emerging-market operator."

"The takeover of Zain Africa", writes Reed, "will give Bharti operations in 15 different countries, each of which has its own political and regulatory conditions, and some of which present some political risk. The diversity alone will be something new for Bharti, which only had mobile operations in India until it made recent moves into Sri Lanka and Bangladesh."

Reed also observes that while tariffs in Africa have traditonally been rather higher than those Bharti Airtel has to live with on home soil, the giant Indian cellco is entering many African markets at a time when higher levels of competition have more recently been pushing down prices. "In much of sub-Saharan Africa", Reed adds, "the infrastructure is poor and distribution is difficult."

Maarten Pieters of Vodafone India, meanwhile, is almost uniquely well qualified to make predictions about how his company's major competitor is likely to fare as it embarks on its African adventure - between 2003 and 2005, he was the CEO of Celtel International, the collection of African operators acquired by Zain and subsequently sold on to Bharti Airtel. Pieters has also served on the board of Millicom International Cellular, the multinational mobile group whose African assets currently include opcos in Chad, DRC, Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda, Senegal and Tanzania.

Pieters offers words of encouragement: "Bharti is a very fantastic company. I really admire them. They have done a very good job in India. They have a very good management. If anyone can make a success out of the old Celtel assets, then it’s them. So, I am very happy that they are in good hands."

While, as Pieters argues, consolidation of the Indian mobile operator space may be inevitable, the handset market, conversely, seems to be becoming more fragmented. Priyanka Joshi of the Business Standard writes that "the segment has seen entry of one mobile vendor every month." For the year 2009, Joshi asserts, "new vendors registered a combined market share of 12.3% of the total 101.54 million mobile handset sales."

Examples of new market entrants offered by Joshi include Wynn Telecom. "Starting May this year, writes Joshi, "the company will launch seven dual SIM handsets priced under Rs 5000 and will also get ready to manufacture handsets in India."

Some new entrants, explains Joshi, will build a business around devices tailored to meet the needs of users in India's vast rural areas. Olive Telecommunications  is one example of a company with this strategy.

It will be interesting to observe, then, whether the mobile services and mobile handsets markets do indeed move in these opposite directions - with the former consolidating down to a smaller number of operators of scale and the latter continuing to offer opportunities for innovative new entrants.

India: operator space to consolidate while handset market gets more fragmented?

Telecoms operators in developing countries are always owned by telcos from richer nations and never the other way round... right?

Bouygues Telecom: eyed by Egypt's Orascom

While the focus DevelopingTelecomsWatch is generally on communications sector businesses in emerging markets and developing countries, a battle between incumbent mobile operators and a proposed new entrant in Canada has been covered here of late.

While events in the vast North American country are clearly beyond the usual remit of this blog, two factors go some way towards justifying the interest of DTW in this particular story.

The first of these is possibly a bit frivolous - simply the observation that despite Canada's G8 membership and status as one of the world's most affluent countries, its mobile communications industry lags behind that of many far less wealthy countries in terms of market penetration. The second factor which justifies spending some time on this story is the fact that the wannabe new cellco in Canada has its roots in Egypt and is affiliated with that country's first multinational corporation. That Egyptian company, Orascom Telecom, has built a global business across a number of developing countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria and Zimbabwe.

I remember sitting in the auditorium at the 3GSM World Congress in 2007 and smiling at the rather direct language used by Orascom Telecom supremo Naguib Sawiris. As Richard Wray of the Guardian also noted a the time, the opening speeches (including those from Orange's then-CEO Sanjiv Ajuha and Vodafone's then-CEO Arun Sarin) were somewhat in line with what conference veterans have come to expect - carefully prepared, lots of positive stuff about mobile communications enriching consumers' lives.

Sawiris eschewed this kind of talk altogether, preferring to announce that he was in the business for the money. While this element of the Egyptian tycoon's speech is what stood out for Richard Wray, it is another remark that interested me and which has informed my thinking about the telecoms sector. Sawiris smiled about three giant multinational mobile groups being represented on stage at the World Congress by two Indians and an Egyptian. The point, I think, was to illustrate the shift of this industry's centre of gravity southwards and eastwards from the developed economies of Europe and North America.

Having grown up with the comfortable notion of European and American countries building operations in developing countries and extracting profits therefrom, it has been interesting to watch Orascom Telecom working in the opposite direction. Weather Investments, an investment vehicle controlled by Sawiris, holds more than 50% of Orascom Telecom, and also owns Italy's Wind Telecomunicazioni and Wind Hellas of Greece.

The current attempt to shake up the telecoms sector of a highly developed economy like Canada is, then, not without precedent for Sawiris.

In Canada, however, as noted here before, however, there is fierce resistance to the arrival of Wind Mobile. For now, the prospect of a commercial launch has been stymied by a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruling that the company in breach of rules on foreign ownership and control.

Today, in response to this setback, Wind Mobile has launched a campaign "geared at letting Canadians know that when it comes to wireless service, they deserve more." The goal of the campaign, runs the company's press release, "is to raise awareness about the current state of Canada's wireless industry compared to the rest of the world, and to highlight why more choice is essential."

"The heart of the issue is that Canadians pay some of the highest rates for some of the most complained-about wireless service in the world," said Anthony Lacavera, Chairman of Wind Mobile. "This campaign is about focusing the conversation to the need for real wireless competition in Canada in order to lower prices, increase penetration and finally deliver the kind of customer service that has been sorely lacking for Canadians."

Others in Canada, however, have expressed the opinion that while Orascom Telecom has probably been treated unfairly, and while the country's rules on foreign investment urgently need changing, it would be a mistake to allow Wind Mobile to take part in the Canadian market because the other players in the market have to follow the current rules, so the Orascom Telecom-backed company should as well. This is the view outlined in an editorial piece in yesterday's Globe & Mail.

As stated the last time DTW visited this dispute, more twists and turns seem likely. We will continue to watch developments with interest.

In the meantime, Mr. Sawiris has expressed an interest in participating in the telecoms market of another developed economy. TeleGeography reports that the Orascom Telecom Chairman is eyeing France's Bouygues Telecom. A tie-up with the French operator would make sense the said an anonymous Orascom official, adding: "It would reinforce our presence in the Mediterranean, improve our roaming possibilities, there would be many synergies." Watch this space. Will Egypt's Sawiris continue to make inroads into Europe's highly developed and competitive telecoms markets?

Telecoms operators in developing countries are always owned by telcos from richer nations and never the other way round... right?

Quick march! Military men storm the telecoms sector

Iran's Mohammad Ali Jafari: Guardian of the Revolution... and telecoms tycoon?

Last week, Nugon Sovan of the Phnom Penh Post reported that the Cambodian Government is set to list three state-owned companies on the country's planned stock exchange. The three enterprises for which IPO preparations are underway are the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority, Sihanoukville Autonomous Port and Telecom Cambodia, the country's incumbent fixed-line operator. Attracting investment to the latter company is certainly a pressing matter if the Hun Sen Government is serious about improving what I understand to be very underdeveloped wireline infrastructure.

The southeast Asian country has certainly enjoyed something of a cellular boom, with mobile penetration currently standing at 34.23%, according to WCIS. This is up from 23.54% in September 2008 and 14.86% a year before that. In contrast, fixed-line services have not been developed with anything like as much enthusiasm. The 2008 country profile from industry watchers Buddecomm has this to say: "fixed-line services [have] flattened out at around 42,000 [lines] with no sign of any revival in interest in this segment of the market." The report also contends that Internet penetration has remained particularly low, one of the biggest inhibitors to Internet growth in the country being the high cost of online access in comparison to other countries in the region.

One intention for the telco's IPO, then, must be to extend the reach of the Telecom Cambodia network and broaden the range of services available in the country. That will not happen right away, however, because a September 2009 target for launching the new Cambodian bourse has passed without construction of the planned stock market building getting underway.

Jason Szep of Reuters, writing on Sunday, reports that the global financial crisis intervened to delay the Cambodian Government's plans, ending an unprecedented boom which had seen the country's economy expand 10% annually in the five years up to 2008. Foreign investment collapsed, writes Szep, with tourist arrivals falling by double digits and garment exports, a mainstay of the economy, shrinking by 15%. Now, officials seem confident that these difficulties will soon have abated sufficiently for the bourse construction project to get back on track. "We want to do it next year," Mey Vann, director of the financial industry department at Cambodia's Ministry of Economy and Finance, said in an interview. "It'll be good timing for us with the economic recovery."

Plans for the new stock exchange seem to be quite modest. As Szep reports, the exchange expects to start small with just four or five companies issuing about USD 10 million worth of shares each. Contrast this with the experience of neighbouring Vietnam, whose first stock market launched in 2000 with an initial market capitalisation of USD 43 million, according to Szep. From tiny acorns, reasonably large oaks can grow, however. Perhaps the Cambodian Government will take some encouragement from the fact that today, Vietnam's market is worth USD 27 billion.

Yet, writes Szep, there are risks to Cambodian investors - "in Vietnam, most of the investors were local, often unaware of the risks, and many were burned as the market steered a rollercoaster course. Meanwhile, foreign investors largely sought to dip into the potential high returns of an emerging frontier market while hedging their bets with a highly diversified portfolio."

As in Vietnam, Szep continues, Cambodia is giving state companies priority with a place to sell stock. However, the reaction from inside the companies set to be privatised is not universally positive.

"We don't have any financial constraints. I don't understand the reasons we are going to be listed," said Ek Sonn Chan, who runs the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority, which employs about 600 people, has about USD 200 million in assets and generates about USD 25 million in annual revenue. He said the company is profitable."If we become a public company, maybe we are more responsible, more transparent and maybe we can help the government allocate financial support to our company. But in the meantime, we don't know much about how it happens. It's very new to Cambodia, very new to me," he said.

I am not aware of any views - positive or negative - being expressed by the current management of Telecom Cambodia about next year's IPO. As Jason Szep writes, though, there does exist the view that the timing of the planned launch of the country's bourse may not be right for some time. Foreign direct investment nearly halved to an estimated USD 490 million from USD 815 million in 2008, writes Szep, who also reports that the International Monetary Fund expects Cambodia's economy to shrink nearly 3% this year before growing about 4% next year.

It seems that it will be in 2010, then, that we should watch for signs of Cambodia's fixed telephony and Internet segments beginning to enjoy the early stages of new growth. Whether this will ever be anything like as impressive as the growth of mobile services remains to be seen. I certainly doubt that the wireline space will, in the near future, be contested by anything like as many players as the mobile market, which, as I've stated here numerous times, has no fewer than nine cellcos jockeying for position. Again, let me take the opportunity to opine that while a good number of MNOs competing on price and innovation are needed to drive the growth of any cellular market, Cambodia seems to be a place were the level of competition may actually be excessive. I've repeated here (almost ad nauseum for regular readers, perhaps) that the aggressive pricing by the likes of Metfone and Vimpelcom-backed Beeline Cambodia has been cited as the reason for global emerging markets player Millicom International Cellular quitting the country.

Another matter given a fair amount of space here has been the fact that the first of those two disruptive later market entrants is backed by a company owned by the military establishment of Vietnam. At risk of excessive repetition, I'll say again that an army-owned cellco from a communist, centrally planned economy is surely not under the same kind of obligations to return profits for shareholders as is the case for its competitors. This affords the operator the possibility of building a mission around extending the availability of services to more remote regions and less affluent people, as Viettel-owned Metfone seems to have done in Cambodia.

Perhaps encouraged by how successful this has been, Viettel is now reportedly keen to buy a stake in Teletalk, a state-ownd GSM operator in Bangladesh, according to a recent Cellular News article.

Teletalk has not carved out a significant chunk of the Bangladesh mobile market. According to WCIS, it is currently estimated to own just 2.31% of the country's 48.7 million subscriptions. However, with mobile penetration at under 30% in the densely populated south Asian country, a nice growth opportunity may exist for any company acquiring the public sector MNO and somehow improving its performance. If Viettel prevails in its bid and is similarly successful in growing the customer base through the application of the same low-price approach used in Cambodia, perhaps a major shake up will affect the Bangladeshi market, where change of some kind has seemingly been on the cards for a while.

Back in July, in an article which was mainly focused on Millicom's exit from Cambodia and two other Asian Markets, I also mentioned that Aktel (an Axiata/NTT DoCoMo joint venture) was rumoured to be in merger talks with Orascom Telecom-backed Banglalink, whose CEO Ahmed Abou Doma had explained in a statement that apart from market-leading Grameenphone "others are continually posting losses" and that "in order to sustain in this fiercely competitive market, and in line with [Orascom's] growth ambitions", his company was "considering many strategies of which consolidation is an option."

Here, then, we have another market in which the room for growth implied by quite low mobile penetration (29.58% in Bangladesh) does not necessarily mean that a licence to operate a mobile network is also the proverbial licence to print money. If Viettel's bid is successful and if the Cambodian example is instructive, perhaps the likes of Mr Doma at Banglalink are about to find that things are about to get even tougher.

So, the Vietnamese army may be set to march into another market and inflict damage on more private sector telecoms operators.

This meandering article will conclude with the observation that Southeast Asia is not the only battle zone for military men with an eye on the telecoms market.

Another is at the western edge of Asia, where, in Iran, the state-owned incumbent fixed-line telecoms operator, TCI has been the subject of a fairly exotic form of 'privatisation'. A 51% stake in the company has been acquired by a consortium controlled by the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards, a move which, according to the Guardian newspaper, is "fuelling suspicions that the organisation is quietly staging a military takeover." The Guardian article also mentions claims that a rival enterprise had been unfairly excluded from the bidding process because it lacked appropriate "security qualifications".

Also reported are warnings from critics who worry that the deal "exposes ordinary people, especially political activists, to intensified spying and electronic surveillance." The article goes on to report that this news came days after the governor of Iran's central bank, Mahmoud Bahmani, announced that a finance company owned by the Revolutionary Guards, the Ansar Institute, had been cleared to become a fully fledged bank.

The Revolutionary Guards, formed in 1979 to safeguard the Islamic revolution, writes the Guardian's Robert Tait, have built a financial empire with interests including oil and gas fields, airports and eye and dental clinics during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself a former member. Tait writes that this "empire" has been awarded lucrative building and engineering contracts "and is thought to control the smuggling of contraband into Iran."

The telecoms takeover, reports Tait, has provoked accusations that the Government's privatisation programme – required under Iran's constitution – is a sham designed to sell state assets to the Revolutionary Guards.

Journalist Mohammad Nourizad has warned that the Guards' control of TCI would be used to step up monitoring of the Government's opponents, Tait reports.

"Getting access to telecommunications management has always been vital for the security requirements of the Revolutionary Guards and the iron men behind the scenes," Nourizad wrote in a blog. "It means control over the country's entire telecommunications system, including landline telephones, mobiles, text messages, the internet and any other stuff linked to telecommunications. After that, it's a piece of cake … to trace people."

Scary stuff, if true.

At ease. Dis-MISS.

Quick march! Military men storm the telecoms sector

India Week continues at DTW

This is turning into 'India Week' here at DevelopingTelecomsWatch. Today's musings begin by revisiting yesterday's discussion here about the imposition of Mobile Number Portability (MNP) in the country. We will also consider - not for the first time - the ways in which the Indian Government's concerns about national security might lessen the appeal of this vast, growing market for foreign telecoms groups.

The reason we are returning to the MNP debate so quickly is that yesterday saw an open house discussion in Hyderabad on this theme. Hosted by the TRAI, India's telecoms regulatory body. This rejoiced in the snappy title 'Determination of Port Transaction Charge, dipping charge and porting charge for mobile number portability'. The surrounding media coverage provides more information on the range of concerns expressed by India's cellcos.

Speaking to an Economic Times reporter at the workshop was TRAI Chairman SJ Sharma, who said he expects MNP to go live on December 1st. While Sharma is confident that his agency will have its MNP regulations in place by the end of August, he expressed the belief that some of the operators do not seem to have ordered enabling equipment yet, meaning that a delay of 2-3 months is likely.

Yesterday, ahead of the Hyderabad discussions, we considered the estimated cost one operator had calculated for the implementation of MNP. State-owned BSNL had come up with a USD 250 million estimate, complaining about this cost in light of its contention that only 2% of "elite customers" are likely to use the facility.

Today, drawing on an article from K.V. Kurmanath of the Business Line, we can see how BSNL's numbers stack up against the estimates of some of its competitors in the mobile space.

Reliance Communications, and Tata Teleservices have indicated that they expected MNP-related expenditure to the tune of USD 20.6 million each. Vodafone India has come up with the much larger figure of USD 72.3 million. Much lower numbers than those mentioned by BSNL, then, but still pretty significant sums of money. I invite anyone with a view on this to offer an explanation for why this set of estimates varies so much.

"The regulator asked the service providers to send in their points on these issues by Tuesday," Mr T. R. Dua, Deputy Director-General of the Cellular Operators’ Association of India, told Business Line, whose article states that "keeping in mind the huge expenditure", the telecos want the TRAI to ensure that they are compensated for their "huge investments".

Let's see, then, if December 1st really is the date after which Indian mobile users can elect to switch their cellular providers while keeping their phone numbers.

In the meantime, I want to consider once again how the Indian authorities' concerns about national security are impacting on the telecoms sector.

In a recent piece here about worldwide developments across the footprint of Scandinavian telecoms group Telenor, I noted that the company had been facing difficulties around establishing a controlling interest in Unitech Wireless, the start-up Indian cellco in which it currently has a minority stake. For India's security agencies, the stumbling block was Telenor's presence in Pakistan and Bangladesh - apparently a cause for concern in light of strained relations with both of these neighbouring countries.

Telenor's immediate problem appears to have been resolved with the Indian Home Ministry's suggestion that security clearance for a bigger stake in Unitech Wireless up could be provided on the condition that none of the staff who have worked at the Norwegian firm's Pakistan operation are employed in India. Other security concerns affecting the telecoms sector more broadly, however, continue to be aired pretty regularly.

For example, all telecoms firms present in India may find themselves subject to further personnel restrictions. Late last week, Joji Thomas Philip of the Economic Times wrote that India's intelligence agencies now want all telcos to have a native Indian in the post of Chief Operating Officer. At present, only operators' CTOs need be a resident Indian citizens, while foreigners are allowed to hold all other key positions such as Chairman, MD, CEO and CFO, subject to clearance from the Home Ministry on a yearly basis.

If enforced soon, this proposed new regulation might not make a big impact right away because, as Philip notes, none of the existing telcos currently has a foreign COO.

This is not to say that such restrictions will have no impact, however. An article in today's Financial Times goes as far as stating that such stringent personnel requirements would lessen the appeal of India for foreign strategic investors and will restrict the freedom of companies already operating in India to make use of existing foreign expertise within their global organisations.

The article also contends that such restrictions on management positions could complicate corporate merger and acquisition activity such as Bharti Airtel's planned tie-up with MTN, the South African telecoms firm with interests across and beyond Africa. This would just add to the concerns of some analysts who are already sceptical about the wisdom of that proposed deal for Bharti Airtel shareholders. On Monday, India's Financial Express noted that day's 4.8% drop in the market-leading cellco's share price, which seems to have been triggered by worries that the company will increase by 5-10% its offer to buy a stake in MTN. The article quotes Sonam Udas, VP Research at BRICS Securities, who says: "we don't understand the logic for this deal at all. Why does Bharti want to change from a company with a net cash position of USD 1 billion to a debt-ridden firm? We do not buy the argument the deal is going to add value. There is nothing in the deal to highlight as adding strategic value."

Operators may not be the only telecoms value chain participants affected by the Indian Government's security concerns. Joji Thomas Philip writes that the Home Ministry fears that "suspect vendors may install back-door entries, remote logic facilities and also design Trojan horses in networks and hardware. This could be used to remotely bring down the network or to monitor it." Philip states that the agencies are particularly concerned about Chinese vendors.

One definite casualty of all this worry about national security is Swiss-registered firm ByCell. On Saturday, the Economic Times confirmed that after much wrangling, the company is to be prevented from entering the Indian mobile services market, with security concerns about the company and its shareholders being the deal-breaker.

A busy week for Indian market watchers so far, then. Let's see if the rest of the week has enough action in store to warrant another look here at DTW.

India Week continues at DTW

Telenor: good news from India; troubles continue in Russia/CIS

Telenor HQ: India, Pakistan and Russia issues on the agenda

A recent DevelopingTelecomsWatch article went into the likelihood of mobile market consolidation in Pakistan. I was prompted to write this by a rumour doing the rounds, according to which Telenor is considering selling its operation in Pakistan to China Mobile, which already has a presence in the market in the form of the MNO Zong. I noted that Telenor's presence in Pakistan was worrying the authorities in neighbouring India - worrying them to the extent that it could make it impossible for the Scandinavian telco to increase its stake in start-up Indian cellco Unitech Wireless. Such is the level of tension between the two countries, it seems.

I moved on to speculate (wildly, I admit) that Telenor's thinking might be along the following lines:

• We can't play in India and Pakistan...
• India (population 1.15 billion, mobile penetration 34.47%) presents massively richer opportunities than Pakistan (population 173 million, mobile penetration 55.58%)...
• so, if being in Pakistan prevents us from maximising the opportunity in India, let's get out of Pakistan...
  

Last week, however, came news of a possible way for Telenor to maintain a presence in both markets. An Economic Times article of 30th July indicates that India's Home Ministry is set to give security clearance for Telenor's hiking its stake in Unitech Wireless up to 74%, but on the condition that none of the staff who have worked at the Norwegian firm's Pakistan operation, are employed in India.

The Indian authorities are not only concerned about Telenor's Pakistan connections, it seems. Security agencies apparently also had reservations regarding the Norwegian company's presence in Bangladesh, where Telenor is the largest shareholder in market-leading cellco Grameenphone. The Economic Times article notes that both the neighbouring countries not only have a history of strained ties with India, "but have also served as a launchpad for various terror attacks". In the case of Bangladesh, investigations into serial terrorist blasts that killed 80 and injured 216 in the northern Indian tourist city of Jaipur last year pointed to the involvement of Bangladesh-based terrorist group Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, according to local reports.

The Economic Times piece notes that Indian authorities have had to take into account the concerns of the security agencies while also keeping in mind the reputation and stature of the Norwegian firm and how it has revolutionised rural telephony in Bangladesh via Grameenphone. The Bangladeshi MNO takes its brand name from that of Telenor's local partner Grameen Telecom, a non-profit sister concern of the internationally acclaimed microfinance organisation and community development bank Grameen Bank. A Grameenphone-Grameen Telecom partnership operates the national Village Phone programme, which puts mobile phones in the hands of very poor women who then operate a business, offering access to communications services to their neighbours.

This programme is not purely altruistic and has been an important component of an encouraging growth and profitability story for Grameenphone - and in a market where other cellcos have struggled to succeed. In this blog's most recent previous article, we heard from the CEO of rival Banglalink, which is owned by Egypt's Orascom Telecom. Ahmed Abou Doma explained in a recent statement that apart from the market leader (Grameenphone), "others are continually posting losses".

The Economic Times article also states that the Indian Government is keen not to send out the wrong message to foreign investors and has therefore "come around to the view that the Norwegian giant should not be held back from picking up up to [a] 74% stake in Unitech Wireless simply because it has a successful presence in Pakistan. " Keeping the human assets of the Indian and Pakistani arms of Telenor separate is expected to take care of risks such as spying and subversion, the article suggests.

For Telenor, good news from India comes at the same time as much less encouraging news from Russia. Within the last few hours, Reuters has reported that the Norwegian group has lost another round of its legal battle over its stake in Russian cellco Vimpelcom. The latest development in a long-running and acrimonious saga sees a Moscow appeals court rejecting Telenor's latest attempt to delay the enforcement of a USD 1.7 billion fine owed to Vimpelcom. Telenor faces the prospect of losing its stake in the Russian company after bailiffs ordered the sale of its shares to cover the fine that a Siberian court imposed for allegedly holding back Vimpelcom's expansion in Ukraine. Maria Kiselyova of Reuters writes that the case is being closely watched as a guide to the climate for foreign investors in Russia, coming after the shareholder battle last year that forced management and personnel changes at BP's Russian oil joint venture, TNK-BP. Kiselyova asserts that analysts watching the case, brought by Farimex, a small shareholder in Vimpelcom, say the forced sale of Telenor's stake in Russia's second-biggest mobile phone company by subscriptions "would further undermine confidence in the rule of law in Russia." She continues by saying that Telenor views the case as part of a protracted dispute with the powerful conglomerate of Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman, Alfa Group, the other strategic investor in Vimpelcom. Alfa, as Kiselyova notes, has denied any links to Farimex.

These developments follow a Q2 performance which beat the expectations of analysts polled by Reuters. The Norwegian telco posted a bigger-than-expected 6.8% rise in Q2 core earnings and curbed investments to protect against a potential fall in mobile revenues amid global economic hardship. EBITDA rose to USD 1.24 billion.

Telenor also cut its CAPEX target, excluding investments in India, to 13-15% of its revenues from an earlier prediction of 15-17%. An impairment charge for its Serbian operation, linked to a poorer outlook for that country, hit its bottom line, driving earnings per share down from last year's figures.

It remains to be seen, though, how a bigger stake in India's Unitech Wireless and possibility of losing its foothold in Russia and the wide CIS (where Vimpelcom has numerous subsidiaries) will affect Telenor going forward.

Telenor: good news from India; troubles continue in Russia/CIS

Millicom's withdrawal from Asia to prompt (much-needed?) market consolidations?

Russia's Beeline brand comes to Cambodia - and set to drive consolidation in the wake of Millicom's withdrawl? Picture (C) Roger Barlow.

Millicom International Cellular, the Luxembourg-based company which provides cellular telephony services to more than 30 million customers in across Latin America, Africa and Asia recently announced that its assets in the latter of these three regions are up for sale. The company's announcement mentioned that during Q1 2009, these Asian operations and joint ventures generated UDS 68 million in revenues and USD 4 million net profit for the group.

Even more recently - on Tuesday last week - the company announced its 2Q 2009 results, encouraging highlights of which were:

• mobile subscribers up 25% vs. 2Q 2008 - bringing total subscribers up to 30.8 million
• reported revenues up 5% to USD 814 million (2Q 2008: USD 774 million)
• EBIDTA up 14% to USD 371 million (2Q 2008: USD 326 million) - this beat the USD 361 million forecast in a Reuters poll of twelve analysts
• EBIDTA margin of 45.6% (+340 basis points vs. 2Q 2008)
  

These results excluded "discontinued operations" - this means Tigo Sierra Leone and the three Asian operators. This, then, certainly leaves little doubt that the group is committed to its exit from Asia. The three Asian operations concerned are in Cambodia, Laos and Sri Lanka.

Why is Millicom looking to get out of these markets? Zacks Investment Research offers the following explanation: "The major concerns in these markets for Millicom are increased competition and an extremely tight credit market." According to Zacks, the Asian region contributed just 8% of the company’s total revenue and its EBITDA contribution was even lower at 6% of the total. The Zacks commentary also notes that overall ARPU in Asia was just USD 6.2 in the first quarter of 2009, compared to USD 6.6 in the previous quarter and "a massive" USD 8.7 in 1Q 2008.

According to Millicom CEO Mikael Grahne, increased competition certainly does seem to have affected the profitability of Cellcard, the Cambodian cellco in which Millicom has a 58.4% stake. Steve Finch, writing on Friday in the Phnom Penh Post, observed that Millicom's Grahne appears very critical of the "disruptive market-entry strategies" of new entrants into Cambodia's increasingly crowded mobile sector. On the other hand, Finch also observes that another major shareholder in Cellcard does not agree with Millicom's assertion that this is negatively impacting profitability: "[There are] no concerns on profitability from our side," said Mark Hanna, CFO of Royal Group, which owns a 38.5% stake in the cellco, denying that margins had become tighter. As well as investments in property development and the media sector, Royal Group is very active in Cambodia's telecoms sector. In addition to its stake in Cellcard, the group has shares in Royal Telecam International (the second licenced international gateway in the Kingdom; also a joint venture with Millicom) and teleSurf, a broadband service provider.

Whichever side of this argument is the more valid, it seems undeniable to me that Cambodia is currently supporting an incredibly large number of cellcos. Millicom-backed Cellcard, which is by some margin the market leader (43.65% of subs according to WCIS) is one of three well-established players, the others being Hello (an Axiata company with 13.28% of subs) and Mfone (19.84% of subs). From 2007 onwards, a number of further entrants have piled into the market. The most recent of these is Beeline Cambodia, owned by Vimpelcom, one of Russia's big three cellcos. The arrival of this new operator, whose services were launched very recently and whose subs are not yet recorded by WCIS, brings the grand total to nine MNOs vying for business in a country of just 14.2 million people.

To me, this feels like a vastly excessive number, particularly in light of the fact that mobile market consolidation has been a recurrent theme here at DevelopingTelecomsWatch this year - we've discussed whether even a relatively large African market such as Tanzania can possibly sustain the numbers of licensed mobile operators currently competing there - and have asked the same question about much smaller markets such as Burundi and Gabon. Moreover, we have discussed this issue in broader terms, i.e. whether/when we should expect a wave of market consolidations across Africa, prompted to do so by the stated belief of MTN CEO Phuthuma Nhleko that this is set to happen.

Mobile penetration in Cambodia currently stands at 34.41%, according to WCIS. So there is room for growth. How many of this large number of cellcos, though, will be equipped to take full advantage of that opportunity? I suppose that will partly depend on their resources and the quality of their management teams - but even very solid companies could struggle if there is any truth in the Millicom allegation about the effects of new players' disruptive market entry strategies. As Steve Finch of the Phnom Penh Post explained, these strategies involve the distribution of free SIM cards and airtime - very nice for quickly building a subscriber base, but taken to its logical conclusion this can seriously erode overall market value for all players.

Has this kind of strategy worked for any of the new players in terms of rapidly building market share? The answer seems to be a resounding 'yes' in the case of one particular new entrant, Metfone, which is the Cambodian subsidiary of Vietnamese MNO Viettel. According to WCIS, Metfone has quickly carved out an incredible 17.47% of the market since its launch late last year. The current WCIS estimate for Metfone subsriber numbers is 900,000. There may be precedents elsewhere in the world for an operator arriving in an already fragmented market and amassing subscribers at something like that rate - but none spring immediately to mind for me.

How is Viettel able to do this? The answer might be that the company is simply not working to the same commercial logic as its rivals in the Cambodian mobile market. Viettel itself is owned by the army of Vietnam, a state officially committed to the creed of socialism and where all organs of government are controlled by the country's Communist Party. In a March essay here on the global links between the telecoms organisations of countries with left-leaning regimes, Metfone got a mention. That piece referenced a Saigon Times article on Viettel's foray into neighbouring Cambodia, which indicated that the new cellco would target low-income subscribers with a wide range of low-priced services and packages. Viettel Deputy General Director Nguyen Manh Hung was quoted as saying that this approach is not only about customer acquisition but is also intended to "contribute to society". Perhaps we should take that to imply a quite different interpretation of the for-profit motive than the one most of us in market economies have to live with in our jobs and lives.

Have any of Metfone's fellow recent market entrants been able to build a subscriber base at anything like the same speed? There answer here appears to be a resounding 'no'.

In terms of market share and subs, the other newcomers have fared as follows:

• Star-Cell (GSM) - 3.27%, 168,400 subs; part of the TeliaSonera group; commercial launch in 2007
• qb (W-CDMA) - 1.20%, 62,000 subs; commercial launch in 2008
• Latelz (GSM) -0.97% 50,000 subs; launched in 2009; owned by Time Turns Telecom, which is also an investor in telecoms operators in Burundi, Tanzania, Nepal and Sierra Leone
• Excell (CDMA) - 0.31%, 16,000 subs; launched in 2009
  

In September last year, Morten Eriksen, the CEO of the second operator in the above list was interviewed by AsiaLife Guide Phnom Penh, a monthly lifestyle magazine for expatriates living in Cambodia. Eriksen, who also explained that qb is funded by international venture capitalists and local Cambodian partners, expressed the belief that there is a good opportunity created by the country's very limited fixed line telecom infrastructure and the eagerness of its people of "to experience new technologies." He also asserted that rather than focusing on competing, the company is focusing on the people of Cambodia and how it can provide the best benefit to them. Specifically, Eriksen expressed his company's commitment to serving the youth segment with "packages and services to help students in the pursuit of education as they are Cambodia’s future." In an earlier interview - with the Bangkok Post in June 2008 - Eriksen reported that when he was first invited to get involved a 3G project in Cambodia, his initial reaction was that "they must be crazy". He explained that only after reluctantly travelling to Cambodia did he see the potential in a market with three incumbents providing bad, expensive service and where a 256Kbps ADSL line cost over USD 600 a month. The article indicates that the project formally started in 2004, with the company getting a licence in 2006 and then signing a turnkey network agreement with Ericsson in June 2007. Groundwork started in October 2007 and the first test call was made a month later. Finally on March 15 2008, qb was launched "with over 57,000 subscribers signing up on launch day courtesy of a huge concert and free SIM packages."

If that figure of 57,000 initial subs is accurate (and WCIS does reflect this), then further growth has certainly been very slow indeed.

Of the late entrant mobile operators, it would seem, then, that only Viettel's Metfone operation has really made a major impact on the Cambodian market.

So, if Millicom, as market leader, is going to withdraw from this market, which telecoms groups have looked at this seemingly very challenging competitive environment and expressed an interest in acquiring Cellcard? Two names which have surfaced in recent weeks are ones already competing in Cambodia. Consolidation, then, would appear to be on the cards already, even ahead of any of the smaller players potentially having to withdraw.

The first interested party, according to a TeleGeography article earlier this month, is Axiata, the Malaysian-owned mobile group formerly known as TM International. Axiata is said to be considering offering a total of USD 700 million for both Cellcard of Cambodia and Millicom's Sri Lankan operation. Were this bid to be made and accepted, Sri Lanka would also see market consolidation - Axiata owns the island's market-leading cellco Dialog Telekom. According to the TeleGeography article, Axiata has declined to confirm or deny the talks, but said "in-country consolidation is of strategic importance in some of our markets." This does seem to be something of a trend in Asia - and for Axiata - of late. Cellular News reported last month that Aktel, the Axiata/NTT DoCoMo joint venture in Bangladesh is rumoured to be in merger talks with rival Banglalink, which is owned by Egypt's Orascom Telecom. Banglalink CEO Ahmed Abou Doma explained in a statement that apart from the market leader (Grameenphone), "others are continually posting losses" and that "in order to sustain in this fiercely competitive market, and in line with [Orascom's] growth ambitions", his company is "considering many strategies of which consolidation is an option."

In Cambodia, the other potential bidder for Millicom's Cellcard operation seems to be Russia's Vimpelcom. Again, this is another existing competitor, albeit one whose Cambodian launch was very recent. According to a Reuters report earlier this month, Vimpelcom spokeswoman Yelena Prokrova was conceded that potentially the Asian assets of Millicom could be interesting for for the Russian telco because they are located in the region which the company views as strategic in its international expansion. The report notes that Vimpelcom would also be interested in Millicom's operation in Laos.

My sense is that, as we have seen here, Cambodia is one of a number of Asian markets in which mobile sector consolidation seems very likely. I am wary of the notion that low penetration rates alone mean that any given emerging market or developing country offers telecoms groups a licence to print easy money. The low ARPU inherent in serving relatively poor people and the challenges of rolling out infrastructure to under-developed regions, often in challenging physical environments, can make for unattractively thin margins. If destructive levels of price competition are thrown into the mix, it surely becomes difficult for large numbers of competing operators to survive in all but the largest markets. The withdrawal of Millicom International Cellualar from Asia, then, may stimulate much-needed market consolidations in at least two of its three existing Asian territories. Rumours from Bangladesh also suggest that similar developments may be in the offing elsewhere across the continent.

Millicom's withdrawal from Asia to prompt (much-needed?) market consolidations?

The mobile phone: the tool of freedom fighter and terrorist alike

These are turbulent times for some mobile operators in South Asia. Earlier this week, India's oldest communications service provider, state-owned BSNL, had to shut down all of its mobile network base stations along a 500 km stretch of the border with Nepal. According to an Economic Times article, this was due to security concerns. "All the BTS towers of BSNL mobile established in all Nepal bordering districts including Basti, Balrampur, Bahraich, Gorakhpur, Shrawasti, Siddharthnagar and Maharajganj have been jammed," a Government source said on condition of anonymity." By taking this step we have tried to chop off a helping hand of those involved in anti-India activities on Indo-Nepal border," the official added.

This comes very soon after the mobile operators of Bangladesh lost revenues during the recent mutiny by members of the Bangladesh Rifles regiment. In a Daily Telegraph report, I read about the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission asking the country's cellcos to cut off services.

Further east, the tiny minority of Burmese citizens with access to mobile services had services suspended in during the 2007 protests led by Buddhist monks.

Even for those of us lucky enough to live in quite stable countries, it is easy to imagine how mobile devices could be used to accelerate the spread of dissent during times of unrest. The Burmese Government certainly takes no chances. Services are provided by a lone operator - the state-owned Myanmar P&T - to just 0.59% of the population (by December 2008), according to the World Cellular Information Service. It will not surprise many readers to see the close correlation between very low mobile penetration and a country ranking right at the bottom of the world press freedom index compiled by Reporters Without Borders. Burma is ranked 170 out of 173. Other countries in the bottom five are Cuba (2.93% mobile penetration), North Korea (0.02%) and Eritrea (2.13%).

More encouraging is the 19.51% mobile penetration rate of Turkmenistan. The Central Asian, former Soviet Republic was until recently notable for a long list of peculiar restrictions placed on its citizens. Former President Saparmurat Niyazov enforced a ban on satellite dishes, beards, long hair, ballet, opera and recorded music. These restrictions are now being gradually relaxed by the new President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, who came to power after the death of his predecessor in December 2006. Although Turkmenistan continues to attract criticism as a repressive one-party state, the relatively more open society since the passing of the country's first President seems to correlate with the steady increase in the take up of mobile services. Penetration was just 4.40% around the time the Türkmenbaşy died in office. A year later this figure had doubled, growing faster still during 2008.

I am sure many applaud the mobile phone and Internet access as being useful tools for anyone seeking to weaken the grip of a repressive regime. These sames technologies, however, are equally useful to those keen to change the world in ways which do not meet with approval of the western media - hence the network suspensions in Bangladesh and on the India-Nepal border.

The mobile phone: the tool of freedom fighter and terrorist alike

Infrastructure sharing to have a major impact in emerging markets in 2009?

More details are emerging about the long-expected infrasructure sharing deal between Indian cellcos Reliance Communications and Swan Telecom, the operator in which Etisalat took a 45% stake in September for USD 900 million. According to an Economic Times (India) article last week, the two companies are now expected to finalise a fifteen year deal.

Swan Telecom plans to launch mobile services in the second quarter of this year and has licences to offer mobile services in 13 of the total 22 'circles' (markets) in India.

The article also states that Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Limited (RTIL), which is the spun off tower business of the Anil Ambani-owned MNO, is also discussing similar passive infrastructure sharing arrangements with other new players such as Datacom, Sistema Shyam Teleservices and Loop Telecom.

The Reliance-Swan deal is not the only infrastructure sharing arrangement recently worked out in India. Another of the greenfield MNO's, Telenor-backed Unitech Wireless was reported by Global Mobile Daily in late January to be finalising an agreement with the Tata Teleservices tower arm Wireless-TT Info-Services Limited.

Globally, we might expect more deals of this kind. Back in March last year, the ITU expressed the view that telecoms regulators are increasingly agreeing on the need for infrastructure sharing. This was apparently a major topic of discussion at the annual Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR-08) in Pattaya, Thailand. "Pro-competitive and open access strategies are needed to cut the cost of deploying ICT networks - and thus take a big step towards achieving the targets set by the World Summit on the Information Society as well as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals," commented ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Toure at the time.

Led by Sethaporn Cusripituck of Thailand's National Telecommunications Commission, the Global Symposium delegates reached a consensus on a set of best-practice guidelines aimed at offering affordable broadband access through innovative infrastructure sharing and open-access strategies relating to spectrum. According to a Global Mobile Daily report on the Symposium, "one of the more-radical ideas... was that to encourage universal access to communications services and address the 'digital divide' separating urban areas with telecoms coverage from rural areas without, regulators should consider offering incentives for operators to share infrastructure, including financial subsidies on a competitive basis."

Presumably the two recently asgreed deals in India have met with the approvel of Nirpendra Misra, Chairman of the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India, who said at the Symposium that "sharing is key to promoting ICT access at affordable prices in rural areas" and recommended that sharing of both passive and active mobile and backhaul infrastructure be encouraged. "Operators will automatically receive subsidies for the deployment and management of towers, funded by the Universal Service Obligation Fund, as long as operators share the towers with three other operators or service providers," said the TRAI Chairman.

This is in line with recommendations outlined in the ICT Regulation Toolkit, a joint production of infoDev and the ITU, which state that "because of the cost savings, infrastructure sharing may be a pre-requisite for receiving Universal Access and Service Fund (UASF) support into new areas."

Infrastructure sharing involving mobile operators, especially in emering markets, might not only be to the advantage of the cellcos themselves. In the same section of the ICT Regulation Toolkit, the argument is put forward that where mobile operators are dominant service providers, "at least one mobile operator may have a near-ubiquitous national transmission network that has potential usefulness beyond the narrow needs of mobile service provision. This network could include the provision of digital backbone facilities from widely dispersed POPs for ISPs. Even if the existing capacity is limited for broadband, an upgrade to provide broadband may be significantly more economic than a completely new network."

India is not the only South Asian market in which mobile infrastructure sharing has been embraced. In September 2008, Global Mobile Daily reported that the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission had unveiled passive infrastructure sharing guidelines aimed at reducing network duplication. The guidlines read: "Operators shall jointly develop, build, maintain and operate new passive infrastructure for providing telecommunication services to the subscribers... However, an individual operator may build passive infrastructures with the permission of the Commission." Tariffs and charges for infrastructure sharing should be mutually agreed among operators, according to the BTRC.
"In case of any dispute regarding the tariff and charges the decision of the Commission shall be final and binding upon the parties," say the guidelines.

At least two of the country's six mobile operators already had network sharing plans in place. In June Warid Telecom's Bangladesh operation and CDMA operator Citycell signed a network infrastructure sharing agreement which sees the two operators sharing the passive elements of around 350 of their combined base stations. Warid Telecom also gained access to a fiber network operated by Citycell for backhaul and bandwidth purposes.

Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, I know of one market where all four mobile operators competing there are set to share infrastructure. In Panama, as reported by BNAmericas in November, the local subsidiaries of América Móvil/Claro, of Digicel, of Telefónica/Movistar and of Cable & Wireless have worked out deals. The article indicates that Claro and Digicel have reportedly already agreed to sharing their infrastructure and that newer entrants Movistar and C&W, which entered the market last year, having been awarded the country's third and fourth mobile operating licenses in May, will also be involved.

Not all operators agree that infrastructure sharing will always offer them substantial cost savings. In a BNAmericas interview in December, Digicel's Luis La Rocca, said that the process is not without difficulties. Speaking about Panama, he said "not many towers were built in the past to accommodate two carriers, so structures will have to be put in place to make this sharing possible." La Rocca was asked if infrastructure sharing helps to reduce initial deployment costs for a greenfield operator, with the interviewer noting that the deployment cost for Digicel in Honduras was USD 450 million versus UDS 350 million in Panama. La Rocca replied that investment had been higher for Honduras because geographically it is a much larger country with a larger population. He indicated that infrastructure sharing had "not substantially" saved Digicel money in Panama.

Another concern could be maintaining quality of service. In August 2008, according to Global Mobile Daily, the local units of Zain and MTN in Zambia declined to share network infrastructure, with both operators claiming it would be difficult to maintain quality assurance. The GMD article indicated that the country's telecoms regulator the Communications Authority of Zambia had urged the sharing of infrastructure as a way of boosting the expansion of services in rural regions.

With varying degrees of enthusiam for network sharing across emering markets worldwide, I wonder how far developments in the largest market of the lot, China, will influence regulators which have yet to rule on this issue. Nicole McCormick of Informa Telecoms & Media wrote in October that the Chinese Government had issued a policy statement requiring mobile operators to share passive network infrastructure, expressing the view that the move could lead to a reduction of about 15% in the 3G capex of China's three operators China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom. McCormick noted that a possible downside would be that this could add to the delays in the process of rolling out 3G networks, "since operators will have to spend time hashing out the terms and practicalities of sharing networks."

In the same month, another Informa commentator, Kriz Szaniawski, noted that at a recent conference he had attended, someone suggested that network sharing is a bit like healthy eating in the UK: Everyone talks about it obsessively and watches endless TV shows about the subject, but nobody actually does anything about it." Szaniawski feels that there have been "suprisingly few examples of successful deals worldwide, with a few in Australia, Spain and Sweden. Most others are still at too early a stage to fully assess, and some have clearly struggled." However, Szaniawski feels that an extended economic downturn could well drive network sharing deals worldwide.

With the governments of major markets such as China and India backing network sharing, 2009 may be the year that deals of this kind have a major impact on operators' bottom line and on the extended availability of services in emerging markets.

Infrastructure sharing to have a major impact in emerging markets in 2009?

Emerging markets to get a deserved look in at a downturn-themed Mobile World Congress

An averagely busy life does not allow for blog entries as long as novellas. I also doubt that posts as long as that would be read from start to finish by equally busy readers. Some topics, though, are worth exploring at length, and I was conscious yesterday of having downed tools before getting close to sharing more than a tiny fraction of what I've learned about the theme I was discussing - how successfully the telecoms sector is reconciling its for-profit commercial imperatives with a desire to improve the lives of poor people in developing countries. What follows today, therefore, is a little more exploration of this broad topic.

A company which got a mention here yesterday was Grameenphone, the cellco which owns the largest share of the mobile market in Bangladesh - 46.75% by December 2008, according to Informa Telecoms & Media's World Cellular Information Service. We considered the idea that the MNO's owners, Telenor and Grameen Telecom, have been at odds, with Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Laureate behind the Grameen family of companies apparently claiming that Telenor's need to build shareholder value has not always sat comfortably with the social and non-profit agenda of its Bangladeshi partners.

For many, I will be rehashing a very familiar story as I take a look at the form this agenda has taken. Some readers may know the story less well and not be fully aware of how cellcos elsewhere in the world have been inspired by Grameen Telecom/Grameenphone initiatives. The tale is one of my favourite examples of the telecoms industry changing lives for the better so I will indulge myself by repeating it, hoping that there is something new here for at least one reader of this blog.

The most famous Grameen Telecom/Grameenphone project must be Village Phone, an inititative which provides telecoms services to underprivileged people in rural Bangladesh. Prospective Village Phone subscribers must first become members of Grameen Bank and take out a small loan. This loan is then used to purchase a handset and SIM card. Once given a phone, the subscriber is encouraged to provide services to people in the adjoining area. In this way, the borrower repays the debt to the bank and earns a profit. In 2006, I welcomed a representative of Grameen Telecom to a conference I hosted in Dubai. Participants watched a moving video which showed how the Village Phone project was transforming the lives of poor Bangladeshi villages, mostly women.

This model has been replicated elsewhere in Asia and also in Africa. I think the most recent example is that of the Village Phone project launched in Indonesia by the Grameen Foundation, Qualcomm and Bakrie Telecom, a CDMA WLL operator that is seeking to establish a national presence with its Esia brand.

In July 2008, Global Mobile Daily reported on the project, whose name, 'Uber ESIA', means 'joint cooperation' in the Indonesian language, and which is aimed at delivering affordable access to remote rural areas using 3G CDMA technology. Similar to the original Bangladeshi model, the plan is to work with local Indonesian microfinance institutions to enable clients to borrow sums needed to purchase a Village Phone 'business in a box' consisting of a mobile 3G CDMA-based device and charger, marketing materials, tariff posters, business cards and training materials.

Earlier examples of the Village Phone model being exported are those of the Grameen Foundation's collaboration with MTN's Ugandan subsidiary (launched in 2003) and with MTN Rwanda (launched in 2006).

This clip (in Dutch, with English subtitles) tells the story of the Ugandan initiative:



Qualcomm's involvement in the Indonesian Village Phone project is further evidence to support a point made in yesterday's post - that telecoms operators are not the only communications services ecosystem participants which can support initiatives designed to improve the lives of poor people in emerging markets.

Another example of this is the 'Village Connection' system developed by Nokia Siemens Networks. I remember this being discussed in an email-only publication to which I was once a regular contributor, the weekly 'Telecoms Vision' newsletter associated with the Informa Telecoms & Media Com World Series. In February last year, this carried an article based on an interview with Rauno Granath, NSN's Head of New Growth Markets. Granath explained that the Village Connection solution, which is comprised of GSM access points located in villages, connected via IP links to regional access centres, was "carrying live traffic in many villages in India." The article stated that the system lends itself to new business models such as operators potentially franchising parts of their business to local village entrepreneurs.

Granath was keen, however, for NSN not to be prescriptive about business models, saying "the Village Connection solution enables new thinking in sharing the responsibilities as well as the business between the new stakeholders, but it doesn't mandate it. I would expect to see a whole variety of ways of working." The article suggested that as different business models emerge, so too could different operator approaches to charging, and went on to discuss other offerings in the NSN portfolio designed to make taking on new subscribers even more viable. An example given was that of improved radio performance and planning through which it becomes possible to allow a reduction in sites, saving money on hardware and, in isolated areas, on power. Also discussed were further ways of reducing power consumption, and thus the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for prospective new subscribers from among the poor of the developing world. These included base stations that can work without air conditioning and combined solar and wind power systems.

Another efficiency measure discussed by Granath concerned airtime distribution purely on an SMS basis rather than scratch cards. "It sounds trivial," said Granath, "but when we think about the tens or hundreds of millions of vouchers that operators need to distribute throughout their subscriber base every year, it starts to get big effects."

The article made the point that these are all admirable attempts to make supplying services to rural populations viable but asked the question of whether such potential subscriber additions are really worth the effort for operators. Granath was adamant that "there is still a lot of pure business sense for operators to reach the rural areas, particularly in markets like India where even the rural population is dense." Apart from which, it may be unavoidable if, as Granath pointed out, universal service obligations are imposed by governments.

For more on the Nokia Siemens Networks view on extending service availability in emerging markets, I would heartily recommend a look at the latest edition of the company's Expanding Horizons newsletter. With an editorial co-authored by Rauno Granath, this is a useful round up not only of NSN's activities in this field, but also related material such as an interview with Gabriel Solomon of the GSM Association, who worries that high taxes on mobile communications are threatening to suppress economic and social development in sub-Saharan Africa.

As I continue to tease former colleagues at Informa Telecoms & Media whose Facebook status updates suggest they are gearing up for a week of very hard work at the Mobile World Congress (while I head off for a family holiday in Florida), I was pleased to note that a senior figure at the company is predicting that the effects of the economic downturn notwithstanding, emerging markets will get a look in during the various conference sessions and workshops and in the countless discussions between individual participants.

Mark Newman, the business information and events firm's Chief Research Officer begins his preview of this year's Barcelona show by asking how how exhibiting vendors "can... showcase new mobile Internet devices, mobile applications and next generation mobile broadband network technology while at the same time satisfy[ing] operators' overriding single objective in 2009 - cutting costs as the mobile industry faces up to the global economic downturn."

All very austere. Almost as harsh as my wife returning from a lunch with friends today and sharing with me the news that several people present have either been made redundant or are expecting the axe to fall very soon.

My own view of the downturn, however, is to be grateful for the fact that however long or deep this recession proves to be, none of us living in the developed economies of Europe or North America will experience the levels of absolute poverty suffered by people in what we call emerging markets. I was therefore heartened by the final comment of Mark's MWC preview: "Growth potential in emerging markets has been a regular theme over the last few years and will remain so at this year's event". For me, that's exactly as it should be, especially if we take the view that telcos and vendors making a profit in developing economies is compatible with improved lives for the poor.

Emerging markets to get a deserved look in at a downturn-themed Mobile World Congress