5G: ‘Just another G’ – yet a catalyst of change

If you don’t subscribe to our research yet, you can download an extract of the report for free as part of our sample report series.

5G: Cutting through the hype

This briefing document is being published in June 2018. This report does not re-hash the familiar background story to 5G – the original specifications, the much-ballyhooed early thoughts on use cases, nor the breathless rhetoric about how it is going to change the world (or in the risible words of one hyperbolic tech CEO, “be more important than electricity”). Neither is it a hatchet job decrying the whole exercise as worthless. Instead, it looks at the factors acting as brakes and accelerants for 5G, and how they may affect the overall ecosystem’s evolution.

What is needed, however, is a way to cut through the spin – especially where it is aimed at policymakers and investors, who often latch on to simple but unrealistic stories. Some of the most absurd ‘5G-wash’ hyperbole emanates from Brussels and Washington DC, and in the run up to the next World Radio Congress in 2019 (where spectrum allocations are debated) it is critical that rationality and critical thought prevails over glossy lobbying. It is harmful to us all if 5G hype means it ends up overshadowing worthy parallel developments in satellite communications, private wireless and other technologies that also deserve attention, spectrum or subsidised research projects.

It is understandable that many in the industry ‘talk up their own book’, especially given consolidation and profitability concerns in the vendor space. The 2018 market for telecoms infrastructure is expected to decline, and there are huge hopes at Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei that 5G can help turn it around in 2019–20. But that is not an adequate excuse to exaggerate. Neither is it an excuse to mislabel and market diverse other technologies (advanced versions of 4G, Wi-Fi and so on) as ‘5G’ – although such egregious duplicity is one of the few certainties here. It is probably enhancements and capacity additions for 4G that will prove the biggest moneyspinners over the next 12–24 months.

The next 24 months for 5G

In theory, the next 24 months should be when it all happens for 5G. Early demonstrations and trials have been well publicised, including various global cities’ testbeds and the South Korean Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. Almost every week yields new press releases, lauding everything from medical diagnosis (NTT DoCoMo) to self-driving snowploughs (Telenor). It is unclear how much any of these shiny announcements actually accelerate real, commercial deployments – or real business models.

This period is also a critical juncture for standards, starting with the formalisation of the first phase of standards at the June 3GPP meeting (Release 15), leading up to the full ratification of 5G as the official IMT2020 technology by the International Telecoms Union (ITU ) in 2020.

Much of the technology media is trying to pitch the development and deployment of 5G as a race, either between countries or individual operators. The first fixed-wireless deployments are under way, while the earliest mobile devices are expected by the year end (probably portable 5G/Wi-Fi hotspot modems). 2019 should see a flurry of early launches and the first 5G-capable smartphones becoming available.

Yet those forms of 5G broadband – fixed or ‘enhanced mobile’ – are hardly novelties, despite the gigabit speeds and low latencies promised. In many ways, they risk being overshadowed by continued evolution of 4G networks, which is occurring in parallel.

There are also plenty of IoT-type demonstrations, whether for delivery drones, autonomous vehicles or automated industrial machinery. Yet these seem much less real for now – the value-chains are far from clear, and often they will need networks to be built in new locations, rather than reusing existing towers and backhaul. It also isn’t obvious that large enterprises are willing to pay much for such connectivity, and whether they’ll be happy with ‘slices’ of MNO-controlled networks or if they want to own them outright.

There remain many hard-to-answer questions about 5G’s emergence:

Will global consumers switch to 5G phones en masse in 2021–22 or more from 2023–24?
Will today’s mobile operators consolidate further or will there be an explosion of new niche providers targetting verticals or specific uses?
Is there a ‘race’ between countries to deploy 5G, and if so, why? Do arguments about 5G ‘leadership’ really translate to economic benefit and jobs, and if so, for whom?
Will the US, Japan, South Korea and maybe China take a significant lead on 5G, or is it more about geopolitical grandstanding in the Trump/Xi age, and helping national-champion vendors and operators gain a reputational boost?
Will 5G, NFV, SDN and edge computing work in true synergy, or will delays or limitations in one area have knock-on impacts on the others?
What are the unexpected practical ‘gotchas’ for 5G that might add friction, cost or delay to deployment, or complexity to operations? Is fibre availability for backhaul a critical prerequisite?
Does 5G pose an opportunity for new niche suppliers of technology – for example in small cells – or will thinning margins and price pressure from operators and open source force many aspirant vendors out of the market?
Will ‘verticals’ and IoT really matter for 5G, and if so will telcos view enterprises more as customers, partners or even suppliers and competitors? Which industries are realistic opportunities for 5G’s new capabilities for low latency or ‘massive IoT’?
Who, if anyone, will make a profit from 5G-enabled networks, devices, services and embedded capabilities?

The truth is that many of these questions cannot be definitively answered today, despite the emphatic nature of a lot of industry comment. Here, we present some scenarios and especially look at the idea of pre-requisites: what needs to be done first, for 5G to be successfully deployed or monetised? There are potential bottlenecks ahead, as well as opportunities.

Hopefully, we have plotted the roadmap, even if the industry cannot ‘drive autonomously’ yet.

The rest of this report is structured into the following sections:

5G positive signals – standards, trials and enthusiasm
5G cautions – prerequisites, questions and complexities
Verticals – huge opportunity or more market fragmentation and competition?
Timelines and practicalities

Think of this report as a weather forecast. 5G will be much like the UK climate: patchy clouds, with rays of sunshine and the occasional storm. The summer will be late but warm, but you’d best pack a 4G or Wi-Fi umbrella just in case.

And just as with weather, trying to do long-range forecasts is very risky. There’s a good chance that circumstances will prove you wrong. But despite that, we have some qualitative predictions stretching out to 2026, at which point we expect to be bombarded with 6G hype, alongside 5G reality.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

var MostRecentReportExtractAccess = “Most_Recent_Report_Extract_Access”;
var AllReportExtractAccess = “All_Report_Extract_Access”;
var formUrl = “https://go.stlpartners.com/l/859343/2022-02-16/dg485”;
var title = encodeURI(document.title);
var pageURL = encodeURI(document.location.href);
document.write(‘‘);

5G positive indicators: reasons to be happy!

In many ways, the development of 5G is going remarkably well, especially compared to some of the partisan inter- and intra-technology standards warfare of the past.

In the recent past we have seen:

Approval by 3GPP of the first New Radio (NR) specifications in December 2017, for Non- Standalone mode, which means that 5G NR can be deployed using the existing 4G core networks.
Early engagement by the cellular industry with various industries’ representatives, notably automotive, manufacturing and healthcare. A number of joint bodies have been set up, with the objective of defining ‘vertical’ and especially IoT-centric requirements and testbeds.
A timeline for silicon and device availability that aligns much better with that for networks than was the case with 3G or 4G.
A whole range of cool demonstrations in Pyeongchang at the South Korean Winter Olympics in early 2018.
Research labs for 5G set up around the world.
High awareness of 5G among governments, businesses and media, even if it is often over-hyped,as that is hardly unusual for new technologies.
An ongoing procession of spectrum auctions for frequencies suitable for 5G, and ready availability of test licences.
Good (albeit uneven) progress in adjacent mobile areas such as NFV, SDN, edge computing, cloud RAN, network slicing, automation of processes, AI and so forth.
Continued growth of 4G usage, and likelihood of capacity constraints driving the need for future upgrades.
Commendable work by both large and small vendors in creating early equipment, and approaching target speeds and latencies more closely than many observers (including the author) thought were probable.
Some good early results from trials, especially of high-frequency mmWave networks, which show decent propagation properties and even indoor penetration – albeit through glass, not solid walls – exceeding the (admittedly low) expectations. For instance, AT&T has tested for weather resistance of its mmWave 5G trials – important as some have expected rain or snow to have an impact on propagation.
The effectiveness of MIMO (multiple-in, multiple-out) antennas appears to negate some of the poor notional radio properties of midband spectrum in the 3–4GHz range as well. Essentially beam-forming and beam-steering allows radio ‘spikes’ to concentrate power towards actual users’ positions (including indoors), rather than radiating uniformly and thus wastefully.
No major fights (yet) over IPR and costly patent licences.
Encouraging forecasts from some analysts (not published by us, so we won’t quote them) and trade associations about 5G subscriptions and related services.

Early trial results and 5G deployment plans

While many operators and international laboratories and organisations are testing 5G, a few of the experiments stand out.

Probably the most high profile have been the various South Korean initiatives that took place during the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, and Verizon’s work on fixed-wireless access in the US. KT and SKT showed various approaches to 5G-connected cars, novel camera footage from 5G-connected drones, real-world usage of mmWave radios and numerous other showcases. Korea is expecting to see launches of commercial 5G services around March 2019.

Verizon announced at the end of 2017 that it was aiming to light up a handful of cities – Sacramento, California most notably – by the end of this year. More details have become clearer recently: initially it will launch fixed 5G for mostly residential users, with mobile variants following around six months afterwards. Samsung has had its 28GHz-band routers approved for both indoor and outdoor use in the US, and these are expected to feature in Verizon’s early offerings. (STL Partners is writing a separate briefing report digging more deeply into Verizon’s 5G strategy, which includes an estimate of its huge investment into fibre for back/fronthaul).

(Mobile launches usually lag fixed-wireless services, as they need more coverage, more testing and a lot more complexity around cell-to-cell handoffs. And within mobile uses, it is usually easier to provide simple devices such as modems or cellular/Wi-Fi hotspots, as phones and voice access require even more work.)

AT&T is being aggressive with its ‘proper’ 5G rollout, as well as its controversial “fake” branding of advanced 4G as ‘5G Evolution’. It is intending to launch standards-based 5G, capable of supporting mobile devices (initially mobile Wi-Fi hotspot ‘pucks’) in at least 12 cities by the end of 2018.

AT&T started demonstrating and testing pre-5G technology in late 2016, including an enterprise trial in mmWave bands, together with Intel. In June 2017, it extended the trials to residential users in Austin, Texas, doing video streaming over fixed-wireless access. This was followed by a small-business fixed- wireless trial in Waco, Texas, which generated good results including 1.2Gbps throughput speeds and 9–12 millisecond latencies. That said, it seems less enthusiastic than Verizon about the general fixed- wireless opportunity1, especially given the backhaul fibre investment needed.

Telco operators that are well advanced on 5G plans include:

Japanese operators: NTT DoCoMo, KDDI and SoftBank have all been running multiple trials, for a wide variety of use cases and deployment scenarios. All are expected to have networks up and running in time for the 2020 Summer Olympics. NTT in particular has been very visible, signing contracts with vendors including Nokia and NEC.
Chinese operators: Spurred on by its government and Huawei as national champion vendor, all three telcos are deploying significant test networks, in a total of 16 cities across the country. Importantly, the regulator has shown commitment to issuing 5G spectrum in large tranches, and also seems to be encouraging infrastructure both between the operators and also China’s electricity grid operator. Chinese operators have also been quite aggressive on other key technical enablers such as AI/automation and network slicing.
Sprint and T-Mobile US: Both operators had previously been talking up 5G, but this has taken on a new perspective since the announcement of their potential merger. T-Mobile’s plan to use 600MHz spectrum for 5G is fairly unique and points to a possible nationwide network much earlier than its peers. Sprint’s hoard of 2.5GHz frequency is also extensive and could be a key differentiator given that the US has been slower to release 3.5–4.5GHz ‘midband’ spectrum than other markets. If their merger goes ahead (possibly a big if, given previous regulatory reluctance) the new T-Mobile may try to do for 5G what Verizon did for 4G – use it as a competitive differentiator to gain market share. It may face challenges getting devices supporting its unique 600MHz band, though – a similar problem that plagued it with the early days of 4G.
Deutsche Telekom: Aligning with its US arm, the domestic German arm of DTAG is perhaps the most vocal early enthusiast for 5G in Europe, deploying a growing test network in Berlin in particular. It is also getting its backhaul house in order, deploying tens of thousands more fibre kilometres annually.
Telstra: In Australia, local operator Telstra has launched a number of trials, including 5G for fixed-access backhaul to some publicly available Wi-Fi hotspots on the Gold Coast.
Spark: In New Zealand, local operator Spark has signalled an intent to deploy 5G (probably for fixed wireless) as early as possible, if it can get spectrum.
MTN: One of the few notable developing market 5G trials is that by MTN in South Africa, with Huawei.
India: The Indian government has signalled that it expects to announce its overall 5G strategy in June 2018. Although some are talking of 2020, it seems unlikely to gain a broad deployment fast, given economic limitations, especially driven by the 4G rollout and subsequent price war and consolidation between operators.

There are some notable absentees from this list. The UK has various government and MNO-sponsored trials, but little commitment by the telcos to move towards commercial launches yet. The Scandinavian operators, early on 3G and 4G, also seem more diffident this time. So too are the smaller countries in developed Asia; Singapore and Taiwan are also (comparatively) lagging the timelines that might be expected, again reflecting caution over business case.

In the Middle East, Ooredoo, Etisalat and STC have all been keen to be early to market with demo networks, but it’s unclear whether that will translate to broader, rapid deployments.

5G Spectrum

As always with new mobile networks, one of the input requirements is suitable radio spectrum. Generally, 5G seems to be doing fairly well in this regard. Many countries have started initial awards or have them planned for the next year or so.

Various European countries are releasing 3.5GHz ‘mid-band’ spectrum, while the US has earmarked both 600MHz (which T-Mobile has large amounts of) and 28GHz as priorities. Japan’s early focus is on 4.5GHz. In addition, there is a strategy by many operators to progressively switch off old 2G and 3G networks, and ‘refarm’ the bands for 5G.

The general expectation is that 5G will require a combination of three broad sets of frequencies:

Low-band, mostly below 2GHz, for wide-area coverage and good indoor penetration
Mid-band between 3GHz and 6GHz, for densified, mostly urban networks, probably with complex MIMO antennas
High-band above 6GHz, and probably mostly from 20–40GHz, although some are speaking of 90GHz or even higher for local usage.

Notably, many markets are not waiting for the official seal of approval from ITU and its World Radio Congress at the end of 2019, which was supposed to define the first set of ‘harmonised’ 5G frequencies (more accurately, IMT2020). A second set is expected, based on ITU’s ridiculously leisurely process, to be ratified only in 2023. Instead of this timeline, many regulators are either pre- guessing the outcomes (fairly uncontroversial for the 3.5GHz band) or just ignoring them (such as 28GHz in the US and South Korea). We wrote about 5G spectrum in early 2017, discussing this in more depth.

Watch a replay of the free webinar with the report’s authors – (Wednesday 8 August, 4pm BST)

5G is becoming real

In other words, 5G is becoming ‘real’, it’s getting a lot of interest and investment, and the basic technology enablers seem to work, at least in the lab and limited field trials. There are plenty of suggested use cases, and even if some of them prove far away or unrealistic, there should be some that make it through the funnel, plus others that are unanticipated.

That said, there is a cliché that states that any parts of a sentence or speech before the ‘but’ should probably be ignored.

Contents of the 5G report

Executive Summary
Introduction
5G positive indicators: reasons to be happy!
Early trial results and deployment plans
Spectrum
Summary – the good news!
But what are the obstacles to 5G?
Densification and network sharing
In-building coverage
A lack of 5G business models
5G-specific models in a hybrid-network world?
Devices and silicon
Other issues and concerns
Verticals: customers, partners or competitors?
Overview
Operator networks for verticals? Or private 5G?
Thoughts on specific verticals
Vendor attitudes to verticals and private networks
Timelines and practicalities
5G in name only?
Conclusions

Figures:

Figure 1: 5G predicted timeline, 2018–2026
Figure 2: Who are the 5G bulls and bears?
Figure 3: 5G antennas may be larger and heavier than 4G equipment
Figure 4: Multiple dimensions for future wireless networks’ use cases and requirements
Figure 5: Creating private 5G networks involves significant complexity for enterprises
Figure 6: Predicted 5G relevance to verticals, 2023-25 timeframe
Figure 7: Numerous applications of machine learning and AI for 5G networks
Figure 8: Overall 5G predicted timeline, 2018–26

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

Telco 2.0: Choose your future – while you still can

Introduction

Time to update Telco 2.0

Telcos are facing difficult choices about whether and how to invest in new technologies, how to cut costs, and how to create new services, either to pair with their core network services or to broaden their customer bases beyond connectivity users.

Through the Telco 2.0 vision (our shorthand for ‘what a future telco should look like’), STL Partners has long argued that telcos need to make fundamental changes to their business models in response to the commoditisation of connectivity and the ‘softwarisation’ of all industries, including telecoms. At the very least this means digitalising operations to become more data-centric and efficient in the way they deliver connectivity. But to generate significant new revenue growth, we still believe telcos need to look beyond connectivity and develop (or acquire) new product and service offerings.

The original Telco 2.0 two-sided business model

Source: STL Partners

Since 2011, a handful of telcos have made significant investments into areas beyond connectivity that fall into these categories. For example:

NTT Docomo has continued to expand its ‘dmarket’ consumer loyalty scheme, media and sports content and payment services, which accounted for nearly 20% of total revenues for FY2017.
Singtel acquired digital advertising provider Amobee in 2012, followed by several more acquisitions in the same area to build an end-to-end digital marketing platform. Its digital services accounted for more than 10% of quarterly revenues by December 2017, and was the fourth largest revenue segment, ahead of voice revenues.
TELUS first acquired a health IT company in 2008, and has since expanded its reach and range of services to become Canada’s largest provider of health IT solutions, such as a nation-wide e-prescription system. Based on a case study we did on TELUS, we estimate its health solutions accounted for at least 7% of total revenues by 2017.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

However, these telcos are the exception rather than the rule. Over the last decade, most telcos have failed to build a significant revenue stream beyond their core services.

While many telcos remain cautious or even sceptical about their ability to generate significant revenue from non-connectivity based products and services, “digitalising” operations has become a widespread approach to sustain margins as revenue growth has slowed.

In Figure 3 we illustrate these as the two ‘digital dimensions’ along which telcos can drive change, where most telcos are prioritising an infrastructure play, but few are putting significant resources into product innovation, and only a small number with the ability to do both.

Digitalising telecoms operations: Reduction of capex and opex by reducing complexity and automating processes, and improving customer experience
Developing new services: This falls into two categories on the right-hand side of Figure 3
- Product innovation: New services that are independent from the network, in which case digitalising telecoms operations is only moderately important
- Platform (& product): New services that are strongly integrated with the network and therefore require the network to be opened up and digitalised

Few telcos are putting real resources into product & platform innovation

Source: STL Partners

Four developments driving our Telco 2.0 update

AI and automation technology is ready to deploy at scale. AI is no longer an over-hyped ideal – machine and deep learning techniques are proven to deliver faster and more accurate decision-making for repetitive and data-intensive tasks, regardless of the type of data (numerical, audio, images, etc.). This has the potential to transform all areas of operators’ businesses.
We live and work in a world of ecosystems. Few services are completely self-sufficient and independent from everything else, but rather enable, complement and/or augment other services. Telcos must accept that they are not immune to this trend, just because connectivity is one of the key enablers of content, cloud and IoT ecosystems (see Figure 4).
Software-defined networks and 5G are coming. This is happening at a different pace in different markets, but over the next five to ten years these technologies will drastically change the ‘thing’ that telcos operate: the ‘network’ will become another cloud service, with many operational functions instantiated in near real-time in hardware at the network edge, so never even reaching a centralised cloud. So telcos need to become more proficient in software and computing, and they should think of themselves as cloud service providers that operate in partnership with many other players to deliver end-users a complete service.
As other industries go through their own digital transformations, the connectivity and IT needs of enterprises have become much more complex and industry specific. This means the one-size-fits-all approach does not apply for operators or for their enterprise customers in any sector.

Telcos and connectivity are not a central pillar, but an enabler in a much richer ecosystem

Source: STL Partners

We are updating the Telco 2.0 Vision in light of these realities. Previously, we proposed six opportunity areas for new revenue growth, and expected large, proactive telcos to be able to address many of them. But telcos have been slow to change, margins are tighter now, implementing NFV/SDN is hard, and software skills are necessary for succeeding in any vertical. So telcos can no longer hope to do it all and must make choices of where to put their bets. As NTT Docomo, Singtel and TELUS show, it also takes time to succeed, so telcos need to choose and commit to a strategy now for long term success.

Contents:

Executive Summary
Introduction
Time to update Telco 2.0
Four developments driving our Telco 2.0 update
Analysing the current market state
Options for the future
If connectivity won’t drive growth, do telcos’ network strategies matter?
Imagining the future telecoms stack
Conclusions

Figures:

Figure 1: The telco stack
Figure 2: The original Telco 2.0 two-sided business model
Figure 3: Few telcos are putting real resources into product & platform innovation
Figure 4: Telcos and connectivity are not a central pillar, but an enabler in a much richer ecosystem
Figure 5: The network cloud platform within the telco stack
Figure 6: Steps to becoming a cloud platform
Figure 7: Horizontal specialisation within the telco stack
Figure 8: Vertical specialisation within the telco stack
Figure 9: Enterprise verticals
Figure 10: Consumer services and applications
Figure 11: Network technology company versus lean network operator
Figure 12: Example of a fixed telco stack
Figure 13: Example of a telco IoT stack
Figure 14: Example of a lean network operator stack

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

BBVA: Traditional retail bank embraces digital disruption

Introduction

Why are we doing non-telco case studies?

Digital transformation is a phenomenon that is affecting every sector. Many industries have been through a transformation process far more severe than we have seen in telecoms, while others began the process much earlier in time. We believe that there are valuable lessons telcos can learn from these sectors, so we have decided to find and examine the most interesting and useful case studies.

Traditional banking is being disrupted by fintech. This disruption has not happened overnight, but its speed has accelerated in recent years as consumers and enterprises have become more confident using digital tools to manage their finances. Although the fintech market is currently highly fragmented, with fintech companies typically focussing on one or two specific financial products, this can still have an enormous impact on the traditional banking value chain, which relies on a diversified portfolio to create profit. In addition, there is the threat that a digital native company, such as Amazon or Google, will enter the mainstream banking market through a series of acquisitions.

BBVA’s chairman, Francisco Gonzalez, foresaw this threat early-on, and has worked tirelessly to restructure the bank to be competitive in the era of digital banking. This transformation has involved significant changes in leadership, technology, business processes, and the bank’s portfolio. Like telcos, traditional banks are large organisations with legacy technology and processes, and turning the ship around is challenging. Therefore, there are many ways that BBVA’s experience can inform telcos’ own digital transformation strategies.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

General outline of STL Partners’ case study transformation index

We intend to complete more case studies in the future from other industry verticals, with the goal of creating a ‘case study transformation index’, illustrating how selected companies have overcome the challenge of digital disruption. In these case studies we are examining five key areas of transformation, identifying which have been the most challenging, which have generated the most innovative solutions, and which can be considered successes or failures. These five areas are:

Market
Proposition
Value Network
Technology
Finances

We anticipate that some of these five sections will overlap, and some will be more pertinent to certain case studies than others. But central to the case studies will be analysis of how the transformation process is relevant to the telco industry and the lessons that can be learned to help operators on the path to change.

How digital disruption is threatening banking

Retail banks rely on a two-sided business model

Retail banks make money by using deposits in current or savings accounts made by one group of customers (depositors) to finance loans to other customers (borrowers). The borrower not only pays the bank back its loan, but also interest on top – in effect, paying the bank for the service of providing the loan. The bank pays the depositor a lower interest on savings, and makes money on the spread between the two rates of interest.

Retaining depositors is a vital part of retail banks’ business model

Source: STL Partners

While this is highly simplified, this is the fundamental business model of all traditional retail banks, whose main source of income is created through managing a diversified portfolio of financial products across savings and loans. Banks also make money from applying charges when customers use credit or debit cards, or charging its customers fees such as ATM fees, overdraft fees, late payment fees, penalty fees.

Societal changes have driven digital banking adoption

Digital disruption in banking has taken much longer than in other industries, for example, publishing and media, despite attempts from banks themselves to persuade more customers to use online services. For traditional banks, moving customers to digital channels for most of their banking needs could significantly cut the cost of maintaining and staffing a large network of physical branches. However, when online banking services were first launched in the 1980s and 90s, consumer concerns about security and a lack of confidence in managing accounts themselves online meant that adoption was slow.

Since then the market has changed: For example, in 2000, 80% of banks in the U.S. were offering internet banking services. The launch of the iPhone seven years later caused a paradigm shift, triggering a wave of enormous development and widespread adoption of digital services accessible online and via smartphone apps. Ten years on, consumers are much more confident using digital financial services, and, although younger consumers are leading adoption, older generations are also increasingly using these services.

To read on about how BBVA responded to a changing market, please login and download the report, or contact us to subscribe.

Contents:

Executive Summary
Six lessons telcos can learn from BBVA
BBVA in STL Partners’ transformation index
Introduction
Why are we doing non-telco case studies?
General outline of STL Partners’ case study transformation index
How digital disruption is threatening banking
Retail banks rely on a two-sided business model
Societal changes have driven digital banking adoption
Challenger banks and fintechs are changing the game
BBVA’s story
Phase one: Investing in technology to catalyse change
Phase two: Organisational change
Conclusions
BBVA in STL Partners’ transformation index
Appendix

Figures:

Figure 1: BBVA is rated as “Green” (good) in the STL Partners’ Transformation Index
Figure 2: Retaining depositors is a vital part of retail banks’ business model
Figure 3: The digital banking generation gap is closing
Figure 4: The sharing economy has taken off
Figure 5: BBVA’s global presence
Figure 6: Telcos need to virtualise their core to deliver cloud business models
Figure 7: Digital experience needs to be distributed across the organisation for transformation to succeed
Figure 8: BBVA’s leadership team is structured to accelerate digital transformation
Figure 9: Traditional banks need to adopt agile processes to compete with digital-native competitors
Figure 10: Ecosystem markets need new business models
Figure 11: BBVA’s co-opetition strategy involves acquisitions, investments and open APIs
Figure 12: BBVA’s shares are performing well
Figure 13: More smart and mobile device owners in Turkey use their devices for digital banking services than any other country surveyed
Figure 14: Turkey leads the way in four out of seven digital banking services
Figure 15: Turkish respondents are the most open to automated digital banking services
Figure 16: Less than 60% of Turkish adults had a bank account in 2014
Figure 17: Turkey is an attractive emerging market for investment
Figure 18: BBVA is rated as “Green” (good) in the STL Partners’ Transformation Index

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

VEON – Transition from telco to consumer IP communications platform

Introduction to Veon

Geographical footprint and brands

Veon came into being at the start of 2017, a rebrand of VimpelCom. The Amsterdam-based telco was founded in its current form in 2009 when shareholders Telenor and Alfa agreed to merge their assets in VimpelCom and Ukraine’s Kyivstar to create VimpelCom Ltd.

Veon is among the world’s 10 largest communications network operators by subscription, with around 235 million customers in 13 countries (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Veon’s geographical footprint (September 2017)

Source: Veon, STL Partners

The telco operates a number of brands across its geographical footprint (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Veon’s brands (September 2017)

Source: Veon, STL Partners

Veon’s largest market is Russia, where it has over 58 million mobile subscribers, making up 24% of its global total. Pakistan and Bangladesh comprise its second-largest markets by subscribers, while it has over 30 million customers in Italy under its Wind Tre brand, a joint venture with CK Hutchison (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Veon mobile customers by region, H2 2017 (millions)

Source: Veon, STL Partners

A brief history of Veon

1992: Veon began life as Russian operator PJSC VimpelCom in 1992.
2009: VimpelCom Ltd. founded as Telenor and Alfa Group (Altimo) agree to merge their assets in VimpelCom (Russia and CIS) and Ukraine (Kyivstar).
2010: VimpelCom acquires Orascom Telecom Holding (operating in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria) and Wind Italy from Egypt’s Naguib Sawiris.
2017: VimpelCom Ltd. rebrands as Veon.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

The somewhat unusual development of both Veon’s shareholder structure and geographical footprint means the telco faces some unique challenges, but has also enabled a degree of flexibility in the company’s path to transformation.

Veon’s shareholder structure – an enabler of transformation

At the time of writing, Veon is 47.9%-owned (common and voting shares) by Alfa (via investment vehicle LetterOne), and 19.7% by Norway’s Telenor (with the remaining 32.4% split between free float and minority shareholders).

This structure means that the company is less beholden to dividend-hungry shareholders, allowing the telco more ease of alignment than many of its contemporaries. This extra “breathing space” also allows change to occur faster with fewer levels of managerial approval required, whilst the board of directors has given its backing to Veon’s transformation journey, offering full “top-down support”. Nevertheless there is some doubt about how the transformation plans will be greeted at local OpCo level, and the group faces some serious cultural challenges in this area.

Faced with lacklustre organic growth and in the face of headwinds of currency devaluations in its former Soviet markets, Veon has chosen to, in the words of CEO Jean-Yves Charlier, “disrupt itself from within”.

Reversing the revenue decline

Speaking at Veon’s rebrand in February 2017, CEO Charlier spoke of how the telco sector has been backed into a corner by aggressive disruptive start-ups like Skype and WhatsApp, meaning the industry now needs to reinvent itself and find new paths to growth.

The company began by improving its capital structure, in part through the consolidation of operations in two of its largest markets, with the mergers of Mobilink and Warid to form Jazz in Pakistan, and the formation of joint venture Wind Tre from Wind Italy and CK Hutchison’s Tre (3).

Veon states it has realigned its corporate culture and values, introduced a robust control and compliance framework, and significantly cut its cost base, and the operator returned to positive revenue and EBITDA growth in the second quarter of 2017.

Contents:

Executive Summary
Introduction to Veon
Veon’s digital strategy
What are the strengths of Veon’s offering?
What must Veon do to succeed?
Will Veon make it work?
Introduction
Introduction to Veon
The path to total transformation
Veon’s digital strategy
Reinvent customer experience
Network virtualisation
The product
An omni-channel platform
The strengths of the holistic platform
Can Veon’s consumer IP communications proposition succeed?
Can Veon beat the GAFA and Chinese giants to the market?
What must Veon do to succeed?
Conclusions

Figures:

Figure 1: Veon’s geographical footprint (September 2017)
Figure 2: Veon’s brands (September 2017)
Figure 3: Veon mobile customers by region, H2 2017 (millions)
Figure 4: Veon revenue and EBITDA, Q4 2015-Q2 2017 ($ billion)
Figure 5: Veon’s transformation from telco to tech company
Figure 6: Penetration of leading social networks in Russia (2016)
Figure 7: Veon IT stack scope of responsibilities
Figure 8: VEON app screenshots – a IP communication platform
Figure 9: Veon app access requirements
Figure 10: Comparison of consumer IP communications plays
Figure 11: Veon – a SWOT analysis

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

Digital M&A and Investment Strategies – July 2017 update

Introduction

Digital M&A as a telco strategy

In June 2016 STL Partners published our inaugural Digital M&A and Investment Strategies report and accompanying database, focussing on key digital acquisitions and investments for 22 operators during the period 2012 – H1 2016. We have now updated this report to cover the following 12 months (H2 2016 – H1 2017), to examine new developments in telco digital M&A and a comparison with previous activities.

Communications service providers have long used M&A as a key growth strategy, with the most common approach being to acquire other operators to build scale organically. As growth in telecommunications slowed and user behaviour swung towards mobile, so M&A activity in the mobile sector has increased. However, acquisition opportunities in mature markets are becoming limited as consolidation reduces the number of telcos, whilst in Europe and North America the regulatory environment has made M&A consolidation strategies less viable.

As operators continue to build digital capabilities and strive to deliver digital services and content, M&A and investment beyond ‘traditional telecoms’ is increasing. Telcos need to move beyond a traditional, slow ‘infrastructure-only’ approach, to one focused on agility rather than stability, enablement rather than end-to-end ownership and delivery of solutions, and innovation as well as operational excellence. This report explores the drivers of digital M&A and the strategies of different operators including ‘deep-dive’ analysis of Verizon, AT&T and SoftBank. There is an accompanying database which tracks telco M&A activity for the period.

Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment

Figure 1: Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment – traditional and digital

Source: STL Partners

Traditional/Telco 1.0 drivers: reach and scale

As illustrated in Figure 1, what we refer to as ‘traditional’ or ‘Telco 1.0’ drivers for M&A and investment are well-established:

Extending geographic footprint is a common trend, as many operator groups look to:
- Enter new markets that are adjacent geographically (e.g. DTAG’s numerous investments in CEE region operators, America Movil’s investments in LatAm),
- Enter markets that are linked culturally or linguistically (e.g., Telefonica’s acquisitions and investments in Latin American operators),
- Enter markets that simply offer good opportunities for expanded footprint and increased efficiencies of operation in emerging regions where demand for mobile services is still growing strongly (e.g., SingTel and Etisalat’s numerous investments in operators in Asia and Africa, respectively).
Extending traditional communications offerings is currently the most significant trend, as mobile operators look to acquire fixed network assets and vice versa, to develop compelling multiplay and converged offers for their customers. The recent BT acquisition of EE in the UK is one example.
Consolidation has slowed to some extent, as regulators and competitors fight against mergers or acquisitions that remove players from the market or concentrate too much market power in the hands of stronger service providers. This has been a particular issue in the European Union, where regulators have refused to approve several proposed telecoms M&A deals recently, including Telia and Telenor in Denmark in 2015, and the proposed Hutchison acquisition of Telefónica’s O2 to merge with its subsidiary 3 UK in 2016. Other deals, such as the proposed Orange-Bouygues Telecom merger in France which was abandoned in April 2016, have failed due to the parties involved failing to reach agreement. However, our research shows continued interest in operator M&A for consolidation, with recent examples including Orange’s acquisition of Sun Communications in Moldova in 2016, and Vodafone’s merger with Indian rival Idea in 2017.
The acquisition of service partners – primarily channel partners, or partner companies providing systems integration and consultancy capabilities, typically for enterprise customers – has proved an important driver of M&A for many (mainly converged) operators.
Finally, operator M&A is also being driven by the enthusiasm of sellers. Many operators are looking to sell off assets outside of their home markets, pulling back from markets that have proven too competitive, too small or simply too complicated, as part of a strategy to pay down debt and/or free up assets for investment in other higher-growth areas:
- Telia’s pullback from its non-core markets has seen it sell off its majority stakes in Spanish operator Yoigo to Masmovil and in Kazakhstan’s Kcell to Turkcell in 2016
- Telefonica’s attempt to sell its O2 UK mobile unit to CK Hutchison having failed, the Spanish operator is now looking to other ways of raising capital both to pay down its debt, including a planned IPO of O2 UK.

Contents:

Executive Summary
Evaluating operator digital investment strategies
Key findings
Recommendations
Introduction
Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment
Evaluating operator digital investment strategies
22 players across 5 regions: US shows the most aggressive M&A activity
Comparison with previous period (H1 2012 – H1 2016)
European telcos remain largely focussed on Telco 1.0 M&A
Which sectors are attracting the most interest?
Telco M&A investment is falling behind other verticals
What are the cultural challenges to digital M&A in the boardroom?
Operator M&A Strategies in detail: Consolidation, content and technology
M&A as a telco growth strategy
Adapting telco culture to ensure digital M&A success
Recommendations

Figures:

Figure 1: Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment – traditional and digital
Figure 2: Number of operator digital acquisitions and majority investments, H2 2016-H1 2017
Figure 3: Largest 7 telco digital M&A and majority investments, H2 2016-H1 2017
Figure 4: Number of operator digital acquisitions and majority investments, H1 2012 – H1 2016
Figure 5: Operator digital acquisitions and majority investments, H1 2012-H1 2017
Figure 6: Largest 10 telco digital M&A and majority investments, H1 2012 – H1 2016
Figure 7: Mapping of operator digital M&A strategies
Figure 8: Number of digital M&A and majority investments by sector/category, H2 2016-H1 2017
Figure 9: Comparison of investment in digital M&A as a percentage of service revenues, 2012-H1 2017

How to build an open source telco – and why?

If you don’t subscribe to our research yet, you can download the free report as part of our sample report series.

Introduction: Why an open source telecom?

Commercial pressures and technological opportunities

For telcos in many markets, declining revenues is a harsh reality. Price competition is placing telcos under pressure to reduce capital spending and operating costs.

At the same time, from a technological point of view, the rise of cloud-based solutions has raised the possibility of re-engineering telco operations to be run with virtualised and open sourced software on low cost, general purpose hardware.

Indeed, rather than pursuing the traditional technological model, i.e. licensing proprietary solutions from the mainstream telecoms vendors (e.g. Ericsson, Huawei, Amdocs, etc.), telcos can increasingly:

Progressively outsource the entire technological infrastructure to a vendor;
Acquire software with programmability and openness features: application programming interfaces(APIs) can make it easier to program telecommunications infrastructure.

The second option promises to enable telcos to achieve their long-standing goals of decreasing the time-to-market of new solutions, while further reducing their dependence on vendors.

Greater adoption of general IT-based tools and solutions also:

Allows flexibility in using the existing infrastructure
Optimises and reuses the existing resources
Enables integration between operations and the network
And offers the possibility to make greater use of the data that telcos have traditionally collected for the purpose of providing communications services.

In an increasingly squeezed commercial context, the licensing fees applied by traditional vendors for telecommunication solutions start to seem unrealistic, and the lack of flexibility poses serious issues for operators looking to push towards a more modern infrastructure. Moreover, the potential availability of competitive open source solutions provides an alternative that challenges the traditional model of making large investments in proprietary software, and dependence on a small number of vendors.

Established telecommunications vendors and/or new aggressive ones may also propose new business models (e.g., share of investments, partnership and the like), which could be attractive for some telcos.

In any case, operators should explore and evaluate the possibility of moving forward with a new approach based on the extensive usage of open source software.

This report builds on STL Partners’ 2015 report, The Open Source Telco: Taking Control of Destiny which looked at how widespread use of open source software is an important enabler of agility and innovation in many of the world’s leading internet and IT players. Yet while many telcos then said they crave agility, only a minority use open source to best effect.

In that 2015 report, we examined the barriers and drivers, and outlined six steps for telcos to safely embrace this key enabler of transformation and innovation:

Increase usage of open source software: Overall, operators should look to increase their usage of open source software across their entire organisation due to its numerous strengths. It must, therefore, be consistently and fairly evaluated alongside proprietary alternatives. However, open source software also has disadvantages, dependencies, and hidden costs (such as internally-resourced maintenance and support), so it should not be considered an end in itself.
Increase contributions to open source initiatives: Operators should also look to increase their level of contribution to open source initiatives so that they can both push key industry initiatives forward (e.g. OPNFV and NFV) and have more influence over the direction these take.
Associate open source with wider transformation efforts: Successful open source adoption is both an enabler and symptom of operators’ broader transformation efforts, and should be recognised as such. It is more than simply a ‘technical fix’.
Bring in new skills: To make effective use of open source software, operators need to acquire new software development skills and resources – likely from outside the telecoms industry.
… but bring the whole organisation along too: Employees across numerous functional areas (not just IT) need to have experience with, or an understanding of, open source software – as well as senior management. This should ideally be managed by a dedicated team.
New organisational processes: Specific changes also need to be made in certain functional areas, such as procurement, legal, marketing, compliance and risk management, so that their processes can effectively support increased open source software adoption.

This report goes beyond those recommendations to explore the changing models of IT delivery open to telcos and how they could go about adopting open source solutions. In particular, it outlines the different implementation phases required to build an open source telco, before considering two scenarios – the greenfield model and the brownfield model. The final section of the report draws conclusions and makes recommendations.

Why choose to build an open source telecom now?

Since STL Partners published its first report on open source software in telecoms in 2015, the case for embracing open source software has strengthened further. There are three broad trends that are creating a favourable market context for open source software.

▪ Digitisation – the transition to providing products and services via digital channels and media. This may sometimes involve the delivery of the product, such as music, movies and books, in a digital form, rather than a physical form.

▪ Virtualisation – executing software on virtualised platforms running on general-purpose hardware located in the cloud, rather than purpose-built hardware on premises. Virtualisation allows a better reuse of large servers by decoupling the relationship of one service to one server. Moreover, cloudification of these services means they can be made available to any connected device on a full-time basis.

▪ Softwarisation – the redefinition of products and services though software. This is an extension of digitisation, i.e., the digitisation of music has allowed the creation of new services and propositions (e.g. Spotify). The same goes for the movie industry (e.g. Netflix) or the transformation of the book industry (e.g. ebooks) and newspapers. This paradigm is based on:

The ability to digitise the information (transformation of the analogue into a digital signal).
Availability of large software platforms offering relevant processing, storage and communications capabilities.
The definition of open and reusable application programming interfaces (APIs) which allow processes formerly ‘trapped’ within proprietary systems to be managed or enhanced with other information and by other systems.

These three features have started a revolution that is transforming other industries, e.g. travel agencies (e.g. Booking.com), large hotel chains (e.g. Airbnb), and taxis (e.g. Uber). Softwarisation is also now impacting other traditional industries, such as manufacturing (e.g., Industry 4.0) and, for sure, telecommunications.

Softwarisation in telecommunications amounts to the use of virtualisation, cloud computing, open APIs and programmable communication resources to transform the current network architecture. Software is playing a key role in enabling new services and functions, better customer experience, leaner and faster processes, faster introduction of innovation, and usually lower costs and prices. The softwarisation trend is very apparent in the widespread interest in two emerging technologies: network function virtualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN).

The likely impact of this technological transformation is huge: flexibility in service delivery, cost reduction, quicker time to market, higher personalisation of services and solutions, differentiation from competition and more. We have outlined some key telco NFV/SDN strategies in the report Telco NFV & SDN Deployment Strategies: Six Emerging Segments.

What is open source software?

A generally accepted open source definition is difficult to achieve because of different perspectives and some philosophical differences within the open source community.

One of the most high-profile definitions is that of the Open Source Initiative, which states the need to have access to the source code, the possibility to modify and redistribute it, and non-discriminatory clauses against persons, groups or ‘fields of endeavour’ (for instance, usage for commercial versus academic purposes) and others.

For the purpose of this report, STL defines open source software as follows:

▪ Open source software is a specific type of software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. This software is usually made available and maintained by specialised communities of developers that support new versions and ensure some form of backward compatibility.

Open source can help to enable softwarisation. As an example, it has greatly helped in moving from proprietary solutions in the web server sector to a common software platform (named LAMP) based on the Linux operating system, the Apache Http server, Mysql server, PhP programming language. All these components are made available as open source. This essentially means that people can freely acquire the source code, modify it and use it. Modifications and improvements are to be returned to the development community.

One of the earliest and most high profile examples of open source software was the Linux operating system, a Unix-like operating system developed under the model of free and open source software development and distribution.

Open source for telecoms: Benefits and barriers

The benefits of using open source for telecoms

As discussed in our earlier report, The Open Source Telco: Taking Control of Destiny, the adoption and usage of open source solutions are being driven by business and technological needs. Ideally, the adoption and exploitation of open source will be part of a broader transformation programme designed to deliver the specific operator’s strategic goals.

Operators implementing open source solutions today tend to do so in conjunction with the deployment of network function virtualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN), which will play an important role for the definition and consolidation of the future 5G architectures.

However, as Figure 1 shows, transformation programmes can face formidable obstacles, particularly where a cultural change and new skills are required.

Benefits of transformation and related obstacles

The following strategic forces are driving interest in open source approaches among telecoms operators:

Reduce infrastructure costs. Telcos naturally want to minimise investment in new technologies and reduce infrastructure maintenance costs. Open source solutions seem to provide a way to do this by reducing license fees paid to solution vendors under the traditional software procurement model. As open source software usually runs on general-purpose hardware, it could also cut the capital and maintenance costs of the telco’s computing infrastructure. In addition, the current trend towards virtualisation and SDN should enable a shift to more programmable and flexible communications platforms. Today, open source solutions are primarily addressing the core network (e.g., virtualisation of evolved packet core), which accounts for a fraction of the investment made in the access infrastructure (fibre deployment, antenna installation, and so forth). However, in time open source solutions could also play a major role in the access network (e.g., open base stations and others): an agile and well-formed software architecture should make it possible to progressively introduce new software-based solutions into access infrastructure.

Mitigate vendor lock-in. Major vendors have been the traditional enablers of new services and new network deployments. Moreover, to minimise risks, telco managers tend to prefer to adopt consolidated solutions from a single vendor. This approach has several consequences:

Telcos don’t tend to introduce innovative new solutions developed in-house.
As a result, the network is not fully leveraged as a differentiator, and can become the full care and responsibility of a vendor.
The internal innovation capabilities of a telco have effectively been displaced in favour of those of the vendor.

This has led to the “ossification” of much telecoms infrastructure and the inability to deliver differentiated offerings that can’t easily be replicated by competitors. Introducing open source solutions could be a means to lessen telcos’ dependence on specific vendors and increase internal innovation capabilities.

Enabling new services. The new services telcos introduce in their networks are essentially the same across many operators because the developers of these new services and features are a small set of consolidated vendors that offer the same portfolio to all the industry. However, a programmable platform could enable a telco to govern and orchestrate their network resources and become the “master of the service”, i.e., the operator could quickly create, customise and personalise new functions and services in an independent way and offer them to their customers. This capability could help telcos enter adjacent markets, such as entertainment and financial services, as well as defend their core communications and connectivity markets. In essence, employing an open source platform could give a telco a competitive advantage.

Faster innovation cycles. Depending on a vendor makes the telco dependent on its roadmap and schedule, and on the obsolescence and substitution of existing technologies. The use of out-dated technologies has a huge impact on a telco’s ability to offer new solutions in a timely fashion. An open source approach offers the possibility to upgrade and improve the existing platform (or to move to totally new technologies) without too many constraints posed by the “reference vendor”. This ability could be essential to acquiring and maintaining a technological advantage over competitors. Telcos need to clearly identify the benefits of this change, which represent the reasons, the “why”, for the softwarisation.

Complete contents of how to build an open source telecom report:

Executive Summary
Introduction: why open source?
Commercial pressures and technological opportunities
Open Source: Why Now?
What is open source software?
Open source: benefits and barriers
The benefits of using open source
Overcoming the barriers to using open source
Choosing the right path to open source
Selecting the right IT delivery model
Choosing the right model for the right scenario
Weighing the cost of open source
Which telcos are using open source today?
How can you build an open source telco?
Greenfield model
Brownfield model
Conclusions and recommendations
Controversial and challenging, yet often compelling
Recommendations for different kinds of telcos

Figures:

Figure 1: Illustrative open source costs versus a proprietary approach
Figure 2: Benefits of transformation and the related obstacles
Figure 3: The key barriers in the path of a shift to open source
Figure 4: Shaping an initial strategy for the adoption of open source solutions
Figure 5: A new open source component in an existing infrastructure
Figure 6: Different kinds of telcos need to select different delivery models
Figure 7: Illustrative estimate of Open Source costs versus a proprietary approach

Transformation: Are telcos investing enough?

Introduction

Why are we doing non-telco case studies?

Digital transformation is a phenomenon that is not just affecting the telco sector. Many industries have been through a transformation process far more severe than we have seen in telecoms, while others began the process much earlier in time. We believe that there are valuable lessons telcos can learn from these sectors, so we have decided to find and examine the most interesting/useful case studies.

In this report, we look at German publisher Axel Springer, which has successfully transformed itself from a print-based publisher to an online multimedia platform.

While the focus of this report will be on Axel Springer’s transformation, the key takeaways will be the lessons for telcos to help them make their own transformation process run more smoothly.

STL Partners has done extensive research into the challenge of telco transformation and how to implement effective business model change, most recently in our reports Five telcos changing culture: Lessons from neuroscience, Changing Culture: The Great Barrier and Which operator growth strategies will remain viable in 2017 and beyond?

General outline of STL Partners’ case study transformation index

We intend to complete similar case studies in the future from other industry verticals, with the goal of creating a ‘case study transformation index’, illustrating how selected companies have overcome the challenge of digital disruption. In these case studies we will examine five key areas of transformation, identifying which have been the most challenging, which have generated the most innovative solutions, and which can be considered successes or failures. These five areas are:

Market
Proposition
Value Network
Technology
Finances

For each section, supporting evidence of good or bad practice will be graded as a positive (tick) or a negative (cross). These ticks and crosses will then be evaluated to create a “traffic light” rating for each section, which will then be tallied to provide an overall transformation rating for each case study.

Axel Springer’s transformation – a success story

German publishing house Axel Springer began to suffer from declining revenues in the mid-2000’s as changes in consumer behaviour and disruption from new digital rivals such as Google and Yahoo! led to falling readership. Axel Springer identified this threat immediately and reacted swiftly, making the bold move to cannibalise its core printed newspaper and magazine business by repositioning most of its existing content onto online and digital platforms. The company has continued this transformation with an aggressive acquisition strategy, enabling it to expand its footprint into new geographies and content areas.

Even though Axel Springer’s transformation required sweeping technological, strategic and cultural change, it has been a success. Since the disposal of several non-core regional publications in 2012, both revenues and EBITDA have grown on average nearly 5% per year, while the percentage of revenues from digital streams grew to 67% in 2016 from just 42% in 2012.

Why is the Axel Springer case study relevant for telcos?

Much of Axel Springer’s transformation has consisted of (and been driven by) the change from traditional (print) to digital (online) publishing. While telcos have grown up in the digital era, with much of their transformation being driven by changes in consumer behaviour, there are many parallels between Axel Springer and the telco sector. We will look at the key lessons that can be learnt in the following areas:

Advances in technology
Changes in consumption and customer habits
The risk of cannibalisation
New opportunities in content
Working with social media
Platform and partnership opportunities
Culture change
The importance of data

Content:

Executive Summary
Axel Springer’s transformation success – a summary of key lessons
Axel Springer in STL Partners case study transformation index
Introduction
Why are we doing non-telco case studies?
Axel Springer – background to transformation
What was Axel Springer’s business model pre-transformation?
Drivers of change – how the market developed and Axel Springer’s reaction
Conclusions
Axel Springer in STL Partners transformation index
Appendices
Appendix 1: Axel Springer – company timeline
Appendix 2: Axel Springer – recent acquisitions
Appendix 3: Axel Springer – recent investments

Figures:

Figure 1: Total global internet users
Figure 2: Traditional publishing company business model
Figure 3: Post-digital publishing company business model
Figure 4: Axel Springer total revenues 2003-2016
Figure 5: Axel Springer total EBITDA and EBITDA margin 2003-2016
Figure 6: The development of news and media consumption
Figure 7: Axel Springer 2016 revenues by sector (€ million)
Figure 8: Axel Springer percentage of revenues from digital streams
Figure 9: Axel Springer revenues by sector 2012-2016
Figure 9: Axel Springer investment in acquisitions 2012-H1 2016 in comparison to selected telcos

MWC 2017: The big themes from behind the scenes

Introduction

It was notable that the main halls at the GSMA’s Mobile World Congress 2017 in Barcelona last week were still buzzing on Thursday morning, the last of four days. Previously the crowds have always noticeably thinned by then, but there was no let up this year – certainly not until around 2pm, and the event closes at 4pm on the Thursday.

If you’ve never been, your first experience of the Congress can be quite overwhelming. There is so much going on, so many people, and an almost bewildering number of companies and halls. Even for seasoned MWC-ers, the activity on Tuesday in particular reached a new level of intensity. Just walking between stands was a battle in places. The extra energy at this years’ show was surprising because mobile is not really a growth industry any more, although it is still a huge and profitable sector.

However, despite the frenetic activity, many commentators have struggled to identify an over-arching theme or message for this year’s MWC. Nokia’s retro-phone announcement was one surprising success. In the light of its backward-facing nature, the popularity of this story is rather confusing, but perhaps it is a sign of people looking hard for something interesting to say.

Of course, the diversity and scale of the Congress can make it hard to discern the big picture. Usually there is an announcement or keynote (such as those by Google’s Eric Schmidt in 2010 or Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer in 2012) that seems to frame the moment. Not so this year though.

This absence of one unifying theme reflects the results of our client feedback survey that we conducted in August 2016: telco strategy teams need to understand and evaluate the potential of an increasingly diverse range of new technologies, business models, and other opportunities (or threats) in order to succeed.

Behind the scenes at MWC, we found several major themes which we summarise in this report:

Telco change
5G
IoT

Beyond these three areas there was a multitude of information and demonstrations about new technologies and services such as Rich Communications Services (RCS), AI and blockchain. This report summarises what we learnt about these topics at MWC, and we will continue to research these areas in the future, to assess how they will impact telcos and what strategy they need to adopt to make the most of these opportunities.

Executive Summary
Introduction
Telco change
5G
5G – the next generation?
The business case for telcos is not yet that convincing
The path to 5G and the “first mover” risk
Super low latency – what is it good for?
The spectrum case remains unclear
EHF and mmWave
5G – Telco recommendations in summary
IoT
What role will telcos play?
The IoT challenge: Data privacy and security
Connectivity consolidation
Topics to watch
Rich Communications Services (RCS)
Enterprise digital transformation – Companies must be proactive, not reactive
AI – The human element

B2B growth: How can telcos win in ICT?

Introduction

The telecom industry’s growth profile over the last few years is a sobering sight. As we have shown in our recent report Which operator growth strategies will remain viable in 2017 and beyond?, yearly revenue growth rates have been clearly slowing down globally since 2009 (see Figure 1). In three major regions (North America, Europe, Middle East) compound annual growth rates have even been behind GDP growth.

Figure 1: Telcos’ growth performance is flattening out (Sample of sixty-eight operators)

Source: Company accounts; STL Partners analysis

To break out of this decline telcos are constantly searching for new sources of revenue, for example, by expanding into adjacent, digital service areas which are largely placed within mass consumer markets (e.g. content, advertising, commerce).

However, in our ongoing conversations with telecoms operators, we increasingly come across the notion that a large part of future growth potential might actually lie in B2B (business-to-business) markets and that this customer segment will have an increasing impact of overall revenue growth.

This report investigates the rationale behind this thinking in detail and tries to answer the following key questions:

What is the current state of telco’s B2B business?
Where are the telco growth opportunities in the wider enterprise ICT arena?
What makes an enterprise ICT growth strategy difficult for telcos to execute?
What are the pillars of a successful strategy for future B2B growth?

Executive Summary
Introduction
Telcos may have different B2B strategies, but suffer similar problems
Finding growth opportunities within the wider enterprise ICT arena could help
Three complications for revenue growth in enterprise ICT
Complication 1: Despite their potential, telcos struggle to marshal their capabilities effectively
Complication 2: Telcos are not alone in targeting enterprise ICT for growth
Complication 3: Telcos’ core services are being disrupted by OTT players – this time in B2B
STL Partners’ recommendations: strategic pillars for future B2B growth
Conclusion

Figure 1: Telcos’ growth performance is flattening out (Sample of sixty-eight operators)
Figure 2: Telcos’ B2B businesses vary significantly by scale and performance (selected operators)
Figure 3: High-level structure of the telecom industry’s revenue pool (2015) – the consumer segment dominates
Figure 4: Orange aims to expand the share of “IT & integration services” in OBS’s revenue mix
Figure 5: Global enterprise ICT expenditures are projected to growth 7% p.a.
Figure 6: Telcos and Microsoft are moving in opposite directions
Figure 7: SD-WAN value chain
Figure 8: Within AT&T Business Solutions’ revenue mix, growth in fixed strategic services cannot yet offset the decline in legacy services

NFV and OSS: Virtualization meets reality

Introduction: New virtual network, same old OSS

The relationship between NFV and OSS

This report discusses the relationship between NFV (Network Functions Virtualization) and OSS (Operations Support Systems), and the difficulties that operators and the developer community are facing in migrating from legacy OSS to NFV-based methods for delivering and managing services.

OSS are essentially the software systems and applications that are used to deliver services and manage network resources and elements in legacy telecom networks – such as, to name but a few:

Service provisioning: designing and planning a new service, and deploying it to the network elements required to deliver it
Service fulfillment: in its broader definition, this corresponds to the ‘order-to-activation’ (O2A) process, i.e. the sequence of actions enabling a service order to be logged, resourced on the network, configured to the relevant network elements, and activated
Service assurance: group of processes involved in monitoring network performance and service quality, and in proactively preventing or retrospectively repairing defective performance or network faults
Inventory and network resource management: managing the physical and logical network assets and service resources; keeping track of their utilization, condition and availability to be allocated to new services or customers; and therefore, closely related to service fulfillment and assurance.

As these examples illustrate, OSS perform highly specific management functions tied to physical network equipment and components, or Physical Network Functions (PNFs). As part of the migration to NFV, many of these PNFs are now being replaced by Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs) and microservices. NFV is developing its own methods for managing VNFs, and for configuring, sequencing and resourcing them to create, deliver and manage services: so-called Management and Orchestration (MANO) frameworks.The MANO plays a critical role in delivering the expected benefits of NFV, in that it is designed to enable network functions, resources and services to be much more easily programmed, combined, modified and scaled than is possible with PNFs and with OSS that perform isolated functions or are assigned only to individual pieces of kit.The problem that operators are now confronting is that many existing OSS will need to be retained while networks are transitioning to NFV and MANO systems. This is for a number of reasons.

Executive Summary
Next Steps
Introduction: New virtual network, same old OSS
The relationship between NFV and OSS
Potential solutions and key ongoing problem areas
Conclusion: OSS may ultimately be going away – but not anytime soon
OSS-NFV interoperability: three approaches
OSS-NFV integration method Number 1: use the existing BSS / OSS to manage both legacy and virtualized services
OSS-NFV integration method number 2: Use a flexible combination of existing OSS for legacy infrastructure and services, and MANO systems for NFV
OSS-NFV integration method number 3: Replace the existing OSS altogether using a new MANO system
Three critical problem areas: service assurance, information models, and skills
1. Closed-loop service fulfillment and assurance
2. A Common Information Model (CIM)
3. Skills, organization and processes

Figure 1: Classic TMN BSS / OSS framework
Figure 2: Telcos’ BSS / OSS strategy for NFV
Figure 3: Transition from BSS / OSS-driven to NFV-driven service management as proposed by Amdocs
Figure 4: NFV / SDN functions as modules within the Comarch OSS architecture
Figure 5: Closed-loop network capacity augmentation using Netscout virtual IP probes and a common data model
Figure 6: Service-driven OSS-MANO integration according to Amdocs
Figure 7: HPE’s model for OSS-MANO integration
Figure 8: BSS and OSS still out of scope in OSM 1.0
Figure 9: Subordination of OSS to the MANO system in Open-O
Figure 10: Vodafone Ocean platform architecture
Figure 11: Vodafone’s VPN+ PoC
Figure 12: Operators’ main concerns regarding NFV
Figure 13: Closed-loop service fulfillment and assurance
Figure 14: Relationship between Information Model and Data Models

Changing Culture: The Great Barrier

Introduction

On Tuesday 6th December, STL Partners met with 17 executives from telecoms operators in SE Asia, including Singtel, Starhub, M1, Telekom Indonesia, Axiata, Bridge Alliance and Tata Communications. The group was a fairly even mix of C-Level, SVP/VP, and Strategy / ‘Heads of Digital’ roles.

The session was conducted under clear and explicit anti-trust guidelines, and had the objective to review and explore learnings in the strategic and operational transformation of telecoms business models.

Objectives of Transformation

One of STL Partners’ global observations is that all operators have different goals in the pursuit of transformation. This was also true with the group in Singapore, as shown by the following chart of a vote on the priorities assigned to different transformation objectives.

Figure 1 – Transformation priorities are different for every operator

Source: STL Partners

The subsequent discussion showed that behind these votes:

Improving customer engagement (and customer centricity) is a fundamental goal of almost all operators
Operators, like all businesses, want to manage costs, and this is generally a welcome benefit of change
Most operators wish to improve the fundamental agility of their businesses – to become faster to market
For some, creating new revenues from new services is the primary objective, while for others, it is seen as a welcome possibility once the core agility has been improved

What is the outlook for growth for telcos?

STL Partners shared findings from its recent research report Which operator growth strategies will remain viable in 2017 and beyond? that examined the growth performance of 68 operator groups globally over the last seven years.

Figure 2 – The growth performance of 68 global operator groups 2009-16

Source: STL Partners

The overall picture presented was that most telcos had enjoyed a period of good growth in this time, though latterly growth rates have slowed to an average of 2% globally. Many markets, especially in Europe, are now in decline. Voice and messaging revenues have been eroded by substitution from Internet based applications, and data competition has by and large brought strong growth in usage volumes, but not enough to make up for the declines in voice and messaging.

Can data growth ‘save the day’?

A question raised in Europe and discussed again in Asia when this analysis was presented, is whether broadband data sales can offset the declines in voice and messaging revenues. The arguments for and against this are summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – The arguments for and against broadband producing long term growth

Source: STL Partners

Executive Summary
Introduction
Objectives of Transformation
What is the outlook for growth for telcos?
Can data growth ‘save the day’?
Why is transformation so difficult?
The challenge of achieving synergy with the core
So ‘going digital’ is becoming a necessity whatever your strategy
Opportunities for ‘Telco Cloud’ Centred Growth
Models for how to transform
The Publisher / Utility Model
20 transformation metrics that matter
Digital Maturity Model
NFV/SDN Playbook
Case Studies of Transformation in Practice
Telkom Indonesia – Becoming the “King of Digital”
Celcom Axiata – Quick ‘HITx’ to Kick-start Transformation
Conclusion: how to change model and culture together?
1. Establish transformational leadership and vision
2. Empower and motivate people to unlock culture
3. See success through a new lens (and new metrics)
4. Re-engineer the guts of the business

Figure 1 – Transformation priorities are different for every operator
Figure 2 – The growth performance of 68 global operator groups 2009-16
Figure 3 – The arguments for and against broadband producing long term growth
Figure 4 – A clear majority in the group believed broadband will not sustain long-term growth
Figure 5 – Telco ‘digital’ plays have experienced varied success to date
Figure 6 – Telco Cloud services by type
Figure 7 – NTT Docomo is one leading benchmark for new revenue creation
Figure 8 – The ‘Utility’ and ‘Publisher’ Models
Figure 9 – A high level Digital Maturity Model
Figure 10 – The NFV/SDN ‘Playbook’ explained
Figure 11 – Telkom Indonesia’s ‘Digital Telco’ vision
Figure 12 – Telkom Indonesia’s Transformation Key Success Factors and Lessons
Figure 13 – How the HITx programme was delivered
Figure 14 – Which area of transformation has the greatest value, and what requires the greatest effort?
Figure 15 – A new business ‘stack’ for telcos?

Telco Transformation: The 20 Metrics That Matter

Introduction: Why do metrics matter?

Driving business model change

This report discusses the key metrics that telcos are using and developing to track the progress and success of their transformation initiatives. The report builds on a substantial body of work by STL Partners on the role that metrics can play in driving operators’ efforts to develop digital-service businesses. This previous work has taken the form of reports and case studies, as well as a number of bespoke consulting projects designed to support operators with their digital transformation strategies.[1]

In essence, our work and expertise in this area leads us to the conclusion that metrics and an associated governance process are an integral component of telcos’ digital and overall transformation. This is not just because metrics help to gauge the progress of operators’ initiatives throughout the period when the metrics are recorded, but because they define and embody the very purpose of telco transformation: to drive and manage activity on operator networks, and maximize the potential for that activity to be monetised, whether on- or off-net.

In this introduction, we outline how:

The focus of performance metrics is different between new and existing business models
Telcos need new measures to track organisational, operational, process and culture transformation in the face of a new focus on service innovation and flexibility, and a changing competitive landscape
The report addresses these issues

A shift from financial to customer enagement (and potential opportunity)

This essential function of Telco 2.0 metrics is markedly different from that of the financial and operational metrics that operators have traditionally employed which focus on revenues, costs, number of customers, and volume and price of megabytes and voice minutes carried and consumed. The business model these metrics correspond to is relatively simple and static: value is generated from monetising as much as possible the consumption of voice minutes and data packets, while reducing the cost to produce them. The metrics allow you to analyse past trends, and project future production capacity and earnings; but they are not a forward-looking tool enabling operators to respond dynamically to changing market conditions, to evolve the product offering, or transform the business model.

By contrast, digital services derive value from the specific content or application functionality they deliver to the user, and the ability to monetise that in a variety of ways: not always through direct, usage-based fees and billing. And, although digital services can of course enhance existing products (as in the case of entertainment bundled with connectivity, for instance), they often treat network and connectivity services merely as the enabling infrastructure or asset, rather than the product itself. This means that for the digital telco, the emphasis of metrics changes to measuring usage of its digital services and the quality of the user experience, along with other indicators of future direct or indirect revenue growth.

Digital businesses often go through different stages of progress toward monetisation, and metrics are important in driving this development. The key idea is that if you drive usage and customer satisfaction, you create more opportunities to monetise the services involved. So you need a new, flexible set of metrics to capture the success, and inherent value, of the new business models as they evolve. The same is true of new telco services enabled by SDN and NFV (as discussed further below): there is not always an immediate direct revenue uptick; but the new capabilities and services are designed to attract new customers, and to generate usage and customer loyalty, which can be monetised in a variety of new ways at some future point. So it is critical to capture the revenue potential as well as revenue already achieved; and other metrics, which we discuss further below, should provide a measure of how fast or effectively a telco is evolving from the classic telco business model to the new state.

The contrast between the kind of metrics employed by the traditional and digital telco, along with those of digital start-ups and potential investors in digital services, is illustrated by the following table, taken from one of STL Partners’ previous studies on the question[2]:

We will discuss some of the Telco 2.0 metrics further below. However, what this table illustrates is how the focus in Telco 2.0 metrics shifts from usage-based revenues (as in the case of the Telco 1.0) to usage per se, and the impact of that usage on customer loyalty, brand, partners and revenue opportunity, as opposed to revenue already banked. The metrics – around usage and customer engagement – encapsulate the business model, which we could express in the form of an equation: number of users (or site visits, downloads, etc.) + frequency / length of use = revenue (opportunity). So driving the metrics in the right direction is tantamount to steering the business as a whole toward becoming a digital brand capable of generating customer enagagement in a crowded marketplace.

A new focus on service innovation and flexibility…

Presently, the focus of telco transformation efforts has shifted to the drive to virtualize networking functionality through Software Defined Networking (SDN: the centralization and virtualisation of control functionality previously provided by dedicated routers) and Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV: the virtualisation of a whole array of functionality in the edge and core networks hitherto provided by dedicated hardware appliances).

One of the primary aims of this transformation is to enable operators’ primary network and connectivity services to also be created, delivered and consumed in the manner of digital services: in and from the cloud / over the Internet; on demand; and as a software-based service. In the enterprise market, for example, leading SDN / NFV players are already rolling out Network as a Service (NaaS) and virtual CPE (vCPE) offerings that enable clients to customize their WAN connectivity and network features on demand via web portals, and pay for services on an ‘as-ordered’ basis as they scale bandwidth and networking parameters up or down.[3] In the consumer market, SDN / NFV similarly offers the prospect of enabling users to customize their connectivity and communications services more extensively and instantaneously than has hitherto been possible.

These characteristics of virtualised networks present a massive opportunity to telcos, as well as an enormous risk. On the one hand, SDN and NFV create the potential for operators to develop innovative, flexible combinations of communications and digital services in a more agile and cost-efficient manner, enabling them to compete more effectively with OTT players and accommodate massive growth in network usage generated by digital services.

…and new competition

On the other hand, as service and value creation is migrated away from dedicated physical facilities and hardware to software that can in theory be deployed over any physical network, this creates the possibility for third parties to develop OTT, virtual, on-demand network services from the cloud. This could result in telcos being disintermediated from their very core networking and connectivity services, as well as from the digital-service value chain. Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN) is a practical example of this: third-party service providers install their own CPE and virtual network functions at enterprise sites, and connect them up to an SDN controller; they can then deliver flexible WAN connectivity services over networks of different types, and from different suppliers, relegating telcos potentially to the role of mere wholesale connectivity providers.[4]

In this way, virtualisation creates a dynamic whereby, as services are migrated to virtual functions, value creation will also increasingly depend on these, while the value of physical networking and connectivity services will decline as virtualised service providers and customers alike pick from a range of alternative connectivity providers. Consequently, telcos’ ownership and provision of the physical networks that support virtualised services may become equally if not more important as a means to own the customer relationship than as a revenue driver in their own right. Retaining the customer relationship means operators hold on to the opportunity to deliver increasingly more valuable virtualised services to those customers.

Increased emphasis on offensive and defensive moves

More service flexibility for both operators and for new competitors means that telcos find themselves in both an offensive and defensive position in relation to virtualisation. Offensively, virtualisation presents the opportunity to drive revenue growth and market share from new services, while also reducing the costs, resources and time required to deliver, manage and update both new and existing services. Defensively, virtualisation offers telcos a means to bolster revenues from core connectivity and communications services (including by managing more efficiently the incremental traffic generated by virtualised services over their networks), while defending their existing customer base from competitive players’ virtualised service offerings. This in turn protects the platform that ownership of the customer provides to up- and cross-sell further value-added (and value-adding) virtualised services.

In this context, metrics can play a vital role in helping to monitor progress with the different offensive and defensive components of telcos’ virtualisation strategies, in particular:

Offensive:
- Tracking growth in revenues and number of customers attributable to new, virtualisation-enabled services.
- Assessing the impact of virtualisation on costs and profitability.
Defensive:
- Evaluating the impact of the new services on customer loyalty (particularly given the additional strategic importance of retaining the existing connectivity customer base)[5].
- Measuring revenues and number of customers for the existing, core business (and so determining whether the new services are helping offset the decline in these).

In addition to these finance- and market-focused metrics, others around the production, performance and user experience of the new virtualised services become more important. This is in the light of the above remarks about the different operating model that applies to a digital services business, where the ability to quickly innovate and launch services that match changing and growing customer expectations and usage is key.

Organisational, operational, process and culture transformation

To achieve these gains, a considerable transformation of operators’ internal organisation, processes and indeed culture is required, and not merely a transformation of the network and the business model. To be successful, digital transformation – and transformation SDN, NFV and edge computing – requires the telco to become a different sort of organisation, more like that of other successful web and digital businesses. Specifically, the telco must be founded on agile, DevOps principles, and cross-functional product and project teams.[6] Accordingly, new metrics are also required to monitor the progress of this overarching telco transformation.

In the remainder of this report, we will:

Explain why operators seem so reluctant to talk about new metrics.
Present and analyse the metrics we have uncovered through discussions with AT&T, Telstra and an European incumbent.
Set out our view of the 20 most critical, top-level metrics for operators engaged in SDN / NFV-led transformation in its current phase.

[1] See in particular The Digital Dashboard: How new metrics drive success in telco digital initiatives and Digital Services: What is Your Digital Business Worth?

[2] The Digital Dashboard, p. 24

[3] See our recent report: SDN / NFV: Early Telco Leaders in the Enterprise Market

[4] See our recent report: SD-WAN: New Enterprise Opportunity for Telcos, or a Threat to MPLS, SDN & NFV?

[5] The drive to increase customer loyalty can also be part of an offensive strategy in that stickier services attract more usage and traffic, and hence have more long-term revenue potential

[6] This topic has been discussed in numerous previous STL discussions of telco transformation and will also form the focus of a forthcoming executive briefing on the topic of skills development and culture change. It is also discussed in further detail below.

Executive Summary
A reluctance to talk metrics
Why metrics matter for the virtualised telco
Conclusions and recommendations
Next Steps
Introduction: Why do metrics matter?
Driving business model change
A shift from financial to customer enagement (and potential opportunity)
A new focus on service innovation and flexibility…
…and new competition
Increased emphasis on offensive and defensive moves
Organisational, operational, process and culture transformation
Why most operators hate to talk metrics
Key transformation metrics of AT&T, Telstra and a major Western European incumbent
The transformation metrics explained
Evaluating the metrics used by European Incumbent (EI), AT&T & Telstra
Transformation: The 20 Metrics That Matter
Overview
The 20 Metrics that Matter: Description and analysis
Conclusion: New metrics define the new model

Figure 1: Different players’ metric requirements
Figure 2: Phasing of transformation metrics
Figure 3: Transformation metrics of AT&T, Telstra and a European incumbent (EI)
Figure 4: Instant pricing on Telstra’s PEN platform
Figure 5: The 20 types of metric that matter for successful telco transformation

Seven Tough CEO Questions – Telco 2.0 Update

Seven Tough Questions

In the process of refreshing our 2016-2017 research agenda, STL Partners has identified seven ‘meta’ themes in our recent research that can be thought of as part of a contemporary checklist for telecoms strategy.

These are some of the questions that we believe boards and executives should be asking themselves as they assess their own strategies and decide what further actions and initiatives to investigate and initiate. In the following brief article, we point our customers to our latest findings in these areas. [NB If you’re not a customer, you’ll be able to see some, but not all of the analysis.]

We do not claim that this is a full and exclusive list, and indeed we’d welcome your input via contact@stlpartners.com to set up a call with our research team or share your thoughts and questions directly.

1. Do you have a compelling vision based on an evolving, competitive digital customer experience?

There are a number of scenarios facing telecoms operators in which any compelling vision must apply. Our initial scenario analysis was directed to European operators, and we have subsequently also conducted workshops and seminars with operators in other parts of the world that identified and developed similar relevant groupings in their markets.

Figure 1 – Four Illustrative Telecoms Market Scenarios

We then identified the fundamental problems with telecoms transformations in Problem: Telecoms technology inhibits operator business model change, and subsequently proposed a vision and solution to this in Transforming to the Telco Cloud Service Provider.

Much of our other analysis integrates with these ideas, exploring the themes in more specific domains, such as how to transform, relevant strategies in adjacent and disrupted/disrupting industries, developments in advanced enterprise cloud and ICT, and the future of the network, and we outline some of this analysis in summary below.

A critical foundation stone of any future strategy is how competitive the digital experience that your company delivers to its clients. In this regard, we have published the first iteration of MobiNEX: The Mobile Network Customer Experience Index which looked at 27 operators in seven markets, and compared the relative performance of operators’ mobile data networks in terms of how they deliver customer app-use experience. We are also working on further a global analysis in this domain which will be published soon.

Another foundation stone for telcos is that becoming a truly digital business is not just about technology, IT, marketing, or even HR for that matter. It is an approach that requires the engagement, re-thinking and adaptation / evolution of the whole business.

Looking at other aspects of operators’ digital competence, and following on from our research into operator agility, we are also now working on research into how well operators are transforming their customer-facing digital activities in marketing and sales, and also into other areas of digital maturity and transformation.

In addition, we continue to frame and update the strategic picture in the context of industry analyses such as Brexit: Telecoms Strategy Implications and US Wireless Market: Early Warning Signs of Change, and identify leading case studies of telco innovation in reports such as this one on Dialog’s surprisingly successful API programme, and this on Telstra’s ambitious healthcare investment programme.

Seven Questions (and pointers to our answers)
1. Do you have a compelling vision based on an evolving, competitive digital customer experience?
2. NFV/SDN: tools of business transformation or toys of the technology department?
3. IoT/5G/Cloud: the Holy Trinity of Hope – or Hype?
4. Can/does your business work well with others in new ways to deliver?
5. Are you tuned into innovation in Communications, Commerce and Content?
6. Is your Enterprise/SMB strategy keeping pace with the market?
7. Is your network holding you back or taking you forward?
What’s next?

Figure 1: Four Illustrative Telecoms Market Scenarios
Figure 2: Cloud business practices – key principles
Figure 3: Challenges for Telco Digital Services Partnering
Figure 4: Six Healthcare Pain Points Telstra Health Aims to Address

The STL Partners Digital Investment Database: August 2016 Update

The STL Partners Digital Investment Database

We published our Digital Investment Database in early July, together with a report titled Digital M&A and Investment Strategies. Given recent high profile activities, we’ve now issued an updated version.

While there have been a number of smaller investments and acquisitions, two major acquisitions have hit the headlines since we published our report. On 18 July, it was announced that SoftBank was buying the UK chip manufacturer ARM Holdings for £24.3bn. Then, on 24 July, Verizon bought Yahoo! for $4.8bn. Here, we take a quick look at these two acquisitions.

SoftBank and ARM: (big) business as usual?

Why ARM? For its £24.3bn, SoftBank has gained one of the world’s leading processor manufacturers, with a strong existing business designing processors for smartphones and tablets, and an excellent opportunity to develop new revenues from the IoT. The attraction is clear, but the sums involved are huge.

Yet in some ways, this acquisition is the progression of business as usual. Our analysis based on v1.0 of our database suggests that SoftBank has long been one of the most active telcos in digital M&A. Among the 31 investments and acquisitions we tracked from 2012-1H2016, SoftBank was outstripped only by Deutsche Telekom, Singtel, and Telstra.

However, while the ARM deal fits with this prior interest in digital businesses, the bulk of SoftBank’s recent purchases have had a software focus: ARM marks a shift towards hardware. Moreover, the size of the transaction dwarfs SoftBank’s previous efforts.

Much media coverage has suggested that the ARM deal might be closely associated with the recent return of CEO Masayoshi Son, an adventurous, ambitious leader with a history of bold purchases. Looking at our database, the ARM deal certainly breaks the mould of telco acquisitions, as SoftBank’s £24.3bn deal for ARM is by far the biggest non-core-business acquisition tracked by our database.[1] But £24.3bn rarely changes hands on a whim, and we intend to publish further in-depth analysis on this in future.

Verizon and Yahoo!: Can a telco challenge Google and Facebook on advertising?

Verizon’s purchase of Yahoo! for $4.8bn was, in financial terms, far smaller than the SoftBank/ARM deal. Yet it received a great deal of media attention, partly, of course, because Yahoo! remains a significant household name in the US in particular, and a salient reminder of how the corporate landscape of the internet has changed.

At its peak in 2000, Yahoo! was worth $125bn. So there are clear questions: have Verizon snapped up an undervalued business, or has it splashed cash on a dinosaur?

Verizon has been very clear that its intention with Yahoo! is to join the advertising business with its 2015 purchase of AOL for $4.4bn, and become the third player in digital advertising behind Google and Facebook. CEO Lowell McAdam made no bones about the business’s ambitions in oft-repeated comments shortly after the deal was announced: ‘Are we going to challenge Google and Facebook? I just say, look, we’re planning on being a significant player here. The market is going to grow exponentially.’[2]

Currently, Google and Facebook together have over 50% of the US digital advertising market. AOL and Yahoo! combined have 6%. 1bn users view Yahoo! content each month, and Verizon only therefore needs to persuade a few advertisers to switch to them in order to grow market share.

From a telco point of view, one key facet of this argument is that potential synergies between Yahoo! and Verizon’s network do not appear to be essential. While telcos have classically searched for M&A opportunities that directly complemented their core business, Verizon might be understood as using its market value to finance deals that have independent value – not unlike Softbank and ARM. However, there are questions around the true value of Yahoo!’s share of digital advertising.

At the moment of Facebook’s IPO in 2012, Yahoo! had greater revenue. But since then. Google and Facebook have transformed digital advertising by making it targetable. Google knows what you want, when you want it (a search for ‘buy blue jeans’, for instance), and Facebook knows what you like (as users are encouraged to document their preferences). It can use this data to give advertisers access to the most relevant sections of a vast potential online audience.

This is a strong business model that has proved more valuable as these companies have refined it. Yahoo!’s digital advertising is not quite as sophisticated, and it remains to be seen if Verizon will be able to develop the revenue it envisages.

Verizon and Fleetmatics: Under the radar

Yahoo! garnered the majority of media attention, but Verizon also spent $2.4bn on Fleetmatics, a digital business that provides SaaS for fleet management. M2M fleet tracking is nothing new, but as well as its core software business, the company has the potential to play an important role in the industrial IoT as connected vehicles become more common.

Together, the two acquisitions might suggest a drive to develop profitable plays in markets beyond core telco revenue: from Fleetmatics, the IoT, and from AOL-Yahoo, digital advertising. Moreover, for strategists and practitioners placing the two together may have greater significance than viewing them separately.

Highlighting such deals and longer term trends behind them are two of the key goals of our M&A database.

Accessing the database

Our Digital Investment Database documents key digital investments and acquisitions for twenty-two operators during the period 2012 – August 2016.

An illustrative snapshot of part of the database

[1] To be precise, ‘non-core-business’ excludes telcos buying businesses involved in delivering the quadruple play of fixed, mobile, internet, and TV – for example, BT’s purchase of EE, or AT&T’s purchase of DirecTV.

[2] Financial Times, 26 July 2016.

Innovation Leaders: A Surprisingly Successful Telco API Programme

Introduction

The value of APIs

Application programming interfaces (APIs) are a central part of the mobile and cloud-based app economy. On the web, APIs serve to connect back-end and front-end applications (and their data) to one another. While often treated as a technical topic, APIs also have tremendous economic value. This was illustrated very recently when Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement over the use of Oracle-owned Java APIs during the development of Google’s Android operating system. Even though Google won the case, Oracle’s quest for around $9 billion showed the huge potential value associated with widely-adopted APIs.

The API challenge facing telcos…

For telcos, APIs represent an opportunity to monetise their unique network and IT assets by making them available to third-parties. This is particularly important in the context of declining ‘core’ revenues caused by cloud and content providers bypassing telco services. This so-called “over the top” (OTT) threat forces telcos to both partner with third-parties as well as create their own competing offerings in order to dampen the decline in revenues and profits. With mobile app ecosystems maturing and, increasingly, extending beyond smartphones into wearables, cars, TVs, virtual reality, productivity devices and so forth, telcos need to embrace these developments to avoid being a ‘plain vanilla’ connectivity provider – a low-margin low-growth business.

However, thriving in this co-opetitive environment is challenging for telcos because major digital players such as Google, Amazon, Netflix and Baidu, and a raft of smaller developers have an operating model and culture of agility and fast innovation. Telcos need to become easier to collaborate with and a systematic approach to API management and API exposure should be central to any telco partnership strategy and wider ‘transformation programme’.

…and Dialog’s best-practice approach

In this report, we will analyse how Dialog, Sri Lanka’s largest operator, has adopted a two-pronged API implementation strategy. Dialog has systematically exposed APIs:

Externally in order to monetise in partnership with third-parties;
Internally in order to foster agile service creation and reduce operational costs.

STL Partners believes that this two-pronged strategy has been instrumental in Dialog’s API success and that other operators should explore a similar strategy when seeking to launch or expand their API activities.

Dialog Axiata has steadily increased the number of API calls (indexed)

Source: Dialog Axiata

In this report, we will first cover the core lessons that can be drawn from Dialog’s approach and success and then we will outline in detail how Dialog’s Group CIO and Axiata Digital’s CTO, Anthony Rodrigo, and his team implemented APIs within the company and, subsequently, the wider Axiata Group.

Executive summary
Introduction
The value of APIs
The API challenge facing telcos…
…and Dialog’s best-practice approach
5 key ‘telco API programme’ lessons
Background: What are APIs and why are they relevant to telcos?
API basics
API growth
The telecoms industry’s API track record is underwhelming
The Dialog API Programme (DAP)
Overview
Ideamart: A flexible approach to long-tail developer engagement
Axiata MIFE – building a multipurpose API platform
Drinking your own champagne : Dialog’s use of APIs internally
Expanding MIFE across Axiata opcos and beyond
Conclusion and outlook

Figure 1: APIs link backend infrastructure with applications
Figure 2: The explosive growth of open APIs
Figure 3: How a REST API works its magic
Figure 4: DAP service layers
Figure 5: Five APIs are available for Idea Pro apps
Figure 6: Idea Apps – pre-configured API templates
Figure 7: Ideadroid/Apptizer allows restaurants to specify food items they want to offer through the app
Figure 8: Ideamart’s developer engagement stats compare favourably to AT&T, Orange, and Vodafone
Figure 9: Steady increase in the number of API calls (indexed)
Figure 10: Dialog Allapps on Android
Figure 11: Ideabiz API platform for enterprise third-parties
Figure 12: Dialog Selfcare app user interface
Figure 13: Dialog Selfcare app functions – share in total number of hits
Figure 14: Apple App Store – Dialog Selfcare app ratings
Figure 15: Google Play Store – Dialog Selfcare app ratings
Figure 16: MIFE enables the creation of a variety of digital services – both internally and externally

Digital M&A and Investment Strategies

Introduction

Communications services providers have long used M&A as a key element of strategy. By far the most common approach has been to acquire other operators to build scale in core communications services. For the vendor operator, selling off assets has been as a way of raising cash to reduce debt or enable further investment in core markets. As telecommunications growth has slowed and technological developments and user behaviour have swung towards mobile, so M&A activity has increased as players have strived for market consolidation, integration of fixed-mobile capabilities, or geographic expansion as a source of growth. BT-EE in the UK, Orange-Jazztel in Spain, and Etisalat-Maroc Telecom provide respective examples.

However, as operators continue to build digital capabilities and strive to deliver digital services, M&A and investment beyond ‘traditional telecoms’ is picking up. Telcos need to move beyond a traditional, slow ‘infrastructure-only’ approach, to one that focused on agility rather than stability, enablement rather than end-to-end ownership and delivery of solutions, and innovation rather than continuity. For more details, see our recent report Solution: Transforming to the Telco Cloud Service Provider (Part 2). Making such a change is not without its challenges, and many operators now see M&A and investments as an important part of the Telco 2.0/digital transformation journey.

This report explores the drivers of digital M&A and the strategies of different operators including ‘deep-dive’ analysis of SingTel, Telstra and Verizon. There is an accompanying database with key digital acquisitions and investments for twenty-two operators during the period 2012 – 1H 2016 inclusive.

Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment

Figure 1: Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment – traditional and digital

Source: STL Partners

Traditional/Telco 1.0 drivers: reach and scale

As illustrated above, drivers that refer to ‘traditional’ or ‘Telco 1.0’ M&A and investment are well-established:

1. Extending geographic footprint is often a key driver…

…to new markets that are adjacent geographically (e.g., DTAG’s numerous investments in CEE region operators, America Movil’s investments in LatAm),
…or to those that are linked culturally or linguistically (e.g., Telefonica’s acquisitions and investments in Latin American operators),
…or simply offer good opportunities for expanded footprint and increased efficiencies of operation in emerging regions where demand for mobile services is still growing strongly (e.g., SingTel and Etisalat’s numerous investments in operators in Asia and Africa, respectively).

2. Extending traditional communications offerings, is currently the most significant trend, as mobile operators look to acquire fixed network assets and vice versa, in order to develop compelling multiplay and converged offers for their customers. The recent BT acquisition of EE in the U.K. is one example.

3. Consolidation has slowed to some extent, as regulators and competitors fight against acquisitions that remove players from the market or concentrate too much market power in the hands of stronger service providers. This has been a particular issue in the European Union (E.U.), where E.U. regulators have refused to approve several proposed telecoms M&A deals recently, including TeliaSonera and Telenor in Denmark, and the proposed Hutchison acquisition of O2 to merge with its subsidiary Three, in the UK. Other deals, such as the proposed Orange-Bouygues Telecom merger in France which was abandoned in April 2016, have failed due to the parties involved failing to reach agreement. However, our research shows continued interest in operator M&A for consolidation, with recent successful examples including TeliaSonera’s acquisition of Tele2 Norway in 2015.

4. The acquisition of service partners – primarily channel partners, or partner companies providing systems integration and consultancy capabilities, typically for enterprise customers – has proved an important driver of M&A for many (mainly converged) operators. For the purpose of our analysis, we are counting the SI and consulting M&A activity as ‘digital/Telco 2.0’ rather than ‘traditional/Telco 1.0’, where it focuses on a specific digital area (e.g., cloud services, analytics).

5. Finally, operator M&A is also being driven by the enthusiasm of sellers. Many operators are looking to sell off assets outside of their home markets, pulling back from markets that have proven too competitive, too small or simply too complicated, as part of a strategy to pay down debt and/or free up assets for investment in other higher-growth areas:

TeliaSonera’s pullback from its Eurasian markets has seen it sell off a 60% stake in Nepalese operator Ncell to Axiata, and it is also planning to divest its majority stake in Kazakhstan’s Kcell through a sale to Turkcell.
Telefonica’s attempt to sell its O2 UK unit to Hutchison having failed, the Spanish operator is now looking to other ways of raising capital both to pay down its large debt (at EUR 49.7m as of January 2016, the company’s debts actually exceeded its market value) and to fund its ambitions to build out its media empire.

Executive Summary
Introduction
Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment
Telco digital M&A constraints – why take the risk?
Evaluating operator digital investment strategies
22 players across 5 regions: US and Asia most aggressive
Which sectors are attracting the most interest?
Operator M&A strategies in detail: SingTel, Telstra and Verizon
SingTel: focusing on digital marketing, media and security
Telstra: Spreading Its Digital Bets across Health, Cloud and Video
Verizon: acquisition to support digital advertising and media dominance
Recommendations

Figure 1: Drivers for operator M&A and majority investment – traditional and digital
Figure 2: Telco cost and operational models inhibit innovation and discourage investments in unfamiliar digital businesses
Figure 3: Number of operator digital acquisitions and majority investments, 2012 – 1H2016
Figure 4: Largest 10 telco digital M&A and majority investments, 2012 – 1H2016
Figure 5: Mapping of operator digital M&A strategies
Figure 6: Number of digital M&A and majority investments by sector/category 2012 – 1H2016
Figure 7: SingTel – digital investment overview
Figure 8: Amobee’s proposition focuses on cross-platform advertising and analytics
Figure 9: Telstra’s Digital Acquisitions and Majority Investments, 2012 – 1H 2016
Figure 10: Ooyala’s proposition
Figure 11: Cloud is the key element in Telstra’s Telco 2.0 strategy
Figure 12: Verizon’s Digital Acquisitions and Majority Investments, 2012 – 1H 2016

Solution: Transforming to the Telco Cloud Service Provider (Part 2)

Introduction

Structural barriers preventing telecoms business model change

In our recent report, Problem: Telecoms technology inhibits operator business model change (Part 1), we explained how financial and operational processes that have been adopted in response to investor requirements and regulation have prevented operators from innovating.

Operator management teams make large investments over seven- or eight-year investment cycles and are responsible for deploying and managing the networks from which revenues flow. As we show in Figure 1 below, operators therefore have much more of their costs tied up in capital expenditure than platform players or product innovators. Furthermore, they need large quantities of operating expenditure to maintain and operate their networks. The result is a rather small percentage of revenue – we estimate around 15% – which they devote to activities focused on innovation: marketing, sales, customer care, and product and service development (the green section of the bars). This compares unfavourably to a platform player, such as Google, which we estimate devotes around 35% of revenue to these activities. The difference is even more pronounced with a product innovator, such as Unilever, which minimises capital investment by outsourcing some of its manufacturing and all product distribution and so devotes nearly 70% of revenue to ‘innovation’ activities.

Figure 1: The telecoms cost structure inhibits innovation

Sources: Company accounts; STL Partners estimates and analysis

Seen in this context, how can anyone expect operators to be successful at developing new platforms, channels, or products?

Executive Summary
Introduction
Structural barriers preventing telecoms business model change
Digital service innovation is proving tough for operators
Structural barriers coming down?
Virtualisation + cloud business practices could transform the telecoms business model
The drive for virtualisation is underway
Cost reduction and a new cost structure
Cloud business practices are a critical component in the future telco
The Telco Cloud Service Provider (TCSP)
Two benefits from becoming a Telco Cloud Service Provider
Product and service creation in the Telco Cloud Service Provider
From incremental and slow innovation today…
…to radical and fast innovation in the TCSP of tomorrow

Figure 1: The telecoms cost structure inhibits innovation
Figure 2: Telcos have struggled to launch successful digital services
Figure 3: Cloud and virtualisation can allow a telco to transform its cost structure
Figure 4: Cloud business practices – key principles
Figure 5: Defining the Telco Cloud Service Provider
Figure 6: Telco Cloud can spur transformation across the entire telco business
Figure 7: Product development – telco today vs Telco Cloud Service Provider