Question: What do Paris Hilton, Margaret Thatcher, Apple, Lou Reed and the cable industry all have in common?

Answer: Their obituaries have all been written prematurely. Some were the victim of hoaxes that reached mainstream news. Apple’s obituary was written ten years ago in a Forbes Magazine headline before the iPod, iMac and iPad stormed the market, hurtling the company to successes never imagined. Perhaps more disturbing for the company, darling of both the design and tech communities, the death of Apple was also prematurely announced in the second half of this year in Computerworld whose headline read “R.I.P., Apple!” The suggestion that there was even a fall from grace due to a challenged iPhone antenna provoked a characteristically brusque response from The Economist: “That is senselessly alarmist.”

A bit…off the mark

While the death of cable (either declared by agenda-driven competitor- funded organizations or pundits on blogs in cyberspace) is clearly not a laughing matter, it does make us smile. Cable guys in marketing see it as another opportunity to remind their key demographics of the superior offering that cable has on the high speed broadband market. Those working in government relations have an excuse to reiterate speaking points on how cable is achieving goals laid out in the Digital Agenda including the rollout of high speed broadband in an increasing footprint with speeds surpassing 100Mbps. The fact that cable’s network investments threaten incumbents is something that investors and analysts alike recognize. [See p. 3 for an independent view on this by Fitch Ratings if this reads too much like a self promoting newsletter!].

Fibre power

Poorly founded declaration or silly hoax, it allows cable to reiterate a very simple but important point: Cable already runs fibre-powered networks that deliver some of the fastest speeds in the European marketplace. It’s not currently necessary to be leading the market with high speeds with fibre all the way to the home. Sure, fibre to the home (FTTH) is fast. As Solon, a management consultancy, highlights, “the European cable industry is also investing in full fibre infrastructure. In several European markets, Cable operators are among the first players to deploy FTTH.” But FTTH is certainly not the only way to get high speeds rolled out in Europe. It is all about getting the mix right by marketplace.

Calibrating Consumer demand

Demand for high speed broadband is projected to grow 30-40% through 2020, according to TNO, a research organization for government and industry based in The Netherlands. This remarkably high demand will be met with the current capacity of the hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC) networks that cable is continually upgrading. Of course, others in the market will strive to meet this demand with their services. And while building FTTH is fantastic for Europe, DSL providers might feel less enthusiastic. For DSL providers, FTTH is virtually the only next possible move — a very expensive move. The presence of fibre in today cable’s HFC’s provides cable with the advantage of knowing how best to expand to meet demand on a rolling basis. When demand for capacity goes up, cable simply adjusts by extending fibre deeper. Such a calibrated approach makes cable’s investments manageable and appealing to other investors. Ambassador to the EU speaks about cable from an investor’s perspective.)

Rolling with the punches

Nothing endures, in the technology world, but change. Cable has shown that it is able to adapt to changes in the market. Cable started with just television – let’s not forget. The emergence of triple play and cable’s vital role in pushing out market leading high speed broadband is just part of the picture of convergence developing across Europe and beyond. New services will continue to roll out with the IP box as perhaps the best current example of the sort of convergence connecting the worlds of TV and the internet. Even ‘over the top’ and TV everywhere offerings require something that cable is known for: Good, solid, super high speed connections.

Sign of the times

So what does the future hold? If you listen to Prince, then you might already be mourning of the death of the internet. As you must know by now, “computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.” Will somebody please buy Prince an iPad?! If you ask a cable guy what the future holds, you’ll get a simple answer: Competition between HFC, FTTH/DSL, FTTH/Full fibre and mobile broadband. And if there’s one thing that both cable and consumers love, it’s competition. Fair competition, that is.

Real Risks

Fitch Ratings believes cable operators in a number of European countries enjoy significant scale, in terms of their coverage footprints and well established broadband and telephony strategies. Crucially, Fitch notes that DOCSIS 3.0 – cable’s broadband upgrade path to speeds (capable of) exceeding 100 megabits (Mb) – can and have been achieved in a number of networks at relatively modest cost.

Consequently, a number of European incumbent telecom operators face a real risk of increasing disadvantage, given both their failure to respond sufficiently to the risk posed by cable operators’ broadband investments, and also their own resistance to spending on fibre. This resistance to invest in fibre has been further exacerbated by ongoing decisions on whether to invest in fibre to the curb (FTTC), fibre to the home (FTTH), or a hybrid of the two, and where and when to invest. Regulatory concerns over the permitted return and regulated access to the incumbents’ fibre networks also

remain an issue in a number of European markets. As a result, Fitch believes the UK, Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands are the markets where incumbents face the most significant threat from cable operators, given the degree to which the cable network has been built out in these countries, the success of the cable companies broadband strategies so far, and the level of DOCSIS 3.0 deployment. Conversely, incumbents in France and Spain face a reduced threat reflecting lower levels of network build and the weaker financial profile of the cable operators in those countries. The structure of the German cable industry has meant that the take-up of cable broadband is only now beginning to gain meaningful scale there, while Italy stands apart among the major European economies as the only country without a developed cable operator and where the incumbent therefore remains that much more protected from cable competition.

US Incumbents Leading the Way on Fibre Upgrades

Verizon Communications embarked on a costly FTTH build out in a heavily cable networked US demographic three years ago – yet most of Europe’s incumbents are still trying to understand regulatory implications and only a few have so far taken meaningful fibre closer to the home. However, Fitch does recognise that in the current economic conditions, competitive risks might be expected to ease as consumers may seek to contain communications costs, rather than upgrade their packages to include services such as video on demand.

The Need for Speed

Unlike the incumbents – which remain tied to headline speeds for the most part in single-digits, cable operators in a number of European countries have already upgraded their networks and are offering 50 Mb speeds. With a far less developed TV product than their cable competitors, Fitch believes that the incumbents are more in need of the speeds that fibre can deliver given its ability to provide content streaming and video downloads. Furthermore, the ability to time-shift content and offer video on demand is already proven over the cable network. Viewing trends, will however in Fitch’s view, continue to fragment with the success of products like the BBC’s iPlayer, as well as the commercial broadcasters’ catch-up on-line offerings, in the UK for instance, catering for the TV audience’s increasing desire for content at any time over a range of delivery platforms.

Cable Networks More Efficient to Upgrade

While DOCSIS 3.0 is a similar technology to VDSL/FTTC – the path that most of Europe’s telecom operators appear to be following as their primary investment upgrade – the fact that most cable networks have been built within the last 15-20 years makes them far more efficient to upgrade. Cable already enjoys a deeper level of fibre throughout the network with upgrades therefore mainly replacing the active electronics at the cabinet level. It does not however require the significant civil works associated with the installation of new fibre that would otherwise drive up investment costs. Consequently, Fitch estimates that a DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade can be achieved at a fraction of the cost of fibre investment for the incumbents. In the UK for instance, Virgin Media has so far upgraded its network and is offering 50 Mb speeds at a cost which Fitch estimates at no more than GBP200m – GBP300m. BT Group is meanwhile planning to spend GBP1.5bn over the next four years on its hybrid FTTC/FTTH build covering 10 million homes.

1. How do you see the US/EU relationship evolving at the level of the tech industry?

Both economies are struggling to recover from what is the worst recession in the post war period. At the highest levels of governments on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a recognition that technology and innovation are essential to promoting recovery. And that’s a good thing for technology industries because there is a recognition that they have earned over the years. They contribute significantly to productivity in economies. It is interesting to see political leaders on both sides and particularly in Europe if you look at the Commission’s 2020 strategy, really the core of it is about R&D, investment in technology, investment in education and particularly science-based education and I think that is really important for the technology industries. In terms of the business relationship in the transatlantic market, in technology, it is very significant. If you look at all of the foreign affiliates of the US companies and aggregate all of their R&D spending over 60 % of it is invested in Europe. American companies have made and are continuing to make huge investments in IRD in Europe which is I think a wonderful anecdote to the strength of the transatlantic market.

2. How would you compare and contrast the National Broadband Plan and the Digital Agenda?

I would say at the highest level there is a convergence of the two plans, and that both recognize the urgency and compelling need to deploy more bandwidth and to deploy it more broadly in society. Both recognize the importance of doing that not only in terms of promoting economic activity but also in terms of addressing vexing social problems, making governments more efficient, promoting better health, allowing people to just lead more productive and healthier lives. What I also find interesting is the areas where they are different because both of the plans are reflections of the markets that they address. The European Digital Agenda is much more focused on promoting a single digital market… I am quite impressed with Neelie Kroes and her team because they have accurately diagnosed in their Digital Agenda the impediments to creating a single digital market. It is pretty clear that you’ve got to have a more cohesive national regulator; you need to deal with the copyright and intellectual property issues at a pan- European level. You also have to deal with the consumer protection issues that consumers face in doing online transactions in a cross-border environment. So I think that the plan accurately diagnoses the problem. The real question is: Will there be the political will to actually get it done? That is the issue. Obviously we, in the United States Government, have a huge interest in cheering her on…I would love to see a single digital transatlantic market! Imagine the productivity gains. The European Commission has determined that if there is a single digital market for Europe, it will result in 4% GDP growth – 500 million euros over the next ten years. Imagine if you could expand that into a single digital market. The transatlantic productivity gains to our respective economies would be enormous.

3. How can infrastructure based competition be better promoted?

The cable industry is a remarkable industry because it has been able to continue to mature its core markets, its core products, which are video, but it is continuously remaking itself. When you think about it, fifteen years ago the cable industry was essentially a single product industry. Now it’s a triple play and it many cases becoming a quad play business with the addition of the wireless. And that is a remarkable transformation of an industry. And what happened in our country is the cable industry was a bit of a sleeper in terms of competition. US Congress and US regulators assumed that the way to create competition in communications markets was through unbundling the incumbent network, which is an important way to do it but infrastructure competition has far outstripped that form of competition, unbundling competition, as a way of promoting consumer welfare in terms of multiplicity of products from multiple providers. And my view is that European Cable operators have the same opportunity and are exploiting it in many markets, but I think it is in a different stage of its evolution. There are a lot of reasons for that. A lot of it has to do with the fact that incumbent telcos in Europe, because they have the heritage of government ownership, were not as quick to promote infrastructure competition from cable. I believe the future of infrastructure competition in Europe is to allow cable to consolidate and do so in a way that they can roll out the full panoply of products that consumers want. Because one of the challenges that both the telcos and cable operators have, and I saw this as an investor in both industries in my most recent life, is that bandwidth is becoming commoditized. So the only way that these industries can provide more value in a better value proposition for consumers is to provide a bundled package of services that is sticky from the consumer standpoint and allows them to move seamlessly from different products.

4. We would love to hear a bit about your views on the European cable sector and the role of consolidation.

As an investor — not an ambassador – I’ll say that I am pretty bullish on European cable because I think it is a great consolidation play right now. There is a growing recognition that cable can and should compete head to head with telcos. Cable will have to scale and so that will provide, I predict, opportunities for consolidation and opportunities for the cable industry to more effectively combat barriers to their ability to roll out the triple play… And the private equity industry recognized this in the last 5 or 6 years when many of the cable operators in Europe were acquired by private equity companies because they saw that there was not only an opportunity for consolidation but also opportunities to roll out products other than video. When you are an investor in cable what you want is … the opportunity to experience growth through new products particularly through voice over IP and also data. So the window for those opportunities is closing in a lot of markets but there are still opportunities to play that consolidation and triple play opportunity in Europe. My old firm is a huge investor in European cable and I have participated in number of those deals and all those have all been really interesting and good investments.

5. What technologies do you use on a daily basis at the office or home?

I am addicted to my Blackberry. [Laughs] One thing that I found moving to Europe which has been really wonderful is that I discovered the VOIP phone. And it has been wonderful to be able to maintain the same phone number that I had in Washington DC and it rings in Brussels and I pick up the phone and it is a great clear connection and nobody even knows I’m here. [Laughs] As Chairman of the FCC I was a champion for voice over the internet and I did that notwithstanding considerable pressure from incumbent telcos who wanted to put VOIP and regulate it like the analogue phone network. And so for me it’s really satisfying to see that not only do I have this device in my house that I love and I use all the time but that I had a small but not insignificant role in making it happen. That’s a very cool thing. (Not mentioning their provider, Ambassador Kennard reassures us that there is “a very good connection [at the US Mission]” but adds “I’d like to have 100 MB.”)

6. What strikes you most as US representative in dealing with the EU institutions post-Lisbon?

It is a work in progress. We are going through a period of transition and as a result things are a little cumbersome and not as predictable as we would like them to be. But having been here for six months which almost exactly coincides with the first six months of the implementation of Lisbon, I am seeing things settle down. We in the United States are hopeful that Lisbon will live up to its promise which is to result in a Europe that is more cohesive, more decisive and more externally focused. That is the promise of Lisbon. I think the promise is alive but there are obviously some growing pains and transitional issues. But I’m confident as I see things settle down, that Lisbon will historically be seen as an important and useful step in the integration of Europe.

7. Looking back over your extensive public policy career, can you share any of the most interesting events or biggest challenges that stood out from the daily grind of business and policy making?

US Ambassador to the EU William Kennard elaborates upon EU – US relations related to cable, communications and technology with Gregg Svingen from Cable Europe

As I look back to the challenges that I faced as a Chairman of the FCC, it was always the hardest political battles that were ultimately the most meaningful in terms of changing the landscape and helping consumers. So that is one thing and the other thing just in terms of personal anecdote, when I look back on my time as chair of the FCC, the things that I feel the most proud about are the things I did to help people who didn’t have a voice in Washington. The work that I accomplished to get, for example, basic phone service on Indian reservations in the United States, some of the poorest people in the United States who didn’t even have a phone in 1996. And they have phone service as a result of some of the work I did. And that makes me very proud. Also the work that we did to make the phone network accessible to people with disabilities, particularly people who are deaf. When you look back and you kind of assess …‘Did I make a difference?’, it’s those things that you realize that if you hadn’t been there , if you hadn’t been a voice and a champion for these people, their lives would not change in really significant, meaningful ways.