Tag Archives: Vattenfal

January 13, 2023 · 11:54

Inactivity by the overpaid

The Dutch NOS is opening a storm-gate with the article (at https://nos.nl/l/2459559) stating that there will be a power shortage by 2030. Personally I think that he is overly optimistic. I would reckon that clear shortages will be visible no later than 2027 in the Netherlands. The UK will start showing these shortages no later than Q3 2024 and there are several nations in that same setting. The US was already showing them last year, not to a large degree, but enough to get noticed in California and Texas. It will get worse soon enough. I reckon that it will be horrid to live in these places the coming summer. With millions of AC units draining whatever power there is, the stage for these two places will not be a joyous one. I stated that danger in ‘Time as a factor’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/05/15/time-as-a-factor/) in may last year and several other articles over the two years preceding that. There was (optionally is) a solution and for that they all needed Elon Musk, but governments are not that intelligent. Instead of catering to Elon Musk, they catered to his anger and now the solution will come at premium price. His battery would have been able to decrease the pressure by well over 10%-20% in 2018 when I first made mention of it. But the overpaid civil servants kept on being inactive and that saving is now lost to them.

There still is an option for several places, but it will take immediate action, places like Texas and California, as well as the UK, France and Italy will have to act NOW to get something done, because Elon is not storing these batteries and when they have to produce 15-35 million batteries, they can sell at a premium but that will set you back so many billions, that the loss of Twitter is nothing more than a little blip on the radar. And there was a solution, but you all had to make fun of him, cater to fake news and cater to BS settings all whilst Jack Dorsey was given a ‘do not touch’ voucher. So how much can Jack Dorsey add? I’ll tell you nothing and now that you need Elon Musk, what will you do? Bully him a bit more? Consider that when these batteries go to India, Saudi Arabia, UAE and a few other places BEFORE they go to Texas and California. And when you realise that a place like Texas will need close to 1,000,000 Power walls at $17,000 each, the math becomes increasingly easy and it might not be enough. In that California would need in access of 3,000,000 walls. And that is before the added wind and solar collectors are added. One simple setting to overcome the loss of Twitter. And lets be clear, he has no obligation to any of you. He can charge premium prices, it is HIS right to do so. Sucks to be you now, does it not?

And in that setting Texans might still forgo power for 16% of the day when they need power for their AC, a stage that was clear in play since BEFORE 2018. All this before some might realise that a place like London will need well over 1,000,000 power-walls. The numbers start adding up and Tesla has the IP everyone needs. So how will you cater to that? Like a bully or will you realise that some people were overpaid by a fair amount and they did NOTHING. If I saw this almost 5 years ago, they should have been on that hobby horse a lot longer, but they were not. Why was that?

And the shortage will get worse for the UK soon enough. You see, Sweden (Vattenfal) is already showing shortages for winter, as such less and less can be delivered to the UK who will now feel the brunt a lot sooner and the solution I offered in ‘Will you feel frisky?’ On June 28th 2022 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/06/28/will-you-feel-frisky/) now feels a lot more on point, does it not? So how many documents can the UK produce of efforts they made from 2018 onwards to cater to this need? And that is the setting now, but this pressure keeps on growing, so the worm that hesitates will get eaten in this setting, because the shortage is global and now that the pressures are showing will some ask, why did we do nothing? People have been BS’ing on power independence since the 90’s and when the moment comes, we see inaction. Don’t take my word, check and you will see I am right. The overpaid were inactive for far too long, let them explain why. Oh, and they come with something like ‘It was a complex issue’ feel free to dock their pay for over 40%, it was why they were there and even if that doesn’t solve the issue, it will feel good to see the worm squirm for his lost 40%. Do it, you’ll see you’ll feel better.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

Tagged as Battery, California, Elon Musk, France, Italy, Netherlands, NOS, power shortage, power wall, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tesla, Texas, Twitter, UAE, UK, Vattenfal

March 27, 2014 · 00:16

The NSS 2014 danger

The Nuclear Security Summit 2014 is at an end. The circus of 53 delegation members, the security forces and other parties are leaving or have left the Netherlands. This summit needs to exist; there is no doubt about it. As long as the powers that be discuss and negotiate on these matters, the better the chance that the chance of escalations and extreme consequences remain at an all-time low. This is a basic pragmatic truth.
I do however worry about one aspect. An aspect I do not completely agree with, but an aspect that has long reaching consequences and as such the next generation will get additional responsibilities in regards to cleaning, aside from the economic mess that most leaders are leaving the next generation.
The issue I have is one that will have a long term impact, much longer than the three generations who are about to inherit the current economic debt, especially in Japan, America, France, Italy, Spain and Greece.
What is the issue? The issue us that there is a strong voice and movement to steer away from highly enriched Uranium (20%-85%) and use low enriched Uranium (less than 20%). The logic given is to make sure that the chance of extreme elements getting their hands on weapons grade Uranium becomes even lower. That part makes perfect sense, yet the danger that was, is now getting a lot larger on two fronts, it is simple and basic logic.

1. To get the same amount of energy, a nuclear reactor will have to use between 150% and 325% nuclear fuel to get the same amount of energy. You can find some basic knowledge at http://world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/How-does-a-nuclear-reactor-make-electricity-/. If for example one rod of highly enriched Uranium gives us one week of power, then we need a lot more rods of low enriched Uranium, but we still will not get the same amount of energy over that time, so the rods would need replacement sooner. No matter how the reactor is replaced or upgraded, the reactor ends up with less steam for electricity.
This part can be shown using a simple electric stove. Have two identical pots of water, set one stove to high and one to medium. You will see that it simply takes longer to get the medium plate with water boiling. Now that part is not the issue, waiting a little longer is not the big thing, when the water starts to boil, switch both off and now see how quickly the water of the medium plate goes off the boil and the water will soon thereafter no longer boils, which means no more steam for electricity.
The test is simple and basic and several factors are cast aside, but the foundation should come across, reactors will need more rods, which mean that the stockpiles of depleted Uranium would grow in excess of 250%, which is part of the first big issue, because as we can read at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-and-depleted-uranium/ that the half-life of Depleted Uranium (DU) goes into the centuries, which gives us the nasty side effect that we are growing the stockpile faster and faster and the required space will increase, using spaces that allows for nothing near it for hundreds of generations.
2. The extreme element. Yes, we all agree that the idea of any extremist getting its hands on highly enriched Uranium is truly the stuff of nightmares. Yet, this is not the biggest danger. By many parties in several fields (law enforcement and intelligence) there is a clear and present fear that extremists will get their hands on depleted Uranium and as such will create a dirty bomb with conventional means and mix in depleted Uranium for good measure. That scary effect will not just strike fear in the people. It creates a simple way to make people vacate complete zip codes in the blink of an eye. Now consider that the changes will create up to three times as much DU. This gives us more need of storage, and like with every shipping, the more you ship, the larger the danger becomes that one package ‘falls’ of a truck and into the wrong hands.
So these are the two issues I have. I am not against the banning of Highly Enriched Uranium, but do the people outside the NSS circle realise the consequences of such a decision? Of course all this will come with a massive amount of additional costs, which will again drive power prices up as it is a related cost.
The big danger related to all this is that there is no real solution. Those naive enough to state ban all nuclear power should realise that the pollution and the price of creating energy will spike on both counts. I am not against those big propellers in the sea or on land, because it is clean energy and anyone complaining about the view better take a nice look at the alternative. Those people will not volunteer to live next to a nuclear plant either. The propeller might not offer the greatest view, but in many area’s it does work getting them clean energy. However, I am digressing from the topic.
The change does introduce another danger. The short term security we might get through this is replaced with the long term dangers that we and several next generations will deal with. the danger is that too many people will ignore the issues, just like the national debts many faced and now all are complaining about the cut backs we are all dealing with, the Nuclear stockpile will grow slowly and we will not see or worry about the space needed, but when space is gone, it will be gone forever for many generations.
Nuclear power places us between a rock and an irradiated hard place. We are still no closer to truly have an alternative that really works at present and most nations no longer have the budgets to make any solid change in this regard for the near future. I like the wind alternative, yet I have never been against Nuclear power. Living in Sweden, seeing the benefit of the Swedish power supplier Vattenfal (in my wallet) is reason for this. The quote “Sweden’s primary energy mix is now 65 percent zero-carbon and composed of a blend of hydropower, nuclear power, and biomass, with almost no coal” found at ‘the breakthrough’, shows that nuclear power is an essential part for many nations if they want to decrease their carbon footprint. Sweden might have had the benefit of biomass and hydropower, but many nations do not, which makes them stronger dependent on other solutions. Wind and solar offer a little relief, but without nuclear power they will not get there, that is the part many activists forget about.
So the NSS had made a call, it is a hard one, but is it the right one? There are a few unknown elements, so I cannot tell. Yet, I do believe that short term solution is too dangerous against long term grief, but there I must also caution myself, how much long term grief will we face?
Consider that the US alone has stored 700,000 metric tons of DU (at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq16.cfm), in addition (at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/mgmt/faq27.cfm) we see what is required and some insight of the costs involved, when some nations switch (some had already switched) and the amount triples, how will the costs add up then, more important, where will we find the space?

So here we see the danger of the NSS decision, but is it really a dangerous one?

The reality that wasn’t one

Until we all realise that the edge of the abyss is on the Americans, we all need to realise that what will topple the Americans, will have a massive effect on us all. Partly because we are linked, partially because the events that are in effect there are also in effect in the Commonwealth and both are not willing to change their ways.

The issues all start with an article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/19/barack-obama-address-shutdown-debt-ceiling).

The first quote is: “There’s been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown. But the truth is, there were no winners in this.“

Actually, there are. The banks! They are making a bundle and as things go, the US will be (pardon my French) the Bank’s Bitch for a long time to come. $17,000 Billion has that effect on them. The article by the LA Times, which I personally call laughable, can be found at http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77819148/

The four points should be looked at.

1. The U.S. debt burden is starting to decline. That’s right – it’s going down, not up.

Really? $17,000 Billion remains that. The economy is not even close to being on par, and as long as the government is spending over a trillion a year more than they earn, the debt is not going anywhere. If we go from the T-Bill path, then the payable cost of T-bills (basically the discount value), for the entire amount would be $453 billion. This is of course not realistic; the number that is closer is based upon the annual deficit increase. These numbers were discussed in my blog ‘A new third World continent‘. So, when they do start to mature, an annual amount no less than $1,000 billion a year for no less ten 5 years would be needed. So, that debt burden is going nowhere, it will be there waiting for the people and it will come with additional bills.

2. China holds only a relatively small fraction of U.S. debt.

That is actually true, yet roughly 14% of $17,000 billion is still a massive amount, it just seems little. By the way, if they suddenly cash in, the chances of the US being able to pay it becomes smaller and smaller by the day. The debt ceiling is there and it would be instantly crossed.

3. The U.S. has had a national debt for almost its entire history.

Again that is also true for the most, yet in 2000 it was only 5 trillion (roughly), so in 13 years it grew by 12 trillion dollars, it grew from 5 to 9 trillion up to 2007 and the rest grew in the last 6 years.

4. Debt crises have marked American politics from the beginning.

Well, that is not entirely incorrect. The article starts with General George Washington. The guy who ran the American defence forces before Patton, roughly about 140 years before Patton. The debt remained under 1 trillion until the 80’s, so basically the US went through Independence Day 1 (1776, not the one with the aliens), WW1, WW2, the Cold War and the Vietnam war. All these elements involving massive amounts of politics, (except the Cold war, which was a contemporary event where Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov and Allen Dulles had a bit of fun, as well as their successors (boys will be boys).

The moral here is not about the marking of American politics, it is about Politics not doing what they were supposed to be doing. From my point of view, the right questions were not asked, hence the actions proceeded were of a game where open and clear communications were not in play (or this deficit would be a lot smaller).
There is plenty of blame to go around! Initial there was former President Clinton, even though the coffers actually had real cash in his era, the Silicon Valley crash started to leave its mark. It drove Gray Davis (former Governor of California) out of office and it was the beginning of a massive shift. After that the USA had former President Bush. He did a good job, but then 9/11 struck. The consequences had a major influence, it also changed the premise of many, instead of a true revamping of intelligence, 4 agencies were suddenly spending like there was no tomorrow. The military costs went up, which would really hurt the treasury coffers and lastly the financial crash of 2008 was one that had a long term consequence, especially as a building named America got prepped in the years 2003-2005, by the time the 2008 financial fire hit the house, there were no fire hydrants and there was no one able to actually fight that fire. The rest is the now and many are still reeling from those hits.

This takes us back to the article in the Guardian, where President Obama is quoted saying “First, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, one that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further.“

That is a simple answer, stop spending too much. I understand that spending $5 to make $50 is perfectly sensible, but America has become a nation of entitlements and costs, not profits. When you as a nation allow for tax evasion and keep on postponing putting a stop to these acrobatics (the Tax evasion rule is not expected to become active until 2014). So the US is in an extremely fragile situation. It is basically what you hear of Fox News (people like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and John Stossel), is that view wrong? Well the Nanny state is an overprotective government. I am all for protection. We should protect the weak, the sick and so on. But when you are broke, you cannot pay the beggar with coins you do not have, you cannot feed the hungry with food you cannot pay for. When your money runs out, it runs out. So until the government gets their horses back on track, entitlements will (not should) suffer. Perhaps doing something about Corporations and their tax evasion? For Example, Google paid the UK $12M in taxation, whilst their UK revenue was $3,000M. That is less than 1/2% in taxation. They avoided $2B in taxation in the US, according to the Bloomberg article (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html)

So how much taxation is NOT going into the US coffers? That list of corporations using tax havens is long and they are all prosperous. So, when entitlements fall away, look at those places on why support is gone.

The only part remaining is an article that came to view as I was reading up on a few parts. It is at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/25/economics-professor-smacks-down-bill-oreilly-he-has-no-idea-what-a-nanny-state-is/

And the story is about Professor Richard Wolff having a go at Bill O’Reilly. It was on ‘Democracy Now‘ so the idea that this is about a democrat having a go at a Republican should be clear.

The first part was in regards to “a clip of O’Reilly talking about the latest round of European bailouts, which O’Reilly said is happening ‘because they’re all nanny states’ that do not have enough workers to support ‘entitlements’.“

So what are the numbers? According to the site, http://apografi.yap.gov.gr/ where the Greek state currently employs 614,053 people, 15,000 jobs got axed in the first half of 2013. The Greek population is around 11 million; this gives us that just over 5.5% of the ENTIRE Greek population works for the state. There are reports that this used to be over 20% (in 2011), so how is that not a nanny state? According to the Oxford press it is stated as “a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.” when 1 in 5 works for the government, overprotective seems to be the case. The only part I do not agree with, in this case, with Mr O’Reilly is that Greece seems more and more the consequence of short sightedness and utter stupidity. In reflection, when a government asks Goldman Sachs to hide the size of their debt, I personally want to sail towards words like stupidity and irresponsibility.

Professor Wolff sees Germany and Sweden as Nanny States. That is not incorrect, however the next part “they’re the winners of the current situation. The unemployment rate in Germany is now below 5 percent.” is misrepresentation. First of all, when changes were needed (around 2009) Germany tightened the belt by A LOT! This is why it seems that they got off lighter, because they decided against borrowing (a lesson that the USA still has not learned). The second part is that Sweden has a different system. Yes, they do have a protective nanny state, but taxation is also higher. It is 57% at the highest tier; whereas the rich and playful in the US seem to pay only 29%. In addition, most Swedes are ‘proud’ (slightly overstated, I admit) to pay taxation. The more they pay, the higher their status. (Inwards they’ll sulk like nothing you’ll ever see).

So, Professor Wolff is missing his shares of facts too. In addition, Sweden had to deal with its own issues in 2003 as Ericsson dismissed thousands of people. They went from 85,200 staff members in 2001, to 51,600 in 2003. That is over 33000 in just 2 years. Try finding a job in IT in 2003. So as Sweden got itself back on its feet, they had moved themselves into a position to remain cautious. There is a good PDF file to read, it is called ‘Growth and renewal in the Swedish economy‘ It is by McKinsey and Company and worth reading. I wanted to add the link, but like Google’s ability to avoid taxation; they are getting better and better in avoiding clean links (just huge links full of Google statistics garbage). Although Sweden got through it all not too harmed, their current projections are not too good. Their deficit is likely to rise to 3% this year. One of the more noticeable incomes Sweden had was from Vattenfal and their nuclear power plant, the issues in the UK showed that Vattenfal has issues, some of their sites (outside of Sweden) were not panning out the way they were. www.vattenfall.com/en/file/Q2-report-2013_35251329.pdf has some interesting materials. So as they reported an operating profit of MINUS 25 billion (in Swedish kronor), they are still there, but that is an amount that hurts, and of course as they depreciated that much, it will affect the Swedish deficit. Let us not forget, they only have a population of 9.5 million and unlike Greece they are doing decently well. As for health care? The numbers from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) show us two interesting facts, percentage of government revenue spend on health gives us USA 18.5% (highest), whilst Sweden spend 13.6% (lowest), then look at the percentage of health costs paid by government which gives us USA with 45.1% (lowest) and Sweden with 81.4% (2nd highest). So, either the Swedes get a much better bang for their buck, or in comparison the American system is extremely flawed. There are ways to find out which, but compared to the UK, which is almost identical to Sweden in covered health costs, yet the slightly higher spending by the UK government leaves me with the thought that an overhaul of US healthcare was essential, but until I see the actual numbers on the new system, I will remain doubtful whether Obamacare would ever be a solution (but I refuse to judge until better numbers are known).

So in the end, the information by Professor Wolff reads less correct when you take another look at certain facts.

The Telco is on the wall

The Dutch giant KPN is in the market to stay alive. As the message is now that they are selling E-plus to Telefonica. Consider that the sale of this company is sold for 8 billion, which might seem good. It was however bought a decade ago for 20 billion. So that means a loss of 1.2 billion a year.

So this seems not that good an investment, when you look at it. Is this turning into a moment of selling the family silver cutlery, or is it about more? KPN is not the only one in this regard. Nuon (a Dutch energy provider) is also surfing the red waves of tremendous debt. So much so that its mother company Vattenfal is now putting the Dutch energy giant up for sale. Experts have stated that some of these problems are due to the company holding on to old methods for too long. Considering that they require gas, and the price of gas is up, means that their energy is more expansive then most others.

Back to the Telecoms! In Australia, Vodafone has a multitude of problems. Due to less reliable connection issues they had, over 550 thousand customers left Vodafone Australia for other providers. That is a shift of customers that started only 6 months ago. That means that Vodafone is facing a loss of revenue approaching 20 million a month. So we are talking about a decent amount of revenue. It amounts to a loss of almost 8% of their customer base. That is not even close to the end for Vodafone Australia. They currently have a class action running against them, so that is likely to be a none too small bill, and linked to the loss of customers (at http://www.zdnet.com/au/vodafone-australia-reports-customer-losses-of-551k-7000018290/) we also see that there are currently some legal threats coming from Telstra. That can be read at http://www.zdnet.com/au/telstra-ramps-up-4g-rollout-as-3g-scales-down-7000018225/.

The quote that matters is “Riley also took aim at recent claims from Vodafone that it has better spectrum holdings than Telstra in the capital cities, allowing the company to offer faster 4G services.”

Perhaps Telstra needs to consider a few things!

First there is the article that ABC published in 2011 (at: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/09/28/3327530.htm).

Yes, I got to hear all about it in Uni when I was doing my mobile technologies subject (party of my IT degree), so if this is about ‘marketing’ claims, then Telstra might revoice the words stated in the claim. They could read the following: “Riley also took aim at recent claims from Vodafone that it has better spectrum holdings than Telstra in the capital cities, allowing the company to offer faster 4G services” in the air of “Riley is also aiming at the mention that Vodafone is more colourful then Telstra when offering a mobile service labelled as 4G in the capital cities“. Have you seen those BORING 4G posters all over Sydney? Yup, making legal threats against opinions, that makes perfect sense to me…..NOT!

OK, it is 2013 now and there are true 4G providers now, but what is important?

4G is the fourth generation of mobile phone mobile communication technology standards. (Quick Wiki grab). When we consider the 4th generations, we see WiMAX and we see LTE (Long Term Evolution). The ITU (International Telecommunication Union) stated the requirements on what makes a 4G standard. So when the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification was set for the 4th generation in 2008, there was an actual next generation target to achieve. You wonder why it took so long? Well, the ITU looks forward on what the next step would be. So they set peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users). This would indeed be a massive step forward in a time when those speeds were not even close to an option. It makes perfect sense. You have seen this before. When we went from VHS to DVD, similar steps forward were made. This step was even larger as people moved from DVD to Blu-Ray.
It is technical evolution baby!

Yet, Telco’s are all about marketing, and Telstra was really clever. From the information that WAS then, they basically offered 3G+ and named it 4G, but that does not make it true 4G. That is how I personally see it! When I think of a power Telco offering 4G, I think of NTT DoCoMo and TATA (India). DoCoMo has close to 60 million customers in Japan, which is well over 45% of the mobile user population. How many Telco’s can actually make the claim that 1 in 2 connects to them in the Mobile community? In India there is the Tata Teleservices group with over 75 million customers, and NTT DoCoMo owns 25% of this.

So when we think Telco, Telstra and Vodafone Australia do not really measure up. Yet the interesting link here is that NTT DoCoMo had Billions invested all over the world, including in KPN in the Netherlands. Is it not interesting to see how these Telco’s seem to cross pollinate? This raises an issue that many people forget. If we consider the Vodafone class action, and if we consider the reasons of bad connections, then what is going on? Our little Island has 20 million people, which is less than a third of the active Japanese mobile phone users. So why are our connections failing (I am only considering the large cities)? It is clearly not about technology, but about infrastructure and implementation (in my humble view). Yes, we should not forget costing here either, as it all costs money, but consider the income in India and Japan, consider the amount of users. NTT ended up with a net income (after expenses and licenses) of roughly 5 billion dollar last year, which is almost 12% of the total revenue. So we see three things.

1. A ROI of 12% is not that bad.
2. Several nations are competing against giants with means we cannot fathom.
3. All of them seem to be writing off ‘losses’ on massive levels.

Is this about losses, about write offs or about something that is not here?

I reckon it is mostly about the not being there bit. When we look at incomes then we see that the Vodafone Europe CEO (Vittorio Colao) made 2.2 million Euro, whilst David Thodey, CEO of Telstra makes a mere 7 million dollars. So, yes they make decent coin, yet nothing more a mere mid-level banker is likely to get as an annual bonus, so the money is not draining away in that direction either.

No, I personally see the issues as a side effect of devaluation of technology. This is a side that has been ignored by most members of the public from 1997 onwards. You see, technology providers saw the benefit of the armistice race and went the same way. Every year we see a PC, laptop or tablet that is better, faster and newer, but how much faster? The impact with computers is not that big as it hits the individual. They deal with slightly larger programs, and that is pretty much it. Your text file is not that much larger. If you consider a 3000 word document, then that file remained relatively the same over the last 10 years. For electronic devices like TV’s it is also the same. We get the same signal and beyond that it only looks nicer, all this did not impact the provider.

With telecom it’s a different cattle of fish (pun intended). When we upgrade our phones we also attach to that an almost exponential growth of data needs, as such as Apple sold around 25 million mobile phones per quarter, we see that the need for an almost exponential growth of infrastructure is needed (a lesson Vodafone is learning the hard way). Even as the large Telco’s are installing the need for hardware on a continuing base, and as we see the replacement of equipment, we see that the life time of current facilitating hardware is likely less than 40% of its actual life cycle. It is either that of build more places with facilitating equipment, with a connected drain of ‘revenue left’ as well. The last level is one that is not that apparent at present, but will hit Telco company values on a massive scale soon enough. This side can be read at http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/global-view/registered-patents-devalued-by-outdated-ip-laws-6786253. Considering the issues at play, then the assets of Telco companies are about (read 2-4 years) to hit a certain basement value. I reckon that there will be consequences down the road. In my view it will be that the truly big boys will continue, the smaller packs will no longer be able to compete in a field where they will get charged for services needed and then some.

What is the solution? Not sure, it is in the end a business answer. Yet, voicing a 1.2 billion loss a year cannot be that good for the ego, and as the amount of players increase, these levels of ‘bad’ news will continue. It will not hit your taxes, but consider that services falter, where will you run to when your mobile phone leaves you with the message ‘searching…’ from your provider?