 Good morning to you all. How are you? I hope, I think we have an interesting mix of, let me say, people who are active in one of the most challenging parts of this over-regulated sector. I think I've had an interesting experience in that I have been working in telecommunications all my life, and by definition, this is a me too licensed, regulated, zero innovation business, because the only form of innovation you could be doing would have to be in sales and marketing and what people call products which were not really products. But the growth of this sector, which is very exciting, that I find very exciting anyway, is the prospect of what connectivity can provide. So I had an interesting experience in the fact that I come from network engineering as a background, but the last time I did any network engineering was a very, very long time ago, and I got into telecommunications and I could easily see that investing in this company, which is the first thing that I did in the country of Turkey, I myself did not come from there, was the privatization of a fixed line operator that had a very weak mobile, which was a merge of the third and the fourth. So here you have a case of you have a fixed operator in presumably a so-called dying business, which is in decline, that's 2005, and yet you have people telling you that the future is mobile. And therefore, because the future is mobile, you have to pay a premium to buy a mobile. So what happened in that particular country is that you had two major investments got in there. One is the privatization of 55% of the fixed operator that had a very weak mobile, which in the end we said, let's buy it at fair value. We were lucky enough to win that auction process. And the second one was the full ownership of a mobile operator, which Vodafone were lucky, quote unquote, enough to buy at a very high premium. Now, if the future is mobile, my problem with mobile, frankly, to share with you, all of you, is that even back then, I never believed in a service that the access, meaning the air interface, cannot be monetized by what you give to the customer. So that was the part that disturbed me technologically with what was known as a mobile service back then, whether it was 2G and then 2.5G and then we knew that 3G was coming and all this stuff and now 4G and now great, now we have 5G coming. So it wasn't the question only that we have inefficient capacity driven through a limited bandwidth channel. My problem was how you can monetize that bandwidth for what the customer wants, which in fixed line is very easy because if someone wants a lot of bandwidth, he pays for a lot of bandwidth. If someone wants a lot of capacity, he pays for a lot of capacity. But if all you can monetize is capacity, data I'm talking, and if you cannot monetize the bandwidth, now that's a very dangerous business model because we all know what sales and marketing people do, they just keep lowering the price. That's the only tool they have and they will make very fancy ads and I will say, I have a better network than the other one. Just make that mistake and say you have a better network than the other one and deliver on that, which will be costly. And the problem is that the high ARPU customer is happy to pay you more if you can give him the bandwidth that he needs. He doesn't want to have a poor service. He doesn't need the excess capacity that you're offering him, but he wants the bandwidth. So I figured a long time ago, frankly, more than 10 years ago, that the future is going to be on monetizing bandwidth and that was a reason why I was skeptical about a premium on mobile, meaning buy a mobile at a high premium. On the other hand, I also believed that the provision, cost-effective provision of any meaningful amount of bandwidth because people's bandwidth requirements will increase can only be provided by a cable, a cable access. And therefore, if you have ducts and you have cables, you are able to access to the customer where they need it. So for me, the future is not mobile. The future is sort of fixed by that. I don't mean fixed that you can't move, meaning it's in the home or it's in a business. What I mean by so-called fixed is that you as a customer generally need a lot in certain locations. In those locations, the only cost-effective provision that can be provided to you is by a form, and by the way, some of this stuff can be also wirelessly provided. So I'm not talking about the technology of the provision of a fixed service. You can very well provide it purely with the wireless means at the access point, which is the edge point or the point of access, or access to the access point, which is what people are doing even with Wi-Fi. So I'm not talking about those things, but what I'm trying to say is that my major difficulty conceptually is that if you're investing money in a sector, you have to be able to monetize bandwidth. That was my problem with mobile. The second is that there is no future without mobile, meaning you have to have mobile customers, but then at a certain point, everybody will have a mobile phone, so you've achieved your penetration, and then now they're telling us that IoT is going to be the savior of this sector. But who's going to provide that? So I had this privilege of exiting the telecom sector 2011 and be away from all of this stuff and invest more in venture capital type things that I felt were building a future away from conventional telcos, and I was very happy to be doing that. But unfortunately, I was called back into the same company because of the acquisition loan default, and what the company needed was a transition CEO, and we're a public company, so what I'm saying is basically public is that, I mean we're listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, is that to take the company now from where it is onto its next future. And initially when I came back to the company, obviously I hadn't changed the way I was thinking, but I made four acquisitions in 2006, seven and eight for this company, which were basically IT technology companies. We managed to convince one in particular called Argella that's established now, and let's see a company in the US, that we needed to invest in the next future of monetizing what we give to the customer in a form that we should control because there was no vendor doing that for us. So that was the role of this particular company. Then we also invested in a system integration company, and then we invested also in an education content and platform company, so we're about 2,000 people working in these companies, but these were not inside the telco, they were in their own. The founders were convinced to remain in the company, and obviously the only way we could keep them there without having any shares is that you would monetize your contribution and share, rather than, I mean, an exit value share, is that you got a salary and a bonus and realize your dream as opposed to build a company and sell it, because telcos cannot do that. And then we all have to be employees with our own kind of like options within this company, which is our own company. What's interesting to me is that these guys were working on that, and they were asking me when they meet me, what's the EBITDA of the company next quarter, the big telco, they start to thinking because that's where their value is, and we built some things. The fourth company, unfortunately, was a game company, they didn't look after it. When I left the company, I invested in that, and that's now 100 times the value that they lost, that particular game company, so these were things that I believed in. When I returned to the company, one thing exciting I found, I had spoken to the Netsia guys or the Argella guys in 2012, I left in 2011, and I went to visit the guys, and as we were talking about what they're doing, they told me they're working on SDN, and I said, are you crazy? This was 2012. You're going to need five, seven years to get any return on that investment. Will they support you? That's not that I don't believe in it, but so definitely there's a direction there, but will the company continue because telcos do not invest in these things. Telcos, by definition, are cash cow companies. Most of them get nothing by innovation, so all they do, they innovate in the areas that have the least value, and obviously, luckily for them, they were able to get an important contract relating to a local base station requirement and all that, so they were able to fund it. So when I came back, I went to see what they did, and I couldn't believe it. Now they're part of this open network forum that we met on app is an incredible opportunity, I think, for telcos. They're key in it. Netsia guys established a U.S. presence, and they were telling me what they've done on radio slicing, radio slicing. That's exactly what I was talking about earlier on when I was mentioning to you how you can monetize bandwidth. I mean, yes. I mean, that's the way if someone says, I want my 100 megabit per second come what may, and I'll pay you a premium for that, a customer, I don't care. I'm going to pay you for capacity. Of course I'll pay you for capacity. But if you pay me for a bandwidth, my friend, I'll give you any capacity you want. It's like fixed. If you pay me for high bandwidth, do I calculate how many gigabytes you use? It's unlimited with some level of fair usage, obviously, right? Because it is the bandwidth that has the value, not the capacity. The same thing happened with voice minutes. You're going to charge minutes and package, and all of a sudden, we all knew that voice has no future. So they mentioned that. They mentioned the on-app program. They had done proof-of-concept installations with Verizon, with Telefonica later, with Orange. So I was very impressed with what these guys have done, which also proves that I made the right investment on behalf of the company back in 2006-07 with these people. So that was the right move. I'm not saying every move we did was right, but this particular one was right. Obviously, we are going to make mistakes along the way. But I have to tell you that when in 2012 I told them, are you crazy? I was even skeptical about seven years. But I thought, maybe five. And that's just six years ago. So we are now right there. And telcos, I'm also finding, are starting to wake up. So I'm very proud of what telcos are now doing as well. And realizing that we are in a limited vendor world right now, because obviously, the vendors ended up eating each other as well. So there's an interesting future coming. And one of the things that telcos do complain about are regulators, for example. I'd like to say, just spend maybe just half a minute on that subject. Regulators are doing the job that was given to them. The mistake is in what is given to them to execute. It's not them in particular. But I think that societies speak about now a digital future or digital transformation future and who is going to provide that cost effectively to the people. So basically the public interest part. That is the part that the competition model that we all have to understand where it came from was get the highest license price you can, but ensure that there's competition. So you have multi vendor, multi license, multi network, and then ensure there's competition so that the people of the country can enjoy a service at a competitive price. Simple enough. The problem with that model going from where we are now to go to where we need to go next is that these particular telcos cannot sustain the same old model cost effectively to go from where we are now, let's call it the LTE world to the so-called 5G world. Because then duplication of infrastructure becomes very, very costly and dangerous. Also, the competition model is a little bit complicated. So the regulators will have a very difficult job to do. The other thing that telcos complain about are OTTs. I don't share that view because if it were not for what so-called OTTs have done to create demand for traffic, and I'm not talking about bandwidth now, this is more consumption type traffic, which is perfect for a telco, is all of these OTTs. Now to complain about OTTs who are the ones that took a risk, made investments, provided a free service, didn't charge for it, found a way of monetizing it, fine. Ethical or unethical, that's not a telco problem. I'm not praising the OTTs, but I know on what grounds I can complain about them, but not as a telco. Not as a telco. You can complain about them because of their wrong behavior and not respecting customer privacy and so on. That's another subject. That's a legal issue, and for that they deserve to be blamed. But for a telco to claim that someone is providing a free service that customers are happy to use and you are having to monetize it, then think what it is that you are monetizing. You are monetizing capacity. These OTTs don't generate that much capacity, my friends, and they don't need that much bandwidth. But your customers of the future are going to need that quality of access, which means they're going to need the bandwidth. They are going to need the latency limits, and that is where, if people have a skill, they should be able to provide that service over a limited bandwidth device, let's say up to 100 meg. I'm not talking about the 1 giga and very complicated things, but even I'm talking about mobile devices that are still 4G. And if you do radio slicing with small cell, you can do a lot that you can monetize from the customer in what I said so-called fix. You give your customer something that he really wants, and then don't tell him what he's allowed or not allowed to do with that bandwidth. If an OTT now smartly comes and comes up with an amazing future health solution that is bandwidth hungry, don't then complain that you are now having to bear the cost of that because now your customer will be paying for it. Otherwise, be creative and build that future instead of just complaining about this hidden enemy, and then they create all this, in my opinion, nonsense about things like net neutrality, that they believe that net neutrality is something which is against the interest of telecom companies, that I believe that the role of telecom companies should not be the ones that complain. They should be the ones that find a solution for their problem, and the people who are using their bandwidth, just you need to know who's going to pay for it. If the customer is paying for that bandwidth, if that's the model, so be it. If an OTT wants to buy bandwidth from you, I think that also can be a model, by the way, because OTTs try to invest in access, and they realize that there's no future in that. This new technology excites me a lot, in fact, that I can tell you in 2012 when I visited the office of the Netsia guys who were creating all of these things, and they were the R&D arm of the company, so they were always doing things that can be monetized, let's say three years ahead, let's say, but SDN scared me because I said it's going to take a long time, it's just like, can you survive that length of time? Will the company keep feeding the money you need to develop it? And luckily for us, first of all, they managed to sustain themselves, and secondly, the market also, realization happened, and they proved themselves to third-party operators, and I'm very open now to the idea of partnering because telcos cannot do these things themselves. This part really does excite me in the sense of what I see other telcos now beginning to do. I think AT&T and Verizon have recently announced, for example, their first so-called 5G direction, and we've seen what that is. I mean, that's fixed, what I called fixed, and they're right, they're absolutely right, they're doing it the right way, and of course, that suits to their particular market. The future of devices is also worth spending a couple of minutes on because devices have also been, I mean, just imagine that today a person on a very low ARPU is using a 50 to 100 dollar smartphone that does way beyond what this person needs, and within his affordability, he can do a lot. Now, this particular customer, think about it, how much bandwidth would that customer need? Do they need a lot of bandwidth? I don't think so, right? But he needs capacity. That's amazing. Now, we know what happened to voice and monetizing voice by minutes, which is also capacity because voice doesn't need much bandwidth, and that's the part that I think should help people plan their future of monetization on their wireless access network. Clearly, the future is mobile in relation to how customers perceive the service, but the form of connectivity and selling that bandwidth will be a mix of different types of technologies that open opportunities for telcos and people who partner with them, and even people who will be able to monetize, help them monetize onto this type of access. So, while I thought in 2010 when I was doing my last business plan and I left the telecom sector, I can tell you that I presented to the board establishment of a new digital plan, which required exactly 600 million dollars, 300 million were coming from a partner, 200 million, this was going to be a new company, 200 million were coming from the company I worked for, that I was the CEO of, which had that stake in Turkish Telecom, and Turkish Telecom were going to be taking, contributing the 100. And of this plan, I don't know what happened had we done it, actually, but I remember looking at my board and seeing that they were scared to say yes because of the money, but they were also scared to say no, because in my previous working for them, I got every cycle right, and then I realized that my best option is just to get the hell out of that sector totally and do something else. Now that I'm back into it, I have to say that, you know, one part of it excites me, I have to say, because it's exciting to try to fix something, but the other one is to see that finally we're going to be able to monetize bandwidth and service quality, but in the end that's bandwidth and latency, but in the end bandwidth is the key over a wireless access form. That is what excites me, thank you very much.