 Thank you Brian and thank you ICT Cata for inviting me here today. It's a privilege to be here and to get the chance to address you. I did yesterday anyway get the sense that I was here to represent the older demographic, Kevin, Chris, Dan, Rob, Gabe, Claire. If you pile them all one on top of another I still don't think you reach my age but there you go. I hope I'm not here just because I'm over 40. Let me tell you a little bit about myself so that you understand the nature of and in particular the limits of my expertise. I'm not a technologist or a marketer. What I understand as Brian just said is policy and how it applies to the media and telecom sector. When I pick up some of the output of ICT Cata, I feel at home. Some of the documents look a bit like OFCOM documents that I'm very familiar with. To be a bit more specific about myself I was a strategy consultant until a decade ago and then joined the board of OFCOM as Brian said when it was in its start-up phase. While I was there I negotiated the deal that split BT's local network now open reach from the rest of the business. As Brian also said I was chairman of the European Regulators Group in 2006 so I had to think very hard about the value of collaborating between national regulators, something that may be relevant to GCC countries which I'll come back to later on. After I left OFCOM in 2007 I had a government role. OFCOM very much positioned itself as an independent regulator so government role is different from an OFCOM role. When I was in government my particular focus was spectrum policy specifically trying to get the five mobile operators in the UK to agree how spectrum should be split up between them. I go into my background because what you'll get today is an attempt to answer a question which reflects my own experience. How can a state like Cata or the GCC generally make a real contribution to the development of the mobile industry generally over the next decade? What I will bring to the question is not an intimate knowledge of Cata or the GCC so apologies for that but it is a policy person's knowledge of the mobile industry. Let me kick off with a view of what's happening globally in mobile followed by an attempt to relate this to Cata on the GCC. I'll cover the following spectrum shortage, machine to machine, NFC, LTE and device innovation. There are some potential threats to the sunny prospects of mobile which I'll also talk about. I view these developments that I've just mentioned as shaping the industry and between them determining the absolute centrality of mobile devices for 21st century consumers. The style of my talk is a little less evangelical I think than Tommy's but basically underlying it. I totally agree with his view and vision of the importance of mobile. Let me talk about spectrum shortage first of all. This slide shows mobile broadband in Europe is projected to grow at more than 100% over the next few years. Many pundits are coming up with such forecasts covering Asia, the Americas, other parts of the world and for different periods. There is a few roar in the US at the moment that AT&T's wireless growth is not 100% as projected by Cisco but only about 50% but all forecasts and all forecasters share a view that traffic will grow extraordinarily fast and over a long period. If the demand for oil was projected to grow at 50% to 100% per annum for the next 10 years, the alarm in many quarters would be palpable I think it would be fair to say. Spectrum isn't like oil. Use it today and it's still there tomorrow but it is a finite resource. You can't go on doubling its use and assume there will be enough to go around. My second slide perhaps needs a bit more explanation. It shows that in Europe the traditional ways of securing additional capacity will run out of road. So on the left hand side of the chart you've got the additional traffic that's going to be required in Europe. And then you've got three ways in which in the past we've been able to address additional demand. So finding spare capacity for example 800 or 2.6 gigahertz, very relevant in Europe at the moment. New air interface technologies and then network densification. But what the slide is saying is that those things, those things that we've traditionally relied on will not be sufficient to deliver all the additional spectrum that's required. Europe will need an extra 1700 megahertz of spectrum to serve demand in 2020, the column on the left, which is roughly seven times what we have today. So we have a real problem in Europe about spectrum and of course that problem is not something that is confined to Europe. You'll find the FCC making similar analyses in the US and anywhere you go in the world where there is extensive demand for spectrum including in the GCC area, we will run into difficulties. So what can be done? The UK government is doing a sort of tidy up of its spectrum refrigerator. It hopes to persuade government departments that aren't using their spectrum to give it up. But they've tried this before and at some point they will be diminishing returns. Consistent with this my third slide suggests that the time needed to bring new spectrum to market is increasing. This is because it's getting harder and harder to find spare spectrum unused by government or other parts of society. Other routes aside from finding new spectrum are possible. The white spaces debate on the east and west of the Atlantic offers something. Unlicensed spectrum although operating in tiny slivers of the radio frequency is according to some reports capable of creating huge economic value. A more relevant to my point in this context offers a model of coexistence between different categories of user that promises more efficient use of spectrum. There is also the embryonic concept of authorized shared access or ASA. This envisages the underutilized spectrum can be shared using the same cognitive radio technologies that underpin unlicensed use. But unlike unlicensed ASA envisages there is a controlled number of users in the given block of spectrum. Two, three maybe more but always limited. The value of this approach is potentially very significant. 2.3 gigahertz is used in Europe for example for radar which means that it's not intensively used. But equally radar users will not be evicted from the band. ASA means that additional users can coexist with radar users without compromising the quality of the service they provide. And as 2.3 is harmonized for mobile this is valuable. An ecosystem of mobile equipment has developed in Asia that can be exported to Europe. ASA as I said is embryonic. It's been discussed in CEPT and on the other side of the Atlantic has been considered by the FCC. But I believe it will in due course become part of the regulatory toolkit around the world. I would also expect Wi-Fi to help a lot over the next decade. In the 50-50 joint venture between T-Mobile and Orange that is everything everywhere, the company that I'm spending a lot of time with at the moment. Wi-Fi is expected to carry more than 50% of the traffic generated on devices connected to its network within a few months. So what I've done there is mention a whole number of ways of addressing the spectrum shortage that we will be facing in developed economies and in developing economies. But these are all palliatives. In the end demand for spectrum is growing much faster than supply. What does that mean? For one thing being a spectrum owner has got to be good. There is a lot of talk of the commoditisation of the mobile industry. We had the comment yesterday about operators running dumb pipes. But the assumption is that because innovation has shifted somewhat to Google and to Android and to the app community, margins will too. My view is that innovation will come from all sorts of places but a bottleneck is a bottleneck and earning a bottleneck has got to be profitable for the owner. In fixed telecoms the proliferation of fibre means there is no fundamental limit to the capacity of the network. In mobile this is absolutely not the case. We are brushing up against the limit now and while we can squeeze more out of the spectrum, demands will grow much faster. And what's driving demand? A year ago I went to a Qualcomm demo of new technologies. One of the exhibits was an example of how a mobile could become a remote control both via TV and for your life. I think very consistent with many of the remarks made both yesterday and today. Six months later an iPad app named Zbox is indeed a remote control for your TV but also is a social networking device and a recommendation engine. People have talked about convergence for the past three decades and they've often meant convergence between networks. I believe there is a device convergence that is gathering pace which means that mobile enabled devices will perform multiple functions and will accompany us through every step of life. Thank you. And again that's entirely consistent with what Tommy was talking about early on. What will drive this? As I said earlier machine to machine, NFC, LTE, device innovation generally. Machine to machine, MTM will not simply be about static machine to static machine. It will be about static machines interacting with each other and with our mobiles. MTM devices are already transforming remote metering and telemetry. But over the next decade they will also transform the daily commute for people around the world by enabling relevant traffic information. And they will transform the shopping experience too by communicating offers tailored to personal shopping habits. Plus a whole lot of other applications in our houses and businesses. Onto NFC, near field communications, again many of the examples that Tommy was talking about relate to this. The three biggest mobile operators in the UK are collaborating on a project to integrate NFC capability into all their mobile phones. What this means is that our mobile becomes an even more capable device. In due course we won't need office ID cards, loyalty cards as Tommy mentioned, prepaid electronic travel cards like the Oyster card used on the London Underground, credit cards, wallets, even eventually passports. We talked yesterday about the fact that we always have our mobile within reach. At the extreme we'll only need a mobile device, not a whole set of other devices, my point about device convergence. NFC is one form of device innovation but there are others to come of course. Screen technology is one area where we can expect big changes. We think the screens are being hard and flat but they will not need to be in the future. I have no idea what applications bendable, malleable screens will enable but new applications will come. I haven't mentioned LTE or 4G yet. People from outside the industry ask what LTE will do for me and the answer is both nothing and quite a lot. Nothing because LTE is not about new services or applications. A lot in the sense that fibre offers more potential to a consumer than copper. It's all about speed. Subject to the absolute constraints mentioned above. LTE is the route to ultra-fast mobile broadband. I've given some predictions perhaps a little less flamboyantly than Tommy. Let's just pause for a second for a couple of familiar laughs. At the expense of people who should know that predictions always come back and bite you. This is a quote. There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. So said Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation in 1977. The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. That was the Western Union in an internal memo in 1876. 640K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates in 1981. To do him justice he claims he never said that but it's so widely quoted that I'm going to answer. I'm going to take it anyway. The point is here that Ken Olson and Bill Gates, I think I can say with some authority, know what they're talking about and they were still wrong or partly wrong. So what chance do I have? But looking a bit deeper, the points I'm making are not about the potential of specific technologies. Maybe MTN and NFC will both disappoint. This matters not one jot. You can see from the energy, money and technological potential in the mobile industry that it will be a cauldron of innovation for another decade, maybe another two or three decades. You can see it from the contributions yesterday and you can see it from what Tommy was talking about today. In my view there is absolutely no question that mobile and the industries that gather around mobile will be a key driver of innovation for a long time to come. What could stop it? One often quoted possibility is regulatory intervention. In Europe during its first 20 years of existence the mobile industry was pretty free from any real regulatory scrutiny and indeed benefited from favourable mobile termination rates. But it's changed of course. In 2006 the European Commission went to war with the mobile operators on roaming and since then it's got tougher still. Regulation comes in many flavours good and bad but in truth it's what businesses with bottlenecks must expect. For the regulatory purist the European Commission's approach to regulating international roaming prices was not good because the intervention was not envisaged by the European framework. But the bold fact of regulation as long as its efforts are predictable should not alarm the mobile industry or derail its exciting future. Another industry, the mobile industry and society generally must solve is privacy and security. To be more specific the balance between exploiting the potential of the technologies available to us to personalise them so they deliver maximum value and the need to avoid intrusiveness is of paramount importance. Again however while this is tricky it's certainly not something which presents any insuperable barrier to industry development. So where we got to there are already massive demands on spectrum arising from the emergence of mobile broadband the development of smartphones the explosion of new uses and applications for a mobile phone signal. But everything supports the notion even in very tough times for the global economy that the mobile industry will continue to develop and grow in a way that makes mobile both very unusual and very exciting. Innovation, development, growth, profits should all be visible. Threats exist, regulation, concerns about privacy some would say over the top raids on the value chain but if I was advising a son or daughter on which industry to pick the mobile industry broadly defined would surely be close to the top of my list. So what does this mean to Qatar or the GCC? Assuming the government of Qatar shares the view of the opportunity represented by mobile and wishes to make the most of it what can it do? The first thing is to understand that Qatar has numerous advantages but is not blessed by a large domestic market. You may think this is obvious but there has been a debate in the UK for the last 50 years about why our film industry is less successful than Hollywood's. 250 million people in the domestic market in the US versus 60 million in the UK is the answer. A small country needs to think what outcome is realistic and how it can be achieved. Definitions of success for Qatar might be as follows. Mobile businesses having their regional headquarters here. Research and or development facilities based here. A community, I listened very hard to the previous presentation from various lovers but a community of application developers based here. New apps tested and modified here. Mobile innovation being associated with Doha. The emergence of a global business based around mobile in Doha or the region. What ingredients do you need for these types of things to happen? First and foremost, political and economic stability. Qatar is in pretty good shape here. More politically stable in many countries in the world even those whose stability has looked assured over the last decade. Qatar is also obviously blessed with oil revenues and the economic security that comes from this. You also need a settled regulatory environment and regulatory certainty. I'm afraid I cannot pronounce on this issue after such a short time here but the output of my hosts here today bespeaks professionalism, transparency and the combination of strategic and detailed planning evident in its documents indicate that there is a solid foundation. At the moment it's difficult with any authority to suggest that the European Union presents any sort of model worth adopting elsewhere in the world. And even before the crisis of the euro I was instinctively cautious about the ability of the European institutions to produce good solutions for complex industries like telecoms. But the truth is that the European framework the framework that guides regulation in all European member states is a very good piece of legislation which balances the need for consistency, certainty, effective intervention when necessary to secure competitive outcomes and a bias against intervention when competition is established. Although the institutions within Europe with authority over telecoms the national governments, national regulators the European Commission have not yet developed a completely effective way of working together that will come in time and the legislative framework provides a good starting point for the evolution of constructive relationships. I think the example there is very relevant to Qatar and to the GCC. The point is about certainty and the promise of proportionality within a particular country. The European Union or perhaps the GCC establishing principles which are then reflected in national legislation in a way that encourages investment, innovation and competition within the nation state. Next point is subtly different. It's about harmonisation between different countries and some sort of economic union like the EC or the GCC. This in the case of spectrum is particularly important. Let me clarify what I mean. In France and the UK the local loop may look in both instances very uncompetitive and potential investors and competitors to the incumbent Sky in the UK for example and Ilyad in France will want to be sure that the regulator will help to ensure competition is fair but they do not need this help to be delivered in identical form. This form of consistency between France and the UK could be called harmonisation light but there are other instances where harmonisation needs to be more complete. These tend to be in businesses where economies of scale kick in when an entire region is accessible. Satellite is an obvious example but so too is mobile spectrum. This is not some new insight from me. The ITU and its regional subsidiary bodies was of course set up partly to address exactly this issue but my experience in Europe has been that the ITU and CPT which is its European arm if you like do not provide the whole answer. A lead from the commission is important. ASA which I discussed earlier is a case in point for it to make a real economic impact in Europe it needs active leadership from the commission. Equally issues like the freeing up of 800 megahertz previously occupied by terrestrial television needs a push from the commission. The relevance to Qatar is this it may be that the Qatar to ride the boom in mobile that will continue for the next decade or three the GCC and its policies will be crucially important you have to work really well with other countries in the region. So good proportionate regulation at the national and regional level is important therefore but in the end it's a sort of crucial hygiene factor necessary but it's not sufficient. What else does Qatar need? We're all familiar with the media city concept. You have very significant involvement in different parts of this region designed to create a critical mass of media infrastructure such that a self reinforcing virtuous cycle is created leaving it is to be hoped a self sustaining set of flourishing media businesses. In the UK at the moment there is an equivalent attempt to develop a media city in Salford outside Manchester designed to redress the metropolitan bias of media in the UK. I used to be sceptical about attempts of this type but years ago I advised the Singaporean MDA the media development agency on some aspects of its policies and so over the years to watch with interest and admiration how Singapore has turned itself from a bit player overshadowed by Hong Kong's very profitable media businesses into a powerful regional hub combining both creative and commercial success. So in the last part of my speech today I want to explore what might mobile city mean. First off it means that Qatar should develop an infrastructure which is mobile friendly. This implies for example great backhaul and profusion a fantastic mass coverage user spectrum that is harmonised and commonly used for mobile in most parts of the world. If this mobile city notion has any merit there are doubtless other aspects of this which will need to be identified and thought through. Second, Qatar will need to make Doha and its environs attractive to mobile innovators. What might this involve? It was fascinating listening to Kevin yesterday. What I took from his talk was that skills could be provided remotely but a community of enterprise was vital. His example of the entrepreneur in Las Vegas and his own brainstorming sessions in a San Francisco tea house typified that for me. My thoughts prior to his talk yesterday were as follows. Incentives to mobile businesses and businesses that are adjacent to mobile to locate their mobile related research and development facilities in Doha. As the world knows Qatar has achieved a huge amount when it comes to persuading high profile events to come here. Mobile related businesses are a lot less of a challenge than the World Cup. I cite Singapore again which has many global businesses deciding to locate their Asian headquarters in Singapore, global media businesses deciding to locate their headquarters in Singapore. In their case it's not just media. Singapore has attracted serious talent to medical and scientific research in a way that 10 or 20 years ago would have been inconceivable. Third, perhaps established Qatar as the centre for mobile related risk investment are not close enough to the best way to structure private equity or venture capital funds to be too specific about how they should be designed whether for example to establish a new fund or to incentivise existing funds to develop specialisms in mobile. But again this could be looked at. Fourth, it struck me yesterday Qatar might have real strengths in public sector and mobile health applications again listening to the session in this room yesterday afternoon it seemed to me that there were lots of things there where Qatar had had something of a lead or a leading position and building on strength looks like a good way forward. And fifth, outreach. If Qatar is to attract talent innovation we in the rest of the world need to know what is happening here. The MDA in Singapore has had a collaboration with South West Screen a small public agency I chair in the south west of England. In a small way this puts Singapore into the consciousness of media businesses in the UK but this small way has replicated many times over and contributes to Singapore's profile around the world. Finally, if mobile does indeed need merit initiatives of this type it needs a champion this could be a charismatic individual or more likely a charismatic individual backed up by money and an organisation. Perhaps there's a role here for ICT Qatar. So to summarise very briefly the mobile industry of course faces many challenges a constrained basic resource which is spectrum, regulatory threats concerns about privacy competition from OTT companies like Google and Apple but it's got brilliant prospects both for what it promises consumers and for what it promises operators service providers application developers entrepreneurs and the investor community Qatar and the GCC generally can make choices about its development policies which are not open to the financially constrained countries in Europe and the Americas it might be worth taking a serious look at mobile and taking a view on whether it merits an ambitious intervention. Thank you very much.