There's a thoroughly uncomfortable question nobody in the telecom business wants to touch. Most people have heard the analogy that communications networks are fundamental underpinnings to future economic success, much as roads, railways or airline routes might be.
Most people are at least casually familiar with the plight of the newspaper business, which seemingly has yet to find a way to remain financially viable in a market that offers many substitutes.
Now there are the first projections that the advertising business, which except for normal economic fluctuations has grown for 30 years or more, might now face a future where brand spending actually decreases over time, in a structural, not secular shift.
So the uncomfortable question is whether the telecom business is in fact becoming a sort of infrastructure, like roads. And what I mean by that is that the business model for roads is largely indirect. True, there are some toll roads, but most roads, though an input to other revenue-generating enterprises, do not make money: they lose it.
So the "roads" or infrastructure analogy should be troublesome in the extreme. It at least implies an industry that has the profit sucked out of it, that is foundational and important, but not profitable in the way it has been.
At some point, should that continue, the industry as we now know it could not continue to exist. There would be a need for big pipes to virtually all locations. We need roads. But all the other economic activity would then be created by industries that support people driving cars.
This is something here more than the fear of being reduced to "dumb pipe" providers. Many businesses operate as low-margin "commodity" affairs, especially when they have large scale.
The newspaper analogy is more unnerving. That analogy suggests that communication networks could become something more akin to "roads," where there actually is no viable business model, and the infrastructure is a societal "cost" borne by taxpayers.
Perhaps you think governments globally have enough extra headroom to increase taxes to do such a thing. If there is no viable business model, that will be your only choice.
Being an optimist, I suspect the analogy is imperfect. I think executives will show enough creativity to avoid the worst case, and that regulators will be prudent.
What seems less debatable is the risk that if enough profit is drained out of the telecom business, even a robust "pipes" business might be tough to sustain.
That's an insight regulators in many countries have learned they must grapple with. Let us hope sane heads will prevail