Fireside Chat mit Vodafone-CEO Dr. Hannes Ametsreiter

I believe it was first and foremost a huge boost for digitalization, and streaming played a role there too. The biggest change for me personally was actually with podcasts. I loved going for a run in the morning and listening to a podcast. You do something for your body and your mind, and I found that a great combination. I still do that. In the morning I usually listen to Gabor Steingart's podcast, and also the Handelsblatt. So those are things where I think if you start the day so well prepared, that's not a bad start.

Not really. I'm not the person who watches a lot of television, partly because I don't have the time, and partly because I prefer to use the opportunity to inform myself with news and information. And Netflix, but I had that before too, so my usage hasn't changed significantly.

No, not at all. They have school until about 4:30 PM, then homework. So there's no time for TV in the afternoon, which is good. What changed for them? During the pandemic, I had the chance to meet the children more often. I'm usually in Düsseldorf from Monday to Thursday and don't see them. At that age, you want to see them grow up. I had the opportunity to make lunch for the kids who were homeschooling, and you get to know your own children better. That was a positive aspect of the pandemic.

A completely changed usage pattern. Previously, you went to the office in the morning and came home in the evening, then at 8 or 9 PM you watched Netflix or linear TV. Suddenly, usage was completely different: at 9 AM the internet was already in use and it continued until 7 PM. That was a completely different usage. By that I mean home office, so the internet broadband connection and WLAN were used heavily because everyone was sitting in front of screens. This led to a new sensitivity for quality. Every little glitch was noticed. So it was a completely changed usage, plus 125% in uplink (uplink is for conferences, downlink is for Netflix). That was a massive shift in usage and user behavior. People used more WLAN, i.e., fixed-line volume, than mobile. The increase in data volume on mobile was maybe 5%, while the increase in uplink was 200% and downlink 30%. So it was very one-sided. People were at home in home office using the internet. We also saw that many SMS were sent, but not extraordinarily more. It was an indication that communication was triggered more. Both telephony and SMS increased. Average call duration on mobile went from 2 minutes 50 seconds to 3 minutes 20 seconds, longer calls, which I find charming. But that's now normalizing again.

Yes, there were more complaints because the usage is different. When I stream Netflix or use the media libraries or browse the internet, I have a buffer. So if there's a small outage, I don't notice it. But in video conference mode, you notice it immediately. So it's different, and people naturally reacted. I understand that if you're in home office, everything has to work.

There was once the song 'Video Killed the Radio Star' but that never happened. Similarly, we see that every new media category or genre comes along and shifts things. Currently, streaming has dynamic growth, much more dynamic than other areas, but linear TV still has a very large importance. And I believe the desire for truly competent, good journalistic quality news is huge. Why? Because there are more and more challenges, like the pandemic or a flood disaster, where I want competent journalists to report and give an objective picture. I don't want to rely on social media, which sometimes takes a peculiar stance. So I believe really good journalism, good content, that quality we always seek and will always have.

Yes, I see it positively. I always find it exciting who makes the best offering. Having more competition is good. It's not always the big established players that create the best solution. Competition is always good. In this case, if news is well made and stands out, I think it's a good development. And if you have more opportunities to compare, that's also good. I love competition in all areas, including news.

We cooperate with almost all broadcasters. We have 70 media libraries, the selection for the customer is huge. There are 23,000 content titles available. The selection is large, both in linear TV and video on demand. We just launched RTL+ together with RTL, which is a video on demand option with two series you can watch. We have cooperations with everyone: Sky, RTL, ARD, ZDF, the public broadcasters, as well as Netflix and Amazon Prime. We also launched a premium offering on the new set-top box. So the dynamics are gigantic, and we expect even more in the future.

That's not true. We are not going into the content area; we don't want to produce content. What we do is make agreements with manufacturers who produce content. RTL is one player, ProSieben another, Sky another. We are in talks with all of them and have almost all in our portfolio.

Yes, there are various companies that work on how to package advertising. We have cooperations there too. We are very open to forming cooperations in all directions if it provides added value for the customer. We support diversity and many partners, and we don't lock in any content. I always think when content is locked in, it discriminates against others. So we have a very open model.

We have the possibility, which we don't yet use, to do that with video on demand. There are some possibilities to insert ads, but it's not happening yet. It could happen at some point. Dynamic aggregation of TV advertising will certainly come in the future. There will be cooperation partners, and some won't participate. Better targeting is a topic that will come because it's important to know who you're addressing with these messages, strictly within a regulated framework.

Hard to say. I think it's limited by the money people have to pay. If you calculate 10 euros plus, maybe a bit more, it will probably stop at 5. I assume. Some people might have more, but that's already over 50 euros per month you'd have to pay regularly, plus the connection. So I don't see many people wanting to afford that. So it's limited by that, and also by attention economy. I only have one pair of eyes to focus on certain content, and my time is limited. How many subscriptions are there in the Ametsreiter household? We have 3, I think. So I'm still within that limit of 5.

We have activities and promotions where we bundle TVs with the connection. But we don't plan to produce our own TV. That's too much hardware for us. We prefer to stay in the software area. The hardware risk is too big if you don't know it.

There are many players who want to be gatekeepers. What we haven't mentioned are the various American players: Apple TV, Google with its products, Amazon with Alexa. It's a race for who has the interface to the customer. It could be a voice portal, a visual control, a button on the remote. Ultimately, it's the gateway to the customer. The more data is aggregated, the stronger the position. This is an ongoing race with many players positioning themselves. Power positions will emerge differently. We believe that the traditional TV providers are well positioned, but the top scorers like Google and Amazon started in other areas and then moved into content and portals. This race for advertising in the next ten years will be one of the most exciting because there's a lot to distribute. Who is best positioned will have a good chance to make a good business. We have about 13 million customers, making us the largest TV provider in Europe. We have cable connections in households and living rooms, plus mobile customers. So we have a good position. But we have decided not to develop our own portals. Others in the telecom sector do it, but we don't have the expertise and resources like Amazon or Google.

Both will happen. There will still be family events, but probably less, because everyone uses their own portal, be it an iPad, PC, or phone. It won't be classic television anymore, but video entertainment that is increasingly fed by a recommendation engine, more tailored, and available on all platforms: the big TV at home, the small tablet, or even in the car. When I drive, I have time, I can read, sleep, do home office, or have a rolling living room watching Netflix. These possibilities are being worked on.

We will experience the cable infrastructure merging with IT infrastructure broadband. It will become more fiber optic, and the old TV cable will unify. So we want to be there with the broadband internet connection, the cable connection, or the mobile connection. We want to play a role in all areas where video can be used, and a trustworthy role.

It will continue to work well over 4G. 5G is simply the next mobile generation, characterized by higher speeds up to 10 gigabits and very low latency. The reason is the so-called 'super core' with large data centers built nationwide, connected to mobile stations, giving very low latency. Private users don't necessarily need that. But for industry, it's a next generation of mobile communications that will be very important for the Internet of Things, one of the biggest revolutions. It has to do with television? Not necessarily, but it will happen. If our industry doesn't align with the future, it won't survive. Connectivity will enable new production, and 5G will be needed. Media will also benefit by producing differently. For example, with Sky we built a model for live football transmission. Today we know the huge transmission van with a satellite dish; that's no longer needed. We can transmit directly from the cameraman at the edge of the field. That's a huge change. Today you have to rent satellite bandwidth, which is very expensive. That's no longer necessary. So production could be 90% cheaper and faster. If you can produce 80 or 90% cheaper, you'll probably do it.

I use all possibilities. I use social media as well as public broadcasters, and I really still like to read newspapers, especially on weekends in print, and during the week online on my phone. That's my information source. I think you have to be well-read and use various sources to assess objectivity and truth. I spend time on that. I read at least five newspapers every day. I choose what I read, not an algorithm. Though I have my own algorithm, it's my decision.

I find it concerning. Social media is not going away; it will grow even stronger. What I criticize is when an algorithm amplifies what polarizes. Polarizing content naturally stimulates discussion, and it's often driven by anger. If that is overemphasized, I don't think it's good for society. I would like a certain equidistance, as is found in public broadcasters with their programming mandate. Can you explain what you mean exactly? Not overemphasizing. If hate speech is overemphasized, which is the case in social media, because more reach equals more money, that's the logic. The question is whether that is socially and politically desirable. If we say it shouldn't be overemphasized but have normal reach like other information, then we have an approach that could work well. That would be an equidistance approach.

Clearly a media company. They live from advertising, and advertising needs reach, which they create with the most powerful portals in the world: Facebook, Instagram. So it's a media company. But then they would also be responsible for all content on their networks. Is Facebook regulated? No. So it's a topic. We are regulated, Facebook is not. You need equal opportunities. These opportunities should apply to all, not some heavily regulated and others allowed to do everything. That's a challenge in media regulation and political development. We've seen many concerning situations, and we analyze them intensively. There is more political activity on social media than some might suspect. You have to be aware that things happen.

Others have to decide that. I think if we no longer had overemphasis on aggressive content, that would serve us all well. Can it be addressed? Yes. Is it easy? No, otherwise it would have happened already. If we could agree on disclosing the algorithms, that would be nice, but what do you do with it? I think if we set it up so that it doesn't overvalue the reach of something, we would have a good approach. That's something we can aim for. The company is not responsible for that, but I point it out in the societal discourse.

That's not true. You pay a fixed amount for your broadband internet at home, and that's it. If you use more, that's fine. For mobile, there are many unlimited tariffs or tariffs with huge gigabytes. So you're right, in some cases in the fixed-line area, it doesn't apply at all. For mobile, it's different.

We all have responsibility. We have made clear statements. For example, we said we don't want to place advertising in an environment where hate speech occurs. That's something we don't want, and we instruct our media agencies accordingly. We don't want to profit from hate and anger. How can you control that? By telling the media agency we don't want that. We advertise on Facebook, but not in such environments. It's not always easy, but a modern company in competition cannot operate without social media. It's an important part of advertising and customer communication.

No, because I'm a strong advocate of personal responsibility. I think you have to educate early and create sensitivity. We do that with our foundation, trying to show perspectives to young students and simply create sensitivity. We do a lot in the digital education area. But the decision is ultimately made by the individual whether to use that knowledge or not.

I think there is a lot to do. It's always a mix of applications. You can ask why you can't book a doctor's appointment like you book a table at OpenTable. That's never been addressed. Simple things like digital booking systems. Why can't you order a driver's license, passport, or ID card via your phone? These are opportunities to introduce a SAP-like administration for all these everyday needs. Then there's digital coverage. If the revenue from the last 5G auction (6.6 billion) had been used to build mobile stations, there would be no white spots. I said it then, and I say it again: someday someone has to listen. So far, no one has listened. That is frustrating. The industry suffers because 20 years ago, over 50 billion was taken from the industry. No one wants to hear that, but it's true. We always have a new chance, but it took a while. The money is gone, and there are no new licenses to buy. So what should be the first thing? What would you recommend as an immediate program? I think we should be very open to cooperations. That's already happening with white spots and gray spots; we cooperate with other mobile operators. But it took a long time. It was reviewed, stopped, reviewed by the cartel office, now approved, and we're doing it. But there are still situations like coverage along railway lines. Why can't we build within 4 kilometers of the tracks? There are regulations. We can't switch off the 900 MHz band because it could interfere with train radio GSM-R. These are things being worked on. It will come next year, but there are many individual points. I think it makes sense to explain them and implement them quickly. Where is the fault of the mobile companies? They built where there are many customers. That's understandable because that's where the most revenue is. In the countryside, there are fewer customers, so they invested less initially. What do they need to do? I think we need a round table. Others do that too. And one thing to know: money is only available once. Either you pay for frequencies, then the license money goes to the state, or you pay for infrastructure. If we think we should put more money into the network, it's very simple to do that.

I think yes. Why? We've tried without one so far, and it's been a bit sluggish. So let's try differently with a person who is really responsible, a Chief Digital Officer or minister for Germany. I think that would be enriching and a new chance. It's about new opportunities, new beginnings, new approaches. That would be one possibility.