What are we on the cusp of a major revolution in digital?
Our political leaders have not yet fully aware of the rapid digitalisation of the economy and therefore the importance of digital for economic growth for the sovereignty and security of states. I am also struck by the gap that exists on this point between Europe and the rest of the world. In the United States and China, the government has made every effort to encourage the emergence of industrial technology, telecom operators and powerful giants Net. India in turn has put digital at the center of the project of the new government. If all these countries have this issue at the heart of their public policies, it is without doubt that there is a reason! Europe, by contrast, is completely inaudible on the subject. There is still no digital Europe. And it is no coincidence that the market capitalization of Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon combined exceeds that of all CAC 40 companies ... Among the top ten players of the Net, six are American and none is European.
Why is it so important to invest in new digital networks?
A real "data tsunami" began to wash over the networks. This information circulating and which will not cease to grow in volume are increasingly vital to our economies and our security. Who can still run the risk of a blackout Digital, a giant failure that would make us blind and helpless? In 2020, each consume a terabyte of data per year, or 1,000 times more data than today: communication services, video content, the data exchanged between connected objects ... In addition to everyday objects - lamps or smoke detectors in homes - each will continuously self ten communicating objects. But today's networks were very hierarchically built to carry voice. They have gradually been adapted to transport the data. With the fiber was expanded as the channels. But this is not enough. It is now the same network architecture needs to be reviewed. We'll have to replace them with distributed architectures, much less centralized, for bringing broadband infrastructure closer to end customers. Which implies settle everywhere huge "data centers", with the key to the new security challenges.
What new problems to solve on the security front?
Resilience problems first. It must be all the more able to avoid the failure that the overall economy is going digital, and therefore passes through networks, management of traffic lights in the streets to the sensors in the field of health, for example. But there are still vulnerabilities, as recently shown by the database failures mobile networks, it will in future be decentralized. Arise then cybersecurity issues. We must identify vulnerabilities and watch what equipment should be installed on networks to improve security. The problem is that 50% of the traffic flowing on operator networks is encrypted. It would be illogical to allow the authorities to find out what is going on networks, in an appropriate legal framework, which involves putting in place the tools through which operators can access the information passing through their infrastructures. It is also necessary to have the ability. In the future, there will be no possibility of sovereignty without some control of application and technology layers.
You often say that Europe has to make progress on competition ...
I think we should review thoroughly competition policy at European level and to agree on the definition of relevant market across Europe and even the world. We are the only region in the world to have a completely uncorrelated competition policy of our industrial strategy. It is consumerist and short-termist, and eventually bleed swathes of European industry. And not only in telecoms. And I'm not convinced that in ten or fifteen years that have gone by Europe is so far become more competitive than other regions of the world. We must find the right balance between machine vision and challenges for the consumer. Competition is healthy, but it must be managed.
Is applied in your absurd regulations. Examples?
Take the deletion of "roaming" on a European scale: some argue for Europe to be a single market in which European players offer European services. However, if two players want to merge - there is a hundred operators in Europe - instead of looking at the effects on the European market, we examine the competitive impact of their merger exclusively on the domestic market. Is it really consistent? And assess competition in the digital sector, still does not take into account what happened in the industry for ten or fifteen years, that is to say the emergence of Internet players. We are still in the process of regulating the number portability in some countries. Which is a good thing because it allowed consumers to spend freely from one operator to another. But is that you can switch IoS platform to Android platform? No ... Because once all your content and services on a platform, you no longer have the opportunity to embark on another. A does one adequately considered all these elements to question the way we apply the competition rules?
What to do?
First, remember that competition policy is an industrial strategy service. If you have the lowest prices on the market but do not have the means to invest, you have the greatest difficulty in projecting yourself into the world of tomorrow. Europe must make its businesses more competitive. It should perhaps reconsider the Lisbon Treaty wondering what worked or not and what action should be taken. And go in different countries what works. Then you have to revise the definition of the relevant markets. It has already evolved considerably, with digital, it will completely shatter. Some actors can use their dominant position in a given weaken to come a related activity. I'm not saying it's bad in itself, but would be just as relevant actors have the means to resist ...
How can France take part in this debate?
It may take action in terms of innovation. For example, France's research tax credit: one could Europeanize the device to come and irrigate the whole European industry. I am of course in favor of economic patriotism. This is not a dirty word. I do not see why we scoffed Arnaud Montebourg while all other countries practice one way or another. I am for an ambitious patriotism that enable our industries to develop export, not patriotism that invites withdrawal.
Today, Alcatel-Lucent will remain fragile?
I inherited a company that was in a near-bankruptcy. My initial priority was to restore Alcatel-Lucent, put it back into the game and that's what we did for eighteen months. The Shift transformation plan was implemented to give a future to the group, but above all to build an ambitious industrial project reposition Alcatel-Lucent on future technologies such as IP, cloud, high speed broadband ... It took regain investors want to invest in restoring the company. Alcatel-Lucent also lost the courage to innovate, it took back to the reactor core of our research laboratories, Bell Labs. Replace also honored risk-taking, again emerge startups in the company ... Today, Alcatel-Lucent is back in the race. This is not nothing. But all is not lost. Shift plan is three years and it is only in eighteen months. Already, however, the 2014 results show the extent of transformation.
Do you have the critical mass for the future? We hear regularly speak of a marriage with Nokia ...
There are rumors Nokia for years, I do not comment on rumors. For me, this is not the issue. The subject, it's back to the competitiveness of the group after the Shift plan. In 2014, our revenue was down overall but the technologies of the future, IP, cloud and high-speed broadband access grew annually by 15% per year on average. This means that the reactor core is healthy. After the Shift plan, we have a repositioned business, and the company has regained profitable growth, cash generator.