Liberty Global Ltd. (LBTYA) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. I think we're going to kick off just in the interest of time. So thanks, everyone, for joining day 2 or the second half of our Digital Infrastructure Conference. For those that didn't join yesterday and just as a reminder, what we're trying to do here is kind of unpick the value that we see in digital infrastructure across our space that we think that's really being missed by public markets and seeing a lot of interest from private investors. And so we're going through a series of conversations talking to the private investors themselves and talking to the people that actually run the business. And so we're starting off today with Andrea Salvato, from Liberty Global. The -- your job title, as we discussed, doesn't fully unpick everything that you did at Liberty Global. So officially Chief -- SVP and Chief Development Officer, but Andrea runs the M&A at Liberty Global. He's also in charge of Liberty's ventures business, which we're going to talk through a little bit as well and is very well positioned, I think, to explain to us and talk through with us how they're thinking about networks as well. So Andrea, thanks very much for joining us.

My pleasure, Andrew. Good morning, everyone, and good morning to those of you who are dialing in virtually.

So I think the key debate as pertains Liberty is cable and public investors and private investors' understanding of the quality and sustainability of free cash flow and free cash flow growth in the cable business. We spoke with Vodafone yesterday that talked to that. But I wanted to talk through with you, Andrea, about how you think about the quality and the outlook of your cable business particularly as to whether you should be switching to a fiber-to-the-home strategy or continuing to upgrade your existing cable network. And so maybe I'm going to start off with think about the cable upgrade cycle towards DOCSIS 4.0 that's seemingly broadly within your CapEx envelope. It's hard for us to fully tell. And it gets fiber most of the way to the home anyway. So is that a fair understanding of what your outlook looks like if you don't upgrade to fiber sooner?

Well, I think for those of us who -- for those of you who follow us, I think the strategy is pretty clear in the major markets that we're in. And so I think we go through them one by one, and then I'll jump into addressing the question directly. In the U.K., I think clearly, we have a DOCSIS network, which has been upgraded to being able to provide 1 gig. I'm pretty sure it's 1 gig everywhere now. I'm looking at Michael, who's going to keep me honest here. So we're able to provide 1 gig download speeds in the U.K. using 3.1. Clearly, I think Telenet has just done a very successful trial using the technology that would allow a 10-gig download speed. So that's the DOCSIS 4.0 evolution, which you referenced, and that's an evolution over multiple years. But broadly across our networks, by the end of this year, we will be able to offer 1 gig to every home that the network passes, which, as you can imagine, depending upon the different levels of fiber penetration, is by far the fastest next-gen broadband network in all the major markets. It's a nuanced debate because there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. And I know you had the Vodafone team in yesterday, so they would have talked to you about DOCSIS 4.0 in Germany. In the U.K., for example, as you've seen, we've been very public. We're switching to gradually replacing the -- or building alongside the cable network of fiber network simply because the cost of doing that in the U.K. is advantageous. So when you look at the economics of doing that, and there's also -- there are other reasons to do it. There's potentially wholesale revenue that you could attract down the road, et cetera, et cetera. So U.K., Ireland, very clear fiber strategy is really dependent upon the cost of upgrading the network, the cost of upgrading to fiber versus DOCSIS, what the wholesale opportunity is. So there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Switzerland, I think, we're very comfortable with the hybrid strategy that we have. So what you'll see us do in Switzerland is continue to use and develop the cable network, the DOCSIS network, but also to use fiber. We have arrangements -- agreements in place with Swisscom to use some of their fiber. And so there'll be a sort of -- there'll be a multiple layer strategy there. In Belgium, as you know, we've announced that we have a nonbinding transaction potentially with Fluvius to look at upgrading that network, so in the process of working through that potential transaction as we speak. And I think in Holland, the strategy today, and it's one that we're continuing -- continue to review, is to simply invest in the network -- in the cable network; drive capacity, stability, customer service, which is really, frankly, what people want. They don't care whether they get it through fiber or they get it through DOCSIS. They just want a network that works, that is stable, that provides the speeds they need. And that is the strategy. And we're looking out -- for example, we've been very aggressive in rolling out smart Wi-Fi, which is another key weakness in most people's domestic networks. Their Wi-Fi networks tend to be -- tend not to be able to handle the very fast bandwidth that's coming into the basement. So yes, I would say there is no one size fits all. I think we're in -- the cable network is in a great space for the foreseeable future. And how we migrate that technology and improve the technology to handle faster speeds is going to vary market by market.

Okay. It'd be great to touch on your experiences and trials on the U.K. side of things, and you made a clear statement about where you're going in terms of fiber there. Just in terms of other markets, so justification for the U.K. is because you've got cheap adapting and...

It's adapting, but we have access.

Access that makes the rollout cheaper. And that's a market where it clearly makes sense for you to roll out fiber. Maybe could you give us the opposite where a market that it doesn't necessitate rolling out fiber or just give us some other...

Well, Switzerland is a good example where the cost of rolling out the network in Switzerland is expensive. So the economic debate there is much more balanced. So I think it really comes down to, can you attract additional revenue, B2B, consumer and what's the cost of upgrading it? Because there is a strategy to upgrading the cable network that will deliver 10 gig download speeds over the next several years. So you're just balancing off the desire to put fiber in the ground versus the desire to continue upgrading what you have.

And are there any other kind of characteristics we should be thinking about? So obviously, compelling economics in terms of rollout cost is one thing. Is there anything else we should be thinking about that would incentivize you to roll out fiber in the market over and above it, just being...

Just the revenue opportunity -- other additional revenue opportunities. Is there -- are there pools of wholesale traffic? Or how big is the B2B revenue opportunity that you might be able to be easier to exploit on fiber than it would be on cable? Although to be honest with you, in Belgium, Orange, which is the France Telecom and MNO mobile operator, has been actually has been wholesaling our cable plant very successfully for a number of years now. So it's not as if you need fiber in order to attract wholesale partners, but in many markets, it's easier. So those are the considerations.

We've heard from fiber builders in the U.K. yesterday and also across parts of Europe and in terms of their experiences of rolling out fiber, you're going through the trials process right now in the U.K. Could you give us any kind of update on how that's going and what you think the outlook is for the pace or capabilities of rollouts?

Yes. I think there's two projects in the U.K., and they're quite distinct. The project that we're calling Mustang, our internal project name, is essentially upgrading our existing cable network to fiber. And that's a multiyear several year project. I'm not sure what we've disclosed publicly on that. But I think we feel very, very comfortable with the -- we've done trials this year. We're in the process of beginning to roll that machine out. And I think we continue to remain very comfortable with the medium-term targets that we've set in terms of the cost of doing that upgrade. The second project is something that we've also disclosed is that we are in discussions with a small number of infrastructure investors to help us turbocharge what we call Lightning. So for those of you who don't know us, Lightning was our off-footprint expansion strategy. So historically, we have built between 300,000 and 500,000 homes a year, new homes. So this is actually expanding the network. So since we acquired the business, I think we've added about 2.8 million homes through this Lightning project, and we would obviously like to -- we're looking to see if there's a way to turbocharge that project and potentially partner up with infrastructure investors to actually aggressively roll -- more aggressively roll out the network expansion. So those are the two projects. I would say -- and on that, it's obviously too early to say, but we're in active discussions as we speak.

And just to clarify, so those turbocharging partners, they're financial rather than strategic. Is there any strategic element to that? Or is it pure financial?

Financial investments, yes.

Maybe we could talk about the ability to turbocharge the rollout. So we've heard about supply chain issues across a number of industries that may constrain your ability to -- one's ability to roll out fiber. Can you talk to that? And also in terms of labor force, so how much of the platform is there to actually ramp up?

So I think, as I'm sure you've heard from everybody who spoke yesterday, it's not easy, right? Rolling -- building in any country, never mind the U.K., is not a straightforward exercise. We've been doing it for a long time. We've been doing it for several years. As I said, we've done 2.8 million. We're hoping to hit 500,000 homes plus this year. So the machine is in place. And so the question for us is not -- we're not starting from scratch. We're actually just taking that machine and expanding it to potentially do much more. So I'd say we start off with that embedded advantage of several years of experience and a very experienced team, strong relationships across the -- with the contractors -- the main contractors in the U.K. So I think we feel very comfortable with our ability to scale that. And obviously, as you can imagine, we're in discussions with those contractors today about how we go about doing that. Of course, we are not immune to the pressures that everyone is under from a labor shortage perspective or from a cost inflation perspective. I think what I would say is that we still feel very comfortable with the targets that we've communicated in terms of the cost per home, the cost of building this network per home. And what we're seeing is that actually every year that goes by -- and the delta fiber team, I think, are in the room, they'll probably be able to confirm this. But every year that goes by, we just get better at doing it. So PIA, for example, has been quite deflationary. So the ability to use British Telecom stocks has been quite deflationary. And we've meaningfully scaled up. If you look at the proportion of homes that are being connected through the existing DOCS system versus where we have to build new DOCS, obviously, connecting it through an existing DOC is much cheaper. That proportion has gone up materially over time. So that's a pretty deflationary impact on the cost base. But we're just getting smarter. We're using digital planning tools, et cetera, et cetera. So every year that goes by, we get smart about doing it. And that -- driving those efficiencies through the system is helping to compensate for the sort of supply side pressure that we see. So I think we continue to remain, as it stands today, very confident in our ability to hit the numbers that we've talked about.

It may be hard for you to comment on this, but obviously one of the things that we see is if you add up all the plans of all the fiber builders in the U.K., you get quite a lot of homes, probably more homes that actually exist in the U.K. How much is your platform that you already have, the scale you have, the labor contracts and relationships you have put you ahead versus your peers? Or how challenged do you think some of those players are if you think about the number...

I'm sure if they're in the room or if they're listening, I'm sure they'll have their own perspective on that comment. Look, I would say that we feel pretty good about where we are. We've -- as I said, we've been doing this for many years now. When we started, it was tough, and we had a couple of hiccups. It's not easy as I'm sure a lot of the fiber builders in the U.K. are finding. And so I think, look, I can't comment on how they're all doing individually. I would say we think we are -- we have 15.8 million homes plus or minus today connected. I assume that those will all be -- majority of those will be fiber connections within a several year period. And then if you add another 5 million to 7 million homes that we're hoping to build through this turbocharged project I just talked about, you're looking at a network of 20 million to 22 million homes. That's an attractive scale network that drives very significant efficiencies for us is hopefully going to help us continue to drive revenue monetization on it. So I think, look, from a scale perspective and from an experience perspective, I think we feel pretty -- we feel very good about where we are. Obviously, I'll let the other fiber builders comment on how they're finding it.

Yes. Okay. And then just last question before we move on to the kind of this value gap. There's a perception of the quality and there's a perception of the actual value of assets across the digital infrastructure ecosystem. But in terms of the sustainability of cable to service customers across Europe, obviously, if you can move to fiber, that's just fast tracking the fiber provision across the network anyway. But how do you -- would you give investors confidence that a cable network is sufficient to enable you to compete against fiber-based incumbents in other markets outside of the U.K.? Is it enough to be able to offer a faster speed than customers need when it's not actually true fiber to the home at that point, the marketing debate versus the ability to provision and service customers debate?

So there's a couple of questions there, I'll try and answer them both. I mean in terms of how comfortable do we feel -- do I feel about the quality and the sustainability of our cable network, I think it is a fantastic asset that we have. And it has been a fantastic asset for decades as we have driven broadband speeds. And frankly, we've actually unleashed and triggered a lot of this fiber investments going in, right? That's a direct result to the investments that we put into our network because people just trying to keep up with our speeds. Do I think that cable is going to be a dying technology in 2 years' time? Absolutely not. I mean if you think about what customers want, they want to come home, they want to switch on their TV, stream Netflix onto it, stay with the stability they want their children to be able to stream on to whatever their children or whatever device their children are watching on it. That means a solid connection into the home. It needs a stable network that has the capacity to be able to do that. And it needs a good Wi-Fi. And we -- our network does both of those as we saw over the last couple of years. So there is no fire that we're trying to put out by upgrading to fiber. It is literally just a -- we've been investing in these networks for tens of years. I mean if you look at the amount, if you look at the way this network has been developed for the last 30 years, it's just night and day from what it was 20 years ago. And fiber is just a logical continuation of that. And there's a couple of different parts that we've talked about. You can get on the DOCSIS 4.0 part or you can get on the fiber part. But actually, what people don't realize is that a cable network, especially the ones -- the advanced ones that we are now operating is substantially a fiber network anyway. I don't have my CTO here, but he would tell you that a large chunk of it is fiber. It's just the last little connection points that are still the hybrid fiber coax. So I know there's a lot of concern amongst investors and a lot of concern amongst the sell-side community about how robust is this network. What I would say to you is the following, we just sold our Polish business for 9x EBITDA. So to a very small investor who is not renowned for overpaying for assets, Xavier Niel, so he thought and he thought then that there was a lot of value in that network that he bought. So I'm telling you from a technology perspective, there's value there. Our customers value it. And when we -- when people buy and sell these assets, they're still being done at premium multiples to where we're currently trading.

Okay. I'm actually going to come back to that valuation point and then maybe -- just because there's a logical follow-on to our questions about the quality of the cable network in terms of your ability to monetize it and the regulatory backdrop. You mentioned that the PIA in the U.K. and the access to ducts and poles has been deflationary. What we've seen across Europe, we think, is regulators easing up in terms of their -- the pricing freedom they offer incumbents to wholesale their fiber network. Obviously, the incumbents are catching up in quality versus cable, but also they're raising prices and potentially creating an inflationary environment. So I wonder about your thinking about your ability to monetize your network through raising prices going forward.

Look, I think it's obviously, once again, there is no one size fits all strategy. So it varies market by market. But I think -- and I think we have been public about this, Michael, I think you'll see that in all the markets we've operated in, we've put through price rises with the exception of Switzerland, I think, which, as you know, is a very low inflationary environment country. The prices don't move very much in Switzerland at all. So we're part of that ecosystem. So we obviously have to maintain a competitive advantage. But in the other markets, such as the U.K., there is actually inflation linked in virtually everyone's customer contracts. So yes, I would say we are obviously putting prices through. Clearly, we're not immune to the cost of living issues that people are facing. So we have to -- we're having to be very thoughtful about how we do it. I would say that we're very focused on landing the price rises that we put through this -- touch with those that are going well. So Look, I think, yes, we are able to pass through. I would also say, as we go into, I think, what is going to probably be a little bit more of a rocky macro period across the world, the broadband business and the pay TV business has historically done quite well, relatively well in periods like this. It's obviously become a very, very important utility in people's lives. And so we have historically done relatively well in these sorts of periods. So look, do I hope we get through this rocky macro period quickly? Of course, I do. Am I worried that our business is going to fall over? Absolutely not. I think we're in a great space to navigate through some very choppy waters.

Yes. If we look past that and hopefully cancel, people are struggling to do at the moment in the public equity markets, but -- and think about your ability to continue to monetize the network. So the regulator does seem to have given in the U.K., close to a decade of visibility on what BT can do and inflation-linked pricing in its wholesale base. And it seems like we're in a more inflationary fixed broadband backdrop than we have been certainly over the last couple of decades where you've been able to take share and grow. But if we look at over the next decade or so, do you think there's scope to raise pricing to grow is greater than we've seen in the past? And how confident are you that, that won't just be taken away once fiber is rolled out and the regulator gets what they want?

It's a good question. And clearly, the regulatory framework in which we operate is a core, core part of the business and managing that properly is. I think I would say that in Europe, I think regulators, it's a broad sweeping statement. But as you've picked up a couple of examples I think are recognizing that these are very significant investments that are being made, and it's not just in on the network, the fixed network side, it's also on the mobile side with 5G. So I think they recognize that there are very significant investments being made. And I think they recognize that they need -- that the operators that are making those investments need to earn a return in order to be able to continue making those investments. So I am -- I suppose I am quietly optimistic that, that tide has slightly changed. And I think we're also seeing it in the mood music around consolidation. In terms of -- I think there's a growing sense amongst the regulatory teams across Europe and certainly in Brussels that actually consolidation is not necessarily a bad thing for consumers when it happens. So look, I think it's -- again, it's case specific, as you mentioned. But I would say the signs are that I think regulators understand that people like ourselves will be investing very significantly in infrastructure need to be able to earn a return on that capital. I would also say that I think from the benefit of the larger well-capitalized operators such as ourselves and the incumbents, I think the -- I think one of the byproducts of the period we're about to enter into is I think the era of cheap money has come to an end. So my suspicion is that these business plans that have been funded, you made the point that if you add up all the business plans that have been funded in the U.K., you get a multiple of the number of homes that actually exist in the U.K. My suspicion is those business plans will find it more difficult to raise funding going forward. So that's an indirect way of us also being able to monetize the existing networks that we have.

Yes. Okay. So we talked quite a lot through your ability to monetize your network in terms of free cash flow. And I think a great example of the Poland multiple, just in terms of thinking about the valuation of your assets. So I wonder if we could start to talk about that a bit more now. Lots of private and public exit investors in the room, but with different views on the valuations of some of these names. So could you talk about your perceived gap between public and private valuations, maybe to start? And then maybe we can think about how to unpick that and crystallize value.

It's a big question. And I obviously can't get into specific details, but I think I'd make a couple of observations. One is I think we have a -- Liberty has a history. I'll speak just for Liberty on this. We have a history of being, I think, very pragmatic and very disciplined about unlocking that value gap or realizing that value. And I think if you look at the last few years of our track record, I think you'll see that we have -- every time that we have transacted, whether it's a sale or it's a merger, we have driven, we have realized prices that well exceed where the current stock is traded. So clearly, there are specific factors in every situation that drive that. But as a whole, as you look at the last 6 or 7 transactions that we've done or 6 or 7 businesses that we sold, you'll see that pretty substantial gap. Secondly, we're putting our money where our mouth is, right? So I think we are buying back -- we have bought back an enormous amount of stock. And clearly, we wouldn't be doing that if we didn't think we wouldn't be doing it as aggressive as we are if we didn't think that it was a compelling investment opportunity. And we are very -- this is the business that I run, but we are very disciplined. We look at the returns that we get from that investment in our own share price. We look at the returns that we could get from any given M&A opportunity. And we're very, very disciplined about making sure that we compare those. So we'll continue to buy back stock aggressively. We continue to think that our stock is materially undervalued.

Do you think the gap between public and private has got bigger over the last few years? Or it's just always been the...

It's a good question. I haven't -- Andrew, I haven't looked at it. It's always been material. I can't say whether it's actually widened or not. It doesn't seem to have shrunk, at least not as far as I can tell.

Yes. So you mentioned ways that you can try and crystallize that value or take advantage of it. So buyback is clearly something you've been doing a decent amount of. What about other means if, for example, IPO-ing assets or some kind of worth selling the assets to public or private investors to crystallize...

Yes. Look, I think that's a -- it's an interesting concept, and it's one that I think we get asked a lot by investors. I would say, from our perspective, local listings can help provide some of the partnerships we're in. For example, in the U.K., you could see potentially a local listing being away for 1 of the 2 partners to potentially get some liquidity, and those situations are expressly catered for in a shareholder agreement. But I would say when you think about that, there's also from a Liberty Global perspective, additional complexity that gets put into a Liberty Global shareholder, if you've got minorities that are sitting in the operating companies. And there's obviously -- you reduce a bit of flexibility in terms of your ability to have what the intercompany arrangements are in place because you've obviously got minorities and you have to protect against value leakage for them and so and so forth. So whilst, yes, theoretically, you might be able to realize a premium from a sort of trading multiple perspective, it doesn't come -- it comes with some costs and some reduction in flexibility. So we have to weigh those out -- weigh those up. And look, I think in terms of realizing the value, closing the value gap, I would say, strategy A is buy the stock back. Just shrink the amount of shares that are in circulation. The free cash flow is going to grow. And we're in a somewhat unique situation, as I'm sure many of you appreciate because we've literally just concluded 2 big FMCs or fixed mobile convergence transactions, one in Switzerland and one in the U.K. And we have billions of dollars of unrealized synergies that we'll be feeding through into our results. So that's a very, very strong tailwind that we have. We've had a very good track record. The industry has had a very good track record of executing on those synergies. So I think we feel very comfortable with those targets. So that's a big tailwind for us that's going to drive -- I think that's really going to be -- drive the next 2 or 3 years of free cash flow growth. So the strategy A to close this gap is to continue to buy back the stock and shrink the equity base. And then, obviously, we'll continue to be disciplined as you expect us to be, right? If there's interesting opportunities for us to think about how we do that, we will obviously look at those.

Yes. And just maybe finally, there's a complexity discount that markets the placing on stocks at the moment. You're obviously a multi-region player. Do you think it still makes sense to be a fully publicly listed asset? Is that the best way to maximize value of your businesses? Or is a spin-out or simplification a worthy target in the longer term?

That's another broad question, Andrew. Yes, look, I would say that we're very comfortable with the current structure of the group. And I think it is providing us with an opportunity as a share -- with the shares where they're trading to be able to retire stock very cheaply, which is very value accretive for those shareholders that stay invested.

Yes. Okay. So just maybe moving on to a couple more specific questions, then we'll go on to ventures. So just on the wholesale side, you've expressed a potential interest to wholesale, your fiber network in the U.K. How has your thinking shifted to maybe allowing for wholesale revenues in the future on your fixed line networks?

I think the way to think about this is that when you have a network, which is clearly superior to everybody else's and it's driving very significant outperformance from a market share perspective, then that -- opening that network up to other people is -- when you invest so much in it, is a delicate -- is a balanced discussion, right? As and when you start to get network parity with more and more fiber we put in the ground, then obviously a wholesale customer represents just an additional revenue source. So I would say that our thinking on wholesale hasn't evolved. It's always been a question of when does it make sense to start looking at that as an attractive additional revenue opportunity when it's not going to cannibalize your -- the market share you're getting on your core consumer business.

I'm guessing that differs market by market again.

Yes.

Maybe if we can move on to another switch up that's happened at Liberty then, which you alluded to earlier, which was fixed mobile convergence. That's another move into scale mobile assets that you've done relatively recently. What changed to drive that strategic decision?

I think it's a good question. I'd say there was a couple of factors. One is you can realize very significant operating efficiencies from running both a mobile and a fixed network. And when you put together a mobile network with a fixed network, especially in most of the markets where we did this, we already had existing mobile businesses. We were just renting someone else's network. So obviously, once you own your own network, you can stop paying rent to somebody else. And that's a very significant cost saving. So there are very strong strategic -- strong cost benefits from putting these businesses together. Secondly, I think what I think everyone will recognize is that having national scale is important. These businesses are big. They require a lot of investment. They're rapidly innovating. And so having national scale to be relevant to regulators, to be relevant with customers, to be able to invest in marketing, to able to invest in new products was important. And obviously, the mobile businesses are big scale players in all these. And the third thing is that what we see is that when you offer -- when you're able to have the entire homes, telecoms needs, mobile fixed in one package, we see very significant benefits from a customer perspective in terms of reduction of churn. And obviously, churn is expensive in our industry. When a customer leaves you, you've got to reacquire a new one, you've got to put new boxes into the homes, et cetera, et cetera. So reduction in churn is very valuable to us, and it's something we're very focused on, as you can imagine. And so when you can achieve that by bundling these products together, then obviously, that's a significant benefit. So I'd say it was those three driving factors.

Okay. And then within that, there's obviously investment that's required constantly. So how are you thinking about the 5G upgrades and the justification for 5G upgrades in terms of usage cases and...

Look, I think that's -- I think any operator stands up here and says that they've cracked the code for 5G would be misleading you. Look, I think it's an evolving area. We certainly see use cases on the B2B side with private networks -- corporate private networks, et cetera, et cetera. And I think customers, you're starting to see 5G handsets getting more and more penetration, although that's obviously been slowed down by the silicon shortages, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's -- I think 5G is a -- the revenue model for 5G is evolving. So it's hard for me to sit down here today and paint a road map to over what that's going to look like.

Yes. And hopefully, maybe regulation shifts that creates a better platform for that. Maybe coming on to the last topic, which is we've talked a lot about unlocking value, and you've got a ventures business that has $3.5 billion of FMV that probably isn't well enough understood by the investor base. You're at the helm of it. So I wonder if you could talk through maybe what the overarching strategy for that ventures portfolio is? And then maybe help us understand some of the kind of buckets that's within it.

Sure. I'll be happy to do that. So I'd say, first of all, it's a relative -- we invest a relatively modest amount. That $3 billion has grown over the years. So there's been quite a lot of asset appreciation in that number. So I would say it's not a primary source of our capital, but it's a relatively small amount that we invest every year. But I think we're excited about the results we're seeing. If you break it down, there's two broad buckets. There's a technology bucket where we really are looking to drive -- looking to invest in businesses that we think are going to help us innovate or be disruptive in our core business. So I'll give you a classic example. We're an investor in a company called Plume. Plume makes probably the world's leading smart Wi-Fi provider. It has relationships across the globe. So we basically -- we made an investment with Plume. We're using the technology within our networks. We see very significant NPS benefits from our customers, they love the product. And so that's a virtuous circle. We basically funded a business. That business has generated a product that we're using very successfully in our core business. And the use of it in our core business creates more value on our investment. So that -- think of that as a poster chart for what we're doing on the technology side. On the infrastructure side, let me give you a very recent example. So we took a number of what I would call Tier 2 real -- technical real estate sites. And we contributed them into a joint venture with a company called Digital Bridge, which is, as I'm sure many of you know, very successful infrastructure investor. And we are using that. Those assets were valued, I can't remember, a couple of hundred million pounds from memory, plus or minus. And they were literally -- they were just -- there was redundant space and power in those sites that Virgin Media wasn't using. And now we -- this joint venture is now rolling out an edge data center business off the back of those, using those sites and using that power. So it's a very small example of a couple of hundred million pounds worth of assets that we had very deep within Virgin Media that nobody even really focused on that is now being contributed in, got valued at 20x in that original -- in the original construct with DigitalBridge, and we're now using it as a way to build out what we think is a very exciting edge data center business. The other thing we're looking at is we're looking at investments in -- I just -- we have a partnership with Zeus Capital to build electric vehicle charging points. We have a lot of power network. There's a lot of power points. We have a lot of experience in civil infrastructure. And so that's yet another relative -- once again, relatively small, but yet another example of how we're leveraging the network that we have and the experience we have to try and drive into a growth area. So it's those sorts of -- those are the sorts -- that's the strategy. It's really about taking the assets we have and trying to get them revalued a little bit like the tower transactions that people have been doing for years, getting those assets revalued and creating growth companies out of them at the same time. So if we're successful, it will be a huge win-win.

Yes. I mean -- that's a great point to finish on. But I might just put one step further in terms of those buckets. I mean you talked about technology and infrastructure, and we're seeing a huge amount of infrastructure demand at this conference that -- where do you think the biggest growth areas in terms of those buckets are?

I think -- I would say and I think Mike has been pretty clear about this. I would say we -- I would say I expect more growth to come out of the -- on the infrastructure side. Look, I think on the technology side, we've been very successful at doing it. But as I said, it's a really small amount of money. I think given some of the infrastructure opportunities that we have that are very deep within our networks, I would expect that to be the growth area for us going forward.

Andrea, I think that's a perfect point on which to finish. Thanks so much for your time. Thanks, everyone, for joining us. Thank you.

Thanks very much, everybody.