The analysis is primarily oriented on the financial performance of ICT-companies and developments on the tele-traffic shift between land-line and broad-band.

No doubt that the shifts to mobile is interesting and significant - especially since Europe has almost lost its former strength in this field. The deroute of Nokia is only the last of a long series of exits which is not well understood or explained.

Something has gone wrong and it is not explained by cost factors as European companies could have and have had its products manufactured in low-cost countries - Nokia has been renowned as the cost-leader in the mobile industry.

There is an indicator as to the source of the problem
in the presentation as it shows how almost all growth in the US ICT-sector originate from just 2% of ICT-companies. There is no attempt to explain the reason behind this massive concentration.

I will forward the thesis that they are closely related - i.e. the downturn of European position and the concentration in US companies.

The common factor between the large successfull US companies is the use of some controlled ressource to extend into control of transactions - a practise I would suggest is market destabilising as it shifts power from consumers and providers to infrastructure middlemen taking increasing control of market processes.

It is the same effect, when we see Apple using its control of the devices to extend into owning transactions with these devices, Facebook using its control of social relationships to extend into a walled garden levying and Google using its control of content and behavoural profiles to control market making and through this almost everything. Google is in a class for itself as both Apple and FB stands to loose significantly to Google control over market making - Iphone is already looing heavily to Android and FB will IMHO never realise anything resembling expections.

The obvious indicator of market imperfections is the 30% "tax" all these are applying on use of their platforms. The main problem is not the cost, but the fact that the market controls are so powerfull that they CAN apply a tax without creating value.

It is analog to a monopolist owner of a bridge (natural local monopolly) applying not a fixed cost of using the bridge, but charging a percentage of your purpose of crossing the bridge. It may be a good bridge, but the bridge has nothing to do with the purpose of using it and they must be kept strictly separated.

You have other players using the same exclusive network effects - LinkedIn, eBay/Paypal.

I will further forward the thesis that Europe lost its position as everything was gamled on mobile operators "owning" the channel and overcharging without creating value. This lead the sector into a profit frenzy without realising that they were seriously vulnurable to attacks from those controlling elements with bigger linkage to market making

Apples entry with ITUNES started this but Googles control of market making proved detrimental as there was no charging in the mobil channel and thus the channel control was worthless. With the new SIM-structure control shifts from channel operators to device manufacturers who (ab)use their device control to create a trojan horse structure with platforms built around their device control.

What we see is a fight between large players in a market that has shifted to a winner-takes-all meaning competitions gets eliminating - digital markets is loosing the ability innovation and economic growth as the shift is now to CONTROL processes instead of creating value.

The use of digital infrastructure is an extremely powerfull market control mechanism that need to be addressed now before Europes industry is fully decapitated. Europe has already loast a substantial part of of its industrial capacity and it is much harder to get it back after it is lost.

I will further forward the notion that the root cause of this is the massive shift of power from consumer to infrastructure as consumers are made transparant and can be controlled through technology unless we have a very clear market framework requirements to infrastructure technology design.

What we need to do is fundamentally to re-enable the Single Market as it is being attacked in its fundamentals. The world in general has failed to protect the market from these new technology-driven market control mechanisms which are essentiall abuse of market dominance. We need to shift power BACK IN THE HANDS OF consumers/citizens.

Everybody loose, but Europe loose the most as we are just providing our markets but not manufacturing. US also loose massively as their markets experience the smae problems, but they focus on the "success" stories reluctant to initiate the anti-trust cases to restore markets.

I finally forward the notion that Europes response is STRENGHTENING the ALREADY EXISTING PRINCIPLES moving from e.g. softtalk "net neturality" to require opening of all bootlenecks and "consent" to strong empowerment through technical isolation so no secondary use of data can be applied. The principles need to be enforced.

Europe also needs to change the almost paranoid overkill regulation to combat some crimes such as Data Retention and anti-money-laundering as the REGULATION through their requirement of total surveillance enforce dis-empowerment and thus are PREVENTING security necesary to re-enable markets.

Europe may have sound principles, but they are not translated into proper regulation to ensure the technological infrastructure support the Single Market and fundamental rights and principles.