project finance for fttx - · pdf fileproject finance for fttx unlocking investments by...

Project Finance for FTTx

Unlocking Investments

By Rodrigo Barreto and Michael Dargue

For the governments of many countries, rollout of FTTx networks is not happening at a fast enough

pace and there is a real risk that coverage targets for super-fast broadband, often defined as part

of national broadband strategies, will not be met. One of the major obstacles for incumbents and

other communication providers to speeding up the deployment of FTTx networks is the magnitude

of capital required. The project finance approach has the potential to unlock investments by

facilitating cooperation among providers, allocating specific risks to stakeholders that are better

positioned to manage/mitigate them and creating a structure that facilitates financing of the

network build out at competitive rates and with limited impact in the financial accounts of

individual providers.

June 2014

Cartesian: Project Finance for FTTx

Copyright © 2014 Cartesian Ltd. All rights reserved. 1

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

Motivation ................................................................................................................................... 4

Estimating Costs ............................................................................................................................ 7

Identifying Financing Alternatives ................................................................................................ 9

Structuring the Deal .................................................................................................................... 11

Managing Risks............................................................................................................................ 12

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 14



List of Figures

Figure 1: Internet Connection Speeds in the UK, US and Japan ............................................... 4

Figure 2: Debt Maturity (Group Level) of the Five Largest Fixed Line Operators in Europe

(€ Million) .................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3: Examples of Strategic Axes when Defining a Rollout Strategy .................................. 8

Figure 4: Modelling FTTx Network Costs................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: Stakeholders and Linkages in a Typical Project Finance Arrangement .................... 12



Introduction

In recent years, there have been a number of examples of projects where two or more

service providers joined forces to build regional and, in some cases, national fibre access

infrastructure which is shared between these service providers to offer high speed

broadband services to a broader base of households.

It is worth mentioning that many of these projects were conceived and implemented

during the worst period of financial crisis since the Great Depression. Even when demand

was supposedly moderate due to the squeeze in consumers’ disposable income, some

incumbents and other communication providers (CPs) found opportunities to make

headway building FTTx infrastructure.

The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), a strategy adopted by the European Union, sets in

its goals that, by 2020, all Europeans have access to internet speeds of above 30 Mbps

and 50% or more of households subscribe to internet connections above 100 Mbps. In a

KPN and Reggefiber – KPN formed a Joint Venture with Reggefiber in 2008 with the

objective of developing an open fibre optic network in the Netherlands. Since then, KPN

has used the JV as the exclusive wholesale supplier for its FTTH retail services. The JV

agreement was tailored to enable KPN to gradually increase its participation in the JV,

which initially stood at 41%, by means of a call/put option structure. KPN exercised its first

option in November 2012, increasing its participation to 51% but remaining as a non-

controlling party due to the governance structure in place. In January 2014, KPN exercised

its second option, increasing the ownership level to 60% and gaining full control of the JV.

By taking this approach, KPN was able to advance with the build out of FTTH infrastructure

from 2008 to the beginning of 2014 without the need to consolidate the full costs in its

balance sheet. Reggefiber reported a total of 1.7 million homes passed and 547k FTTH

homes activated by Q4 2013.

Sonaecom and Vodafone – In December 2009, Sonaecom and Vodafone Portugal

announced a cooperation agreement to build and operate FTTH infrastructure in

Portugal’s main towns, starting with the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Porto. The

implementation of this agreement involved the incorporation of a JV, owned by both

companies on a 50-50 basis, through which the construction, management, maintenance

and operation of the FTTH infrastructure was carried out in an integrated way and for the

benefit of both companies. Sonaecom’s strategy regarding this cooperation agreement

was part of its ‘Capital Light’ growth approach which focused on expansion based on

operating the lease of properties rather than their ownership. As a result of the 2013

merger between Zon and Optimus, Sonaecom agreed to sell its participation in the fibre

enterprise to Vodafone Portugal.

BskyB, TalkTalk & City Fibre – BskyB and TalkTalk announced in April 2014 that they had

partnered with CityFibre in a joint venture with the aim of building competing

infrastructure to BT’s Openreach. Starting with York and with plans to expand to two other

cities, the companies will build city-wide FTTP networks to deliver broadband connections

with speeds of 1Gbps to homes and businesses. Sky, TalkTalk and CityFibre will be equal

shareholders in the new company, each having a 33.3% stake.



Source: Akamai – State of the Internet

recent report1, the European Commission, makes evident the extent of the gap between

the current situation and the goals established in the DAE:

“… the Digital Agenda calls for fast and ultrafast broadband, which is still rare in Europe.

In July 2013, only one in five subscriptions were at least 30 Mbps and only 4.2% at least

100 Mbps. This also reveals that one in four NGA subscriptions have less than 30 Mbps

headline download speed.”

According to the latest figures reported, 54% of households in the EU are in areas with

Next Generation Access (NGA) coverage. As of July 2013, cable technology had the largest

NGA customer base, representing 55% of NGA lines. VDSL is the second largest technology

with 16% of NGA lines followed by FTTB (15%) and FTTH (9%).

Now, with economic recovery underway in many of the EU Member States, we expect

that rejuvenated growth in demand, together with government policies, will drive new

FTTx deployments. Many of these deployments will leverage a project finance approach

to reduce the financial and operational risks that would, otherwise, be borne by single

service providers developing these infrastructure projects.

In this paper we examine the motivation for use of the project finance approach and

describe the main steps required to structure such deals.

Motivation

One key motivation for development of FTTx network infrastructure is, unquestionably,

projected demand for higher access speeds. Observing the evolution of average and

average peak connection speeds as reported quarterly by Akamai2, it is possible to realize

that penetration of fibre will need to be extended so that incumbents and CPs are able to

continue providing competitive services to end users.

Figure 1: Internet Connection Speeds in the UK, US and Japan

1 Broadband access in the EU: situation at 1 July 2013 (released – 25 March 2014) 2 See: http://uk.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-graph



Analysis of historic data reveals a very good fit with exponential growth and makes it

possible to forecast access speeds in future years. An extension of historic trends for the

UK, using US and Japan projected growths as control parameters, reveals that by mid-

2020 average speeds will be in the range 30-40 Mbps and average peak speeds will be in

the range 175-325 Mbps. Although the situation in the UK is not necessarily

representative of all of the EU member states, these forecasts show that the DAE targets

were set, among other things, with the specific goal of avoiding supply-side bottlenecks.

For some of the service providers, the motivation to build fibre infrastructure is tied to a

commercial strategy centred on offering bundles of services with TV as a key component.

To be able to provide good, multi-room HDTV (and, in the not too distant future, 4KTV

and 3D TV) experiences, these service providers need to be able to offer broadband access

speeds that are only possible using some variant of FTTx. Even cable operators are, in

many cases, having to extend the reach of their fibre networks to the last amplifier (in

areas with existing HFC infrastructure) and some prefer to deploy FTTH infrastructure

when expanding to green field areas.

Cost reduction is another reason to extend the fibre network infrastructure. Although

upfront capital costs are very high, the costs to run the network, compared with the

alternative using only copper, are much lower. The higher operational costs on copper are

mostly related to electricity consumption, maintenance of ageing cables and space in

ducts and Local Exchanges. In a study led by the author for Anacom, the

telecommunications regulator in Portugal, it was estimated that, over the course of a 10

year period, OPEX savings would correspond to 96% (or 48%) of the CAPEX requirements

for the incumbent operator to develop FTTC (or FTTH) on a country-wide basis.

Although investing in fibre infrastructure makes sense from future demand, commercial

strategy and OPEX saving perspectives, it is still not happening at the pace required to

address the policy goals set for 2020 in the DAE. The reasons for this are many, including

but not limited to regulatory uncertainty, high commercial risk and the economic issue of

reaching low density areas. In Europe, the EU and individual governments are working to

eliminate as many of these barriers as possible.

However, a major sticking point for incumbent operators and CPs is about committing to

large scale investments which are unlikely to uplift revenues in the short term and for

which pay-back – which is largely based on expenditure savings – is only possible over

relatively long periods of time. As a generalisation, the financial markets tend to take a

short term view on strategic investments which do not yield immediate growth and is

inclined to ‘punish’ companies that have higher than average CAPEX to sales ratio. To add

to the complexity, increasing debt levels to finance fibre infrastructure build-out could

result in the downgrading of credit ratings of these companies.



Financial Performance, Leverage and Credit Rating of Largest European Operators

Group Name EBITDA Net Debt / EBITDA Credit Rating

Vodafone 12,831 million GBP

(reported – 20 May 2014)

1.21x

A3

BT 6,116 million GBP

(reported – 08 May 2014)

1.15x

Baa2

Deutsche Telekom 17,424 million EUR

(reported – 06 Mar 2014)

2.24x Baa1

Orange 12,649 million EUR


2.43x Baa1

Telefonica 19,077 million EUR

(reported – 27 Feb 2014)

2.38x Baa2

Telecom Italia 10,780 million EUR


2.49x Ba1

An examination of the debt maturity profile (bonds and loans) of the five largest fixed

line operators in Europe reveal that there is a very high concentration of debt maturity

(in relation to total debt outstanding) in the period 2014 to 2018

Figure 2: Debt Maturity (Group Level) of the Five Largest Fixed Line Operators in

Europe (€ Million)

Source: Operators’ financial reports

For these five operators alone, approximately €67 billion of debt matures between 2014

and 2018, representing approximately 54% of their total debt. Taking into consideration

that this debt profile is typical of many other operators in the region, this means that many

Telcos will be raising fresh debt between 2014 and 2016 to restructure their debt maturity

schedule. During this period, these companies will be especially sensitive to making



investments that may result in higher costs for the new debt. This is an unfortunate

coincidence as the next couple of years is exactly the period when service providers should

be investing in infrastructure to meet the DAE’s 2020 targets. To put the financial figures

in perspective, the EC3 quotes the following investment requirements to achieve the 2020

targets:

“To achieve the objective of access to Internet speeds of above 30 Mbps it is estimated

that up to €60 billion of investment would be necessary and up to €270 billion for at

least 50 % of households to take up Internet connections above 100 Mbps”

The project finance approach, so popular in sectors such as energy and highways, offers

an important alternative. Service providers can limit their exposure by jointly setting up

Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) which, in turn, are able to attract equity investment from

infrastructure funds, raise syndicated loans and issue project bonds.

Estimating Costs

Once the expected market demand has been established, the first step in the

development of a fibre infrastructure project is the identification, at a high level initially,

of the costs involved in developing and operating such infrastructure. These costs are

dependent on the rollout strategy which is usually guided by commercial strategy to

address current and forecasted future demands. This is typically an iterative exercise as

trade-offs need to be decided in respect to cost to deploy vs. demand (and/or revenue)

maximisation.

3 EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks (Jan 2013)

World Bank Definition of Project Finance:

Project finance refers to a structure through which a project sponsor attracts financiers to

a proposed discrete project on the basis of the project's revenues, rather than the general

assets of the sponsor. An important corollary is that the project finance structure allows

a sponsor to avoid providing financiers with "recourse" (that is, access) to its general

assets in the case of poor project performance, which in turn allows the sponsor to finance

the project off its balance sheet. This "off−balance sheet financing" characteristic is for

many sponsors a significant part of the appeal of the project finance structure.

By emphasizing the link between the financial resources required to execute the project

and the project's revenues, this structure provides a means of funding a variety of

enterprises that might otherwise not be financed. In particular, the project finance

structure permits the financing of a project whose sponsors either (a) are unwilling to

expose their general assets to liabilities to be incurred in connection with the project (or

are seeking to limit their exposure in this regard), or (b) do not enjoy sufficient financial

standing to borrow funds on the basis of their general assets.



Competitive Model

Geographic Scope

Ch

erry

-pic

kin

gM

ass-

mar

ket

Deployment Approach

Figure 3: Examples of Strategic Axes when Defining a Rollout Strategy

Source: Cartesian

Once an initial rollout strategy has been identified, network design can start with the

identification of a set of geo-types (or model areas) that represent the different

characteristics of the areas where FTTx coverage will be developed. The typical

information conveyed in a geo-type includes: average distances, types and amounts of

households, types of surface for excavation, average length and amount of existing

infrastructure that can be re-used (e.g. ducts, fibre, cabinets, manholes and distribution

boxes).

In parallel, it is necessary to identify and assess alternatives to buy, lease and/or build

infrastructure. For instance, a small regional cable operator might be operating in an area

of interest and it may be simpler to gain an initial foothold in the area through acquisition.

In places where gas, water mains and sewage networks are being built or renewed, it

makes economic sense to negotiate right-of-way and synchronise rollouts. In other places,

it may be cheaper to lease space in existing ducts and poles from an infrastructure owner.

Although the costs of active transmission equipment are a relatively low proportion of the

overall costs (e.g. typically 5 to 15% for FTTH networks), technology choices are important

as they frequently influence network topology and space requirements in ducts. A careful

analysis of total cost of ownership should be carried out to identify pros and cons of each

alternative. This analysis should take into consideration not only the initial deployment

costs but also the costs of upgrading the network after e.g. 5 and 10 years.

At this point, the project can be further detailed with an implementation roadmap and

network architecture guidelines detailing the dimensioning rules for each alternative of

deployment. Network related CAPEX and OPEX can finally be estimated.



Figure 4: Modelling FTTx Network Costs

Source: Cartesian

Identifying Financing Alternatives

Eventually, when deployment strategies have been examined and associated network

deployment costs have been estimated, service providers start to turn their attention to

the alternatives for financing the project. The three most commonly alternatives

considered are:

Self-financing

Project Finance

Operating Lease

Operators may opt to use internal funds and pace the rollout to reduce the impact in the

accounts. Incumbents such as BT and Deutsche Telekom have been using this route to

upgrade street cabinets to enable FTTC. Both incumbents issue bonds as a regular practice

to finance corporate activities. Part of these financial resources are redirected to FTTx

projects but there is no direct link with the project. Senior debt is protected by cash flows

from the group, not from the FTTx project.

Service providers that opt to go through the self-financing route can accelerate the

expansion of reach of their fibre access networks by entering into arm-length agreements

with other service providers for shared use of infrastructure in complementary geographic

areas.

Input Calculation Result

Cabinet/ Manhole & OLT/ DSLAM/Splitter requirements

Feeder/ Distribution cabling

requirements

FTTx CAPEX FTTx OPEX

Total Network CostsHH Connected

Design guidelines and Model Area

parameters

O&M parameters – labour and

resources

HH Passed

Drop/In-building cabling

requirements

ONU and CPE requirements



However, as discussed previously in this paper, self-financing has the unwanted effects of

either limiting the speed of development and/or increasing the leverage ratio and the

CAPEX to sale ratio. These are some of the key reasons why large incumbents in Europe

are taking many years to enable FTTC throughout their networks and are very slow in

developing FTTH/FTTP.

In the project finance approach, the project sponsors (i.e. the Service Providers willing to

develop the FTTx project) incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) as an independent

company, sometimes also referred to as Project Company, that is able to raise finance

using as guarantees its secured cash-flows (the sponsors usually enter into long-term off-

take agreements with the Project Company) and its assets. The off-take agreements are

commitments from the Service Providers to rent, from the project company, a certain

minimum volume of infrastructure at a price that is not below a fixed floor level.

With such structure in place, the project company is able to raise finance through issuing

debt and also through equity investment. Debt can be raised with infrastructure funds

(when the project qualifies for such), syndicates of banks organizing loans, and by means

of project bonds. Equity investment can come from a variety of sources: local authorities

may invest in such projects to stimulate the local economy (as long as such investment

doesn’t conflict with State Aid rules); pension funds and large infrastructure funds (usually

linked to sovereign wealth funds) seek to invest in such projects due to the prospects of

long-term stable dividend payments and increase in value of assets; and technology

vendors and other suppliers may be induced to have some equity participation in the

Project Company so that they have their ‘skin in the game’ and seek to perform in an

optimal way to guarantee returns from the investment.

Jazztel and Telefonica – In October 2012, Jazztel and Telefonica signed an agreement to

share the vertical segment of FTTH deployments (in-building cabling), expected to reach 3

million households by Q1 2015. Under agreement, the fibre deployment is shared equally

between the two operators, and each will be able to serve any of the 3 million households.

The agreement not only enables both operators to reduce the cost of deployment but also

reduces the effort and time related to negotiating access to buildings. In January 2014, it

was announced that both operators where studying the possibility to extend the reach of

the agreement to 4.5 million households.

Orange and Vodafone (Spain) – According to an agreement announced by Orange and

Vodafone in Spain in March 2013, each company will deploy its own FTTH network in

complementary areas (both horizontally and vertical cabling required to access to the

buildings). Additionally, Orange and Vodafone will facilitate mutual access and use of their

infrastructures. The companies have agreed the timetable and geographical areas of the

deployment plan with the aim of reaching 6 million households by 2017, covering more

than 50 cities in Spain.



An alternative to Project Finance is to rely on an Operating Lease. In this case, the SPV

leases its assets, for instance ducts and fibre, to service providers that use these inputs to

provide FTTx. In the operating lease approach, the Service Providers are barred from

having equity participation in the project company and the full investment is made by

Leasing Companies. Because ownership and maintenance risks are offloaded to a leasing

company, service providers only need to report lease payment commitments (i.e. the

investment in FTTx network is completely off balance sheet). However, the IFRS

accounting rules related to leasing are changing and there is less clarity as to whether this

off balance sheet approach will continue to be viable in the future.

Structuring the Deal

When a decision has been reached to proceed with a project finance approach, it is time

to contact other potential stakeholders in the project company. Selecting other service

providers to partner with is always subject to careful strategic considerations. A joint

venture requires commitment from all parties and is frequently compared to a wedding.

As with modern engagements, the parties also tend to think carefully about the equivalent

of “pre-nuptial agreements”, i.e. break up clauses that apply when one of the parties

decides to leave the project company.

Once the initial approach to other service providers is made and the project plan and

associated cost estimates are shared, it is common that another round of network design

and cost estimation follows to address requirements from these other service providers.

Eventually, all parties align their views on the different aspects of network deployment

and a Memorandum of Understanding is signed to register the commitment of the parties

to go ahead.

At this point, it is time to form a dedicated project team, sponsored by the service

providers, which will liaise with other stakeholders to structure the deal. An initial

engagement with accounting and legal advisory firms is common as the project team

needs to gain a more detailed understanding of the scope of future advisory work in these

two areas once the deal takes its final shape and contractual drafting starts.

The Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative – Innovative infrastructure financing

The Project Bond initiative is a joint initiative by the European Commission and the EIB.

Its objective is to stimulate capital market financing for large-scale infrastructure projects

in the sectors of transport (TEN-T), energy (TEN-E) and information and communication

technology (ICT). According to the Commission, the European Union’s infrastructure

investment needs to meet the Europe 2020 objectives in these sectors could reach as much

as EUR 2 trillion.

The Project Bond initiative is designed to enable eligible infrastructure projects promoters,

usually public private partnerships (PPP), to attract additional private finance from

institutional investors such as insurance companies and pension funds.



In parallel, the project team needs to identify the Engineering Procurement and

Construction (EPC) company which will build out the network as a turn-key project, as well

as the Operation and Maintenance company that will look after the infrastructure during

the operation phase. Frequently, these two parties are working in tandem with

technology vendors. Normally, the project team issues a tender invitation to a limited

number of pre-selected vendors and engineering companies. The bids submitted give the

project team access to detailed project plans and pricing for the rollout of the

infrastructure and equipment.

Figure 5: Stakeholders and Linkages in a Typical Project Finance Arrangement

Source: Cartesian

Eventually, the essential elements required to advance the deal are in place and banks,

which may have been previously engaged to provide preliminary input on financing

alternatives, can start to work on structuring the term-sheets for the initial loans. It is

relatively common that the engagement with banks is made by means of invitation to

tender. At this phase, the project team will also engage insurance companies to obtain

quotations for the different types of insurance required by the project company.

Finally, the project team engages the legal advisors to incorporate the SPV, formalize the

supply contracts with selected contractors, formalize the rental contracts with the project

sponsors and agree contract terms with banks and insurers.

Managing Risks

The key tenet of project finance is the allocation of risks to the parties that are best suited

to manage / mitigate them. As such, mapping construction, operational, business and

financial risks are essential steps in the implementation of such deals.



On the operational side, it is necessary to map end-to-end business processes that

traverse multiple organisations providing services to the project company. For instance,

the OSS and BSS development may be responsibility of the project sponsors but support

and information is provided by the project company. The allocation of responsibilities is

summarized in a Responsibility Matrix which include headline topics such as:

Network rollout

Capacity Extensions

Subscriber connection / provisioning

Service development

End to end services operation

Network Operation and Maintenance

Subsidiary to the Responsibility Matrix, key operational risks, mitigation measures and

minimum SLA commitments should be detailed. These are later incorporated in the

contracts between the various stakeholders.

Financial flows must also be analysed for risk. Project sponsors will only start to pay rental

for the infrastructure in a given area when a formal handover is completed. This entails

certifying that the infrastructure is operational and that a pre-agreed minimum number

of households have been passed. Cash-flows which are essential for the viability of the

project can be delayed if the EPC contractor is not able to deliver as planned. On the other

hand, project sponsors may also end up delaying rental payments for reasons not related

to the performance of the project company, again, causing cash-flow problems. A

common way to address such risks is by defining financial penalties. However, lenders

might also require that bank guarantees are in place. In this case, the EPC contractor

would be required to provide a performance bond and the project sponsors would be

required to present payment guarantees.

Insurance has an instrumental role during both the construction and operational phases

of the project. During construction, risks associated with property damage, delay in start-

up, force majeure and design/performance problems can be covered by specific insurance

policies. During the operational phase, insurance can be used to protect property

(including equipment failure, third party liability and accidental damage to infrastructure)

as well as business, through reimbursement for loss of profits arising from physical

damage due to insured risk. Insurance can also be used to cover other risks such as country

risk and credit risks.

However, insurance can be onerous and, during the planning phase of the project finance

deal, the trade-offs between allocation of risks to different stakeholders and insurance

costs should be carefully examined. It is worth noting that stakeholders that internalise

risks tend to transfer the associated costs to the project company. It only makes sense to

transfer risks to stakeholders when they can efficiently mitigate the risks transferred to

them, resulting in lower costs transferred to the project company than the respective

insurance policies. This assessment is not straightforward and, not infrequently, project

companies find themselves without the adequate cover as risks that were supposedly

transferred to stakeholders are not adequately covered by the contracts in place.

Furthermore, lenders may not release loans until they are satisfied that risks are



satisfactorily addressed and project bonds may not receive an ‘AAA’ rating unless credit

risks are insured.

Conclusion

As identified in this paper, there are commercial and policy drivers for a faster deployment

of FTTx. However, service providers in Europe are not making the required investments

and part of the reason for such is the capital intensity and risks associated with FTTx

deployments. It is estimated that in the next 4 to 5 years, investments in the order of €200

to 300 billion will be needed to achieve the targets set in the Digital Agenda for Europe.

Cartesian believes that a considerable portion of these investments will be made using

the project finance approach.

The project finance approach offers the benefits of facilitating access to financial

resources, limiting the impact of investment in the financial accounts of individual service

providers and spreading the risks to multiple stakeholders.

Cartesian has the capabilities and competencies to provide strategic advisory services

throughout the lifecycle of a project finance project. These include: financial and network

modelling and cost estimation; strategic assessment of potential partnerships; technology

assessments; strategic assessment of options for the structure of the deals and

development of the respective business plans; and selection of technology vendor, EPC

and O&M contractors. Cartesian also has well established PMO capabilities and can help

structuring and running the project team. Very importantly, Cartesian is free of conflicts

of interest and can provide independent advice to any of the stakeholders involved in an

FTTx project finance deal.

Cartesian is a specialist consulting firm of industry experts, focused exclusively on the

communications, technology and digital media sector. For over 20 years, Cartesian has

advised clients in strategy development and assisted them in execution against their goals.

Our unique portfolio of professional services and managed solutions are tailored to the

specific challenges faced by executives in these fast-moving industries. Combining strategic

thinking and practical experience, we deliver superior results.

Cartesian has deep experience in assisting network operators and service providers achieve

their objectives. We have worked on numerous FTTx related projects and can support across

a number of areas, including:

Strategic planning of FTTx Project Finance deals

Planning, modelling and estimating costs of FTTx deployments

Developing detailed business plans for communication providers

Project managing large broadband transformation projects on behalf of Service Providers

www.cartesian.com

For further information, please contact us at [email protected]

The contents of this document are copyright © 2014 Cartesian Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cartesian Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Registered Number: 03230513

Registered Office Address: Descartes House, 8 Gate Street, London WC2A 3HP United Kingdom

project finance for fttx - · pdf fileproject finance for fttx unlocking investments by...

Documents