So therefore, we are obviously not guiding a longer-term CapEx investment over the year ’23. But I’m not so sure if you take the right assumptions in the model. So therefore, we see a sustainable EBITDA growth coming also from revenue in the midterm. And we also don’t — we are not behind in fiber rollout at all. We’re not talking about it because our customers today are buying our 1 gigabit speed solution based on the coax network. Hopefully, that helps.
Laura Abasolo: David, if I may complement with the capital structure and the dividends. As you rightly mentioned, we are anticipating a strong dividend of GBP 1.8 billion to GBP 2 billion, including both free cash flow and recapitalization. The leverage, it is true. It is what we have decided at the shareholder level. It’s 4% to 5% net leverage range but this is a cash-generating business with organic and synergy-driven opportunities, and it will continue growing. Having said that, let me remind you that the debt tenor is 6.5 years, excluding vendor finance, and the average cost of debt is 4.7%. Its financing strategy means it’s not forced to go into debt at opportunity times, and we will continue to optimize this based on market conditions. Right now, we are seeing the markets are going to open. So I think we are being proactive and prudently managing, tapping the markets at the JV level as well.
Operator: We will now take the next question. It comes from the line of Carl Murdock-Smith from Berenberg.
Carl Murdock-Smith: Almost following up on David’s question and slightly on Slide 18, when you’re looking at infra and the opportunities in the rollout progress there. I was wondering if you could talk slightly, both at the group level, but also again potentially look on the U.K. level, how you think about organic versus acquisitive opportunities regarding infrastructure, given potentially struggling smaller old net given higher inflation and interest costs?
Angel Vila: Let me first — this is Angel, let me take first the view from the group, and then I’ll also hand over to Lutz to complement. Fiber costs are very efficient alternative infrastructure investment vehicles because they allow us to accelerate fiber deployment, putting together infrastructure money, infrastructure funds with our strategic view. And we have been pioneers in doing, through Telefónica Infra, this type of vehicles. We already have — we are covering through the fiber vehicles that you have on Slide #18, 30 million homes passed by the end of 2022. We are aiming to cover 25 million by 2026. It’s critical that all these infra fiber costs have our local operating businesses as anchor client. And this is differential versus all net fiber cost because this gives the best prospect for critical ratio of homes connected to homes passed, which is critical for the return on investment.
In some markets, the gap, not in the case of Spain, but in some markets, lower deployment of fiber has resulted in the creation of several all net. And again, some of this, given the increasing cost of construction, because of inflation or the increased cost of funding and some pressure on wholesale prices, sometimes from regulation, sometimes from the behavior of certain players, are stressing the business plan of these all nets that do not enjoy as our fiber costs do, the benefit of having an anchor client in our OBs. So we think that this may lead to potential consolidation in the all-net fiber cost space in several geographies. We do not comment on any specific name, but we see such opportunities in most of the markets, and we have already consolidated one asset in Brazil.
Our FiberCo in Chile is consolidating another asset. This always done in a return on capital employed, very effective way. I don’t know, Lutz, if you want to complement?
