Australia poised to significantly increase regulation of OTTs

Australia is the latest country to cast an eye towards Silicon Valley, revamping rules to create a regulatory framework with greater oversight and authority over the booming digital ecosystem.

While the digital economy has operated in a relatively tether-free fashion to date, various scandals throughout the last 18 months have shown these companies are not mature or honest enough to manage themselves. Facebook has drawn the lion’s share of the headlines, but the social media giant is not alone in abusing the system; this is a pandemic with Silicon Valley as ground zero.

“While online services like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google bring undeniable social and economic benefits to Australians, they have now become global giants with significant market power in Australia,” said Nerida O’Loughlin, Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

“As aggregators, curators and distributors of content – in particular news and journalistic content—digital platforms have significant influence. But they are not fully considered within current media and communications regulation.”

The ACMA statement follows the Digital Platforms Inquiry Preliminary Report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which calls for regulatory reform to tackle newly emerging segments of the digital economy, as well as greater powers to gain insight into how businesses such as Google and Facebook actually work.

This has been the great conundrum of the last few years; these companies have incredible power and influence over society and business, though due to opaque transparency reports and sheer complexity, few understand the cogs of the digital machine. This is not a healthy position; these companies should not be allowed to operate in a cloud of confusion, such is the power they wield. It would be irresponsible of any government to allow such a dangerous status quo to continue.

What this report suggests is the creation of a new set of rules, which would govern the digital economy as what it is. These companies are no-longer simply platforms, and they are not digital publishers. For years, regulators have tried to squeeze them into existing regulatory frameworks and it has not worked. The creation of new rules, fit for purpose to tackle the digital economy and specific to the companies which dominate it, are critical.

As you can probably imagine, the internet giants are not particularly happy with this assault on their freedoms. Facebook has accused the ACCC of protecting traditional media titles at the expense of digital and the consumer, while Google has suggested the ACCC is ill-informed when it comes to basic understanding of the current state-of-affairs.

The aggressive and patronising objections to the ACCC and ACMA should come as little surprise as the internet giants face greater controls on their businesses throughout the world. Australia and Europe seem to be the tip of the spear, but others will soon follow suit once they see how regulations can be effectively reformed. Unfortunately for the internet giants, there is not a single focal point.

In Europe, certain states are putting stricter rules in place for the removal of offensive materials, Germany is leading the charge here. GDPR is a European-wide response to privacy concerns. The tax-avoidance schemes are being tackled by France and the UK. The Netherlands is tabling new rules which would made foreign acquisitions more difficult. The digital business model is being assaulted from numerous angles, and quite rightly so.

Over the last decade, the internet giants have become experts at wriggling through the red-tape maze and exposing the regulatory grey areas. This is only possible because rules have not been designed specifically for the internet economy, an anomaly in today’s world. Every other industry has rules which are designed specifically for those circumstances, and the world is starting to wake up to the need for the same here.

Arguments against might take the form of slowing progress, but the internet giants have not shown themselves responsible enough to self-regulate. Cambridge Analytica, overly-complex T&Cs, data breaches, insecure databases, irresponsible data processing and handling activities, hosting of offensive material and unauthorised location tracking scandals are just a few areas which need to be addressed.

Regulators and legislators need to wake up and start governing the digital economy. Thankfully, Australia and Europe are taking the fight to Silicon Valley.

Nokia launches a 5G FWA router and Optus buys some of them

Nokia’s big MWC 2019 reveal went big on 5G fixed wireless access with the launch of its FastMile 5G Gateway.

FWA is a popular early use-case for 5G. It’s presumably a lot simpler to set up a 5G connection to a static domestic router than to a mobile handset, but you still get to say you’ve done some 5G. Aside from showcasing 5G in the wild, FWA is all about providing decent broadband to places that otherwise lack it.

Nokia claims the FastMile 5G Gateway serves up 10-25 times more bandwidth then LTE. It uses sub-6 GHz 5G spectrum, so will still have half-decent range. It’s being described as ‘plug-and-play’, which is geek-talk for ‘easy to set up’ and seems like a fairly inoffensive bit of industrial design. We don’t know what its costs though.

FWA is also being positioned as an early bit of ROI for operators upgrading their networks to 5G, although Nokia is only anticipating around 50% growth in its use – from 18 million to 27 million households globally – by 2022. When you’re dropping a ton of cash on a network upgrade it’s never to early to have something to show for it.

One operator that seems at least partially convinced is Optus in Australia, where you can imagine there are a fair few remote households in need of a bandwidth boost. It has been the first to trial the FastMile in a live network and seems to think it’s gone well, so much so that it will have 50 live 5G sites using it by the end of March.

“These are historic milestones for Optus as we focus on delivering our customers the very best 5G experience,” said Allen Lew, CEO at Optus. “Nokia has partnered with Optus to accelerate our preparations for 5G and as a result we are first in the world to deliver live 5G NR FWA services using the Nokia’s FastMile 5G Gateway.”

“We are excited to partner with Optus on their 5G vision with solutions that will create a better, more connected future for Australia,” said Sandra Motley, President of Nokia’s Fixed Networks Business Group. “With our 5G FastMile solution Optus will be able to unlock the full potential of its mobile network and deliver new ultra-broadband services to customers.”

The rest of Nokia’s announcements were predictably 5G-ish too. There are some trials and general 5G conviviality with Bharti Airtel, Korea Telecom and Vodafone. On top of that Nokia is helping Sony Pictures bleed its Spiderman asset yet again by combining with Intel to serve up some kind of 5G VR experience at their respective MWC booths.

 

 

TPG kills mobile plans blaming Huawei Aussie ban

Australian telco TPG has abandoned plans to create a fourth mobile offering after the government order blacklisting Huawei, its main supplier, from the country.

The last couple of months have seemingly been a series of headaches and large financial outlays for the telco. It has been attempting to improve connectivity for the people of Australia through a very expensive network deployment, but then the Australian government decides to kick it in the stones by banning its supplier and poo-pooing a merger which would help create financial synergies to ease said deployment.

According to the Guardian, enough is enough and the TPG management team have given up. No-one gets a fourth mobile player now.

“It is extremely disappointing that the clear strategy the company had to become a mobile network operator at the forefront of 5G has been undone by factors outside of TPG’s control,” said David Teoh, Executive Chairman of TPG.

Perhaps there is a bit of poetic justice here. The Australian government has been poking and prodding the industry in recent months, proving to be one of the most intrusive of political administrations in the ‘Western’ world, but with TPG ditching the mobile network the Aussie governments ambition to create more competition has come crashing down around it.

Having already spent $1.26 billion for mobile spectrum during the 2017 auction, the total bill for the network was set to exceed $2 billion. TPG had opted to use Huawei as its main vendor for the project, though the ban from the Australian government on the Chinese company participating in the connectivity euphoria effectively ended this ambition. Now it seems TPG has just had enough, throwing in the mobile connectivity towel altogether.

On the bright side for TPG, this move effectively kills off 50% of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) objections to the Vodafone merger.

Although the merger between TPG and Vodafone has been rounding the offices for approval for some time now, the ACCC recently extended its own deadline to investigate the matter further. The Aussies were desperate for a fourth national mobile operator and with TPG’s potential disruptive offer, its prayers had been answered. Then rumours of a merger started.

In extending the deadline to either approve or deny the merger application, you get the impression the ACCC is buying itself time to justify a pre-determined position. We suspect it wants to say no and create a position of four operators but hasn’t got enough material to do so.

That said, without a TPG mobile network the ACCC can only object to a removal of competition in the fixed line segment. We can imagine Vodafone would be happy to ditch its own fixed network ambitions if it means a greenlight for the merger.

In one swift movement the Australian government has lost its fourth mobile network operator while the competition watchdog might have lost any ammunition it had for denying the TPG/Vodafone merger. Not the greatest day for the Aussies.

Nerves jangle as Aussies delay TPG/Vodafone merger decision

The Australian regulator has pushed back the deadline for its decision on whether Vodafone Australia and TPG can move forward with the proposed £8.2 billion merger.

While this far from a definite sign the merger will be blocked by the watchdog, the longer the evaluation process goes on for, the stronger the feelings of apprehension will get. If the Aussies were happy with the plans to create a convergence player, they would have said so, but perhaps the regulator is just making sure it effectively does its due diligence.

The tie up between the pair is supposed to be an effort to capitalise on convergence bounties and reinvigorate the competitive edge of the business. That said, last month the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) weighed into the equation raising concerns a merger would de-incentivise the market to offer low-cost services.

According to Reuters, the ACCC has extended its own self-imposed deadline to evaluate the merger by two weeks to April 11. If the watchdog cannot build a case to deny the merger by that point it probably never will be able to, but you have to wonder whether the additional time is being used to validate its position of opposition.

All regulators are supposed to take a balanced and impartial position when assessing these transactions, though its negative opinion last month suggests the agency is looking for a reason to deny as opposed to evaluating what information is on the table. Giving itself an extra couple of weeks will only compound this theory in the mind of sceptics.

To be even handed though, the consolidation argument is perfectly logical and completely absurd depending on who you are. There are benefits and negatives on both sides of the equation, irrelevant as to how passionately supporters and detractors preach to you. For all the arguments and evidence which are presented, a bucket-full of salt will probably be required.

Aussie watchdog sniffs around TPG and Vodafone merger

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is having a closer look at the AUS$15 billion TPG and Vodafone merger, with the signs looking rather ominous for the pair.

After initially being rumoured in August, the merger was confirmed with the pair targeting convergence trends to source fortunes down-under. Neither telcos has been tearing up trees in the market, TPG’s recent financials revealed 0.5% growth over 2018 while Vodafone posted a first-half net loss of AUS$92.3 million in July, though this merger could have been viewed as a means to become more profitable.

However, the ACCC is citing competition concerns in both the mobile and the broadband business units. When the watchdog starts to get twitchy, it doesn’t necessarily bode well.

“Our preliminary view is that TPG is currently on track to become the fourth mobile network operator in Australia, and as such it’s likely to be an aggressive competitor,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“Although Vodafone is currently a relatively minor player in fixed broadband, we consider it may become an increasingly effective competitor because of its high level of brand recognition and existing retail mobile customer base.”

As separate companies, TPG has the broadband heritage with ambitions in the mobile game, while for Vodafone it is the opposite. Any regulator or competition authority which is starting to see organic diversification will start to get excited, though this merger will effectively kill off any promise of additional players in the individual connectivity segments, as they would lean on the new partners strength. The promise of four separate mobile and broadband telcos is disappearing in front of the ACCC’s eyes.

The question which remains is whether Australia needs a fourth player in the mobile and broadband segments for the market to remain competitive? There are of course pros and cons to both sides of the argument, though risk-adverse public sectors bodies tend to believe more providers means a better outcome for the consumer due to competition.

This is certainly what appears to be happening in Australia, though this is a country which needs to operate its own rules.

In markets like the UK, fewer providers might not mean less competition. The land mass which needs to be covered is comparatively small, therefore it is not out of the question to have genuine national providers, which can offer 90% or greater coverage. This means choice for the consumer and the providers have to scrap for attention and subscriptions.

However, Australia is massive, incredibly varied and contains some very hostile environments; not exactly the perfect playing field for telco expansion and greenfield investment. The risk of localised monopolies emerging are greater, due to the final burden of increasing coverage or entering into new segments. With this in mind you can see why the ACCC is getting a bit twitchy.

Of course, consolidation means a bigger subscriber base, greater revenues and therefore increased CAPEX budgets. Investors and management teams have more confidence in being able to upsell services to existing customers, therefore the risk in investing in new infrastructure or upgrades is decreased.

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other when you look at it, though that will come as little comfort to the TPG and Vodafone executives now facing the scrutiny of the ACCC.

Aussies determined to undermine security with anti-encryption law

Ten of the world’s largest tech brands have banded together to denounce a recent law passed by the Australian government which could be viewed as the first step towards a Big Brother government.

With the world turning against China and Chinese companies due to the threat of espionage, you have to question whether the Australian’s have a leg to stand on anymore, as personal privacy takes a heavy blow with this legislation.

The signs have certainly been worrying over the last 18 months. Australia might well be one of the first to pass such controversial legislation, but it is certainly not alone. France, Germany, the UK and the US have all made it clear they all have ambitions to make our world less secure and less private with their own attempts. The privacy damn was set to burst, and the Aussies caved. Privacy has taken a backwards step down-under.

The statement below, signed by Apple, Evernote, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Oath, Snap and Twitter, signals the opposition from the technology industry.

“One of the core principles of the Reform Government Surveillance coalition (RGS) is that strong encryption of devices and services protects the privacy and data security of our users, while also promoting free expression and the free flow of information around the world,” a joint statement declares.

“RGS has consistently opposed any government action that would undermine the cybersecurity, human rights, or the right to privacy of our users – unfortunately, the Assistance and Access Bill that was just passed through the Australian Parliament will do just that. The new Australian law is deeply flawed, overly broad, and lacking in adequate independent oversight over the new authorities. RGS urges the Australian Parliament to promptly address these flaws when it reconvenes.”

The law itself will allow the Australian police to issue technical notices, compelling technology companies to assist the government to hack, implant malware, undermine encryption and even insert backdoors into security software. Those who resist would face financial penalties. The justified concerns with the legislation are two-fold.

Firstly, the idea of a backdoor or writing algorithms which allow encryption software to be undermined completely defeats the purpose. The presence of such features should be seen as nothing more than a weakness in the software, a weak link in the chain. Whenever there is a vulnerability, nefarious individuals always expose it. It is just a matter of time before cyber criminals identify these vulnerabilities and it doesn’t matter how well they are hidden. It might happen after months of searching, or it might happen by accident.

Secondly, the law is flawed in that it is full of loop-holes and contradictions which leave it open to abuse and mission creep.

The initial remit of the technical notices will be for serious crimes, such as sex offenders, terrorists, homicide and drug offenses, though critics have pointed towards weak and vague language which opens the door for mission creep. And when there is an opportunity to push the boundaries of acceptable, there are people who will do this.

Another example of the problematic rules is the difference between Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) and Technical Assistance Notices (TANs). Both are used to compel technology companies into assistance for pretty much the same exercises and violations of privacy, though TCNs require approval by the Attorney-General, a consultation period and can only be used by the agency which submitted the request. TANs do not but can wield almost exactly the same amount of power.

“As Government and Labor MPs work today to craft amendments to the Assistance and Access Bill, it appears that one of the biggest flaws in the proposed legislation will not be addressed,” said Communications Alliance CEO, John Stanton on the differences between TCNs and TANs.

These are only a couple of examples of the criticism which the bill has faced over the last couple of weeks, though even after public consultation (which attracted 15,000 comments) few amendments were made to the original draft before being passed into law.

“The Australian government has ignored the expertise of researchers, developers, major tech companies, and civil liberties organizations by charging forward with a disastrous proposal to undermine trust and security for technology users around the world,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it a statement.

“The issue isn’t whether the Australian government read the 15,000 comments and ignored them or refused to read them altogether. The issue is that the Australian government couldn’t have read the 15,000 comments in such a short time period. Indeed, the bill’s few revisions reflect this—no security recommendations are included.”

In the pursuit of making life easier for the Australian police force, the government has betrayed the consumer and made the digital landscape a haven for hackers. We are unable to think of any examples of genuine encryption software being hacked or compromised to date, but the Australian government has just made life a lot easier for nefarious actors by voluntarily introducing vulnerabilities.

And this is without addressing the opportunity for abuse and violation of individuals human right to privacy.

There have been countless examples from around the world of individuals, either in private organizations or government agencies, being able to respect privacy rights when given the opportunity. Uber employees used the location tracking features of the app to stalk ex’s and celebrities, while Edward Snowden exposed how the CIA illegally undermined the privacy of thousands of its own citizens.

The Australian government has not done anywhere near enough to ensure the rights of citizens will be maintained, or that actions will be entirely justified. This is a very worrying sign for the world, especially with the likes of the US and UK watching very carefully.

Australia is part of the Five Eyes intelligence fraternity, which traces its origins back to the 50s. This intelligence alliance, comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US, generally work hand-in-hand when it comes to intelligence and security, and tend to implement very similar legislation. With Australia setting the pace of making the world a less safe place, it would not be a surprise to see other nations follow suit.

International politics is generally like a dominoes set. All ‘Western’ governments have similar laws, and when one breaks rank usually it back-tracks or the rest get in line. In this case with governments around the world all showing Big Brother ambitions, we suspect it might not be too long before more of these bills are being discussed elsewhere.

Aussies question whether Google and Facebook are overstepping boundaries

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is shining the light of concern on Google and Facebook, seemingly one of the first steps towards regulatory overhaul.

Of course, there is no question the internet giants should be under greater regulatory scrutiny, though creating the red-tape maze does take time. The Digital Platforms Inquiry Preliminary Report released by the ACCC is just the first bureaucratic step in the dance which will take place over the coming months. Google and Facebook are in the crosshairs, though how long it will take to overhaul the dated and swiss-cheese like rules is anybody’s guess.

“The ACCC considers that the strong market position of digital platforms like Google and Facebook justifies a greater level of regulatory oversight,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

“Australian law does not prohibit a business from possessing significant market power or using its efficiencies or skills to ‘out compete’ its rivals. But when their dominant position is at risk of creating competitive or consumer harm, governments should stay ahead of the game and act to protect consumers and businesses through regulation.”

There are several issues which are being raised through the report, though the important one seems to be the breadth and depth of influence which the internet players can wield. These are platforms which did begin their journey as curators or hosts of information, and despite pleas this position continues, their role in society has evolved at the same rate at which their bank accounts have grown. The ACCC is suggesting these platforms have an incredible influence on society, which they of course do, and this should be reflected in future regulation.

For the likes of Google and Facebook, there is another fight on the horizon. These are organizations which have enjoyed a relatively light-touch regulatory landscape, perhaps owing to the fact rule makers are not able to keep pace with the evolution of technology and the digital economy, though the world is starting to wake up. Recent scandals concerning privacy, location tracking, the dissemination of information and the depth of knowledge on the consumer are ensuring governments are taking this segment seriously now.

Looking at the specifics of this report, the ACCC is concerned about echo chambers being created thanks to personalisation algorithms. The lack of transparency is a concern here, as users might be unknowingly led down a biased news feed. Perhaps this would explain the polarised opinions we are seeing nowadays; not enough people are being exposed to both sides of the argument.

Other points raised by the report focuses on the depth of information collected on the user by these platforms, which far exceeds what the user has expressly given permission for, and also the ‘take it or leave it’ approach to T&Cs. The influence of these platforms due to the amount of information collected and the opaque ranking system might well be creating beasts which could favour certain businesses or political parties, a position which might be considered dangerous.

One of the proposals put forward in the report is to prevent Chrome being installed as a default browser on mobile devices, computers and tablets and Google’s search engine being installed as a default search engine on internet browsers. This is one example of how the Australian government is aiming to dilute the influence of Google, though it is important to note this report is not specifically directed at Google alone. Other proposals include modifications to the Privacy Act, which would (in theory) offer the consumer more choice and power.

For any fundamental changes to happen in government there are appropriate and measured steps to take. These steps involve research, consultations, as well (seemingly) endless debates and lobbying. This should be viewed as the first steps towards gaining greater regulatory influence over the internet players who have enjoyed greater freedoms over other businesses.

The world is starting to wake up and realise the internet players cannot be regulated in the same way as traditional businesses. It might be long overdue, but sooner or later the balance of power and influence will shift into a fairer and more sustainable position.

NBN’s journey hasn’t been smooth, but CTO claims its delivering on the promise

At Broadband World Forum one of the most common plays was to poke fun at the NBN troubles in Australia, but CTO Ray Owen’s reckons he’s got the last laugh.

According to Owen, the NBN network now carries 28 petabytes of data every day, with average user consuming 213 GB a month and the top 30% of fibre customers consuming more than a terabyte. Back in April, the team even noted one user managed to consumer more than 23 terabytes during the month. “We’re not too sure what he was actually doing, but he was definitely having a good time,” joked Owen.

The plan is to get 8 million happy homes on the NBN network by 2020, but also a minimum speed of 25 Mbps for all Australian citizens. In terms of penetration, Owen suggested the NBN network now services 4.4 Aussies, 63% of the target, though meeting the 25 Mbps government-mandated target would take more than fibre. A multi-technology mix has been tabled including Fixed Wireless Access (FWA), G.Fast, fibre and satellite to meet these demands. In a country the size of Australia, containing some very hostile environments, 100% fibre penetration is not a realistic goal.

Despite Owen’s claim on progress, it didn’t stop the mocking. Conference chairperson Richard Jones was one to poke fun, in between humble claims of founding 25 different companies over the course of his unassuming career, while Kate McKenzie, CEO of New Zealand wholesale network provider Chorus, revelled in the troubles as evidence of how wonderful she and her business is.

While the poking might have been on the obnoxious side, it isn’t untrue. The NBN rollout has been a painful journey, with the latest revelation coming from the latest budget estimates. CEO Steven Rue told Senate Estimates NBN would still be using the Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) approach until at least 2040. The multi-technology mix has been taking stick, but it is the only genuine option to ensure all Australian citizens are taking into the digital economy together. 100% fibre penetration is not going to be a viable option in the foreseeable future. That said, many of the criticisms of NBN do have merit.

Looking forward, NBN forecasts increased adoption of 4K and 8K video, smart home adoption will increase rapidly and augmented reality will start to make an impact over the next couple of years, while the business segment will continue to diversify. Real-time entertainment services are quickly declining, VPN uptake is on the up and file sharing is heading south. This will not only impact the technology which will be used to facilitate connectivity, but the approach to experience. As you can see from the picture below, the plans have been laid to evolve the network beyond the 2020 deadline.

“What I’m interested in as a CTO is the different technologies which can help improve this customer experience,” said Owen.

Beyond 2020, perhaps the full fibre (FTTP) vision will be revived. The current technology mix is best case scenario to meet demands, but it is by no means perfect or particularly future-proofed.

fznor

NB-IoT gathers momentum

Trials in Australia and the UK involving Ericsson and Vodafone indicate the NB-IoT is starting to become a reality.

Ericsson and Telstra are claiming the longest connection for the narrowband wireless standard that is set to be the default for IoT. The trial used a Telstra base station to communicate with an NB-IoT temperature sensor 94 km away on Mount Cenn Cruaich in New South Wales, Australia. They say the previous range limit was more like 40 km.

“We’re partnering with Telstra to deliver its customers a world-leading capability in NB-IoT extended range cells and demonstrating the huge opportunity that IoT represents in rural and regional areas for both Australia and globally, particularly for logistics and agriculture,” said Emilio Romeo, Ericsson’s MD for Australia and New Zealand.

“Telstra already had Australia’s largest IoT coverage with Cat M1 across our 4G metro, regional and rural coverage footprint,” said Channa Seneviratne, Telstra’s Executive Director of Network and Infrastructure Engineering. “With this NB-IoT extended range feature, we have now extended our coverage to more than three and a half million square kilometers, delivering our customers the best IoT coverage and capability in the country.”

Meanwhile Vodafone has started trialling NB-IoT in the UK, as reported by Light Reading. Energy company Scottish Power is Vodafone’s first UK NB-IoT customer and is using IoT temperature sensors to detect when some of its remote kit might be overheating. They’re apparently powered by standard AA batteries and each one costs a couple of quid.

Lastly Counterpoint Research has found that global cellular IoT connections grew by 72% in the first half of this year and forecasted NB-IoT will account for around half of all IoT connections in the long term. As you can see from the charts below most of the action seems to be happening in China, but Vodafone is leading the international effort.

Counterpoint IoT 1

Counterpoint IoT 2

“Emerging markets like India, Brazil and in Africa while can offer tremendous scale but will likely be late followers compared to China in this path to connected everything,” said Satyajit Sinha of Counterpoint. “However, the massive growth opportunity remains in terms of cellular-IoT connections in emerging markets which will be possibly catalysed by operators such as Jio in India but more specifically from multi-market players such as Telefónica, MTN or Vodafone with plans to deploy LPWAN networks such as NB-IoT leveraging scale across their coverage markets.”

“Revenue generation from the IoT ecosystem is not siloed to any one specific segment of the value chain, rather it is distributed among all segments,” said Neil Shah of Counterpoint. “On an average for a cellular IoT solution deployment, connectivity represents around 12%, whereas hardware components, modules and devices represent 22%.

“The rest of the bulk of the value in an IoT solution is captured by system integrators, middleware, software platforms, and cloud analytics vendors. Hence, if operators are looking to capture maximum value, the strategies need to provide an end-to-end IoT solutions by bundling IoT devices, secure connectivity, platform, and data management to capitalize on the overall opportunity.”

The big variable with IoT, of course, is revenue. It doesn’t look too tough to scatter billions of sensors all over the place and connect them to the cloud via NB-IoT or whatever, but getting companies to pay for services on the back of them is another matter. It looks like a lot of the commercial precedent will be set in China, so the rest of the world might wait to see how that plays out before committing.

Aussies telcos given yellow card for foul-play in ‘unlimited’ advertising

UK consumers might find some comfort that lying to misleading the masses isn’t a speciality of telcos here; everyone around the world is up to no good.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has told telcos to keep a better handle on advertising claims, demanding more honesty. Transparency and accuracy might seem like strange concepts to telecommunications companies, who have made somewhat of a speciality of applying flexibility to the definition of certain terms, but the regulator is hitting back.

“Telecommunications companies should be wary of using absolute claims like ‘unlimited’ where that does not give a true picture to consumers of what is being offered,” said ACCC Chairperson Rod Sims.

“We have taken a range of actions against telecommunication companies for misleading consumers. It is about time they showed more respect for their customers and the Australian Consumer Law. With much higher penalties now available for breaches of consumer law, I hope they will take their obligations more seriously. From now on consumer law penalties will seriously affect their bottom line, and we will not hesitate to seek the highest possible penalties.”

The issue here is focused on the ‘unlimited’ claims put forward by telcos when promoting mobile data plans. Optus, Vodafone and Telstra are the trio under the microscope of the ACCC, alongside private litigation brought by Optus against Telstra in the Federal Court. The result of the investigation, which took place between March and June, is that while the trio of white liars did include disclaimers, these were not sufficiently prominent or clear enough to explain to consumers the existence and impacts of the limitations. In short, consumers were not told about the throttling which would take place after data limits had been reached.

While the Aussies might be the centre of criticism right now, few nationalities are innocent. The UK has consistently mislead the consumer with the dreaded ‘up-to’ metric, and while this has been addressed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) there are some, including Telecoms.com, who do not believe it has gone far enough. In years gone by, telcos could make speed claims in advertisements if they could prove 10% of customers could experience the promise. While this has been raised to 50% during peak hours, there have been calls this percentage should be higher.

In another example, Vodafone UK had one of its broadband adverts bands after the ASA deemed that there was a disconnect between the buffering scenario in the advert and how it related to the refund offer or service guarantee. The ‘ultimate speed guarantee’ advert featured Martin Freeman as a gamer experiencing connectivity issues at a critical point during the game, with BT making the initial complaint.

It is certainly promising to see a watchdog taking action against the telcos, perhaps we should all just ignore the advertising for the moment. We’re struggling to think of a telco which has earned the right to be trusted after years of misleading promises, inaccurate promises or childish moaning. Trust is hard earned and easily lost, and the telco industry is running on empty.