BT finally unveils its reimagined TV proposition

The aggregator model has taken centre-stage at BT, leveraging its existing capabilities instead of trying to beat the content industry at its own game.

Under Gavin Patterson, BT tried to do something which almost looked impossible. It attempted to disrupt the content industry by not only owning the delivery model for content, but the content itself. It attempted to muscle into an established segment and compete with companies which were built for the content world. It was expensive, complicated and messy, and it failed spectacularly.

BT has not given up on content under new leadership, but it is taking a seemingly more pragmatic and strategic approach. Aside from its own content, Now TV will also be embedded in the BT interface, meaning that customers can now watch, pause, rewind and record premium Sky Entertainment and Sky Sports content. Customers will also be able to integrate Amazon Prime Video and Netflix onto their BT bill, while each element of the bundle can be scaled-up or -down month-by-month.

It is making best use of its assets, and it looks to be a comprehensive and sensible pillar of the convergence strategy.

“Life doesn’t stand still from month to month, so we don’t believe our customers’ TV should either. Our new range of TV packs bring together the best premium services, fully loaded with a wide range of award-winning shows, the best live sports in stunning 4K and the latest must-see films – all with the flexibility to change packs every month – with  quick and easy search to find what you want to watch,” said Marc Allera, CEO of BT’s Consumer division.

BT will ‘own’ some content, it still has the UEFA Champions League broadcast rights after all, but it is picking its battles. The BT TV proposition failed in years gone because it tried to go it alone, but without the broad range of content genres, it looked like a poor attempt to compete with the likes of Sky. In reality, it didn’t need to.

The telcos have a significant advantage over many content companies around the world; they have an existing and trusted billing relationship with the customer. According to the Ovum World Information Series, EE has 30.6 million mobile subscribers and BT has 9.1 million broadband customers. These relationships can be leveraged through the partnership model to realise new profits in a low-risk manner.

BT is in a position of strength. The streaming wars are raging, and the service providers will do almost anything to gain the attention of the consumer, as well as build credibility in the brand. By bundling services into the BT, the OTTs are leveraging the trust which the customer has in the telco billing relationship and gaining eyeballs on the service itself. All they have to do is offer BT a small slice of the profits.

This is the symbiotic relationship in practice. The OTTs gain traction with customers, while BT can complete the convergence objective in a low-risk manner through the aggregator model.

That said, it is somewhat of a retreat from its previous content ambitions.

“This well long overdue move feels like a last-ditch effort to be successful in TV,” said Paolo Pescatore, founder of PP Foresight.

“Aggregation is the holy grail. BT has done a superb job of introducing some novel features and bringing together key services all in one place. This will strongly resonate with users. However, it is unlikely to pose a considerable threat to Sky who in turn will be able to bundle BT Sport into its own packages. In the future expect this new TV platform to be bundled with BT Halo which will further strengthen its premium convergent offering.”

Convergence is a strategy which should be fully embraced by the BT business. Not only has it been proven in other European markets, see Orange in France and Spain, but the depth and breadth of BT’s assets should position it as a clear market leader. With mobile, broadband, public wifi hotspots and content tied into a single bill, as well as partnerships to bolster the experience, BT is heading down the right path. If it can start to build service products on top, such as security, this could start to look like a very competent digital business.

The issue which remains is one of price. The Halo bundle is one few can compete with, but if it is not priced correctly it will not be a success. This does seem to be the issue with the BT consumer business right now, it is pricing itself out of the competition. Convergence is attractive to customers when it is convenient and makes financial sense, but right now it doesn’t seem to.

BT is slowly heading in the right direction. It might have taken years, but it is slowly creating a proposition for the consumer which few should theoretically be able to compete with. If it can merge the business into a single brand and sort out the pricing of its products, it should recapture the market leader position.

Facebook once more begs to be regulated

Like the data addict it is, social media giant Facebook feels it can’t be trusted to moderate its own habits and thinks state intervention may be the answer.

Reuters reports that Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) would like Facebook to be regulated in a way that’s somewhere in between how we currently regulate media companies, on once hand, and telcos. He did so in the context of people moaning about ‘bad’ content and specifically political misinformation spread over social media.

Zuck clearly thinks treating Facebook as a traditional media organisation is a step too far as it doesn’t produce its own content. But in observing that you would never punish a phone network for the stuff that passes over it, he seems to think there should be some greater degree of accountability imposed on social media companies for the content they host.

So all he’s really saying is that Facebook’s accountability for the stuff it publishes should be somewhere between 1% and 100%. Very helpful. In essence Zuck is resharing the old platform versus publisher debate and saying social media companies are neither and both – i.e. somewhere in between.

But why should Zuck want Facebook to be regulated at all? Isn’t that just inviting the state to poke its nose into his company’s private affairs? The answer is that social media censorship is an impossible task and that Facebook will never be able to please all of the people all of the time. What Zuck wants to do is find the perfect balance for his company between offloading responsibility for censorship decisions and retaining core control.

You have to wonder, however, whether Zuck has been adequately briefed on the nature of telecoms regulation. Does he know, for example, that all kinds of other things get tinkered with, including what they can charge their customers. Facebook may think a little bit of regulation will solve its content moderation problems, but letting that genie out of the lamp could well create a bunch of new ones.

FTC starts turning the screw on Big Tech

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued Special Orders to five of the technology industry’s biggest hitters as it takes a more forensic look at acquisition regulation.

Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, certain acquisitions or mergers are required to be greenlit by the regulatory authorities in the US before completion. This is supposed to be a measure to ensure an appropriate marketplace is maintained, though there are certain exceptions to the rule. It appears the FTC is making moves to combat the free-wheeling acquisition activities of Big Tech.

Under the Special Orders, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft now have to disclose all acquisitions which took place over the last decade. It appears the FTC believes the current rules on acquisition need to be reconsidered.

“Digital technology companies are a big part of the economy and our daily lives,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “This initiative will enable the Commission to take a closer look at acquisitions in this important sector, and also to evaluate whether the federal agencies are getting adequate notice of transactions that might harm competition. This will help us continue to keep tech markets open and competitive, for the benefit of consumers.”

While authorities have already questioned whether some acquisitions are in the best interest of a sustainable industry, in fairness, Big Tech has done nothing wrong. Where relevant, the authorities have been notified regarding acquisitions, and they have generally been approved. If the FTC and its cousins in other regulatory authorities believe the current status quo is unappealing, they only have themselves to blame.

In general, an acquisition will always have to be reported if the following three criteria are met:

  1. The transaction would have an impact on US commerce
  2. One of the parties has annual sales or total assets of $151.7 million, and the other party has sales or assets of $15.2 million or more
  3. The value of the securities or assets of the other party held by the acquirer after the transaction is $68.2 million or more

All three of these criteria have to be met before the potential acquisition has to be approved by the regulators.

Interestingly enough, the Android acquisition by Google is rumoured to be for roughly $50 million, therefore the third criteria was not met, and the team did not need to gain regulatory approval for the deal. This is perhaps what the FTC is attempting to avoid in the future, as while we suspect there was no-one in the office at the time with enough foresight to understand the implications, the regulator might suggest it would not have approved the deal in hindsight.

One of the issues being faced currently, and this is true around the world not just in the US, is that authorities feel they have lost control of the technology industry. Companies like Google and Facebook arguably wield more influence than politicians and regulatory authorities, a position few will be comfortable with outside of Silicon Valley.

Aside from this investigation, the FTC is also exploring Amazon in an antitrust probe, while Google and Facebook are facing their own scrutiny on the grounds of competition. There have also been calls to break-up the power of the technology companies, while European nations are looking into ways to force these companies to pay fair and reasonable tax. Across the world, authorities are looking for ways to hold Big Tech more accountable and to dilute influence.

Interestingly enough, we don’t actually know what the outcome of the latest FTC foray will be. It will of course have one eye on updating acquisition rules, though as Section 6(b) of the FTC Act allows the regulator to conduct investigations that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose; it’s a blank cheque and the potential outcome could head down numerous routes.

Ofcom appoints safe pair of hands as new boss and gets new internet censorship role

Establishment figure Dame Melanie Dawes has been announced as the new Chief Exec of UK telecoms regulator Ofcom.

She replaces Sharon White, who was also a senior civil servant before being handed the Ofcom gig. Dawes (pictured) is currently Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, a position she has held since 2015. Prior to that she was Director General of the Economic and Domestic Affairs Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.

“I am delighted that the Secretary of State has approved Ofcom’s appointment of Dame Melanie Dawes as the next Chief Executive of Ofcom,” said Lord Burns, Ofcom’s Chairman. “The Government’s statement that it is minded to appoint Ofcom as the regulator for online harms is a vote of confidence in Ofcom’s expertise. I know Melanie will do a fantastic job of leading the organisation and maintaining its strengths.

“I look forward to working with her over the months ahead as we prepare for this forthcoming legislation as well as the ongoing tasks of achieving better broadband and mobile coverage and supporting UK broadcasting.”

“I congratulate Dame Melanie Dawes on her appointment as chief executive of Ofcom,” said DCMS Secretary of State Nicky Morgan. “Melanie’s experience leading organisations through change will be vital as the Government today announces it is minded to appoint the organisation as regulator for new online harms laws.”

What’s all this ‘online harms’ stuff they’re all banging on about, I hear you ask. Well the UK government has been having a public consultation on how to protect people from bad stuff on the internet. As a result it has concluded there needs to be some kind of state intervention to make sure those who publish bad stuff are censored, punished and prevented from ever doing so again.

“We will give the regulator the powers it needs to lead the fight for an internet that remains vibrant and open but with the protections, accountability and transparency people deserve,” said Morgan. There’s just so much to unpack in that. Of course things like child abuse, promoting terrorism, etc should be kept off the internet and proponents of them punished, but that stuff is already illegal, so why do we need extra powers to fight it? Proposing the censorship of ‘harmful’ but otherwise legal content creates so many new problems it’s hard to know where to start.

“There are a number of important questions that remain unanswered – especially in a post-Brexit environment – such as how Ofcom will use its new powers, how a regulator would deal with companies not based in the UK and ISP blocking – including how the UK reacts to technical developments such as DNS-over-HTTPS. ISPA will be working with its members on these and other points as we enter the next phase of consultation,” said Andrew Glover, the Chair of ISPA.

It had previously been rumoured that the new UK government would push for a more radical appointment, but maybe this additional internet censorship remit caused it to err on the side of caution. Dawes would have had her hands full without the impossible job of policing the internet, now she’s really got her work cut out.

Twitter surges back after positive financial results

Three months ago the Twitter share price fell off a cliff thanks to a worrisome earnings call, but bad performance does not necessarily mean a bad company.

The latest financial report demonstrated this. Revenues for the fourth quarter of 2019 were $1.01 billion, an 11% year-on-year increase, while Average monetizable Daily Active Users (mDAU) were 152 million for Q4, compared to 126 million in the same period of 2018.

The third quarter financials could now be viewed as a blot on the landscape as share price shot up 16% during the early hours of trading on Thursday February 6. This is still considerably down on the high of $45.85 in September, but momentum might well shift back in favour of one of Silicon Valley’s earliest successes.

“We reached a new milestone in Q4 with quarterly revenue in excess of $1 billion, reflecting steady progress on revenue product and solid performance across most major geographies, with particular strength in US advertising,” said Ned Segal, Twitter CFO.

“We continue to see tremendous opportunity to get the whole world to use Twitter and provide a more personalized experience across both organic and promoted content, delivering increasing value for both consumers and advertisers.”

Despite being one of the most successful social media companies in terms of adoption, Twitter is one of the Silicon Valley residents who has struggled to make a meaningful impact on the promised fortunes of the digital economy. Over the last 12-18 months, this painful equation has seemingly been balanced, but the Q3 results threw a spanner in the works.

Over the last 12-18 months, Twitter has been sorting out its house. It started offering more comprehensive products for advertisers to target and engage customers, as well as more insightful features on the reporting features. There were some minor glitches to these features during Q3, which impacted results, as did retiring legacy products.

Another factor to consider is what actually happened during 2018. In a sentence, not a lot. This meant AmDAU’s were down during the period, and therefore advertising revenues were also. All of these factors combined resulted in the poor performance during the third quarter, but they were all issues which could be fixed. This is the basis of the turnaround during the fourth quarter.

This is the first quarter the business has exceeded $1 billion in revenue and there could be more to come. With the Olympics in Tokyo, the UEFA European Championships and the US Presidential Election all taking place over the next twelve months, there certainly could be more active users on the platform, therefore more opportunity to advertise and, finally, more revenue for Twitter.

2020 could be a very good year for the company, especially with new video products and a much more comprehensive approach to advertisers.

Fourth quarter Year-on-year Full year Year-on-year
Total revenue $1.01 billion 11% $3.46 billion 14%
Net income $118 million (54%) $1.46 billion 22%
R&D spend $198 million 40% $682 million 23%

Tinder comes under the scope of Irish GDPR watchdog

Dating apps have forever changed the way millennials find relationships (for however long they last…) but Tinder has found itself under the scrutiny of the Irish regulator.

The dating trailblazer has found itself alongside serial privacy offender Google as the focal point of an investigation from lead-European GDPR regulator the Irish Data Protection Commission. The question is whether MTCH Technology Services, the parent-company of Tinder, complies with GDPR in terms of processing user data.

“The identified issues pertain to MTCH Technology Services Limited’s ongoing processing of users’ personal data with regard to its processing activities in relation to the Tinder platform, the transparency surrounding the ongoing processing, and the company’s compliance with its obligations with regard to data subject right’s requests,” a statement from the regulator said.

Interestingly enough, a recent investigation from the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) suggested several dating apps such as Grindr, OkCupid, and Tinder might be breaking GDPR. The investigation suggested nine out of ten of the most popular dating apps were transmitting data to ‘unexpected third-parties’ without seeking consent from users, potentially violating GDPR.

As these applications collect sensitive information, sexual preferences, behavioural data, and location, there could be quite the backlash. The Irish Data Protection Commission will investigate how this information is processed, whether it then transmitted onto third parties and if the developers are being transparent enough with their users.

Alongside the Tinder investigation, the Irish watchdog is also investigating a regular for the privacy enforcement community, Google.

Once again, transparency is the key word here, as it so often is when one of the Silicon Valley residents are placed under the microscope. The authority will hope to understand how Google collects and processes location data, while also seeing whether it has been effectively informing users prior to collecting consent.

Google is seemingly constantly under the scrutiny of one regulator or another due to the complex web that is its operations. No-one outside of Google genuinely understands every aspect of the business, therefore a new potential privacy scandal emerges every so often as the layers of complexity are pulled back. In this investigation, it is not entirely clear what product or service is the focal point.

What is worth bearing in mind that any new privacy investigations are most likely to focus on timelines which were initiated following the introduction of GDPR in 2018. Anything prior to this, for example the Equifax leak or Yahoo hack, would not have been subject to the same financial penalties.

For the Tinder and Google investigations, any wrongdoing could be punished with a fine up to €2 million or 4% of total annual revenues, whichever is greater. We haven’t seen many of these fines to date because of the timing of the incidents or investigations, but regulators might well be looking for a case to prove there is a bite behind the regulatory bark, a means to scare corporates into action and proactive security measures.

An excellent example of this enforcement concerns Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The investigation into potential GDPR violations takes into account several different things; the incident itself, security procedures and features, transparency with the user and assistance with the investigation, to name a few. Facebook did not cover itself with glory and was not exactly helpful during the investigation, CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to appear in front of a Parliamentary Committee in the UK when called upon.

As this incident occurred prior to the introduction of GDPR, the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK was only permitted to fine the social media giant £500,000. Facebook’s annual revenue for 2013, when the incident occurred, was $7.87 billion. The maximum penalty which could have been applied under GDPR would have been $314 million.

Although the potential fines have been well-documented, until there is a case to point to most companies will push the boundary between right and wrong. Caution is generally only practised when the threat of punishment is followed through to make an example.

UK AI watchdog reckons social media firms should be more transparent

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation says there is strong public support for greater regulation of online platforms, but then it would.

It knows this because it got IPSOS Mori to survey a couple of thousand Brits in the middle of last year and ask them how much they trust a bunch of digital organisations to personalise what they deliver and to target advertising in a responsible way. You can see the responses in the table below, which err towards distrust but not by a massive margin. The don’t know’s probably provide an indication of market penetration.

How much trust, if any, do you have in each of the following organisations to personalise the content users see and to target them with advertising in a responsible way?
Facebook YouTube Instagram TikTok Twitter Snapchat Amazon LinkedIn BBC iPlayer Google search or Maps
A great deal of trust 7% 10% 6% 4% 6% 5% 13% 7% 16% 13%
A fair amount of trust 24% 38% 22% 8% 22% 15% 43% 25% 45% 44%
Not very much trust 30% 26% 24% 15% 25% 22% 24% 18% 17% 23%
No trust at all 32% 16% 24% 28% 25% 26% 13% 20% 10% 13%
Don’t know 8% 10% 23% 45% 23% 32% 7% 30% 11% 7%

It seems that UK punters haven’t generally got a problem with online profiling and consequent ad targeting, but are concerned about the lack of accountability and consumer protection from the significant influence this power confers. 61% of people favoured greater regulatory oversight of online targeting, which again is hardly a landslide and not the most compelling datapoint on which to base public policy.

“Most people do not want targeting stopped, but they do want to know that it is being done safely and responsibly and they want more control.” said Roger Taylor, Chair of the CDEI. “Tech platforms’ ability to decide what information people see puts them in a position of real power. To build public trust over the long-term it is vital for the Government to ensure that the new online harms regulator looks at how platforms recommend content, establishing robust processes to protect vulnerable people.”

Ah, the rallying cry for authoritarians everywhere: ‘think of the vulnerable!’ Among those, it seems, are teenagers, who are notorious for their digital naivety. “We completely agree that there needs to be greater accountability, transparency and control in the online world,” said Dr Bernadka Dubicka, Chair of the Child and Adolescent Faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. “It is fantastic to see the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation join our call for the regulator to be able to compel social media companies to give independent researchers secure access to their data.”

The CDEI was created last year to keep an eye on AI and technology in general, with a stated aim of investigating potential bias in algorithmic decision making. This is the first thing it has done in that intervening year and it amounts to a generic bureaucratic recommendation it could have made on day one. Still, Rome wasn’t built in a day and it did at least pad that out into a 120-page report.

Cloud becomes the golden child as Google reports yet more profit

When looking at the financial results of companies like Google, the question is not whether it has made money, but how much are the bank vaults overflowing.

Financial for the full year demonstrated slightly slowing growth, but few should worry about having to search the sofa for the pennies right now. Over the course of 2019, Google brought in $161.8 million, up 18.3% year-on-year, though it was YouTube and the Google Cloud business units as opposed to the core business which collected the plaudits from the management team.

“Revenues were 2.6 billion for the fourth quarter, up 53% year-over-year, driven by significant growth at GCP and ongoing strong growth and G Suite,” said Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat. “The growth rate of GCP was meaningfully higher than that of cloud overall. GCP growth was led by our infrastructure offerings and our data and analytics platform.”

Company Quarter Revenue (most recent) Year-on-year Growth
Google Cloud $2.6 billion 53%
Microsoft Intelligent Cloud $11.9 billion 27%
Amazon Web Services $9.9 billion 23%

Despite being a business unit which brings in an impressive $10 billion annually, it is impossible not to compare the performance of Google Cloud to AWS and Microsoft Azure. Google is realistically the only rival which can keep pace with the leading pair, though it does appear it is losing pace.

That said, the fortunes of the cloud are only beginning to be realised; this is a marathon not a sprint. Moving forward, the Google team believes strength in AI and software gives it an advantage to provide seamless experiences to users across multiple devices. There is also the blunt force approach to acquiring market share moving forward; Porat highlighted the objective is to triple the size of the cloud sales team.

Over at YouTube, the team is capitalising on the increasingly consumer appetite for video, though also what appears to be a more experimental attitude to subscription. YouTube TV is growing healthily at 2 million, while the core YouTube platform has more than 20 million music and premium paid subscribers.

This is positive momentum, though it will be interesting to see what impact partnerships have on these figures. Google is partnered with Verizon, forming a content option in its bundled products, though rivals are placing a much greater emphasis on these relationships, leaning on an already established link with the consumer, albeit sacrificing some profit in the process.

Perhaps these two business units demonstrate why Google is such an attractive company to investors and potential employees. The core business can do what it does, but Google is always searching for the next big idea. Google Cloud is arguably the most successful graduate of its ‘Moonshot Labs’ initiative, while YouTube is one of the biggest acquisition bargains at $1.65 billion in 2006. It now brings in more than $15 billion annually in ads sales.

During the earnings call, CEO Sundar Pichai pointed to some of the other investments which are absorbing the $26 billion annual R&D budget. Verily and Calico are linking together AI and cloud technologies to improve clinical trials, research, and drug development. Waymo is attempting to scale driverless vehicles in the US. Loon is another Moonshot graduate, endeavouring to stand on its own currently.

Google is one of the most interesting companies around, not only because it is a money-making machine, but the R&D business could produce some gems over the next few years.

The US election will test social media censorship to breaking point

Electoral losers are increasingly blaming social media for their failure, but this year will demonstrate that censorship is not the answer.

Democracy only works if the losers of elections accept defeat, but sadly few are inclined to do so these days. Now we have five stages of electoral grief that are directly analogous to the original Kübler-Ross model. We still have denial, anger and depression, but instead of bargaining we have litigation and acceptance seems to have been replaced with conspiracy theories in which social media plays a central role.

The central concern is that when the electorate votes for the other team it must be because they were mislead in some way, because no rational, fully informed person could fail to recognise the superiority of my team. In the past some blame could be attached to the mainstream media, something the UK Labour party still persists with. In the US, however, Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 despite having the support of no major media, would appear to render that theory obsolete.

Trump was able to prevail because politicians are no longer dependent on the old media to communicate directly with the electorate, thanks to social media. But this significantly lowered barrier to entry into the public sphere also provides fertile ground for electoral losers searching for mitigation and another bite at the cherry.

A favourite on both sides of the pond is to blame ‘the Russians’. While cold war fervour largely shifted its focus to China, Russia remains a strong source of bogeymen. Now it should be noted that there is plenty of evidence of social media bot farms originating from a number of countries, including Russia, that apparently seek to meddle in elections. What is much harder to prove is whether they had any effect on the outcome of elections whatsoever.

The small matter of evidence is never going to stand in the way of those refusing to concede defeat, however, and it has now become conventional wisdom that social media censorship is vital if we are to ever have untainted elections again. Since the US is in the middle of another of its interminable general election campaigns this year, the heat is being turned up on social media and they are being forced to respond.

Last week Twitter announced it was ‘turning on a tool for key moments of the 2020 US election that enables people to report misleading information about how to participate in an election or other civic event.’ The tweet implies the tool has a broader purpose than that, though, as it also includes intimidation and misrepresenting of political affiliation. Already you can see how a simple censorship objective becomes immediately and massively complicated under the weight of interpretation, semantics and generally chasing its tail.

Then you have Google and its subsidiary YouTube blogging about how much they ‘support’ elections, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Again a lot of this focuses on content that is intended to mislead voters, but since electioneering is biased by definition, surely all of it is intended to mislead to some extent. YouTube also reiterates its aim to promote ‘authoritative’ voices, which is code for establishment media and commentariat.

In contrast, Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is increasingly pushing back on censorship, having tried and failed to walk that tightrope since the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Perhaps motivated by the prospect of an extra four years of Trump, who has made his feelings known on censorship, Zuckerberg is now turning all free speech absolutist on us. Whether that position will survive even the first engagement of the US electoral process remains highly debatable, however.

Early signs of the immense pressure these platform owners will come under are already appearing, with the Democrats mobilising supposed experts to ‘protect’ the electoral process. “Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus will mark the DNC’s greatest challenge so far in efforts to guard its presidential contenders from the same fate that befell Hillary Clinton in 2016 when her campaign was upended by a Russian-backed hacking and disinformation effort,” reports the Washington Post in depressingly partisan fashion.

If that WaPo piece is anything to go by everyone is going to be trying to manipulate not only the US Presidential election, but the Democratic primaries too, where non-establishment candidate Bernie Sanders is currently the front-runner. Presumably YouTube doesn’t intend to punish the country’s mainstream media for misleading the electorate, so it seems it will support democracy by censoring everyone else.

As ever, censoring free societies is a game of whack-a-mole, in which policy-making can never hope to keep up with the desire of its people to say what they want. Even if the social media companies are successful in their stated censorship objectives, which they won’t be, the team that loses will still blame them. So they might as well not bother and trust their users to sort the wheat from the chaff. Afterall, they’ve been doing that with mainstream media for years.

Telefónica doubles down on the smart home

Telefónica has created a global unit, known as the Chief Digital Consumer Office (CDCO), which will champion new digital products and services, paying particular attention to the smart home.

Led by Chema Alonso, the team will aim to drive forward the Aura AI digital assistant, as well as continue the creation of the ‘fourth platform’. The initiative will help take Telefónica into the digital era across several areas, but there does seem to be particular attention being paid to the smart home ecosystem.

José Montalvo will become Chief Data Officer, with a primarily focus on the development of the fourth platform project, including integrating new products and services such as Aura onto the platform. David del Val will become Director of Core Innovation, with a particular focus on edge computing. Antonio Guzmán is the Director of Digital Home, tasked with overseeing the development of the smart home and digital services ecosystem.

These are only a few of the names, but it does appear Telefónica is hoping to create a standardised smart home ecosystem for the markets which it currently operates in. This is an incredibly intelligent approach to creating value in the future, and with its global presence, Telefónica can provide competition to other players who are attempting to create a platform to control the smart home ecosystem.

This initiative builds on progress being made in the smart home following the announcement of a partnership with Microsoft at Mobile World Congress last year.

Alongside Microsoft boss Satya Nadella, Telefónica CEO Jose Maria Alvarez-Pallete launched the fourth platform initiative in attempt to own the smart home ecosystem, seemingly learning from the ‘walled garden’ business model which has been so successful for the likes of Facebook.

In this model, Telefónica leverage its relationship with the users, creating a platform for third parties to offer products and services. Telefónica will of course offer its own services, such as content, but why not create revenue by monetizing the link between the user and other companies in the digital economy.

While the smart home is still emerging as a viable segment in the digital economy, this is a very intelligent move from Telefónica . Connected objects are becoming more common, as there will need to be a focal point to manage this ecosystem, but also guarantee security. Telefónica has a trusted relationship with the consumer, a recognised digital assistant and the power of Microsoft as a partner. This is not a guarantee, but at least Telefónica is trying something new under the threat of the connectivity industry becoming commoditised.