Trump’s Huawei executive order not much more than a power play

Rumours are swirling around Washington DC suggesting President Donald Trump is on the verge of signing another executive order, this one the final blow to Huawei’s US ambitions.

While the document itself will actually have very little impact on Huawei’s business, it is more of a symbolic blow to the kit vendor, as well as other Chinese businesses looking to exploit the riches of the Land of the Free. While the rumours were originally reported last week, by the time you get back to the office on Monday the order may well have been signed.

In a single signature, Huawei, a representation of China’s ambitions in the global technology and telecommunications industry, could be officially and explicitly shut out of the worlds’ largest economies.

Although details on the executive order are limited to rumour and hearsay for the moment, officials have stated this order will not impact electronics companies or products which incorporate Chinese components. This is a political move to demonstrate the power of the US. Trump is making a statement to China; look at what I can do to one of your flagbearers.

As it stands, Huawei’s involvement in US communications infrastructure is pretty minimal. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere has very publicly stated his business will very much avoid using Huawei equipment, while back in August Trump signed the Defense Authorization Act into law which effectively banned any meaningful work Huawei or ZTE could do in the US.

Huawei’s, and ZTE to a lesser extent, condemnation has become nothing more than a symbol of US dominance on the technology world. Trump is posturing, demonstrating what will happen to anyone who challenges the US leadership position. Over the last few months, US delegations have been visiting governments around the world to pitch the idea of a ban, admittedly with varied success, though there have been some willing to listen. Banning ZTE from using US components or IP brought the firm to the brink of extinction. The US forced Canada to arrest the Huawei CFO. A lot of this is a demonstration of power.

This is of course a complex and rich tapestry, and there are numerous intertwining and independent narratives going on. Some of it will be political, some economic, some espionage assumptions will be true and there will be validity to accusations of a government-influenced unfair playing field. This is an incredibly complex matter. But look at what the executive order actually is.

Huawei is already incredibly limited in the US, the damage to ambitions has already been dealt, this is chest beating from Trump.

Samsung looks to capitalise on Huawei’s woes

Samsung is reported to be investing heavily in infrastructure business to fill the market gap left by Huawei’s ban from 5G business in the developed markets.

Sources inside Samsung and other industry executives have told the Reuters that Samsung is pouring resources into its telecom infrastructure business unit, aiming to seize the opportunity created by the ban on Huawei in a number of important western markets. Samsung’s infrastructure business had been insignificant until recently, trailing Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson, Cisco, and ZTE, according to figures from the research firm Dell’Oro Group. But it saw a chance when first ZTE then Huawei found themselves being shut out of the lucrative 5G markets in one country after another in the developed world.

To join the ranks of Ericsson and Nokia, Samsung is said to be moving strong management resources as well as software engineers from the smartphone unit to the infrastructure business and to have started charming Huawei’s current customers. One of the global heavyweights that has been impressed by what Samsung has got to offer is Orange. After visiting Japan, where Samsung was conducting a 5G trial, Mari-Noëlle Jégo-Laveissière, Orange’s CTO, was happy to include Samsung in its shortlist of alternative suppliers, after the telco decided to ban Huawei, its long-term top supplier, from its 5G business in France. An Orange 5G trial with Samsung will be conducted this year.

One difficulty Samsung needs to overcome is the shortage of talents. To start with it needs good engineers. To this end, Samsung’s heir apparent and de facto head Lee Jae-yong, or Jay Y. Lee as he is known in the western world, has sought the support from the Prime Minister when the latter visited Samsung in January. “We need more software engineers and want to work with the government to find that talent,” Lee was quoted by government officials. Samsung’s infrastructure unit has a workforce of about 5,000 people, both Nokia and Ericsson employ more than 100,000 people, and Huawei is said to have employed 200,000 people.

Another type of people Samsung needs to get onboard is those that can build operator relations. This needs a different skill sets from what Samsung has excelled in dealing with distribution channels for its smartphones, and it needs them to be in all the right places in the mature markets, and, better still, to have already worked with the potential operator customers. Due to the nature of business, trusty relationship with telcos often need to be cultivated for years or even decades.

However, Samsung may have just chosen a perfect timing for expansion. Both Ericsson and Nokia are laying off people, either wholesale shutting down of full business units, or selectively downsizing certain teams. Many of these functions have actually had customer interface experience. Huawei’s founder meanwhile has warned that the company may also need to adopt some cost control measures. Though they could not bolster Samsung’s strengths to the same level of its competitors, these could all be good recruitment targets for Samsung to pounce.

Big Apple says no to Amazon

The PR bout between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Democratic Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been settled, with the internet giant cancelling plans to open a New York office.

HQ2, as it had come to be known, was supposed to be Amazon’s attempt to expand its corporate footprint, opening a new, secondary, headquarters outside of Seattle. After a year-long search, the decision was made to split duties between Virginia and New York, with each eventually playing home to 25,000 employees promised Amazon. It seemed like an attractive proposition, but political and residential opposition killed the idea.

“After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens,” the company said in a statement. “For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term.

“While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.”

Amazon has been on a year-long road trip to figure out which city would effectively bribe it the most to become the home of the next corporate headquarters. The ‘bribe’ would come in the form of tax incentives and relief for investing in a region, and while this might have looked like a coup for New York and the district of Queens, there has been political opposition.

Ocasio-Cortez was the spearhead, objecting to the billions of dollars’ worth of benefit the internet giant would realise, all at the expense of the tax payer. Opponents to the development also questioned how much of a benefit Amazon would be to the city, as many locals would not be qualified for the newly created positions.

Although there are arguments on both sides of the equation, you have to wonder whether this is a short-sighted move from a politically naive representative. Firstly, New York has not shown itself to be particularly welcoming to technology, the fastest growing segment of the global economy. And secondly, just because people are not qualified for these roles today, doesn’t mean the generations of tomorrow won’t be qualified.

Starting with the first point, many cities across the US are attempting to make their own region appear more attractive to technology companies. This is always for the same reason; politicians and bureaucrats recognise the growth potential of the technology industry and the greater impact this can have on the city. In taking such a strong and aggressive stance against Bezos, New York has given itself a slight technophobe image.

Of course, what is worth noting is the city should not be taken advantage of. This is what many feel Amazon has done, using the immense promise of jobs, investment and prosperity to bleed the city dry. Whether you look at the tax incentives as a pragmatic move or abuse of the system depends on your political swing, but there are fair arguments on both side of the equation.

The second point of opposition is down to the jobs which will be created. Many have suggested these would not be suitable for the local population of Queens, instead outsiders would stream into the area, potentially bringing with them higher house prices and pretentious coffee shops. There is certainly some validity to this position, though you have to wonder whether this is short-sighted.

The first generation might not be the most qualified, but in bringing a new type of job to the area, future generations have another target to aim for. Companies like Amazon also like to run initiatives like coding clubs in local schools, offering young students an opportunity to learn a future-proofed skill which might not be available to them otherwise. There is also secondary employment brought to the district because of the presence of Amazon.

Amazon is also a leader is the quickly prospering field of artificial intelligence. Although engineering and innovation for AI would almost certainly be based in Silicon Valley, the presence of such a massive office in New York would allow the city to create a hub of excellence for AI. Considering the role this emerging segment will play in the future, this is potentially a massive missed opportunity.

There are arguments on both sides of the equation, but we believe this is a short-sighted campaign of opposition. More effort should have been made to renegotiate the terms, as much more is lost than gained with New York snubbing Amazon.

Apple expected to launch half-baked streaming platform

Rumours are swirling around the Apple content business once again, this time pinning an April launch date on a streaming product which would offer third-party bundles in-app.

The aggregator platform for content is one which is becoming increasingly popular as the industry starts to realise how difficult it is to be a content creator. Apple has tried over the years, with only a sprinkling of success, but it seems it is hedging this new position by bundling other premium subscription services into the same content platform.

According to CNBC, Apple will create a video content platform to host its own content, which will be free to those who own Apple devices and offer the option for users to tie in premium subscriptions from third-parties. This sounds like an excellent idea, the fragmentation of content across different platforms is a frustration for users, though the absence of some might be a significant stumbling block.

As it stands, Apple has been unable to negotiate a relationship with HBO, though this is still a possibility, while the report also claims Hulu and Netflix will not be on the platform. For such an idea, and it is a good one which will appeal to consumers, all the various options need to be available. As it stands, with some of the most popular streaming services absent the appeal of the platform is severely dented.

“Any move is long overdue and comes at a challenging time for any new player,” said independent analyst Paolo Pescatore. “We’ve seen an explosion in OTT SVOD services.

“For the service to be successful it will need stand heads and shoulders over rivals, great content, great UX, a one stop shop destination. Unfortunately the market is hugely fragmented and consumers do not want to sign up to numerous services. There is an opportunity to unite all of these services. Whoever gets this right will be in pole position. If Apple has serious aspirations to compete in this landscape it needs to make a significant acquisition.”

But what could be the issue? Rumours are pointing towards the terms and conditions set forward by Apple; they might be asking for too much.

Looking at the App Store, Apple has traditionally asked for a 30% slice of any subscriptions bought through the platform, a number which decreases to 15% in the second year. It also demands 30% of in-app purchases, leading some developers to take users off-app to complete any transactions, creating a loophole in the terms and conditions. It seems these terms ate being extended to the aggregator platform and might be the reason Apple is finding difficulty in negotiating with partners.

Anonymous sources quoted by CNBC are suggesting HBO is resisting so far as Amazon Prime offered better terms than Apple. Sticking to its guns might sound like an attractive move to the management team and investors, but unless Apple gets a decent level of premium content on the platform to supplement its own mediocre library the platform will not be a success.

“Apple’s strength has always been seamless integration between hardware, software, services and now, presumably, content,” said Ed Barton, Chief Analyst at Ovum. “It has a lot of strengths to leverage in launching a video service. It’s problem is launching a video service in 2019 is about as hard as it has ever been, the competition is insanely strong and very well established in audience viewing habits.

“More well funded competitors are launching this year and making enough shows to attract and retain audiences is getting harder and more expensive. I don’t doubt Apple can launch a great video service, whether apple can sustain a great video service over the longer term in the brutally competitive environment for premium video is the question.”

Another strand of the software and services push will take Apple into the world of magazine subscriptions. Similar to the plans above, premium magazine subscriptions will be offered to users through the iOS news app, though considering the strife traditional content providers are in, Apple might be able to throw its weight around a bit more.

This is perhaps the problem Apple is facing; it thinks it is more powerful and influential than it actually is. Of course, Apple is one of the most respected and dominant brands on the planet when it comes to consumer hardware, though the software world is a completely different dynamic. It cannot bully companies like Hulu, Netflix and HBO into its own terms and conditions, as these are companies which are successful in the content world in their own right. Apple is trying to break into a new space, not necessarily the other way around.

That said, Apple does have a very strong relationship with its hordes of loyal customers. It can add value to any business it partners with, but perhaps it needs to realise it is only one hand amongst hundreds which is trying to lure customers onto its platform. What is clear right now, is that without enough headline grabbing content on the platform, the idea will certainly fall flat.

EA’s Fortnite copycat is off to a flier

One week after Electronic Arts launched Apex Legends, a free-to-play online battle royale game, the team is purring over 25 million sign ups and over 2 million concurrent players at peak times.

The game itself, developed by Respawn Entertainment and published by EA, is nothing that original. While the look of the game might have a different feel to Fortnite, the idea and gameplay is effectively the same and users are seemingly loving it. Just a point of comparison, it took Fortnite three months to hit the 25 million sign-up milestone.

“What a week,” said Vince Zampella of Respawn Entertainment. “Since we launched Apex Legends last week on Monday we’ve seen the creation of an Apex Legends community that is excited, thriving, and full of great feedback and ideas. Our goal is to build this game with you, our community, so keep giving us your feedback because we really are listening.”

Gaming might well be a niche in the telecommunications world right now, but it is growing at a staggering rate. It won’t be too long before the telcos have to pay attention to this segment of the digital world, factoring in gaming as a major conversation in the connectivity mix.

What Fortnite has done over the last couple of months is take a niche segment of the gaming world out to the masses. Online multiplayer formats are of course not new, but the free-to-play idea, with revenues being sourced entirely through in-game purchases, has been taken to a new level. The accessibility of a relatively limited experience has captured the imagination and interest of new users, opening the door for other developers to follow.

Of course, as the popularity of these games increase, the demands on the network will do as well. These are games which are reliant on real-time experiences, marrying interactions between users all over the world. For avid gamers, or those with children, purchasing decisions might well be impacted on the performance of these experiences. Now it might not seem like a massive deal, but these trends have a tendency to snowball; just look at the explosion of video content over the last couple of years.

It’s just another factor for the telcos to consider over the coming years. Gone are the days where gamers are satisfied with a linear, story-mode experience, something which would have been easy for the telcos to deal with. These games require downloads and updates, but this is nothing compared to the demand of real-time interactions with 20+ other users in countries all over the world.

Gaming has largely been ignored to date, but with the segment creeping out of its niche corner offering new and in-depth experiences for the mass market, it is increasingly becoming a burden on the network.

White House congratulates itself for catching AI bug

President Trump is set to sign several bills into law, each of which aims to stimulate US ambitions in future technologies and productivity.

While the lion’s share of the attention will be directed towards artificial intelligence, there are other bills which have been slipped in including advanced manufacturing and Quantum Information Science. One of the more important groups which is emerging from this announcement, the National Council for the American Worker, is perhaps the one which will get most over-looked though.

“I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting-edge industries of the future,” Trump said in a White House statement. “This is not an option. This is a necessity.”

Focusing on the National Council for the American Worker for the moment, this is an area where the US could genuinely prove itself to be forward-looking, instead of focusing on aging buzzwords.

The top-line aim for the Council will be to craft the masses to ensure they are suitably qualified and positioned to reap the benefits of tomorrow’s society. This means investigating how curriculums can be altered to ensure the right skills are being offered to young people, but also awareness campaigns to generate an understanding of what will be required of young people in the world of tomorrow.

What is less clear is the impact on the people of today. This is not directly covered in the press jargon, though there is an objective for the Council to work with the private sector to ensure the skills chasm is reduced. The White House has not said it directly, though this is pretty much as close as any government has come to recognising technologies such as AI are not going to be beneficial to everyone in today’s society.

Government rhetoric surround AI has been pretty consistent around the world. Firstly, AI will create wonderful products and services for consumers, and secondly, it will make businesses more profitable, creating new job opportunities. This might be true, but no-one has recognised there is going to be pain.

People will be made redundant. Jobs will be lost to software, automation and consolidation. Some people will not be suitable candidates for the newly created roles. These scenarios are utterly unavoidable. Unless government recognise this pain, nothing can be done to adapt to it. If nothing is done, there will be elements of society who will be left behind, qualified for roles which no longer exist. Governments have to wake up and be mature.

Elsewhere the President has unveiled a National Strategic Plan on Advanced Manufacturing and has also signed the National Quantum Initiative Act into law. Quantum Information Science is an area which seemingly fits perfectly into the Silicon Valley mould, looping back around to the semiconductor revolution which spurring the region into action decades ago. With 5G on the horizon encouraging exceptional growth in computing power, this is a segment which will almost prove critical in the future.

The framework is there for some potentially beneficial legislation, though we’ll see how this plays out. It could create a forward-looking landscape however it might just create a landscape which says its forward-looking.

Are you ready to look at 6G?

We can hear the groans already, but we’re going to do it anyway. Let’s have a look at what 6G could possibly contribute to the connected economy.

Such is our desire for progress, we haven’t even launched 5G but the best and brightest around are already considering what 6G will bring to the world. It does kind of make sense though, to avoid the dreaded staggering of download speeds and the horrific appearance of buffering symbols, the industry has to look far beyond the horizon.

If you consider the uphill struggle it has been to get 5G to this point, and we haven’t even launched glorious ‘G’ properly, how long will it take before we get to 6G? Or perhaps a better question is how long before we actually need it?

“5G will not be able to handle the number of ‘things’ which are connected to the network in a couple of years’ time,” said Scott Petty, CTO of Vodafone UK. “We need to start thinking about 6G now and we have people who are participating in the standards groups already.”

This is perhaps the issue which we are facing in the future; the sheer volume of ‘things’ which will be connected to the internet. As Petty points out, 5G is about being bigger, badder and leaner. Download speeds will be faster, reliability will be better, and latency will be almost none existent, but the weight of ‘things’ will almost certainly have an impact. Today’s networks haven’t been built with this in mind.

Trying to find consensus on the growth of IOT is somewhat of a difficult task, such is the variety of predictions. Everyone predicts the same thing, the number of devices will grow in an extra-ordinary fashion, but the figures vary by billions.

Using Ericsson’s latest mobility report, the team is estimating cellular IoT connections will reach 4.1 billion in 2024, of which 2.7 billion will be in North East Asia. This is a huge number and growth will only accelerate year-on-year. But here is thing, we’re basing these judgments on what we know today; the number of IOT devices will be more dependent on new products, services and business models which will appear when the right people have the 5G tools to play around with. Who knows what the growth could actually be?

IOT Growth

Another aspect to consider is the emergence of new devices. As it stands, current IOT devices deliver such a minor slice of the total cellular traffic around the world its not much of a consideration, however with new usecases and products for areas such as traffic safety, automated vehicles, drones and industrial automation, the status quo will change. As IOT becomes more commonplace and complicated, data demands might well increase, adding to network strain.

Petty suggests this will be the massive gamechanger for the communications industry over the next few years and will define the case for 6G. But, who knows what the killer usecase will be for 5G, or what needs will actually push the case for the next evolution of networks. That said, more efficient use of the spectrum is almost certainly going to be one of the parameters. According to Petty, this will help with the tsunami of things but there is a lot of new science which will have to be considered.

Then again, 6G might not be measured under the same requirements as today…

Sooner or later the industry will have to stop selling itself under the ‘bigger, badder, faster’ mantra, as speeds will become irrelevant. If you have a strong and stable 4G connection today, there isn’t much you can’t do. Few applications or videos that are available to the consumer require 5G to function properly, something which telco marketers will have to adapt to in the coming years as they try to convince customers to upgrade to 5G contracts.

4G and arguably todays vision of 5G has always been about making the pipe bigger and faster, because those were the demands of the telcos trying to meet the demands of the consumer. 6G might be measured under different KPIs, for example, energy efficiency.

According to Alan Carlton, Managing Director of InterDigital’s European business, the drive towards more speed and more data is mainly self-imposed. The next ‘G’ can be defined as what the industry wants it to be. The telcos would have to think of other ways to sell connectivity services to the consumer, but they will have to do that sooner or later.

The great thing about 5G is that we are barely scratching the surface of what is capable. “We’re not even at 5.0G yet,” said Carlton. “And this is part of the confusion.”

What 5G is nowadays is essentially LTE-A Pro. We’re talking about 256-QAM and Massive MIMO but that is not really a different conversation. With Release 16 on the horizon and future standards groups working on topics such virtualisation, MMwave and total cost of ownership, future phases of 5G will promise so much more.

The next step for Carlton is not necessarily making everything faster, or more reliable or lower latency, but the next ‘G’ could be all about ditching the wires. Fibre is an inflexible commodity, and while it might be fantastic, why do we need it? Why shouldn’t the next vision of connectivity be one where we don’t have any wires at all?

Carlton’s approach to the future of connectivity is somewhat different to the norm. This is an industry which is fascinated by the pipes themselves and delivering services faster, but these working groups and standards bodies are driving change for the benefit of the industry. It doesn’t necessarily have to be about making something faster, so you can charge more, just a change to the status quo which benefits the industry.

Coming back to the energy efficiency idea, this is certainly something which has been suggested elsewhere. IEEE has been running a series of conferences in California addressing this very issue, as delivering 1000X more data is naturally going to consume more energy to start with. It probably won’t be 1000X more expensive, but it is incredibly difficult to predict what future energy consumption needs will be. Small cells do not consume as much energy as traditional sites, but there will need to be a lot more of them to meet demand. There are a lot of different elements to consider here (for example environment or spectrum frequency), but again, this is a bit of an unknown.

Perhaps this is an area where governments will start to wade in? Especially in the European and North American markets which are more sensitive to environmental impacts (excluding the seemingly blind Trump).

Echoing Petty’s point from earlier, we don’t necessarily know the specifics of how the telco industry is going to be stressed and strained in six- or seven-years’ time. These changes will form the catalyst for change, evolving from 5G to 6G, and it might well be a desire for more energy efficient solutions or it might well be a world free of wires.

Moving across the North Sea, 6G has already captured the attention of those in the Nordics.

Back in April 2018, the Academy of Finland announced the launch of ‘6Genesis’, an eight-year research programme to drive the industry towards 6G. Here, the study groups will start to explore technologies and services which are impossible to deliver in today’s world, and much of this will revolve around artificial intelligence.

Just across the border in Sweden, these new technologies are capturing the attention of Ericsson. According to Magnus Frodigh, Head of Ericsson Research, areas like Quantum computing, artificial intelligence and edge computing are all making huge leaps forward, something which will only be increased with improved connectivity. These are the areas which will define the next generation, and what can be achieved in the long-run.

“One of the new things to think about is the combination of unlimited connectivity as a resource, combined with low latency, more powerful computing,” said Frodigh. “No-one really knows how this is going to play out, but this might help define the next generation of mobile.”

Of course, predicting 6G might be pretty simple. In a couple of years’ time, perhaps we will all be walking around with augmented reality glasses on while holographic pods replace our TVs. If such usecases exist, perhaps the old ‘bigger, badder, faster’ mantra of the telco industry will be called upon once again. One group which is counting on this is EU-funded Terranova, which is currently working on solutions to allow network connection in the terahertz range, providing speeds of up to 400 Gbps.

Another area to consider is the idea of edge computing and the pervasiveness of artificial intelligence. According to Carlton (InterDigital), AI will be every in the future with intelligence embedded in almost every device. This is the vision of the intelligent economy, but for AI to work as promised, latency will have to be so much lower than we can even consider delivering today. This is another demand of future connectivity, but without it the intelligent economy will be nothing more than a shade of what has been promised.

And of course, the more intelligence you put on or in devices, the greater the strain on the components. Eventually more processing power will be moved off the devices and into the cloud, building the case for distributed computing and self-learning algorithms hosted on the edge. It is another aspect which will have to be considered, and arguably 5G could satisfy some of these demands, but who knows how quickly and broadly this field will accelerate.

Artificial intelligence and the intelligent economy have the potential to become a catalyst for change, forcing us to completely rethink how networks are designed, built and upgraded. We don’t know for sure yet, but most would assume the AI demands of the next couple of years will strain the network in the same way video has stressed 4G.

Who knows what 6G has in store for us, but here’s to hoping 5G isn’t an over-hyped dud.

Europe sailing towards conflict over China 5G

Germany is drafting rules to allow Chinese companies to participate in the 5G bonanza, while the European Commission is thinking of banning them. Something’s got to give.

In terms of collective political influence and economic power, the European Union could consider itself more or less on par with the US and China. Considering the Union represents the societal, political and economic interests of 28 nations, more than 500 million people and roughly $23 trillion in GDP, it is certainly a powerful concept. But the China issue is just one example of how its neatly stitched patchwork could unravel very quickly.

China is a very tricky equation to balance right now. On side, you have an incredibly powerful economy, a massive and increasingly wealthy population and technological advancements which could benefit almost every society. However, to access these riches you have to deal with a government which ideologically conflicts with a lot of what Europe stands for.

But this is where a potentially significant conflict lies. The European Commission is reportedly looking at how it could create a de facto ban for Chinese technology and kit in communications infrastructure, conflicting with some of its member states positions. The Commission is supposed to represent the interests of all its member states, creating a common framework which sits above national policies, but if these policies are a contradiction of opinions of some member states the perfect storm could be brewing on the horizon.

Germany is not talking the anti-China rhetoric

The most recent reports echoing out of Berlin will not have the US government jumping for joy. Local newspaper Handelsblatt is suggesting the German government is doing everything it can to write security protections into new regulation, however, the rules will be written in a manner which will not exclude Chinese companies.

The reports have not been confirmed by any official government spokespeople as of yet, though this does follow on from the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) made in December.

“For such serious decisions like a ban, you need proof,” said Arne Schoenbohm, President of BSI.

The US will not be happy about developments here, a delegation is currently undertaking a European lobby tour to turn officials against China, though neither will the European Commission. There are several instances which indicate the European Commission is taking a similar stance against China, suggesting a bloc-wide ban could be on the cards before too long.

Aside from recent reports the European Commission is rewriting cybersecurity rules to effectively ban Chinese companies from providing technology for communications infrastructure, one of its Commissioners has also fuelled the anti-China rhetoric.

“I think we have to be worried about these companies,” Commissioner for Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip told reporters in December. Ansip was referring to companies such as Huawei and ZTE, while this statement implies the Commission believes there are strong ties between multi-national corporations and the Chinese government.

The United States of Europe argument emerging again?

With Germany seemingly working to ensure collaboration with Chinese companies remains possible, the UK creating monitoring mechanisms to enable Huawei’s work and Italy denying reports it is considering its own ban, the European Commission appears to be working in direct contradiction to some of its largest member states.

To be fair, the role of the European Commission is to serve all the states not just the big ones, but the point of the bureaucracy is to create a common framework which all agree on, not rules which are forced onto member states. Cynics of the Commission and Union in general will suggest this is perhaps more evidence of Juncker and co. attempting to create a United States of Europe, where the desires of the member states are secondary to that of the ruling party.

Although many of these conspiracy theories are generally relegated to the comment boards of the Daily Mail, the Commission might well be heading towards a monumental conflict. Any rules which are written at European Commission level would potentially render national regulations redundant, a scenario those member states would not be happy with.

Considering the shoddy state of affairs Brexit has been creating, perhaps the European Commission should attempt to create an image of co-operation and collaboration. Antagonising leading member states is not a sensible idea, while a ‘state v. Europe’ conflict over security is not something which will reflect favourably on the agency.

Is politics anything more than arguing with shiny teeth?

Caught on the fringes of this conflict and the constant political seesawing are the telcos. Governments often tell the telco industry they are there to help and enable innovation, but it seems most of the time politicians are nothing but a hindrance attempting to score PR points by pandering to buzzwords and public opinion.

With governments aiming to ban Huawei and ZTE from connectivity plans, several telcos have stepped into the fray to give their own opinion. The message seems to be relatively consistent; heighten security requirements if you must but banning a vendor in an incredibly top-heavy market will not be a good idea.

“Clearly, if there were a complete ban at radio level, then it would be a huge issue for us, but it would be a huge issue for the whole European telco sector,” Vodafone CEO Nick Read said during the latest earnings call. “Huawei probably has 35% of the market share through the whole of Europe.”

Deutsche Telekom is another who foresees any Huawei ban being nothing but problematic. The German telco has previously stated a ban on Huawei would set its 5G ambitions back two years. Several telcos are considering scaling back work with Huawei, but this is perhaps directed more towards the uncertain political climate than any outright worry regarding the security credentials of Huawei equipment.

European telcos are not dependent on Huawei equipment to function effectively, but they are somewhat reliant on it. There aren’t enough suppliers, or good-enough suppliers, to strike Huawei out of the mix. US telcos are not having to deal with this headache as their operations adapted to a lack of Huawei and ZTE years ago, Europe is struggling with the political seesawing and story of uncertainty. Any business leader will tell you, a consolidated, cohesive and concrete regulatory landscape is critical for success.

Huawei stuck between a rock and a hard place

Huawei is a company which now has no control over its own fate.

With the US parading around political offices spreading its anti-China message without the burden of evidence, Huawei can’t do anything. Numerous governments are asking the vendor to prove its security credentials, but this will mean little is there is still suspicion. The case against Huawei is not based on evidence, but one which is based on a political and economic power struggle.

With a lack of evidence to substantiate any accusations against the firm, Huawei is being asked to do something which has been accepted as almost impossible; prove a negative. All of the questions and queries being directed at the firm have a single aim, to demonstrate there are no ties between the organization and the Chinese government, as well as its intelligence agencies.

It’s an almost impossible task, especially when you take into account the powerful influence of the US and the fact most of these decisions are being made on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and emotion. Whatever Huawei says, however much evidence is put on the table, we suspect opinions have already been made.

An issue of consistency and contradiction

In a single signature, the European Commission could throw the bloc into disarray. If the rumours evolve into reality, the European Commission could impose its own rules, contradicting the hopes and ambitions of some member states. Such a scenario would question how much control the member states have over their own society, undermining the concept of sovereignty.

Any fundamental changes would certainly have to be greenlit by all member states, but the European approach to China on the whole, and Huawei specifically, has not been entirely consistent. One question which might be worth considering is whether the European Commission is overstepping its remit.

We are almost certain Germany will not be happy being told to ban Huawei considering it seemingly wants to ensure Chinese participation in the upcoming 5G bonanza. Conflict is on the horizon, potentially pitting the European Commission against the biggest financial contributor to the bloc.

Premier League giants take baby steps toward digital economy

If you’ve ever been on any sports’ club website you would be forgiven for thinking these guys are technophobes, but Intel is predicting a new era for sports broadcasting and fan engagement.

“We’re going to find ourselves in a couple of years’ time looking back and wondering how we ever got by,” said XXX of Intel.

The sports industry, and football in particular, has never really been at the forefront of technology. For an industry which defines itself, and almost entirely depends, on fan engagement little has been done to embrace new technologies and ideas. However, the last couple of years have seen a few rays of hope.

A couple of the more innovative clubs in the football industry, ones who just so happened to be partners of Intel, featured on a panel session to discuss the glaringly obvious opportunities which are being presented to sport clubs and the progress being made in shifting incredibly traditional businesses.

“We have been seeing a convergence of technology and sport and this has been accelerating over the last few years,” said Damian Willoughby, SVP Partnerships at Manchester City FC.

“Technology is impacting all of us and from our perspective, we are looking at how we can create fan engagement or fan experience, whether it is at Anfield or anywhere around the world,” said Billy Hogan, Chief Commercial Officer at Liverpool.

“What isn’t changing is the popularity of the English Premier League,” said Peter Silverstone, Commercial Director of Arsenal. “What is changing is the consumer appetite for how they consume the English Premier League as a product.”

What you have to take into consideration, and why it is so baffling that football clubs and the industry on the whole have been so slow to react to new technologies, is the global reach. The English Premier League (EPL) official Facebook and Twitter pages have 42 million and 18 million followers respectively. Another 23 million follow the competition on Instagram.

Below you can see the social media reach of each of the clubs on show during the event:

Club Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube
Liverpool 32.2 million 11 million 12.4 million 1.1 million
Arsenal 36.9 million 14 million 13.3 million 1.1 million
Man City 36.7 million 6.6 million 10.4 million 1.6 million

This is a truly global industry and while these numbers are certainly impressive, the challenge now is how to best capitalise on such significant assets. This is where the Intel partnership and content play a role.

As all three of the executives point out, the idea behind technology implementation is to offer a greater variety of ways for fans to consume content. This might be through virtual reality, player POV footage, more in-depth analysis, behind the scenes content or partners stories. The idea is to create content which came be customisable, interactive and varied. Each user can create their own story on-demand, building interactions which are more suited to them.

Looking at Intel’s True View product, one of the technologies which will be used to deliver this enhanced experience, XXX highlighted 38 5K sensors will be installed in each stadium, allowing the team to capture footage which is eight times the definition of HD. The cameras capture volumetric data (height, width, and depth) using voxels, a 3D pixel, delivering a new experience for the consumer.

Collecting this data will allow the three clubs to introduce 360 degrees replays, allowing the consumer to decide how the content is viewed, player POV footage and new content on laser wall screens. Intel believe this sort of technology is addressing a supply/demand chasm in the market; consumers are demanding a different type of experience, yet few in the world of sports seem able to deliver it.

Creating all of these experiences has another excellent impact on these clubs; it allows them to match the globalised nature of football. The worldwide footprint of the Premier League is pretty unmatched in the entirety of sports, especially over the last decade with clubs targeting fans on distant shores. These are three clubs which have certainly fit this mould.

“Some of these people will never get the chance to go to Anfield, but we can deliver this experience,” said Hogan, referencing fans in Indonesia, China and the US.

Although there certainly have been positive steps forward in converging the worlds of technology and sport, this is only the beginning. Looking forward, there are some genuinely exciting technologies in the pipeline, each of which has the potential to completely revolutionise the experience.

Virtual reality is one which is constantly discussed, and while there might be some applications and hardware on the market which offer some sort of experience, this is only the tip of the iceberg. VR is very much an embryonic technology for the moment, though the fast decreasing price of hardware and the approaching 5G euphoria could take this technology to the next level.

Another area to consider is the delivery of content through holograms. A couple of months back Vodafone delivered one of the best 5G demos we’ve seen, live-streaming a hologram from Manchester to its Newbury HQ of England Women’s football captain Steph Houghton. The image was crisp while latency was pretty much non-existent. Slumbering journalists very bolted upright by genuine innovation.

Imagine sitting in your living room and experiencing a Premier League Football game as if you were sat on the halfway line and seeing replays through the eyes of the players. Or how about a boxing match hosted in Las Vegas, but live-streaming holograms to hundreds of venues throughout the world. The viewing experience could be completely revolutionised.

What these three clubs are doing are the first baby steps into digital transformation, a buzzword which has plagued us for years. However, it might not be too long before the sports entertainment world morphs into a completely unrecognisable beast.

Cisco calls for US GDPR rollout

In a move which might make the networking giant quite unpopular on the US side of the pond, Cisco’s Chief Legal and Compliance Officer Mark Chandler has called for a US version of GDPR.

Having been implemented during May 2018, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is starting to make waves in the technology world. The first complaints were filed as the ink was drying on May 25, though with the first rulings started to be announced eight months later, the implications and dangers are starting to become clear. Unless Silicon Valley wins the opening legal skirmishes, precedent will be set and disruption to the data sharing economy will be very apparent.

Considering the massive potential for disruption in the digital ecosystem, Chandler will not be making any friends in Silicon Valley by pushing the case for more focused protections on data protection and privacy. Commenting to the Financial Times, Chandler stated he believes the new regulations have worked out well and after some tweaking, the same rules should be applied in the US as well.

Of course, a legal executive from a networking company stirring the pot is unlikely to turn heads right now, the rules would not necessarily have any monumental impact on the networking infrastructure giant, but there might be a few upset individuals in Silicon Valley. For years, the internet players have effectively been able to do what they want, but GDPR sought to end this reign of freedom.

Although GDPR is an incredibly complex set of rules with more nuances than a teenage philosophers diary, the overall aim is pretty simple. Firstly, the user has more control over his/her personal data, and secondly, internet companies have to demonstrate a need to collect and process data, while also improving securities around these processes. And of course, there are the fines as well.

This is perhaps one of the biggest concerns of the internet giants as they can now be held accountable. Prior to GDPR, fines were feeble. For any normal company, they would be horrid, but considering the size and profitability of the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, any punishments dished out would take a matter of minutes or hours to pay off. GDPR allows regulators to assign fines which are relative to the size of the organization, therefore companies can now be held accountable.

While GDPR does seem to be forcing many companies to act more responsibly, the saving grace for Silicon Valley is that it is limited to Europe. The lobbyists will be fighting hard to make sure such rules do not find sympathetic ears in Washington DC, though governments do seem to be welcoming.

In India, the government is considering new rules which would tighten up protections around personal information, while the Japanese government has signed a new treaty with the European Union which extends GDPR protections of European citizens to Japan. These are two examples, though as more complaints are filed and more Judge’s opinions released to the public, interest in these rules will almost certainly increase.

What you always have to consider when you read such comments is that Cisco is a B2B firm. The privacy rules are geared towards empowering the consumer and therefore would have minimal impact here. In public, many of the internet giants are calling for a revamp of privacy rules, its just good PR form, but they will be privately terrified of a GDPR replicant.

What is also worth bearing in mind is that the US is not as sensitive to privacy issues as Europeans are. Of course, legislators will have an eye on privacy and it will be a worry, but Europe is much more aware and condemning of the slippery practises of Silicon Valley. For years, the Californian lawyers have revelled in technology outpacing regulation, identifying grey areas and loop holes galore. However, the European regulators are attempting to make life difficult.