UK Government mulls new digital competition laws

An independent panel has submitted a new report to HM Treasury which recommends the formation of a new department to tackle anti-competition and the revamp of rules.

Led by former Chief Economist to President Obama, Professor Jason Furman, the lengthy report comes to a conclusion many are already aware of; today’s rules are not fit for purpose to effectively manage and govern the digital economy.

“The United Kingdom has an opportunity to seize the full potential of the digital sector, increasing the benefits for consumers and fostering an even more vibrant ecosystem for businesses,” the report states.

“Competition should be at the heart of this strategy, leading companies to produce better outcomes for consumers, helping new companies enter and grow, and continuing to encourage existing companies to innovate.”

In summing up the current landscape, the message is pretty clear. Furman and his team state the UK is currently reliant on rules and regulations designed for yesteryear. Considering how much society and the economy has evolved through the last decade, since the digital world has engulfed almost every aspect of our lives, rules have to keep pace to ensure fair and reasonable business practises are taking place, to offer benefit to the consumer.

The recommendation of change is based on several presumptions. Firstly, digital is good. It helps the consumer and lowers the barriers for entry for small businesses to be created and scaled. Secondly, most digital markets will be dominated by a single player. Third, there are advantages, low margins and profits can mean sometimes it is better to have a smaller number of providers. Fourth, companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate, and finally, government regulations have limitations.

These presumptions have been identified through months of research from the panel and while some might disagree with the statements, being realistic, they are fair and reasonable assumptions. Just because some will not like the outcome, does not mean it is not true. However, knowledge informs future decisions and these statements can inform more appropriate regulation in the future.

This is the problem which many governments are facing nowadays. They realise the world is changing, and rules have to change with them, but new clauses and considerations are being bolted onto regulations which have been designed for a by-gone era. It creates an incredibly complicated red tape maze, which is not help to anyone except those will well-enough paid lawyers to find the loopholes.

“This is why the Panel is recommending the establishment of a digital markets unit, given a remit to use tools and frameworks that will support greater competition and consumer choice in digital markets, and backed by new powers in legislation to ensure they are effective,” the report states.

Furman envisions this department to have three main responsibilities in the first instance. Firstly, the creation of a code of competitive conduct, which would only be applied to the most powerful companies who could be deemed a threat to the emergence or scale of smaller competitors and competition on the whole. Secondly, the team would be tasked with enabling greater personal data mobility and systems with open standards where these tools will increase competition and consumer choice. Finally, to advance data openness.

Outside of this new department, Furman recommends merger policies should be updated, implying the current framework does not take technological advancements seriously enough. Part of this will include updates to antitrust policy, as while monopolies or dominant market positions can be good for efficiencies and benefits for consumers or businesses, there does need to be a mechanism to ensure this position is not abused.

Overall, this is a report which, firstly, makes a lot of sense, but secondly, doesn’t say anything particularly new. Everything which Furman has said is correct, rules are dated, and the chasm is growing larger, but many have already been stating this for some time. Governments don’t seem to be able to take any action unless an expensive economist is given months to come to a relatively obvious conclusion.

That said, Furman’s advice should be heeded. Hopefully the recommendations of a new unit to tackle these challenges will be listened to, though we suspect new responsibilities will be bundled into an existing department and the good intentions will become lost in the mediocrity. We will be happy to be proved incorrect, though it probably is a long-shot.

US mulls bill for minimum IoT security requirements

A cross-party delegation of US politicians have introduced a bill which will aim to create minimum security standards for any IoT devices used by government agencies and departments.

Led by Democratic Congresswoman Robin Kelly and Republican Congressman Will Hurd, the bill has gained notable support already. While this is a perfectly logical step forward to ensure the integrity and resilience of government systems, the fact the politicians seem to be taking an impartial approach, not targeting a single company or country, is much more encouraging.

“As the government continues to purchase and use more and more internet-connected devices, we must ensure that these devices are secure,” said Kelly. “Everything from our national security to the personal information of American citizens could be vulnerable because of security holes in these devices. It’s estimated that by 2020 there will be 30 million internet-connected devices in use. As these devices positively revolutionize communication, we cannot allow them to become a backdoor to hackers or tools for cyberattacks.”

“Internet of Things devices will improve and enhance nearly every aspect of our society, economy and our day-to-day lives,” said Hurd “This is ground-breaking work and IoT devices must be built with security in mind, not as an afterthought. This bipartisan legislation will make Internet of Things devices more secure and help prevent future attacks on critical technology infrastructure.”

When discussing digital security, a mention of Huawei or China is never far away, but this seems to be an effort to mitigate risk on a much grander scale. Yes, the US does have ideological enemies it should be wary of, but it is critical politicians realise there are risks everywhere throughout the digital ecosystem.

It is easy to point the finger at China and the Chinese government when discussing cybersecurity threats, though this is lazy and dangerous. Having too much of a narrow focus on one area only increases the risk of exposure elsewhere. Such are the complexities of today’s supply chain, with companies and components spanning different geographies and sizes, the risk of vulnerability is everywhere. It is also very important to realise cybercriminals can be anywhere; when there is an opportunity to make money, some will not care who they are targeting. Domestic cybercriminals can be just as much of a threat as international ones.

This impartial approach, applying security standards to IOT devices regardless of origin, is a much more sensible approach to ensure the integrity of networks and safeguard sensitive data.

Of course, this is not necessarily a new idea. Many security experts around the world have been calling for a standardised approach to IOT security, suggesting certification processes with minimum standards. Such a concept has already been shown to work with other products, such as batteries, therefore establishing a baseline for security should not be considered a particularly revolutionary idea.

What is also worth noting is that while this is a good idea and will improve protections, it is by no-means a given the bill will pass into a law. A similar bill was launched in 2017, though it was quashed.

UK Government says company boards still don’t get cyber-security

The UK Government has released its 2019 ‘Cyber Governance Health Check’ which claims only 16% of executives have an understanding of cyber-security threats.

It might sound like the beat of an old drum, but eventually management teams will get the idea. Each week new reports emerge suggesting security is an under-appreciated and under-funded aspect of the digital economy, and this week the Government is throwing its own arguments forward. This report measured the attitudes of the FTSE-350 companies across the UK.

“The UK is home to world leading businesses, but the threat of cyber-attacks is never far away,” said UK Digital Minister Margot James. “We know that companies are well aware of the risks, but more needs to be done by boards to make sure that they don’t fall victim to a cyber-attack.”

While the report suggests 96% of businesses have a cyber-security strategy in place, this might prove to be somewhat of a misleading statistic, offering misplaced comfort. The presence of a strategy is irrelevant when the funds are not being appropriately allocated to put the plan into action. If only 16% of the purse-string holders understand the threat, appropriate investments are not going to be made, therefore the problem will persist.

“This report shows that we still have a long way to go but I am also encouraged to see that some improvements are being made,” said James. “Cyber-security should never be an add-on for businesses and I would urge all executives to work with the National Cyber Security Centre and take up the government’s advice and training that’s available.”

Awareness of cyber-security threats are increasing, 72% of respondents to the survey acknowledge the risk of cyber threats is high, and while this is an improvement on the 52% in the 2018 report, this number is still too low.

This is the position many businesses are in. Security is a recognised threat, but with many board members under pressure to produce profitability, funds are being directed to areas which will add to the bottom line. Security is not one of these areas, though the emergence of GDPR and changing consumer attitudes should help this.

Firstly, GDPR was introduced last year, though the first punishments are beginning to be handed out. As soon as board members start to see the hefty GDPR stick swinging, punishing those who are not deemed sufficiently prepared for a cyber-security breach, attitudes will change. The fines can be eye-wateringly high, and if you want to make an executive listen to you, hit them in the wallet.

Secondly, consumers are becoming more security-conscious. With breaches becoming more widely reported in the press and scandals drawing attention to data privacy demands, consumers (and enterprise customers for that matter) are becoming more aware of what should be considered adequate. Security will soon become a factor in the purchasing decision-making process, and companies will have to prove their credentials.

The tides are slowly turning, and soon enough the digital economy might be equipped to deal with the threat of the dark web. That said, with the astronomical pace of progress, you have to wonder whether the challenge is starting to become too big for the chasing peloton.

“Cyber-security is a mainstream business risk, and board members need to understand it in the same way they understand financial or health and safety risks,” said Ciaran Martin, CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre.

UK set to impose 50 percent cap on Huawei kit – report

As the UK government’s review into what to do about the perceived security risk posed by Huawei reaches its conclusion, some kind of ban seems likely.

The Telegraph reports, citing those handy ‘telecoms industry sources’, ‘officials are preparing to recommend a 50pc cap on the proportion of equipment that can come from the Chinese giant when the review is completed in spring.’ They presumably mean ‘the Spring’, which could mean any time from now until the end of May.

How this cap, if it is imposed, would be implemented and enforced remains unclear. The report suggests it would apply equally to the core and the RAN, which seems like an escalation on previous assumptions that the UK was only worried about the core. Such a scheme would prove burdensome to UK MNOs and the prospect of a retrospective cap, which would be much more so, doesn’t seem to be off the table, although the Telegraph headline refers only to 5G.

Last month it was reported that some UK intelligence experts reckoned any risk from Huawei could be managed. However that was soon contradicted by the view of a defence and security think tank, which warned against naivety on this matter. Then at MWC 2019 Vodafone CEO Nick Read warned that banning Huawei could make the kit vendor market disastrously uncompetitive.

The Telegraph piece indicates that this arbitrary 50 percent cap is apparently being considered to ensure no MNO goes all-in on Huawei for their kit, but they would be mad to do so anyway. As we saw with ZTE the US can critically damage a Chinese kit vendor anytime it wants and it would be incredibly negligent of any MNO to allow themselves to be over-exposed to such a risk.

There is already good diversity of supply in the UK between the three big kit vendors, with some other suppliers thrown in too. No MNO currently has the majority of its kit supplied by Huawei and they presumably have no plans to, so this looks like the usual government attempt to look like its doing something without adding anything of consequence. Still, better that than it suddenly getting funny ideas about significant market intervention.

Infrastructure commission warns UK government over lacklustre ambition

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has issued a warning to the UK Government over its infrastructure ambitions, seemingly worried that Minister’s think the job is done.

“There is a real and exciting chance available to ensure the UK benefits from world-class infrastructure, particularly through the forthcoming National Infrastructure Strategy – a first for this country,” said Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission Sir John Armitt.

“We cannot afford for Ministers to take their eye off the ball. With this issue at the heart of the Industrial Strategy, I would urge the Government to adopt the recommendations from our National Infrastructure Assessment, and use this to offer industry the long-term, fully-costed infrastructure plan they need.”

While various committees and departments have been readying the red-tape with reviews, assessments and consultations, Armitt fears the job is only part finished. The National Infrastructure Commission recommends infrastructure plans for the next three decades should be in place to ensure the UK is future-proofed for the digital economy, a much longer-term ambition than has been set forward by the government currently.

With the National Infrastructure Strategy set to be published over the next couple of months, we’ll get a clearer picture of the ambitions of the Government. This document has been pitched as a playbook to guarantee the economic prosperity of the UK, though it seems the NIC is worried momentum might be lost should the plans be limited to a shorter period of time.

Fibre connectivity is one area which has been mentioned by the NIC, as while there are targets from the government and Ofcom for the mid-2020s and 2033, these are relatively broad. The next stage of the plan, once 15 million homes have been ‘fibred up’, should be to extend the infrastructure into the rural communities. Unless the Government formalises this progression to the next stage, there is of course a risk of telcos going ‘off-piste’ and serving their own interests.

This scenario is perfectly understandable and perhaps the very reason the Government has to cast an eye onto the far-distant horizon. Telcos are commercial organizations after all, favouring upgrades in areas where there is a more immediate ROI. This is what created the digital divide in the first place, and without regulation to hold the telcos accountable, they will naturally favour investments in the more densely urbanised areas.

What is worth noting is that Armitt’s comments are not supposed to be a damning indictment of the progress made thus far. Steps forward to ensure UK infrastructure is in an appropriate position have been made, though the question is whether the momentum will be continued to ensure the continued success of the UK in the global economy beyond the documented stages.

To counter Armitt’s point, formulating plans for such long periods of time can create a rigid regime which does allow for reactionary measures. Who knows what the world will look like in a couple of years’ time; any plans will have to flexible enough to allow adaptability. It is a tricky equation to balance.

For anyone in the telecommunications and telco world, this is a bit of a recurring theme. Digital communications is a hot topic right now, such is the enthusiasm created by 5G, though the political interest peaks and troughs. The same political hype ramped up ahead of 3G and 4G before dying off. Soon enough another cause to champion will emerge, though should the NIC’s recommendations be taken on board, you would hope the regulatory framework has been put in place to ensure structured progression.

Work with Huawei, or us, but not both – US Government

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has upped the ante with the anti-China rhetoric, declaring the US will not partner with countries who work with Huawei.

According to Fox Business, Pompeo has dropped the inference and made a statement which many countries will be cringing to hear. You no-longer have to read between the lines; it them or us Pompeo is declaring.

“If a country adopts this and puts it in some of their critical information systems, we won’t be able to share information with them,” said Pompeo. “In some cases, there’s risk – we won’t even be able to co-locate American resources, an American embassy and American military outpost.”

For countries like the UK and Germany, this is worst case scenario. These are countries which have vested interests from an economic perspective in both countries, and such is the state of affairs in the telco world, few can afford to strip Huawei out of the vendor mix. Pompeo is referring to administrative and military functions right now, but it would be fair to assume this could be extended to US commerce.

It’s a very tricky position to be in.

On one hand, there simply aren’t enough vendors in certain segments of the telco industry to generate suitable levels of competition to create the most viable economic position to fuel future infrastructure ambitions. Secondly, taking a vendor such as Huawei, arguably the leader in radio equipment, out of the mix would-be worst-case scenario for a technologist. Why would you want to ignore the best kit available?

However, on the other side of the coin, the security concerns are persistent, and do have some credibility. Evidence is circumstantial, some of the claims are hearsay, however you cannot ignore the risk. China does have a law which would force nationals to comply with its ambitions.

Should Pompeo’s statement evolve into more than chest-beating, numerous countries will find themselves in a painful tug-of-war. It does look like European nations are resisting the US’ Governments call to stonewall China, but this could come at a cost.

The US and China are two major trade partners of almost every economy in the world. To work with the US, you’ll have to ban Huawei, but if you ban Huawei you can almost guarantee there will be some form of reciprocal action from the Chinese Government.

The UK is an excellent example. Huawei has recently released a statement reiterating the investments the company has made in the UK, as well as the number of people who are employed as a direct and indirect result of its investments. Should the UK Government want to seize the post-Brexit trade carrot which has been dangled by the White House, some sort of action against China will be required. There is going to be a loss somewhere.

Poland is in a similar position. Pompeo is quoted as seeing “real progress” in the country after meeting Ministers in Warsaw, though if Poland was to ban Huawei it would certainly have an economic and societal impact; Huawei currently uses the country as its Eastern European HQ, employing roughly 900 people and investing substantial funds.

Over in Germany, China is a significant market for its automotive and heavy industrial exports, though if it was to submit to the US Government demands, you can guarantee there will be some sort of kickback.

All of these countries are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Europe is proving to be a critical battleground in the US/Chinese war for technological supremacy, and while some narcissists might crave the attention, this is starting to turn into an impossible decision.

Think tank suggests UK is ‘naïve’ to trust Huawei

A defence and security think tank has condemned the UK government, suggesting it at best naïve and at worst irresponsible for trusting Chinese vendor Huawei.

With the UK seemingly rejecting the US’ aggressive stance against China and its internationally successful businesses, it looks like the isles will be a safe haven for Huawei. That said, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has undermined the position of the government and the National Cybersecurity Centre suggesting there is a very real threat to the rhetoric.

“There must be a balance between national security interests and technological gain, because the UK benefits from the contributions of Chinese research students in the UK,” the report states.

Economically, technologically and politically, there is a lot to gain from a relationship with China, the RUSI suggests such governments should be treated with caution. Although there is little concrete evidence which connects Huawei with the Chinese government, at least on the grounds of espionage, that is not to say caution should not be exercised.

While it might sound like scaremongering, RUSI highlights four points. Firstly, the Chinese government has history in using technology for espionage. Secondly, placing a backdoor in communications infrastructure is a lot easier than finding one. Thirdly, due to certain laws, Huawei employees might have no choice but to aide the government in its ambitions. Finally, the UK might ostracize itself economically through working with the vendor.

The final point is an interesting one. The UK is part of the Five Eyes intelligence allegiance alongside the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Three of these nations have already banned Huawei from participating in 5G networks and may not be enthusiastic developing closer relationships with those who have not. Considering part of the justification for Brexit was to have the freedom to forge new trade relationships, the UK might well be scuppering its ambitions before its even left the Union.

In short, the RUSI is effectively suggesting the UK should ban Huawei, as well as other Chinese companies, from accessing or contributing any components or services which access data or functions which might compromise national security. Telecommunications infrastructure and the national power grid are two examples.

If this position does sound familiar it might be because this is the same propaganda which US officials have been peddling around Europe over the last couple of months. Many of the threats identified by the RUSI are theoretical or circumstantial, but they are true. That said, the RUSI is wandering dangerously close to the pig-headed ‘he said, she said’ approach to international politics which has plagued the White House over the last couple of months.

As it stands, Huawei is not in the healthiest position, but it is certainly far from the gutter and a powerful influence on the telecommunications and technology world. There are numerous governments which are pondering their positions, but it does seem the anti-China rhetoric is losing momentum.

Government to give Ofcom new stick swinging targets

The UK Government has unveiled a new consultation which will explore how it can encourage Ofcom to snap the whip, making sure telcos get their gears churning to meet connectivity targets.

Over the next decade, if the government manages to create a suitable amount of urgency across the telco industry, there will certainly be some progress made. The objectives currently set out are nationwide full fibre broadband coverage by 2033, while also increasing geographic mobile coverage to 95% of the UK by 2022.

Although this sounds very official, this consultation is more of a temperature check from the government. It’s asking the industry to give it feedback on its Statement of Strategic Priorities to reinforce its position and create a framework for Ofcom to work towards, ensuring the aims and objectives of the government and the regulator are on the same page.

In this consultation, the government is presenting its Statement of Strategic Priorities for a legally required 40-day consultation, which will validate and justify the aims, therefore providing a more stable foundation to bring Ofcom’s work in-line with government ambitions. This is a process which is required in other utility verticals and brings the telco industry more in-line with the stricter regulatory scrutiny which is placed on segments such as water and energy.

Aside from meeting the connectivity and coverage ambitions, the consultation will also look at how ‘loyalty penalties’, the price-creep which is placed on contract renewals, can be tackled. The telco industry is one which is geared towards customer acquisition, though many would like to see loyalty rewarded, instead of picking up the slack created by offers to lure customers away from competitors.

“As the UK’s telecoms regulator, Ofcom has a critical role in realising our shared connectivity aspirations for the UK,” said Secretary of State, Jeremy Wright. “As well as ensuring the necessary improvements to broadband and mobile services, consumers must also be protected. I urge Ofcom to tackle harmful business practices and remove barriers to switching.”

The ‘loyalty penalty’ is a highly emotive mission from bureaucrats and consumer champions to stop an age-old practise of the telcos, which is perhaps underhanded. It is effectively taking advantage of those who are not savvy-enough to search for a new deal, or those who might innocently and naively presume loyalty would be rewarded. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the telco space, an industry which has a woeful track record and outlook on customer experience and services.

In terms of improving mobile coverage, the up-coming Ofcom 700 MHz auction has caught the attention of the government. The auction will aim to sell off 80 MHz in the 700 MHz band, spectrum which is well suited for providing mobile coverage over wide areas and indoors. Ofcom is currently clearing this band of transmissions for Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) and by wireless microphones used in the entertainment industry, though the plans are to have the spectrum free for mobile use by summer 2020.

Elsewhere in the consultation, rural roaming will be covered. Again, this ties back to empowering the consumer with greater connectivity and coverage, tackling the not-spots across the UK. Despite each of the telcos claiming progress in improving coverage, there are still plenty of not-spots across the UK where consumers only have the choice of one operator. Future proposals would aim to improve roaming agreements, to offer greater choice of providers to the consumer.

Finally, the consultation will ask for opinions on the current regulatory landscape. Central to this aspect of the investigation will be the suitability of rules and regulations to ensure the UK attracts investment.

While this might seem like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, it is a democratic nation ensuring all the boxes are ticked. The government has ambitions and objectives, though it is seeking validation from the community, before presenting a mandate to Ofcom to ensure it is regulating the industry in the way the government feels is most beneficial for society on the whole.

US raises suspicions of Chinese influence in Eastern Europe

The US Department of State has raised concerns over Chinese presence in Eastern Europe as a potential danger for corruption and government espionage ambitions.

During a briefing ahead of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s trip to Budapest, Bratislava, Warsaw, Brussels and Reykjavik, two administrative officials fielded questions over the objectives of the roadshow. Russia and China featured heavily throughout the briefing, though Eastern Europe has been highlighted as a potential source of problems for the US.

“The short answer is yes, we are more concerned about the Chinese presence, the Huawei presence in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe,” a senior official said in a briefing. “I should be clear that, of course, we see this as being problematic across the board, but I think what sets Central and Eastern Europe apart is you have a large number of mostly small and midsize states that – many of whom have a higher propensity to corruption.

“And so I think from a Chinese perspective, they see in Central and Eastern Europe EU member-states – I think 12 out of the 16 members of 16+1 are EU memberships or EU member-states. So they see relatively small countries with a recent history of communism with significant pathways of corruption that lend themselves more readily to state penetration in key sectors, and then they have a springboard to operate within EU fora.

“And all you need to do is look at the success that the Chinese have had importing individual Eastern European member-states of the EU to block the EU on things like recognition of the human rights problem in China or a support for the US position in the South China Sea.”

While these accusations are more broad than simply the telecommunications industry, Eastern Europe has been a field of success for Huawei and ZTE in recent years. With perhaps more lax rules and less paranoid governments than the more ‘developed’ nations across the bloc in years gone, recent events will certainly not make for pleasant reading.

Aside from the suspicion this trip has been seemingly designed to turn the Eastern European nations against China, an arrested Huawei employee in Poland appears to have turned the country against China. After several informal conversations about the saga, there does seem to be a general feeling Poland is marching towards an official ban in line with the US.

The Poland issue is somewhat of an interesting one as the government would have to weigh up the benefits of keeping its US ally happy alongside the societal benefits of being Huawei-friendly. Poland is effectively the Eastern European HQ of Huawei, with the firm employing roughly 900 people across the country. A ban would rid of the country of these jobs, as well as any notable investment and also the in-direct employment Huawei’s presence stimulates in other businesses.

The US wants to remain the leading economic superpower of the world, and this aggression against Chinese international expansion seems to be one of the strategies to maintain this position. It isn’t necessarily doing much to hide these tactics or ambitions, but that doesn’t seem to matter; they are working.

Scotland and Wales top the broadband not spot list once again

While there might be a few rogue entries into the UK broadband sh*t-list, the usual suspects are present once again demonstrating the difficulties in taking everyone across the digital finish line together.

The digital divide might not be on the same scale or intensity as some other continents are facing, but it is still a genuine problem for some regions in the ‘developed’ markets. Which has unveiled its latest list of connectivity not-spots throughout the UK, and unfortunately for those who like the peace and tranquillity of the countryside, the Eden comes with the sacrifice of connectivity.

The Orkney Islands in Scotland were the worst offenders for connectivity, with average speeds hitting a whopping 3 Mbps, though Allerdale, the Shetland Islands and Moray were also representing Scotland at the top (or bottom). Ceredigion and Powys, as well as Fermanagh and Omagh contributed to the Welsh representation.

While there might be constant reminders that digital equality is top of the list for politicians, the consistency of the worst offending areas just shows how difficult it is to solve the problem. The government might well have its Universal Service Obligation to wave in the face of the operators, but that seems to be having little effect.

Interestingly enough, previous reports have pointed towards the availability of higher speed broadband packages in these areas. Research such as this from Which can bemoan the lack of proactiveness from the telcos, pompously demanding that broadband is a right for all, but you can only lead a horse to water. Ofcom has previously stated only 45% of premises have signed up to superfast broadband packages, despite the option being available.

On a side note, the research also includes figures on how long it would take to download movies, music and other content at each of the speed tiers. Perhaps this is a measurement we should stop using to denote better or worse broadband speeds considering how many people are now streaming content rather than downloading it.

Your correspondent cannot think of the last time downloading content was favoured over streaming in his household, and suspects more and more households would fit this trend. Perhaps it would be a more useful comparison to list speeds at which a satisfactory streaming experience could be achieved for one or multiple devices simultaneously? Or measurements which take into account latency?

Looking at some of the figures online, Netflix recommends a 3 Mbps connection for one standard-quality stream and 5 Mbps for a high-definition stream. Two simultaneous HD streams would need around 10 Mbps, while multiples continuing upwards in a fashion you would expect. Compare the Market estimates that for adequate Spotify experience, 0.160 Mbps is needed to desktop applications, and 0.96 Mbps for mobile. High-definition video calling requires an upload and download speed of at least 1.2 Mbps. Users will also have to take into account how many connected appliances there are in the home.

These are all minimum speed requirements, and there will be other factors to take into consideration, but this might be a bit more suitable in a world which is moving away from asset downloads and towards streaming.