Lobbying on the up as Silicon Valley feels the regulatory squeeze

The internet giants have started filing their lobbying reports with the Center for Responsive Politics with records being shattered all over the place.

Each quarter US companies are legally required to disclose to Congress how much has been spend on political lobbying. Although the figures we are about to discuss are only for the US market, international players will certainly spend substantially more, it gives a good idea of the pressure which the internet players are facing. Governments are attempting to exert more control and Silicon Valley doesn’t like it.

Looking at the filings, having spent $4.9 million in the final three months, Google managed to total $21.2 million across the whole of 2018, a new high for the firm. This compares to $18.3 million spent across 2017.

Facebook is another which saw its lobby bill increase. In its latest filing, Facebook reported just over $3 million for Q4, and totalled almost $13 million across the year. In the Facebook case it should hardly be surprising to see a massive leap considering the scale and the depth of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which it has not been able to shake off.

More filings will be due over the next couple of days, the deadline for the fourth quarter period was January 22, though the database search tool is awful. What is worth noting is this is set to be the biggest year for internet lobby spend, however it is still nothing compared to the vast swathes which are spend elsewhere.

Lobby tableIn total, the internet industry might have spent a whopping $68.7 million on lobbying Washington over 2017 (2018 data is still not complete), but that is nothing compared to more mature industries. The Oil and Gas segment spent $126 million, while Insurance pumped $162 million into the lobbyists pockets, but the winner by a long was the pharmaceutical industry spending an eye-watering $279 million on lobbyists across the year (see image for full list).

As you can see, the ceiling has been set very high for lobbying and it will almost certainly increase over the next couple of years. All around the world governments and regulators are attempting to exert more control over the internet industry, and while the lobbying process isn’t necessarily attempting to block these new rules, the aim will be to get the best deal possible.

In comparison to other industries, the internet specifically and technology on the whole is relatively new. You have to take into account the internet as a mass market tool is only in its teen years and is demonstrating the same rebellious tendencies as young adults do. New ideas are being explored and boundaries are being pushed; with some breakthroughs rules do not exist, while the emergence of new business models means companies fall into the grey areas of regulation. The internet has been operating relatively untethered over the last few years, though this is changing.

2018 was a year where it all started to hit home. Countless data breaches demonstrated the digital world is one where security has not been nailed, while data privacy scandals have shown how dated some regulations are. It doesn’t help that Silicon Valley seems to operate behind a curtain which only the privileged few are allowed to peak behind, but even if this barrier was thrown open, only a small percentage of the world would actually understand what was going on or how to regulate it effectively.

GDPR was a step in the right direction in handing control of personal information back to the user, but this only applies to European citizens. Other countries, such as India, are learning from these regulations with the ambition of creating their own, but it is still very early days. The rules and regulations of the digital economy are being shaped and the internet giants will certainly want to influence proceedings to ensure they can still continue to hoover up profits in the manner which they have become accustomed to.

Looking at where money has been spent, data privacy and security concerns is a common theme with all the internet players who want to protect their standing in the sharing economy, though mobile location privacy issues is another shared concern. With data getting cheaper, more people will be connected all the time, opening the door for more location-based services and data collection. This could be big business for the internet giants, though it has been targeted by privacy advocates looking to curb the influence of Silicon Valley. Other issues have included tax reforms, antitrust and artificial intelligence.

So yes, a remarkable amount of cash is being spent by the likes of Google and Facebook at the moment, but this will only grow in time as regulators and legislators become more familiar with the business of the internet and, more importantly, how to govern it.

Privacy champion Max Schrems is back with another lawsuit

The man who is largely credited with the downfall of Safe Harbour has re-emerged from the shadows to take eight of the internet giants to court over GDPR violations.

As user privacy increasingly seems to be an alien concept to Silicon Valley and the other internet players, Austrian data privacy champion Max Schrems has jumped into the limelight once again. This time he is challenged eight internet companies and their data privacy practices, suggesting they are violating Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Through a filing with the Austrian Data Protection Authority, by Schrem’s non-profit NOYB, the complaints focus on the ‘right to access’ enshrined in Article 15 GDPR and Article 8(2) of the Chart of Fundamental Rights. Amazon, Apple, DAZN, Filmmit, Netflix, Sound Cloud, Spotify and YouTube are on the receiving end of the lawsuit, with the potential penalties ranging from €20 million through to €8 billion.

“Many services set up automated systems to respond to access requests, but they often don’t even remotely provide the data that every user has a right to,” said Schrems. “In most cases, users only got the raw data, but, for example, no information about who this data was shared with. This leads to structural violations of users’ rights, as these systems are built to withhold the relevant information.”

GDPR is supposed to hand control of personal data back to said individual. Its aim is to hold the digital society accountable to their actions and provide a certain level of justification for holding onto, and potentially monetizing, an individual’s personal information. Several clauses are also aimed at transparency to ensure the user is fully informed, or at least offering the user the opportunity to be, about how these software and services providers commercialise data.

In addition to what raw data is being stored, individuals do now also have the right to know where this data was sourced, the recipients and also the purpose. This is where a few of the complaints are focusing specifically, as this is the information which was absent from some of the responses.

If privacy is an alien concept, then transparency is a dirty, inconceivable word to the internet players. It seems former habits have been hard to shake.

NOYB Snip

As you can see from the table above, Schrems has tested out how some of the internet players have reacted to the introduction of GDPR. Progress has been made, except in the case of Sound Cloud and DAZN, but that is irrelevant. The introduction of GDPR on May 25 2018 was not the starting line to gradually move yourself through to compliance, day one was a hard introduction of the rules. There are some circumstances where companies can avoid penalties, but these are scenarios where non-compliance would be seen as out of the control of the company, or best efforts have been made.

This is where these firms might find themselves in a bit of hot water. An automated response which offers up some information but not all which is required through the new regulation should not be considered good enough. The pair ignoring the requests completely should be very worried about the repercussions. And finally, the Austrian regulator will also have to decide whether four weeks is an appropriate response time or too long. None of these firms are in a safe place right now.

Another interesting aspect will be the readability of the data. In the complaint, Schrems notes the raw data was provided in what would be considered cryptic form for the general public. Users would not be able to read the data therefore it is not being made accessible by the company. Whether this is taken as a violation of GDPR remains to be seen, though Austria could set precedent.

Many of the internet giants have resisted the calls from data privacy advocates and governments around the world, but GDPR is supposed to be a stick to keep the segment in line. These are companies which will want to avoid giving too many details away as the power and depth of the data sharing economy has the potential to spook large swathes of the general public. Too much light shed on data processing and exchanging practices would also offer more ammunition to the blood-thirsty politicians, many of whom are on a PR crusade to make heads roll.

Ultimately this will give us a good indication as to how sharp European regulators’ teeth actually are. In passing GDPR, the European Commission has offered a stick to the pro-privacy regulators, but how hard they swing it remains to be seen. The dreaded ‘up to’ phrase is present when looking at potential fines, so let’s see whether these regulations have the stones to dish out appropriate punishments.

As Nielsen reports shift away from cable TV Netflix announces biggest price hike

A recent Nielsen report on the evolution of US TV viewing habits reveals a 48% increase in the number of households switching entirely to over the air access.

16 million US homes – 14% of households – are now OTA-only, up from just 9% of households 8 years ago. This constituency is split into older viewers (6.6m) looking to save a few bucks by settling for the good, old broadcast antenna option, and younger SVOD (subscription video on demand) subscribers (9.4m), who get everything they need from services like Netflix and therefore see no need to pay for cable.

A significant characteristic of this latter category is a move away from the traditional TV to viewing on mobile devices. These smaller screens tend to lend themselves to solitary viewing rather than the more communal TV experience, something that is greatly facilitated by the on-demand nature of these services.

Nielsen OTA chart

Coinciding with the publication of this report is the announcement from Netflix of its biggest ever price rise in the US. The SVOD giant has been investing more than ever on original programming and has such a massive installed base that it seems to have decided it’s time to start thinking about justifying its massive valuation.

“We change pricing from time to time as we continue investing in great entertainment and improving the overall Netflix experience for the benefit of our members,” a Netflix spokesperson said in a somewhat redundant statement to Light Reading.

“For many users, Netflix is an indispensable video services,” said Tech, Media & Telco Analyst Paolo Pescatore. “There will not be much backlash (for now). This is certainly one way to increase revenue significantly. It needs to focus on financials as well as subscriber growth. Netflix is following the traditional pay TV model of increasing prices annually. Expect other countries to increase prices over coming months.”

Anecdotally linear TV viewing seems to be a dying phenomenon. Even when families congregate around the living room TV they’re just as likely to watch a DVD or streamed box set and, if this correspondent’s experience is anything to go by, people prefer to do their own thing on tablets. Netflix is currently the boss of that sector so it’s probably free to keep raising prices for a while yet.

T-Mobile US won’t be rushed on TV proposition

The T-Mobile US TV launch has been anticipated for some time now, but we’ll have to wait until at least mid-2019 for this dream to become a reality.

After closing the Layer3 acquisition at the beginning of this year, it was assumed T-Mobile US would sharply enter the TV market with another ‘Uncarrier’ move. These disruptive plays have formed the foundation of T-Mobile US’ rise through the ranks in recent years, luring customers away from the still dominant duo of AT&T and Verizon.

But for those who were eagerly anticipating the launch of a TV service, don’t hold your breath. The launch has been kicked back, with no concrete commitments made. Why? Because CEO John Legere has high standards.

According to Bloomberg, people working on the project have suggested the wild-eyed CEO has set the bar so high, the team are struggling to meet expectations. This is not necessarily a bad thing and demonstrates Legere has the patience to produce a good product instead of being rushed to market due to the pressure of other players.

The first moments of life for this product could be the beginning and the end. Such is the competition in the ‘cord-cutter’ space, bringing a poor product to market could result in the venture failing before it has even started. If T-Mobile US wants to make a splash in this pond, he’ll have to meet consumer expectations, most of whom are dissatisfied at the moment.

While cable has had a place in the hearts of consumers for years, this trend is ending with the cord-cutting generation of today. Digital alternatives are wanted by the consumer, though with expensive and sub-standard options on the market as it stands, there is the opportunity for disruption. This is a perfect storm for Legere and the magenta army, but only if the proposition is right.

It’ll have to be cheap enough to attract interest, expensive enough to allow for future content investment, stylish enough to meet the visual and experience demands of the digital natives and have the content depth to attract a broad range of customers. This is a complicated equation to get right, but the rewards are potentially massive. We’re pleasantly surprised the team is taking its time and getting the proposition right.

Another factor to consider is the increased competitive threat from Disney. Disney has already shown its intention to go toe-to-toe with Netflix on the content battlefield, though should this entertainment heavyweight get its own OTT service right upon launch next year, the content gains for everyone else will get considerably smaller.

With a host of services already on the market, and more to come in 2019, T-Mobile US will have to make this Uncarrier move perfect if it wants to cash in on the content bonanza. Consumers are fickle and un-loyal enough to mean late-comers to the market can make a splash, so don’t expect Legere to be rushed with this challenge to the status quo.

Aussies question whether Google and Facebook are overstepping boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

France and Germany give OTTs early Xmas gift in digital tax saga

Europe ambitious plans to hold the internet giants accountable to fair and reasonable taxation have been temporarily scuppered after resistance from several nations, most notably France and Germany.

While Silicon Valley is still not in the clear, the internet giants will be breathing a deep sigh of relief as their hard-working lobbyists are given another couple of months to influence the plans. France and Germany seem to be the main opponents of the aggressive tax assault, drawing up their own suggestions at the G20 Summit which would allow many of the biggest players to continue to dodge the tax man.

The initial plan was relatively simple; hold the internet players accountable to fair and reasonable conditions by implementing a 3% tax on digital revenues realised in EU member states. This would have placed all the current tax dodgers on the block. The Franco-German joint declaration was supposed to be a compromise, answering the initial opposition, but it seems this watered-down version is not going far enough.

While the Franco-German version of the digital tax certainly is much diluted compared to the initial proposals, it has still been resisted by other players who are protecting their own interests. It seems the ‘all for one and one for all’ theoretical attitude of the European Union does not translate directly into Irish or Norwegian.

“Following a thorough analysis of all technical issues, the presidency put forward a compromise text containing the elements that have the most support from member states,” a statement from The European Council reads. “However, at this stage a number of delegations cannot accept the text for political reasons as a matter of principle, while a few others are not satisfied yet with some specific points in the text. That text did not gain the necessary support and was not discussed in detail.”

Unfortunately for the European Union, this is the issue with any material changes made to rules and regulations. A collection of 27 member states certainly creates influence on the global and political stage, though it only takes one detractor to spoil any plans.

Looking at the suggested middle ground, a Franco-German joint declaration made a point which will please some more than others. The objection here is down to the wording of the proposal with France and Germany believing advertising revenues should be targeted, pushing Facebook and Google into the line of fire, as opposed to digital revenues as a generic term.

In France and Germany, some of the world’s largest internet-based businesses would gain a reprieve. Should the new rules target digital advertising revenues specifically, while subscription services, hardware and online marketplaces would escape. The likes of Amazon, Apple and Spotify would be free to continue practising their suspect taxation strategies.

The pattern of affairs here is something which should be pleasing for the internet giants, or at least most of them. What started as an assault on the internet players is starting to look like a very different battle nowadays, leaning much more towards Google and Facebook specifically.

These two might feel a bit victimised, but the ways things are heading it looks like a deal which is accepted by every member state would not be the victory the Brussels bureaucrats originally envisioned. With bureaucrats under pressure to produce a plan, accepted by all member states by March 2019, a lighter touch approach will be needed. We suspect such a plan will be put together, championed as a revolutionary position, though the internet players will be given enough wiggle room to ensure there is no meaningful victory.

What will help internet players sleep at night is the knowledge they only need to get one member state on side to veto the battle plan. Rev up the lobby machine!

MTN unveils its first OTT service and roadmap for digital fortunes

MTN has announced the acquisition of music streaming platform Simfy at AfricaCom and outlined the future of the telco, which doesn’t look very much like a telco anymore.

This is of course a slightly unfair statement, as the mission of connecting the unconnected millions across Africa will continue to be a top priority for the business, though CEO Rob Shuter highlighted the team have much bigger ambitions when it comes to maintaining relevance in the digital economy. The Simfy acquisition is just one step in the quest to morph MTN into a digital services business.

Speaking during the keynote sessions at AfricaCom, Shuter highlighted there are still major challenges when it comes to connectivity in Africa, though telcos need to look deeper into how these challenges can be solved. The most simple roadblock is a lack of connectivity across the continent, but when networks are being deployed, telcos need to understand how consumers are engaging with the connected world. A good place to look first and foremost is China.

“Our mission is not just about connecting people, but understanding what the users want to use the internet for, so we can build networks properly,” said Shuter. “When we look at China today, that will be Africa in the next two to three years.”

Looking at how consumers use connectivity in China starts to paint a picture. Media takes up 17% of time of devices, while communications and social media takes up 33%. Shopping and payments account for 16%, and gaming takes up 11%. For MTN to be relevant in the future, Shuter has ambitions to create a presence in each of these segments.

To capitalise on payments and shopping, the mobile money offering will be revamped and launched in South Africa during Q1 2019. Nigeria has also just changed its regulatory regime when it comes to mobile money, and Shuter said the team would be applying for a payments service license over the next month, with plans to launch a mobile money offering in Q2 2019. This is a big moment for MTN, as while the mobile money offering has been present for some time, this is the first venture into its two largest markets.

For Shuter, creating a digital services company has two components. Using connectivity as a platform, a comprehensive partnerships programme has been launched in four main verticals (communications, rich media services, mobile financial services and eCommerce) with the team working with various established players in the ecosystem, but MTN also have to push itself further up the value chain and offer its own competitive products. This is where Simfy fits in.

As a music subscription product, customers will be able to merge both connectivity and music payments onto the same bill, but Simfy will not be incorporated into the greater MTN business from an operational perspective. Simfy will continue to operate a separate entity, allowing it to maintain the OTT environment. Shuter highlighted he would not want the corporate and operational structure of a telco, completely unsuited to the OTT landscape, to impact Simfy’s operations.

On the financial services side, the team will make use of MTN’s scale to establish a more prominent footprint. With a user base of 24 million already, this number seems to be doubling every 18 months. The significantly larger mobile subscription base can be used to springboard the mobile money business north, as Shuter highlighted the distribution network is key. When customers come to top-up their airtime or data allowance, they can also deposit cash into digital wallets. It is convergence at its finest, though leaning on Orange’s ambitions to diversify out of the traditional telco playground.

There are still huge challenges from a connectivity perspective across the African continent, but MTN seems to recognise there is more to be excited about than simply collecting subscriptions. If the Simfy acquisition is to be taken as evidence of MTN’s future roadmap, this looks like it could be a case of convergence done right, not allowing the cumbersome, archaic telco machine to muddy the OTT waters.

IBC 2018: New content, new markets, new partners – the Netflix growth plan

Netflix is one of the largest technology companies on the planet, but there is still mountains of room for growth over the next few years.

Speaking at IBC 2018 in Amsterdam, Maria Ferreras, VP of EMEA Business Development at Netflix pointed towards some quite remarkable figures. In the 11 years since Netflix starting its streaming business the platform has amassed 130 million subscribers. While this is of course an astronomical figure, some might have assumed it would be higher. With profits of $2.8 billion over the last twelve months, the opportunity for growth is still buoyant.

The question which remains is how to do this. Netflix has been incredibly successful in securing subscriptions through its own marketing strategies, though partnerships with telcos and broadcasting businesses are top of the agenda for Ferreras.

“What is critical for us is making sure Netflix is available,” said Ferreras. “It’s all about making access easier.”

The idea behind these partnerships is creating opportunity. The partner organizations might not only have a better relationship with potential customers, but they also address some key challenges in terms of billing and experience.

On the billing side of things, Ferreras asks the industry not to use Western standards when assessing new territories. For example, in Saudi Arabia not only is credit card penetration low, a number of the domestic brands are not accepted by eCommerce sites. Partnering with the telcos offering consumers in this market an opportunity to pay through their own billing platforms. There are numerous other countries around the world where this could be the case, meaning partnerships with telcos offer an opportunity to engage new customers who were not accessible to the business before.

Looking at the experience, this is about accessibility once again, but a different twist. Here we are talking about the content aggregation model, taking away the complication of accessing content through multiple windows in the fragmented content ecosystem. With the Netflix app installed on set-top boxes, content platforms or smart TVs, the frustration of exiting applications before entering new ones is removed. With both billing and navigation, it’s all about simplifying the experience.

Such partnerships tie into another column in the growth plan; entry into new markets. While some territories have been experiencing the Netflix bonanza for more than a decade, there are still markets where the brand is a newbie or even non-existent. This is the simple aspect of the plan, launch in new regions, though the complication comes with the experience.

Some areas are mobile orientated, some have poor connectivity and some have lower-end devices. In each of these circumstances, the Netflix proposition needs to be adapted to standardize the experience over every device. This standardization also extends to the different partnerships as well. There is no such thing as differentiation here, the Netflix platform will be the same wherever you go.

The final pillar is localisation. Ferreras said Netflix will continue to aggressively expand its content portfolio, not only moving into new genres, but also creating content which is targeting specific countries or regions. This is where Netflix needs to improve in some regions, as the depth of content in the right language or genres lacks. It is a work in progress, though local co-production initiatives with partners will help accelerate this process,

One area Ferreras highlighted the business will not be heading is live sports. The objective of Netflix is to innovate through creating experiences which other platforms cannot. In sport, Netflix is increasing its portfolio with sports documentaries and interviews, though this is content to support the sports story. When delivering live sports to the consumer, not only does this not fit with the on-demand ethos of Netflix, but it cannot do anything different from traditional broadcasters. As a genre, live sports does not fit the bill.

Netflix might be an internet heavyweight, but the opportunity to grow is still quite surprising.

Internet giants decide US government has nothing to offer security talks

A coalition of internet giants have decided to have a meeting to discuss cybersecurity and misinformation during November’s US mid-term elections, but the government didn’t make the invite list.

It isn’t often the worlds tech giants all get along, but this seems to be an area which they can all agree on. Something needs to be done to remove a repeat of the controversy which has constantly stalked Donald Trump’s Presidential win, and it isn’t even worth bothering listening to the opinions of the government.

According to Buzzfeed, Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy, called the meeting, inviting twelve other organizations but the government was not on the list. The snub seems to follow a similar meeting in May, where each of the invitees left feeling somewhat disappointed with the government contribution. We can only imagine Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary Chris Krebs and Mike Burham from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force simply sat in the corner, one holding a map and the other pointing to Russia shouting ‘we found it, we found it, look, they don’t even do water sports properly’.

“As I’ve mentioned to several of you over the last few weeks, we have been looking to schedule a follow-on discussion to our industry conversation about information operations, election protection, and the work we are all doing to tackle these challenges,” Gleicher wrote in an email.

The meeting will take place in three stages featuring the likes of Google, Twitter, Snap and Microsoft. Firstly, each company will discuss the efforts they have been making to prevent abuse of the platform. Second will be an open discussion on new ideas. And finally, the thirteen organizations will discuss whether the meeting should become a regular occurrence.

While interference from foreign actors has proved to be a stick to poke the internet giants in the US, criticism of the platforms and a lack of action in tackling misinformation has been a global phenomenon. European nations have been trying to hold the internet players accountable for hate speech and fake news for years, but Trump’s Presidential win is perhaps the most notable impact misinformation has had on the global stage.

With the mid-term elections a perfect opportunity for nefarious characters to cause chaos the internet players will have to demonstrate they can protect their platforms from abuse. Should abuse be present again, not only would this be a victory for the dark web and the bottom dwellers of digital society, but it will also give losing politicians an opportunity to shift the blame for not winning. While this meeting is an example of industry collaboration, each has been launching their own initiatives to tackle the threat.

Facebook most recently revealed it scored users from one to ten on the likelihood they would abuse the content flagging system, and has been systematically taking down suspect accounts. Twitter has algorithms in place to detect potential dodgy accounts and limits the dissemination of posts. Microsoft recently bought several web domains registered by Russian military intelligence for phishing operations, then shut them down. Google has also been hoovering up content and fake accounts on its YouTube platform.

Whether the internet giants can actually do anything to prevent abuse of platforms and the spread of misinformation remains to be seen. That said, keeping the bundling, boresome bureaucrats out of the meeting is surely a sensible idea. Aside from the fact most government workers are as useful as a bicycle pump in a washing machine, Trump-infused politically-motivated individuals are some of the most notable sources of fake news in the first place.

Russian telcos push for OTT tax on new data storage laws

Russian telcos are lobbying the government to grant new powers which would allow them to tax non-domestic internet companies to ease the burden of new data storage laws.

According to Reuters, the telcos are proposing new legislation to ease the financial burden of the new laws designed to give the state more oversight on communications within the country. As part of the new rules, telcos would be forced to store customer data in the country (calls, texts, internet search history etc.) for six months. The data storage rules come into force in October.

Ahead of the October launch date, the telcos have warned the imposition would result in larger costs. To protect the pockets of shareholders and executives alike, the telcos have suggested these incurred costs for data storage would be passed onto the consumer with tariffs potentially rising as much as 10%. Should the government look favourably on the proposed bill, telcos could seek compensation for the costs from non-domestic internet companies such as Facebook and Google.

Of course it seems perfectly reasonable for telcos to want to spread the burden of the digital economy throughout the ecosystem, it has largely bore the brunt of the financial expense while others profits at the top of the value chain for years, but this is a different matter. Facilitating government ambitions to more surgically monitor citizens and potentially eradicate the concept of privacy might not sit easily with the internet giants.

That said, bowing to government ambitions despite a conflict with apparent principles of the organization is a story which has been hitting the headlines recently. In an effort to penetrate the Great Firewall of China, Google has been creating a censorship-friendly version of its news app which could filter out stories which do not please the government. Google is not alone here as LinkedIn accepted these censorship rules years ago.

Other technology companies might not be as flexible as Google or LinkedIn. Those who maintain principles and refuse to fund the governments ambitions to rid Russia of independent thought will potentially face regulator Roskomnadzor reducing the speed of access to their websites for Russian users.

This is nothing but a proposal for the moment, though should it progress, the internet companies will face another principles versus profits dilemma.