Facebook flags posts from ‘state-controlled media’

Social media giant Facebook continues to walk the tightrope on censorship, this time adding warning labels to posts that originate from media outlets it considers to be under state control.

“We want to help people better understand who’s behind the news they see on Facebook,” the announcement explained. “…we believe people should know if the news they read is coming from a publication that may be under the influence of a government.” Additionally Facebook will also be labelling ads from such publications and banning those ads in the US, for fear they’re used to manipulate this year’s Presidential election.

While labelling posts is a form of censorship, this move from Facebook should be placed at the mildest end of the scale. It could be argued that making its users aware of the provenance of a piece they’re reading is merely a benign service. However, the clear inference of the label is that the material is compromised and not to be trusted, so there is definitely an element of censorship.

Nonetheless the emphasis on empowering the user to make their own decisions rather than taking the matter out of their hands by removing the material entirely is positive, and in keeping with Zuckerberg’s assertion that social media companies should not be the arbiters of truth. He has faced a lot of resistance from his own employees for this stance, but has stood firm.

The tricky bit with this policy, as with any censorship, involves who determines whether or not something is state-controlled and what their methodology is. Again Facebook seems to be adopting the least bad method, by providing plurality (65 ‘experts’), transparency and an appeals process. Here’s what it has to say about methodology:

We look at several factors that may indicate editorial control by a government, including: 

  • Mission statement, mandate, and/or public reporting on how the organization defines and accomplishes its journalistic mission
  • Ownership structure such as information on owners, stakeholders, board members, management, government appointees in leadership positions, and disclosure of direct or indirect ownership by entities or individuals holding elected office
  • Editorial guidelines such as transparency around sources of content and independence and diversity of sources
  • Information about newsroom leadership and staff
  • Sources of funding and revenue
  • Governance and accountability mechanisms such as correctional policies, procedure for complaints, external assessments and oversight boards

If we determine that there are enough protections in place to ensure editorial independence, we will not apply the label. Publishers looking to prove their independence must be able to demonstrate at least: 

  • A statute in the host country that clearly protects the editorial independence of the organization
  • Established procedures, processes, and protections at the media organization to ensure editorial independence 
  • An assessment by an independent, credible, external organization finding that the statute has in fact been complied with and established procedures have been followed

We also consider country-specific factors, including press freedom and we consult open-source research conducted by academics and leading experts. 

If an organization believes we have applied the label in error, they can submit an appeal. Through the appeal, they can provide additional documentation, which we will review against our definition.  

As we roll these labels out to more publishers over time, we welcome feedback and will continue to consult with experts and refine our approach.

The matter of state-controlled media is a tricky one. Most people probably don’t know that any newspaper headquartered in mainland China is, by default, under the influence of the state. The same applies to any other non-democratic state as despotic rulers tend to look unfavourably on media that criticizes them. Whether we like it or not, some countries are actively attempting to corrupt the democratic process and combating that constitutes a rare justification for censorship.

Congress asks FCC to slow down 5G acceleration plans

24 Democrat members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have asked FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to delay a vote on a Declaratory Ruling which would dilute local Government’s role in 5G.

Although those in the industry will cringe at the thought of another delay, the reasoning behind this one is certainly valid. In short, local Governments have enough on their plates dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Opinions on changes to the bureaucratic process for telecoms network deployment is not something which can be given full attention at this time.

“We are especially troubled by the burden responding to this Declaratory Ruling will place on local governments that are rightfully focused right now on combatting the ongoing coronavirus pandemic,” the letter states.

“Likewise, we worry that if this Declaratory Ruling does not benefit from meaningful input from local governments, the result could undermine municipalities’ ability to balance their responsibilities to public safety and community design with their desire to ensure access to affordable wireless networks and the next generation services.”

What remains to be seen is whether Pai and the FCC take this request on board. There have been broader political requests to offer more time and flexibility on consultation periods, but as the FCC is attempting to dilute the power and influence of local Government authorities, does it actually care about the opinion submissions?

The vote in question here, set to take place on June 9, aims to address several areas and ease the bureaucratic burdens which are placed on telecoms companies while upgrading existing networks. There are three areas which will be introduced in this document:

  1. A shot-clock for decision making for the local authorities
  2. Redefining what would be considered ‘substantial change’ to existing infrastructure, and therefore, what upgrades need to go through the application process
  3. Remove requirements for additional environmental impact studies for some work

The idea is to address a pain-point in the telecoms industry; burdensome bureaucracy. Applications and studies will of course always have their place, but there has been a worry too much red-tape has been introduced to the sector. Telcos complain it is time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive. It slows down network deployment, which will have to be accelerated as the country enters the 5G era.

This is of course an on-going challenge for the telecoms industry, and it is by no means limited to the US. Bureaucracy is a challenge all over the world as the balance between state oversight and corporate freedom is found. The FCC has identified this challenge and is attempting to empower the industry.

The request for a delay to the vote will not be well-received by the industry, however. The US might have been one of the first countries to launch 5G services, it is very debatable who was actually first, but it has since slipped down the pecking order. If it is to retain a leadership position, this will have to be corrected, and at some point, the US telcos will have to react to the aggressive deployment strategies from Chinese counterparts.

Google to face $5bn privacy lawsuit as consumer craving for secrecy increases

Law firm Boies Schiller Flexner has filed a $5 billion class action lawsuit against Google in the Northern District of California for continuing to collect data while privacy mode is activated.

Alleging Google violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Fourth Amendment, the law firm is suing on behalf of millions. Although $5 billion is a significant financial penalty to be fearful of, Google should perhaps be more worried of precedent as losing this case could open the door for other lawsuits in States with their own privacy laws.

The ruling of this lawsuit will boil down to one question; did Google illegally mislead users by overstating the privacy protection afforded when users activated ‘Incognito’, a mode which supposedly acts as an opt-out for data collection and analysis.

“Google tracks and collects consumer browsing history and other web activity data no matter what safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy,” the lawsuit states.

“Indeed, even when Google users launch a web browser with ‘private browsing mode’ activated (as Google recommends to users wishing to browse the web privately), Google nevertheless tracks the users’ browsing data and other identifying information.”

Should the lawsuit be successful, the team would like to award $5,000 in damages to every user who has used Google’s ‘Incognito’ mode since June 1, 2016.


‘Incognito’ mode was first introduced to Google search functions in 2008 and is designed to allow users to browse the internet without Google Chrome remembering the activities. Although it sounds promising, what should be noted is that Google has always stated it is not an absolute protection from online tracking.

The following statement is taken from the Google ‘Incognito’ section of the website:

Chrome won’t save your browsing history, cookies and site data, or information entered in forms. Files you download and bookmarks you create will be kept. Your activity isn’t hidden from websites you visit, your employer or school, or your internet service provider.

The contentious issue is how much ‘Incognito’ mode was oversold to the user, with the Boies Schiller Flexner legal team believing Google misled users. Through applications and functions such as Google Ad Manager and Google Sign-In, the claim is that browsing information was still collected by the search giant despite assurances to the user it wouldn’t.

Of course, what is worth noting is that there is serious incentive for the collection of personal information. According to estimates (albeit, old estimates) from Tim Morey of digital strategy firm Frog, the value of different data segment vary quite significantly:

  • $240 – Social security number
  • $150 – Credit card information
  • $57 – Internet browsing history
  • $38 – Health history
  • $5.7 – Online purchasing history
  • $4.2 – Contact information

The question which is being asked today is whether all of these data collection and analysis strategies are being done legally.


One trend which is becoming increasingly more obvious is the desire for more privacy.

Earlier this week, Brave, a privacy-orientated search engine, said that monthly active users (MAUs) passed 15 million for the first time in May, a 125% increase year-on-year. These browsers also tend to be more engaged, with click-through rates of ads were as high as 9%.

Perhaps it is the dangers of the digital economy hitting home, finally, but users are becoming much more aware of their privacy rights. This is not good for business for the likes of Google and other internet giants where business models are moulded around information, but it does raise a few questions about the suitability of existing privacy laws:

Telecoms.com Poll – Should privacy rules be re-evaluated in light of a new type of society?
30% Yes, the digital economy requires a difference stance on privacy
41% The user should be given more choice to create own privacy rights
29% No, technology has changed but privacy principles are the same

One question which has not been properly addressed is whether the privacy rules which are being enforced today are suitable for the digital era?

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) were passed in 2018, ensuring rules in Europe were fit for purpose, but many countries are dictated by privacy rules and regulations written in a bygone era.

In this lawsuit against Google, the three laws mentioned could certainly be considered out of date:

  • The Federal Wiretap Act was actually written in 1968 and largely replaced by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
  • California’s Invasion of Privacy Act was first legislated in 1967, though there have been numerous updates, including the California Consumer Privacy Act in 2018
  • The Fourth Amendment was written in 1789 to protect the rights of citizens and prevent warrantless searches of their homes

Although all of these laws are theoretically in the same ballpark, they have been designed for analogue societies. Legal documents are full of nuances and loopholes and taking an example slightly out of context can create all sorts of problems. Today’s digital society is fundamentally different from the analogue era, making it difficult to apply existing laws perfectly.

A donkey might have four legs, a tail and eat hay, but that does not mean it will be at home in the starting gate at a racecourse.


There are plenty of ways the lawsuit against Google can fall apart, most notably as the lawyers on the offensive will have to demonstrate an extensive knowledge of the intricate operations within the search engine business to prove their points. This is an issue.

What you can also guarantee is that Google will throw plenty of legal resources at the case. These are seasoned professionals who have become very well accustomed to defending the internet giant.

Google will of course not want to pay the $5 billion penalty which is being sought by the lawyers championing this class action suit, a bigger consequence is precedent. If lawyers are successful in suing Google for breaking California laws, who is to say another firm would not raise the alarm in any one of the other 49 States which make up the USA.

The USA is a highly litigious country and precedent is a very powerful force in this community.

Facebook attempts to walk the tightrope on censorship

Having criticized Twitter for poking the bear, Facebook seems to be adopting a more nuanced approach to policing its platform.

Twitter’s decision to censor President Trump was an astounding mistake. Of course nobody, no matter how powerful, should be exempt from its policies, but if you’re going to single out one of the most powerful people in the world, you had better make sure you have all your bases covered. Twitter didn’t.

Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg recognised Twitter’s mistake immediately and announced during an interview with Fox News that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything people say online. Even his choice of news outlet was telling, as Fox seems to be the only one not despised by Trump. Zuckerberg was effectively saying ‘leave us out of this’.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey responded directly with the following tweet thread, which at first attempted to isolate the decision to censor Trump to him alone, but then proceeded to talk in the first person plural.

Within a couple of days Zuckerberg posted further clarification of his position on, of course, Facebook, in which he noted the current violent public response to a man dying in US police custody served as a further reminder of the importance of getting these decisions right.

“Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician,” wrote Zuckerberg. “We have been in touch with the White House today to explain these policies as well.”

From that post we can see that Zuckerberg is still in favour of censorship, but sets the bar higher than Twitter and doesn’t see the point in half measures. Worryingly for Zuckerberg, many Facebook employees have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at this policy, apparently demanding Facebook does censor the President.


It’s worth reflecting on the two forms of censorship Twitter has imposed on Trump. The first was simply to fact-check a claim he made about postal voting, which linked to a statement saying his claim was ‘unsubstantiated’ according to US media consistently hostile to Trump.

The second superimposed a warning label over the top of a Trump tweet warning of repercussions for rioting, which reads: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.” Clicking on the label reveals Trump’s tweet, which features the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

That was apparently the bit that was interpreted as glorifying violence, and yet a subsequent Trump tweet using exactly the same phrase has not been subject to any censorious action by Twitter. That discrepancy alone illustrate the impossible Twitter has put itself in (not to mention the fact that the labels don’t survive the embedding process) and there are presumably millions of other examples of borderline threats of violence that it has also let pass. Inconsistent censoring can easily be viewed as simple bias, seeking to tip the scales of public conversation in your favour.

For many people censorship is a simple matter of harm reduction. Why would anyone want to allow speech that could cause harm? The mistake they make is to view harm as an objective, absolute concept on which there is unilateral consensus. As Zuckerberg’s post shows, the perception of harm is often highly subjective and the threshold at which to censor harmful speech is entirely arbitrary.

There is clearly a lot of demand for extensive policing of internet speech nonetheless, but social media companies have to resist it if they want to be able to claim they’re impartial. There’s just no way to keep bias out of the censorship process. If they don’t, they risk being designated as publishers and thus legally responsible for every piece of content they host. This would be calamitous for their entire business model, which makes it all the more baffling that Dorsey would so openly risk such an outcome.

As MasMovil becomes latest acquisition target, are more takeovers on the horizon?

KKR, Cinven and Providence have combined forces to buy Spanish telco MasMovil, but with depressed share prices and regulatory opinions shifting, it could be the first of many corporate transactions.

The merger and acquisition landscape has been somewhat quiet over the last few months, since the COVID-19 pandemic set in across the world, but we struggle to believe there are not cash rich investment funds considering weighty purchases. The most successful investment funds are only such because they can sniff an opportunity, and this is exactly what the MasMovil acquisition should be viewed as; corporate opportunism.

There are still approvals needed from Banca de Espana, the Spanish Telecoms ministry and Industry & Commerce ministry (foreign investment approval), as well as competition authorities in the EU, China, Turkey, Serbia and Israel. However, we suspect the process will run smoothly, especially considering MasMovil CEO Meinrad Spenger has already said he would support the transaction.

First reported by Reuters, the trio of bankers have now made an official public tender offer for $3.3 billion, a 22% premium on the opening share price this morning (June 1). Share price has surged 20%, as one would expect, though it has only just crept above the pre-lockdown levels.

This is what is very interesting about the telco market currently; share price for all major and minor telcos is severely depressed. For those who have money available, and the desire to push into the telecoms space, it is a very attractive opportunity currently.

Share price of selected European telcos during COVID-19 lockdown period
Telco Share Price, June 1 Share Price, Feb 3 Change
BT 120.51 163.34 -26%
Telecom Italia 0.48 0.34 -29%
Telefonica 6.11 4.48 -26%
Telenor 17.75 15.02 -15%
Orange 12.80 10.98 -14%
Vodafone 150.82 134.86 -11%

Share prices accurate at the time of writing – 10.30am, June 1

Some of the companies mentioned above would be too big to consider to be an acquisition target, Orange or Telefonica for example, though others could certainly fall into the right bracket. BT has a market capitalisation of £11.9 billion and is underperforming against UK rivals considerably, while the likes of KPN in the Netherlands could be another interesting target. Sitting third in the mobile market share rankings in the Netherlands, a cash injection and refreshed strategy could be a worthwhile gamble with the telco’s market capitalisation currently €9.42 billion.

Of course what is also worth noting is that the opportunity for acquiring business is not just limited to the bankers. Thanks to a ruling from the European Court of Justice, telcos might have renewed enthusiasm for market consolidation.

Last week, the General Court of the European Court of Justice annulled a decision made in 2016 to block a merger between O2 and Three in the UK on the grounds of competition. In annulling this decision, it challenges the long-standing belief that mergers which would take a market from four operators to three would be vetoed automatically.

This decision is very important for those who have been championing market consolidation. Some argue fewer telcos would results in more concentrated network investment, as well as scaled economics thanks to larger customer bases. The decision from the European courts opens the door for potential market consolidation.

There are of course markets where consolidation is not realistic, the Netherlands or Belgium for example where there are only three mobile network operators (MNOs) today, but there are others where this could be an interesting development. Spain is certainly one of them.

The Spanish market is one where there is plenty of competition. There are currently four major mobile operators, albeit MasMovil is an MVNO, while Euskaltel announced plans to challenge the market with a Virgin Media branded proposition. KKR, Cinven and Providence want to take control of MasMovil, but might Orange be tempted to muscle in on the action?

Telco subscriptions in Spain (2018-2021)
Telco 2018 2019 2020 2021
Orange 19,450,963 19,016,941 19,783,330 19,890,931
Telefonica 18,384,400 18,916,801 19,579,529 20,040,114
Vodafone 15,500,832 15,427,639 15,262,546 15,406,460
MasMovil 6,760,000 7,435,000 7,513,777 7,952,289

Source: Omdia World Information Series

MasMovil could look attractive to Orange for several reasons. Firstly, this is a telco which is heading in the right direction, subscriptions are growing year-on-year. Secondly, MasMovil has bought into the convergence business model which is being championed by the Orange Group. And finally, MasMovil is a MVNO customer of Orange’s Spanish wholesale business, making integration a bit simpler.

With the European courts turning a new page on market consolidation, possibly indicating authorities might be more accommodating of such transactions, this could be an idea which is being discussed in the Orange offices. It would make sense for Orange’s ambitions in the country, while MasMovil is open to some sort of transaction.

Some might also suggest Telefonica would be interested, but with the management team desperate to reduce the €44 billion debt burden and its credit ratings not exactly sparkling, this is unlikely. Vodafone might have considered such a move at another time, but it has larger problems to tackle without adding the complications of an acquisition, most notably in India and Italy.

Speculation aside, KKR, Cinven and Providence will attempt to buy the Spanish challenger telco. With a depressed share price and appreciation for the importance of the telecoms industry at its highest levels, we would not be surprised if this is only the first of several transactions from investment funds, though telco consolidation is also another story worth keeping a close eye on.

A look back at the biggest stories this week

Whether it’s important, depressing or just entertaining, the telecoms industry is always one which attracts attention.

Here are the stories we think are worth a second look at this week:


GSMA cosies up to O-RAN Alliance

The GSMA, the telco industry lobby group, has announced a new partnership with the O-RAN Alliance to accelerate the adoption of Open Radio Access Network (RAN) technologies.

Full story here


Europe backtracks on market consolidation opposition

The General Court of the European Court of Justice has annulled a decision made in 2016 to block the merger between O2 and Three in the UK, potentially opening the door for consolidation.

Full story here


Huawei CFO loses first legal battle in extradition case

Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng, the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, has lost her first legal battle in Canada and will now have to face an extradition case.

Full story here


Data privacy is in the same position as cybersecurity five years ago

It has taken years for the technology and telecoms industry to take security seriously, and now we are at the beginning of the same story arc with privacy.

Full story here


Indian telco association pushes for ‘floor tariffs’ on data pricing

In an open letter to India’s telecoms regulator, the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has pressed for quicker decision making on pricing restriction rules.

Full story here


UK’s National Cyber Security Centre launches another Huawei probe

The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has confirmed it is attempting to understand what impact potential US sanction directed towards Huawei would have on UK networks.

Full story here


 

UK Gov launches IOT cybersecurity fund

The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has launched a £400,000 fund to fuel ambition for the security of internet-connected products.

The ultimate hope will be to kick-start the development of an assurance market for consumer internet-connected products such as wearable devices or smart doorbells. Such assurance schemes could offer accreditation for products which have undergone relevant tests, providing more confidence for consumers to purchases and to make full use of all functionality without fear of poor security.

“We are committed to making the UK the safest place to be online and are developing laws to make sure robust security standards for consumer internet-connected products are built in from the start,” said Digital Infrastructure Minister Matt Warman.

“This new funding will allow shoppers to be sure the products they are buying have better cyber security and help retailers be confident they are stocking secure smart products.

“People should continue to change default passwords on their smart devices and regularly update software to help protect themselves from cyber criminals.”

The idea is a simple one, but a very good one. Should such assurance programmes be nurtured correctly, and the general public be made suitably aware, it would become a factor in the buying decision making process. Manufacturers would be effectively coerced into compliance as sales could be impacted without the presence of the certification.

Alongside this initiative, new laws in the UK will come into play for both enterprise and consumer internet-connected devices. Any device sold in the UK will soon have to adhere to three rules:

  1. Device passwords much be unique with no option to restore to factory settings
  2. Manufacturers must create and maintain a public point of contact to report device or software vulnerabilities
  3. Manufacturers must state how long the device will receive security updates

These rules should form the basis of a more secure digital economy, though product assurance programmes would add more credibility and confidence in the quickly developing segment.

Recent figures from IDC suggest the wearables market is growing, 29.7% year-on-year for the first three months of 2020, though the numbers could have been higher. The on-going COVID-19 pandemic limited shipments due to supply chain disruptions and sourcing component for the products.

While the consumer IOT segment is still in the early development stages, it is critical the industry set the standards on security. Should the segment be allowed to progress too far with bad habits, attempting to correct mistakes and bad practice will become much more difficult. The UK should be applauded for its attempts to get ahead of trends, and hopefully other Governments are taking note.


Telecoms.com Poll:

When will OpenRAN be ready to be embraced by the industry without reservation?

Loading ... Loading ...

Trump attempts to tame Silicon Valley with questionable results

President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order intended to limit the protections afforded to social media platforms, though feedback has been varied.

The right-leaning elements of society has celebrated the EO, believing the White House is finally holding the politically biased Silicon Valley accountable, while those on the left side of the spectrum point to an opportunistic attack on opponents. This is a move which has been in the works since Twitter decided to flag two of the President’s tweets as a risk of fake news.

“Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias,” Trump said in the White House statement.

“As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.”

Of course what is worth noting is that Trump is no champion of free speech or a protector of the US Constitution, he is a hawk swooping in on enemies; would the President have signed the same order if presumptive Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden or the politically independent Senator for Vermont Bernie Sanders were under the same scrutiny?

The EO attempts to do several things, including:

  • Depict the social media companies as enemies of the US
  • Remove immunity for the social media companies for content which is published on their platforms
  • Designate the social media platforms as ‘publishers’
  • Delegate responsibility of rulemaking to the FCC
  • Restrict how political campaign funds can be spend on social media advertising

Focusing on a section of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, passed in 1996, which states:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

The intent of this legislation was to protect freedom of speech by ensuring the platform hosting user-created content could not be targeted by those being criticised. Without this protection, the platforms which give the general public a voice could have been the focal point of hundreds of lawsuits and may not have survived their embryonic development stages.

While the original intentions of this law may well have been good, it has been criticised by both sides of the political aisle.

Aside from President Trump’s, as well as numerous other Republicans, complaints over left-wing Californians controlling the technology industry, the Democrat Party has also found issue with Silicon Valley. Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff questioned the role of Section 230 last year as Deepfake videos emerged online, with the social media giants doing little in response.

Interestingly enough, while the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is clearly opposed to the EO, it also feels it is largely redundant and ineffectual.

“President Trump’s Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps,” the EFF said in a blog post.

“The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it won’t survive judicial scrutiny.”

According to the EFF, the clauses mentioned in the EO are not directly linked, in that, should one be affected by the EO it would not mean the protections afforded to the platforms would be diluted. The EFF believes the White House has misunderstood how the courts have already interpreted the law, therefore the path which is being taken forward cannot be legislated for.

Another very interest element to consider is the social media platforms do not have First Amendment obligations as they are private spaces.

This week saw the District Court of Washington DC rule against an appeal from right-leaning Freedom Watch and right-wing YouTube celebrity Laura Loomer. The two parties were attempting to sue Twitter, Facebook and Google for violating antitrust laws and the First Amendment.

The case was filed against the trio of internet giants on the grounds of political bias. Freedom Watch claimed the trio were inhibiting the organisations growth potential, while Loomer was fighting against a 30-day ban for suggesting a Democrat politician was ‘anti-Jewish’.

In the ruling, the three-judge panel said that as private organisations, the social media platforms were not necessarily obliged to First Amendment in terms of facilitating free speech. Private organisations are perfectly entitled to their own opinions, or to curate content in a manner of their choosing.

This might be contrary to the promise of the social media companies to the masses, but it does mean they are shielded from at least some of the President’s attacks.

While some might debate whether this is a document which has the power the President intended, it is a clear statement of intent. The social media companies have firmly entrenched themselves on the Trump enemy list.


Telecoms.com Daily Poll:

Is the industry doing enough to combat the 5G conspiracy theories?

Loading ... Loading ...

Europe backtracks on market consolidation opposition

The General Court of the European Court of Justice has annulled a decision made in 2016 to block the merger between O2 and Three in the UK, potentially opening the door for consolidation.

In 2016, Europe decided it was better for sustainable competition that the four operators in the UK remain independent, blocking the mega-merger between O2 and Three. This decision has set market precedent over the subsequent period, with the generally accepted rule that bureaucrats would not allow less than four independent mobile network operators in a single market. This ruling turns that presumption on its head.

“In our appeal, we argued that the Commission’s approach to reviewing the proposed merger, and European telecoms mergers more broadly, was guided by a misconceived default view that European telecoms markets are better served by having a minimum of four Mobile Network Operators in each EU Member State,” CK Hutchison, Three UK’s parent company, said in a statement.

“This approach ignores market realities, the clear evidence of successful market consolidation in Europe and across the world as well as the very significant efficiencies in terms of increased investment, network improvements and consumer benefits that can be achieved from mobile mergers.”

As soon as the decision from Europe was made to block the merger between Three and O2 was made, the agreement between the two parties was terminated. It will now always be a case of what could have been, as this decision will not reignite talks between the two parties.

“Telefónica notes the EU Court’s decision, but the company has moved on,” a Telefónica spokesperson said. “Telefónica recently announced a transaction that combines Virgin Media, the UK’s fastest broadband network, and O2, the country’s most reliable and admired mobile operator, into a 50:50 joint venture that will create a powerful fixed-mobile challenger in one of its core markets.”

As there will be no material impact on the proposed merger between Virgin Media and O2, which was announced in recent weeks, questions will now turn to more general market consolidation in Europe


How do you feel about market consolidation in Europe?

Loading ... Loading ...

Europe has always been against market consolidation if the result leads to less than four independent service providers in the mobile segment. If concessions are offered, like in the Netherlands for example, mergers would be allowed but this would result in a diluted version of what the merging parties would have wanted to achieve.

The ruling from the General Court changes everything.

In 2016, the European Commission considered the reduction from four to three service providers would have resulted in increased prices, decreased quality of service, hindered investment in infrastructure and would have had a detrimental impact on the MVNO segment also.

The ruling which has been made public today disputes the claim there would be negative impacts on competition. Negative experiences for the consumer has not been seen in other markets around the world where there has been consolidation, while there were several flaws during the assessment process. The original assessment also failed to demonstrate effectively that network infrastructure would be impacted also.

With the General Court annulling the decision to block the merger, it is effectively saying Europe would consider market consolidation should there be a good business case. This is a very interesting ruling and statement to make, as it is effectively a green flag to the industry. Could this spur the market’s imagination for consolidation?