Microsoft starts ruffling privacy feathers in the US

This weekend will mark the one-year anniversary of Europe’s GDPR and Microsoft has made the bold suggestion of bringing the rules over the pond to the US.

Many US businesses would have been protected from the chaos that was the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with the rules only impacting those which operated in Europe. And while there are benefits to privacy and data protection rights for consumers, that will come as little compensation for those who had to protect themselves from the weighty fines attached to non-compliance.

Voicing what could turn out to be a very unpopular opinion, Microsoft has suggested the US should introduce its own version.

“A lot has happened on the global privacy front since GDPR went into force,” said Julie Brill, Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft. “Overall, companies that collect and process personal information for people living in the EU have adapted, putting new systems and processes in place to ensure that individuals understand what data is collected about them and can correct it if it is inaccurate and delete it or move it somewhere else if they choose.

“This has improved how companies handle their customers’ personal data. And it has inspired a global movement that has seen countries around the world adopt new privacy laws that are modelled on GDPR.

“Now it is time for Congress to take inspiration from the rest of the world and enact federal legislation that extends the privacy protections in GDPR to citizens in the United States.”

The rules themselves were first introduced in an attempt to force companies to be more responsible and transparent in how customer data is handled. The update reflected the new sharing economies the world had sleepwalked into; the new status quo had come under criticism and new protections had to be put in place while also offering more control to the consumer of their personal data.

GDPR arrived with little fanfare after many businesses scurried around for the weeks prior despite having almost 18 months’ notice. And while these regulations were designed for the European market, such is the open nature of the internet, the impact was felt worldwide.

While this might sound negative, GDPR has proved to be an inspiration for numerous other countries and regions. Brazil, Japan, South Korea and India were just a few of the nations which saw the benefit of the rules, and now it appears there are calls for the same position to be adopted in the US.

As Brill points out in the blog post stating the Microsoft position, California has already made steps forward to create a more privacy-focused society. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will go into effect on January 1 2020. Inspired by GDPR, the new law will provide California residents with the right to know what personal information is being collected on them, know whether it is being sold or monetized, say no to monetization and access all the data.

This is only one example, though there are numerous states around the US, primarily Democrat, which have similar pro-privacy attitudes to California. However, this is a law which stops short of the strictness of GDPR. Companies are not on the stopwatch to notify customers of a breach, as they are under GDPR, while the language around punishment for non-compliance is very vague.

This is perhaps the issue Microsoft will face in attempting to escalate such rules up to federal law; the only attempt which we have seen so far in the US is a diluted version of GDPR. Whereas GDPR is a sharp stick for the regulators to swing, a fine of 3% of annual turnover certainly encourages compliance, the Californian approach is more like a tickling feather; it might irritate a little bit.

At the moment, US privacy laws are nothing more than ripples in the technology pond. If GDPR-style rules were to be introduced in the US, the impact would be significant. GDPR has already shifting the privacy conversation and had notable impacts on the way businesses operate. Google, for example, has introduced an auto-delete function for users while Facebook’s entire business rhetoric has become much more privacy focused. It is having a fundamental impact on the business.

We are not too sure whether Microsoft’s call is going to have any material impact on government thinking right now, but privacy laws in the US (and everywhere for that matter) are going to need to be brought up-to-date. With artificial intelligence, personalisation, big data, facial recognition and predictive analytics technologies all gaining traction, the role of personal data and privacy is going to become much more significant.

US suspends Huawei export ban for three months to help operators adapt

The US Department of Commerce has given Huawei a three month license to buy US goods in order to lessen the disruption to US companies.

The decision follows the news that a bunch of US companies, including Google, were going to stop doing business with Huawei. Not only would this do severe damage to the desirability of Huawei Android smartphones sold outside of China, but would have caused major disruption to any US companies that rely on working with Huawei.

The DoC therefore decided to grant a temporary licence allowing Huawei and US companies to buy stuff from each other for 90 days starting 20 May. Any US operator that use Huawei gear now effectively have three months to swap it out for equipment not made by anyone on the US shitlist. Any still flogging Huawei smartphones might want to take that time to return them to their source too.

“The Temporary General License grants operators time to make other arrangements and the Department space to determine the appropriate long term measures for Americans and foreign telecommunications providers that currently rely on Huawei equipment for critical services,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “In short, this license will allow operations to continue for existing Huawei mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.”

Huawei responded with its now familiar defiance, telling Chinese media that none of this is remotely surprising and that it doesn’t even need the temporary license because it saw all this stuff coming ages ago. Additionally a UK Huawei exec told the beeb he reckons Huawei is just collateral damage in the broader trade war between the US and China, which is hard to argue with.

If you’re really into that sort of thing you can read the full temporary license decision here. This doesn’t seem to represent any softening of the US position, just an attempt to cushion the blow for US companies and consumers. It may, however, also represent a diplomatic window for US and China to try to resolve their differences and prevent the ban kicking in on 19 August. Time will tell but further escalation seems more likely than a truce at this point.

DoJ doesn’t share FCC enthusiasm for T-Mobile/Sprint – report

The FCC might have a skip in its step after securing concessions from T-Mobile US and Sprint ahead of the proposed merger, but the Department of Justice is not convinced.

Following the approval from FCC Chairman Ajir Pai, and the vote of support from Commissioner Brendan Carr, Sprint share price rose almost 19%. The long-awaited merger to create a genuine challenger to AT&T and Verizon on a national scale looked to be heading in the right direction, only for the DoJ to be the fly in the ointment.

According to Bloomberg, the DoJ believes the concessions made by the pair do not go far enough. This is a move which breaks with tradition, generally the FCC and the DoJ sing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to acquisitions and mergers, though it appears antitrust investigators are still concerned over the threat to competition.

This is perhaps the nuance between the two departments. The DoJ, and various Attorney Generals throughout the US, are primarily concerned with competition, while the FCC rhetoric has been more focused on securing a more efficient and broader 5G rollout.

The concessions have taken the form of three commitments. Firstly, T-Mobile suggests 97% of the population could be covered by 5G within three years. Secondly, Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost would be sold to preserve competition. And finally, there would be no price increases while the 5G network is being deployed.

Of course, there is a very real risk to competition. Taking the number of national telcos from four down to three will mean less choice in the market. Less choice means less opportunity for disruption, even if the hatred from T-Mobile US CEO John Legere towards AT&T and Verizon is effectively teemed from his ears. There are too many examples through history of abuses when it comes to competition for some to be completely comfortable.

You also have to weigh up the current cost of mobile connectivity in the US. Although much has been done to help the consumer, ARPU is still notably more than in Europe, where competition is significantly higher. According to Moneysavingpro.com, the average postpaid contract in the US is as much as $80.25 compared to $30.06 in the UK. US consumers are already feeling the sharp end of the competition stick, and few would want to risk this difference to increase further.

The question is how much pain the consumer can tolerate in pursuit of leadership in the 5G race. Carr has spoken of his primary role at the FCC being focused on creating a leadership position for the US in the 5G era and part of this will depend on getting 5G in the hands of the consumer as quickly as possible. The sooner consumers have 5G, the sooner US firms can scale new services and products before assaulting the international markets. This is a playbook taken from the very successful 4G era.

With the US taking a leadership position in the 4G world, companies like Google, Amazon, Uber, AirBnB and Lyft thrived. These are companies which would have existed without the 4G euphoria, but success was compounded because of the connectivity gains. We are likely to see the same trend in the 5G world, with new products and services being designed for 5G connectivity. The question which remains is where they will call home.

This is the equation the FCC and the DoJ have to balance. The need to protect the consumer against the drive towards future economic success on the global stage. There is not going to be a perfect answer for this one, the US is gambling on the future success of the economy after all.

FCC Chairman convinced by T-Mobile/Sprint concessions

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has publicly stated he believes the concessions made by T-Mobile US and Sprint are enough to ensure the merger would be in the public interest.

Over the course of the weekend, rumours emerged over concessions the pair would have to make to get the support of the FCC, though rarely are sources so spot on. The merged business will now have to commit to a nationwide 5G deployment within three years, sell Sprint’s prepaid brand and promise not to raise prices during the rollout years, if it wants the greenlight of the FCC.

What is worth noting is this is not a greenlight just yet. Pai has said yes, though he will need a majority vote from the Commissioners. Commissioner Brendan Carr has already pledged his support, and we suspect Michael O’Reilly will in the immediate future also. The Democrats might want to throw a spanner in the works, but this would be largely irrelevant with O’Reilly’s support.

“In light of the significant commitments made by T-Mobile and Sprint as well as the facts in the record to date, I believe that this transaction is in the public interest and intend to recommend to my colleagues that the FCC approve it,” Pai said in a statement.

“This is a unique opportunity to speed up the deployment of 5G throughout the United States and bring much faster mobile broadband to rural Americans. We should seize this opportunity.”

As you can imagine, T-Mobile US CEO John Legere certainly has something to say on the matter.

“Let me be clear,” Legere stated in a blog entry. “These aren’t just words, they’re verifiable, enforceable and specific commitments that bring to life how the New T-Mobile will deliver a world-leading nationwide 5G network – truly 5G for all, create more competition in broadband, and continue to give customers more choices, better value and better service.”

The first commitment made by T-Mobile US and Sprint is a nationwide 5G network. Considering Legere has been claiming his team would be the first to rollout a genuine 5G network for some time, it comes as little surprise the FCC will want to hold him accountable.

Over a three-year period, presumably starting when the greenlight is shown, the new 5G network will cover 97% of the population. 75% of the population will be covered with mid-band spectrum, while the full 97% will have low-band. This is a very traditional approach to rolling out a network, as it meets the demands of capacity and efficiency, though there is a sacrifice on speed.

Perhaps more importantly for the FCC, the plan also covers objectives to bridge the digital divide. 85% of the rural population will be connected during this period, increasing to 90% after six years. This is not to say all the farmers fields will be blanketed in 5G, though it does help provide an alternative for the complicated fixed broadband equation in the rural communities.

Moving onto the divestment, selling Sprint’s Boost prepaid brand seems to be enough to satisfy the competition cravings of Pai. What is worth noting is this will not be a complete break-away from the business as it will have to run on the T-Mobile US network. Unfortunately, MVNOs in the US are not as free to operate as those in Europe, as switching the supporting network would mean have to change out all the SIM cards.

This becomes complicated as you do not necessarily know who your customers are in a prepaid business model. The situation certainly encourages more competition, it will after all not be part of the T-Mobile US/Sprint family anymore, but it is far from a perfect scenario.

Finally, Legere has promised tariffs will not become more expensive during the deployment period, another worry for the FCC should the duo want to meet the ambitious objectives to compete with AT&T and Verizon. However, it does appear Legere is promising 5G tariffs will not include a premium either.

And now onto the other side of the aisle. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has tweeted her opinions on the concessions and it appears she is not convinced.

“We’ve seen this kind of consolidation in airlines and with drug companies. It hasn’t worked out well for consumers. But now the @FCC wants to bless the same kind of consolidation for wireless carriers. I have serious doubts.”

Rosenworcel has also suggested the decision should be put out for public consultation. We suspect Pai will want to avoid this scenario, as it would be incredibly time-demanding; the Chairman will want the merger distraction off his desk as soon as possible.

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks is yet to make a comment, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT go on his Twitter page if you haven’t watched the latest Game of Thrones episode.

We understand the Democrat and Republican Commissioners are going to be at each other’s throats over pretty much every decision, however trolling any innocent individual with a GoT spoiler is a low blow.

Starks and your correspondent are going to have some issues.

UK MNOs set to claw back £200+ million in licence fees

A UK court has ruled in favour of the telcos in an on-going battle with regulator Ofcom over licence fees paid on spectrum assets between 2015 and 2017.

The legal battle concerns the process which was undertaken by Ofcom prior to increasing licence fees paid by each of the telcos for access to the airwaves. The decision to increase the licence fees was met by much criticism during the initial announcement, and you can see why.

The licence fees concern 900 MHz and 1800 MHz spectrum assets awarded to each of the telcos during a 2013 auction.

Telco Fee paid (post-2015) Fee paid (pre-2015) Difference
Vodafone £76,245,025.10 £21,865,536 £54,379,489.10
O2 £76,245,025.10 £21,865,536 £54,379,489.10
Three £44,390,398.53 £17,463,600 £26,926,798.53
EE/BT £139,823,997 £57,380,400 £82,443,597

While telcos are constantly complaining about regulation, as well as the amount paid to regulators around the world, the drastic difference in licence fees was too much to stomach here.

Following the decision to increase licence fees, EE was first to act, challenging the ruling in the courts in 2017. The other UK MNOs were quick to follow, with Ofcom being named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

“We welcome the court’s decision that finds in favour of the mobile operators,” said an O2 spokesperson. “We are however disappointed that Ofcom has been granted leave for appeal and we will strongly defend any future appeal brought by Ofcom.”

Ofcom will most likely appeal the decision.

The argument from the telcos is one which we have heard before. The more money which is demanded from Ofcom, the less which is available to invest in networks to ready the UK for the digital economy.

Following EE’s decision to challenge the changes to licence fees in 2015, a move which was supported by the other MNOs, Ofcom decided to revert back to the licence fees which were paid in the previous regime. There has been another consultation since, resulting in an increase to licence fees paid moving forward, though this case is focused on the period between 2015 and November 2017.

Aside from clawing back the payments made during this period, the parties have agreed simple interest be applied on whatever sum is due, calculated at 2% above the Bank of England base rate during the period.

For the MNOs, this news will be very much welcomed considering the financial burden they face ahead of the 5G era. With billions set to be spent rolling out the networks, a bit of financial relief will go a long way.

US influence on Europe failing as France resists Huawei ban

The White House might have felt banning Huawei was an appropriate measure for national security, but France does not agree with the drastic action.

Speaking at a conference in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron has confirmed the country will not ban Huawei. This is not to say it won’t in the future, but it appears Europe is remaining resolute against the demands of the US. The burden of proof might be a concept easily ignored in the US, but Europe stands for more.

“Our perspective is not to block Huawei or any company,” Macron said. “France and Europe are pragmatic and realistic. We do believe in cooperation and multilateralism. At the same time, we are extremely careful about access to good technology and to preserve our national security and all the safety rules.”

President Donald Trump is most likely a man who is used to getting his own way, and upon assuming office as head of the most powerful government worldwide, he might have thought this position of privilege would continue. However, Europe is being anything but compliant.

In direct contradiction to the Executive Order banning Huawei from supplying any components, products and services to US communications networks, Macron has declared France open is for business. France won’t use the excuse of national security to beat back the progress of China but will presumably introduce mechanisms to mitigate risk.

Germany has taken this approach, increasing the barrier to entry for all companies, not just Huawei. Vendors will have to pass more stringent security tests before any components or products can be introduced to networks, though Chancellor Angela Merkel has also made it clear she intents to steer clear of political ties to the decision.

“There are two things I don’t believe in,” Merkel said in March. “First, to discuss these very sensitive security questions publicly, and second, to exclude a company simply because it’s from a certain country.”

The UK is seemingly heading down a similar route. Alongside the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), run by GCHQ with the objective of ensuring security and privacy credentials are maintained, the long-awaited supply chain review is reportedly going to place higher scrutiny but stop short of any sort of ban. The official position will be revealed in a few weeks, but this position would be consistent with the UK political rhetoric.

Over in Eastern Europe, governments also appear to be resisting calls to ban the company, while Italy seems to be taking the risk mitigation approach. Even at the highest bureaucratic level, the European Commission has asked member states to conduct an assessment for security assessments. Unless some drastic opinions come back in October, we suspect the official position of the European Union will be to create higher security mechanisms which offer competitive opportunity for all vendors in the market.

For the moment at least, it appears the Europeans are immune to the huffing and puffing making its way across the Atlantic. That said, the trade war with China is set to escalate once again and it would be fair to assume more US delegations will be attempting to whisper in the ears of influential Europeans. At some point, the US will get tougher on Europe, but it does appear those pesky Europeans are stubborn enough to resist White House propaganda and pressure.

Don’t ignore Huawei’s ban on buying US components

While everyone is focusing on the ban on selling in the US, the ban on buying US components is a much more interesting chapter of the Huawei saga.

President Donald Trump has dropped the economic dirty bomb on China and it’s dominating the headlines. Although Huawei, or China, are not mentioned in the text, the Executive Order is clearly a move to stall progress made in the telco arena. China is mounting a challenge to the US dominance in the TMT arena, and this should be viewed as a move to combat that.

There are clearly other reasons for the order, but this should not be ignored. The security argument, albeit an accusation thrown without the burden of concrete evidence, is a factor, but never forget about the capitalist dream which underpins US society.

However, although most are focusing on Huawei’s inability to sell components, products and services in the US market, there might be an argument the ban on purchasing US components, products and services is more important, impactful and influential.

“This action by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, with the support of the President of the United States, places Huawei, a Chinese owned company that is the largest telecommunications equipment producer in the world, on the Entity List,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “This will prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine US national security or foreign policy interests.”

While we will focus on the ban on purchasing US components, products and services for this article, it is worth noting the ban on Huawei selling in the US will have an impact.

Rural telcos in the US have mostly been against any ban on Chinese companies. In October 2018, Huawei made a filing with the FCC arguing its support for rural telcos is underpinning the fight against the digital divide and a ban would be disastrous for those subscribers. Michael Beehn, CEO of MobileNation, was one of those who argued against the ban, suggesting the cost-effectiveness of Huawei allowed his firm to operate. Without the advantage of nationwide scale, these organizations will always struggle when the price of networks is forced north.

While the US is a massive market, with huge opportunities to maximise profits, not being able to sell in the US is not going to have a significant impact on Huawei. Its customers are the rural telcos not the national ones. Huawei has not managed to secure any major contracts with the big four, therefore it is missing out on something which it never had. Huawei has still managed to grow sales to $105 billion without the US, therefore we believe this ban is not going to be a gamechanger.

However, it is the ban on purchasing US components, products and services which we want to focus on here.

Huawei is not outrightly banned from using US technologies and services, however, those companies who wish to work with the dominant telco vendor will have to seek permission to do so beforehand. The US can now effectively how strategically it wants to twist the knife already dug deep into Huawei’s metaphorical chest.

Although we’re not too sure how this will play out, Huawei’s business could be severely dented by this move.

Huawei recognises 92 companies around the world as core suppliers to the business. It will have thousands of suppliers for various parts of the business, but these 92 are considered the most important to the success of operations. And 33 of them are US companies.

Some are small, some are niche, some are more generic, and some are technology giants. The likes of Qualcomm, Intel and Broadcom all have interests in keeping the US/Chinese relationship sweet, though more niche companies like Skyworks Solutions, Lumentum and Qorvo have much more skin in the game. Firms like NeoPhotonics, who are reliant on Huawei for 46% of its revenues, might well struggle to survive.

Huawei will be able to survive this move, it has been preparing for such an outcome, but you have to wonder what impact it will have on its products and credibility.

HiSilicon, the Huawei-owned semiconductor business, has been ramping up its capabilities to move more of its chip supply chain in-house, while the firm has reportedly been improving the geographical diversity of its international supply chain. According to the South China Morning Post, not only has Huawei been moving more operations in-house, it has also been stockpiling US components in the event of the procurement doomsday event.

A similar ban on procuring US components, products and services was placed on ZTE last year and it almost crippled the firm. Operations were forced to a standstill due to the reliance on US technology. Huawei has never been as dependent on the US, though it seems the lessons were learned from this incident.

The big question is what impact a ban would have on the quality of its products.

Huawei might preach the promise of its own technology and the new suppliers it will seek/has sought, but there is a reason these 33 US companies were chosen in the first place. Either there is/was a financial benefit to Huawei in these relationships, or they were chosen because they were best in class.

Huawei is a commercial organization after all, it wants to make the best products for the best price. There will certainly have been compromises make during these selections, either paying more for better or sacrificing some quality for commercial benefits, and having to make changes will have an impact. Huawei, and its customers, will have fingers and toes crossed there is no material impact on the business.

The other aspect to consider is disruption to operations. ZTE found out how detrimental dependence on a single country can be, and while Huawei has mitigated some of this impact, it remains to be seen how much pain could be felt should the ban be fully enforced. Might it mean Huawei is unable to scale operations in-line with customer deployment ambitions? Could competitors benefit through these limitations? We don’t know for the moment.

The ban on selling in the US might sound better when reeling off headlines, but don’t forget about Huawei’s supply chain. We think there is much more of a risk here.

FCC reveals glacial progress on the resale of location data by operators

US operators have been reselling the location data they accumulate about their subscribers and have been slow to deliver on promises to stop.

This practice was already well-known by the time it was highlighted in an expose at the start of this year. At the time operators were quick to stress that they’re pulling out all the stops to protect their customers’ personal data but Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was apparently skeptical. Frustrated by their deafening silence on the matter she wrote to the four US MNOs at the start of the month to ask them what they were playing at.

Rosenworcel received relatively prompt responses from those operators and decided to publish them alongside a mea culpa that was probably directed more at other FCC Commissioners than herself. “The FCC has been totally silent about press reports that for a few hundred dollars shady middlemen can sell your location within a few hundred meters based on your wireless phone data. That’s unacceptable,” she said.

“I don’t recall consenting to this surveillance when I signed up for wireless service—and I bet neither do you. This is an issue that affects the privacy and security of every American with a wireless phone. It is chilling to think what a black market for this data could mean in the hands of criminals, stalkers, and those who wish to do us harm. I will continue to press this agency to make public what it knows about what happened. But I do not believe consumers should be kept in the dark. That is why I am making these letters available today.”

You can read the contrite and exculpatory responses here, but in case you can’t be bothered here’s a summary. AT&T said it started phasing out this sort of thing in June 2018, while still making location data available in emergencies. Additionally the letter attempted to distance AT&T from the reports in question and said it had stopped sharing and data with location aggregators and LBS providers on 29 March 2019.

Sprint said it current works with just one LBS (location based services) provider but will pack that in by the end of this month. T-Mobile said it had terminated all contracts with LBS types by 9 March 2019 and went on at considerable length to correct what it considers to be flawed reporting on how it used to handle this sort of thing. Verizon said it had terminated all location deals by the end of March 2019.

So that would appear to be that. All the operators have said they don’t deal with location data aggregators anymore and presumably Rosenworcel is a happy Commissioner. But the fact that they’ve only just stopped reselling their customer’s personal data, and even then only after persistent nagging and bad publicity, is a further illustration of how cavalier the tech industry has been with personal data to date.

Trump’s hand is hovering over China executive order

President Trump is reportedly on the verge of signing an executive order effectively banning Huawei, and other Chinese companies, from providing any products or services in the US market.

According to Reuters, the signing of the order could happen as soon as this afternoon (Wednesday 15 May) although no companies will be named specifically. It is believed US companies will be banned from purchasing any telco equipment from vendors who are deemed a threat to national security.

The vagueness of the report is perhaps down to the fact the news is not official just yet, although it might well be designed that way in the document. Intelligence agencies will presumably be requesting as much freedom from bureaucratic shackles as possible; vague language in the executive order might be by design.

The White House will allegedly use the power of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which offers the President the luxury of regulating commerce in response to national security concerns.

The executive order certainly comes at a sensitive time, with both the US and China on edge as trade talks have stagnated. The toing and froing over trade tariffs look set to escalate once again, with the reprieve from the threat of global trade war looking to be over.

President Trump has been suggesting talks are still on a steady path through Twitter, but many commentators believe the two superpowers are at odds with each other. Following the Chinese decision to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of US goods starting in June, the White House is supposedly preparing a new list of $300 billion worth of Chinese imports that would be hit with tariffs of up to 25%.

The executive order, should the rumours prove to be true, could be fatal blow to the trade talks. Huawei is the telco champion of China, the poster boy of Chinese dominance in the technology world. Although Huawei will not necessarily be losing any significant business as a result of the order, it is a symbolic gesture.

While this executive order should come as little surprise, the world should ready itself for further escalation of a trade war between the two economic superpowers. Collateral damage could certainly be notable, especially in Europe where governments have been resisting US pressure to act against Huawei specifically.

Loyalty penalties for broadband, mobile and TV finally tackled

Ofcom has introduced rules which will aim to tackle ‘penalties’ imposed on renewing customers by broadband, mobile and content providers.

As part of the new rules, providers will have to inform customers 10 to 40 days prior to the end of the customers contract, the period where financial penalties would be applied for changing providers. In the notification, customers will be told the end date of the contract, differences in contract pricing moving forward, termination conditions and availability of cheaper deals.

Although customers will still have to be proactive in contacting rival competitors for better deals on the market, the hope is a more transparent approach with spur consumers into finding the best possible option. Telcos will have a year to ensure the right business processes and technologies are in place to action the rules.

“We’re making sure customers are treated fairly, by making companies give them the information they need, when they need it,” said Lindsey Fussell, Ofcom’s Consumer Group Director.

“This will put power in the hands of millions of people who’re paying more than necessary when they’re no longer tied to a contract.”

The initial idea was put forward back in December, with the belief as many as 20 million UK consumers have passed their initial contract period and could be paying more than necessary. The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport escalated the issue in February with a public consultation aimed at moving the industry towards a position where loyalty was rewarded, ending aggressive cultures towards customer acquisition.

In September last year, the UK Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) launched a super-complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) suggesting service providers over-charging renewing customers to bring in an extra £4.1 billion a year. Research commissioned by Broadband Genie has found many over 55s could be paying too much for their broadband service but lack the knowledge or confidence to choose a new package.

“Pre-emptive alerts and information about broadband and TV contract periods are good news for consumers since many have in effect been paying a premium for their loyalty once out of contract,” said Adrian Baschnonga, EY’s Telecoms Lead Analyst. “Today’s rules pave the way for a more proactive dialogue between service providers and their customers, which can unlock higher levels of satisfaction in the long term.”

While it will certainly take some work to bed in, such rules have the potential to move attitudes in the industry to prioritise customer retention over acquisition to meet profitability objectives. Much research points to this being a more rewarding approach to business, though few in the telco space practice this theory.

“uSwitch’s research found that the aggregate cost of out-of-contract charges to telecoms consumers is £41 a second,” said Richard Neudegg, Head of Regulation at uSwitch.com. “This is why time is of the essence – everyday spent waiting for these notifications to be rolled out, another £3.5 million is overspent on these services – meaning that more than £350 million has already been wasted since the consultation closed in February.

“While it has been a long time coming, this is an important step by the regulator to address what has long been a clearly unacceptable gap in the rules, penalising consumers to the tune of millions.”

This is a step in the right direction, but it will take more to ensure telcos shift their culture. The idea of customer acquisition over retention is deeply engrained in every aspect of the business and will define how the business operates. That said, progress is progress.