IBC 2019: European Broadcasting Union joins FANG regulatory choir

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the latest organization to start singing the praises of greater regulation, transparency and accessibility for the internet giants.

It is starting to become a tune to which we are all accustomed to, and it should come as little surprise the victims of aggressive disruption are calling for greater control, but the EBU has joined the regulatory choir at IBC 2019. Speaking during the conference, Noel Curran, Director General of the EBU, fired the shots across the Atlantic at Silicon Valley.

“Why is there no regulation in terms of data?” Curran stated. “Right now, we have an unregulated social media sector, being dominated by four or five big companies that have unprecedented amount of control.”

Again, this is a familiar story. Momentum has continued to gather behind the technology giants of Silicon Valley, compounding an already incredibly influential position. The broadcasters have been left behind, the telcos are attempting to drive relevance and the politicians are no-longer the most influential people in a country.

To add some context to the situation, one of the reasons ‘traditional’ broadcasters are in such a precarious position right now is a lack of evolution. This is an industry which progressed very little prior to the introduction of the streaming giants. Content might have changed, as has the technology to deliver said content, but the business models and engagement of consumers was stagnant.

The door was open for disruption, and if an industry doesn’t disrupt itself, troublemakers from the outside will do it.

Aside from the technology, the talent and the budgets, the FANG companies can harness the power of insight. As Curran points out above, these companies have a treasure trove of information the ‘traditional’ broadcasters can only dream of accessing. It not only allows the disruptors to create innovative business models through hyper-targeted advertising but enables them to make smarter decisions. FANG companies know their customers intrinsically, and it is fuelling growth.

This is another gripe from the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry; the likes of Netflix and Amazon are not enthusiastic about sharing the wealth of insight. All3Media CEO Jane Turton confirmed what many of us already knew this week; the FANGs haven’t ever voluntarily or knowingly shared this valuable insight, and this is not changing.

This is the competitive edge Silicon Valley has. Sharing this data might encourage more of the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry to sympathise with the FANGs, however why would they want to erode their advantage? It isn’t a level-playing field right now, though this is only because the FANGs are more forward-thinking and resourceful when it comes to the digital economy.

Perhaps this is something the ‘traditional’ broadcasting lobby will be pushing for in the future. Access to the data and regulation which forces FANG to play nice. The technology giants will of course resist, and we have already seen how powerful its own lobby can be, but the number of opponents is starting to add-up.

France rediscovers the importance of sovereignty in response to Facebook’s cryptocurrency

The French Finance Minister has said he will block Facebook’s plans to launch a global cryptocurrency, citing its threat to monetary sovereignty.

Followers of the Brexit debate in Europe may be surprised to hear France suddenly leaping to the defence of national sovereignty since it’s among the keenest for a federalised European Union, in which nation states are entirely subservient to a trans-continental authority. But it looks like there is at least some residual national pride left among French politicians, it just takes the ambitions of US tech giants to awaken it.

Speaking at an OECD conference on virtual currencies, Bruno Le Maire said “I want to be absolutely clear: in these conditions, we cannot authorise the development of Libra on European soil,” according to AFP. “The monetary sovereignty of countries is at stake from a possible privatisation of money … by a sole actor with more than 2 billion users on the planet.”

Facebook announced its masterplan to revolutionise the global currency system back in June and was immediately met with startled resistance by various governments, including the US, which had assumed currency was their thing. Plenty of other people also expressed alarm at the prospect of a company with many question marks hanging over it suddenly deciding to reinvent money, and it was never likely that a continent that had only recently invented its own currency would tolerate the imposition of another.

It’s hard to see how Facebook will be able to persuade national governments to accept this threat to their currencies, even if they are supranational ones. The fact that France is being especially vocal on the matter is a great illustration of how subjective the matter of sovereignty is. When your opponents want greater independence they’re parochial, isolationist and xenophobic, but when your own interests are threatened, sovereignty becomes a matter of utmost importance.

US tech fraternity pushes its own version of GDPR

The technology industry might enjoy light-touch regulatory landscapes, but change is on the horizon with what appears to be an attempt to be the master of its own fate.

In an open-letter to senior members of US Congress, 51 CEOs of the technology and business community have asked for a federal law governing data protection and privacy. It appears to be a push to gain consistency across the US, removing the ability for aggressive and politically ambitious Attorney Generals and Senators to create their own, local, crusades against the technology industry.

Certain aspects of the framework proposed to the politicians are remarkably similar to GDPR, such as the right for consumers to control their own personal data, seek corrections and even demand deletion. Breach notifications could also be introduced, though the coalition of CEOs are calling for the FTC to be the tip of the spear.

Interestingly enough, there are also calls to remove ‘private right of action’, meaning only the US Government could take an offending company to court over violations. In a highly litigious society like the US, this would be a significant win for any US corporation.

And while there are some big names attached to the letter, there are some notable omissions. Few will be surprised Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has not signed a letter requesting a more comprehensive approach to data privacy, though Alphabet, Microsoft, Uber, Verizon, T-Mobile US, Intel, Cisco and Oracle are also absent.

“There is now widespread agreement among companies across all sectors of the economy, policymakers and consumer groups about the need for a comprehensive federal consumer data privacy law that provides strong, consistent protections for American consumers,” the letter states.

“A federal consumer privacy law should also ensure that American companies continue to lead a globally competitive market.”

CEOs who have signed the letter include Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Alfred Kelly of Visa, Salesforce’s Keith Block, Steve Mollenkoph of Qualcomm, Randall Stephenson of AT&T and Brian Roberts of Comcast.

Although it might seem unusual for companies to be requesting a more comprehensive approach to regulation, the over-arching ambition seems to be one of consistency. Ultimately, these executives want one, consolidated approach to data protection and privacy, managed at a Federal level, as opposed to a potentially fragmented environment with the States applying their own nuances.

It does appear the technology and business community is attempting to have some sort of control over its own fate. As much as these companies would want a light-touch regulatory environment to continue, this is not an outcome which is on the table. The world is changing but consolidating this evolution into a single agency the lobbyists can be much more effective, and cheaper.

The statement has been made through Business Roundtable, a lobby group for larger US corporations, requesting a national consumer privacy law which would pre-empt any equivalent from the states or local government. Definitions and ownership rules should be modernised, and a risk-orientated approach to data management, storage and analysis is also being requested.

Ultimately, this looks like a case of damage control. There seems to be an acceptance of regulation overhaul, however the CEOs are attempting to control exposure. In consolidating the regulations through the FTC, punishments and investigations can theoretically only be brought forward through a limited number of routes, with the companies only having to worry about a single set of rules.

Consistency is a very important word in the business world, especially when it comes to regulation.

What we are currently seeing across the US is aggression towards the technology industry from almost every legal avenue. Investigations have been launched by Federal agencies and State-level Attorney Generals, while law suits have also been filed by non-profits and law firms representing citizens. It’s a mess.

Looking at the Attorney Generals, there do seem to be a couple who are attempting to make a name for themselves, pushing into the public domain. This might well be the first steps for higher offices in the political domain. For example, it would surprise few if New York Attorney General Letitia James harbours larger political ambitions and striking a blow for the consumer into Facebook would certainly gain positive PR points.

Another interesting element is the fragmentation of regulations to govern data protection and privacy. For example, there are more aggressive rules in place in New York and California than in North Carolina and Alaska. In California, it becomes even more fragmented, just look at the work the City of San Francisco is undertaking to limit the power of facial recognition and data analytics. These rules will effectively make it impossible to implement the technology, but in the State of Illinois, technology companies only have to seek explicit consent from the consumer.

Inconsistency creates confusion and non-compliance. Confusion and non-compliance cost a lot of money through legal fees, restructuring, product customisation and fines.

Finally, from a PR perspective, this is an excellent move. The perception of Big Business at the moment, is that it does not care about the privacy rights of citizens. There have been too many scandals and data breaches for anyone to take claims of caring about consumer privacy seriously. By suggesting a more comprehensive and consistent approach to privacy, Big Business can more legitimately claim it is the consumer champion.

A more consistent approach to regulation helps the Government, consumers and business, however this is a move from the US technology and business community to control their own fate. This is a move to decrease the power and influence of the disruptive Attorney Generals and make the regulatory evolution more manageable.

Momentum is gathering pace towards a more comprehensive and contextually relevant privacy regulatory landscape, and it might not be too long before a US version of Europe’s GDPR is introduced.

Silicon Valley-busting Euro Commissioner gets additional digital role

Not content with continually fining US tech companies in her role as European Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager is now in charge of all things digital too.

The extra responsibility was bestowed upon her by new EC President Ursula von der Leyen, who was given the role to allow her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker to devote himself entirely to Oenology. Von der Leyen had had an early cabinet reshuffle in which she gave her favourite EVPs some extra work on top of their day jobs.

So Frans Timmermans gets a bunch of green stuff on top of his work covering regulation, rule of law, etc, Valdis Dombrovskis, adds some kind of watered-down socialist agenda to his normal work keeping an eye on the financial side of things and Vestager is being asked to keep a special eye on the entire digital sector, which is pretty much what she had already been doing as competition commissioner anyway.

“Digitalisation has a huge impact on the way we live, work and communicate,” said von der Leyen, showing the kind of vision that propelled her to the top of Europe. “In some fields, Europe has to catch up — like for business to consumers — while in others we are frontrunners — such as in business to business. We have to make our single market fit for the digital age, we need to make the most of artificial intelligence and big data, we have to improve on cybersecurity and we have to work hard for our technological sovereignty.”

This will have been the last thing the likes of Google and Facebook wanted to hear as their own country gears up to punish them for abusing their dominant positions in various digital markets. Vestager couldn’t have hoped for a better start to her new role than to be able to watch 50 AGs go after Google, and will presumably watching closely for top tips when she gets her turn.

50 US Attorney Generals sign-up to Google antitrust investigation

Usually, when you put 50 lawyers in a room together, it’s a bloodbath, but Google has seemingly done the impossible; united them all behind a single cause.

Led by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General representing the State of Texas, the coalition brings all except two State Attorney General’s on board, California and Alabama, as well as the legal minds representing Washington DC and Puerto Rico.

“Now, more than ever, information is power, and the most important source of information in Americans’ day-to-day lives is the internet,” said Paxton. “When most Americans think of the internet, they no doubt think of Google.

“There is nothing wrong with a business becoming the biggest game in town if it does so through free market competition, but we have seen evidence that Google’s business practices may have undermined consumer choice, stifled innovation, violated users’ privacy, and put Google in control of the flow and dissemination of online information. We intend to closely follow the facts we discover in this case and proceed as necessary.”

Paxton has pointed out in the statements that the Government and its agencies does not have an issue with a dominant market player (we don’t believe this however), but it must maintain this dominance by playing within the rules. This is where Paxton believes Google has become non-compliant with US law; it is stifling competition and the choice for consumers.

The difficulty the legal coalition will face in this investigation to start with is the reason behind Google’s market domination; it offers the best search service on the web. Some might disagree, but we believe it is the most effective and accurate internet search engine available. This will be one of the reasons behind the continued dominance, though there are of course others; these other factors will determine whether Google is abusing this position of dominance.

One area which might become of interest to the Attorney Generals is the roll of acquisitions in maintaining this leadership position. Of course, M&A is a perfectly valid means of growing a business, though should such transactions be deemed as a means for Google to kill off any competition which could potentially emerge, this would be a violation of antitrust laws.

This is where the probes will find it very difficult to fight against Google and the other giants of Silicon Valley; can anything be done against potentially anti-competitive acquisitions? In the Google case, some might suggest it shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire both Android and YouTube to supplement its PC search advertising business. This suggestion is of course made with hindsight, though there will be some who will attempt to do something about it.

Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator for Massachusetts and potential opponent for President Trump in the 2020 Elections, has already promised to break-up the tech giants. FTC Chairman Joe Simons is another who has the divestment ambition, though he has stated it would have to be done sooner rather than later, as Big Tech is manoeuvring assets and operations in an attempt to make any divestments almost impossible.

What this investigation does offer is another layer of scrutiny placed on the internet giants. This investigation might well be directed at Google, but any precedent which is set could be applied to the other residents of Silicon Valley.

When you actually stand back and look at the investigations which are on-going, the US Government is creating a swiss cheese model of legal nightmares for the internet giants. The more layers which are applied, the less likely Big Tech can squeeze through the legal loopholes and come out unscathed on the other end. The likes of Google will have the finest legal minds on the payroll, but the legal assaults are coming quickly, and from all angles.

Aside from this investigation, Google has also recently confirmed it is at the centre of a Department of Justice probe and is also facing the House Judiciary Committee’s examination into big tech antitrust. And then it will have to consider the potential implications of other enquiries.

Facebook is being investigated by the FTC for its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, as is the House Judiciary Committee. New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking whether the social media giant has damaged the consumers lives through its operations. Finally, the House Financial Services Committee as well as the Senate Banking Committee is investigating the Facebook push into cryptocurrency.

At Amazon, the FTC is investigating how the eCommerce giant competes against and aids third-party sellers on its platform, while at Apple, the House Judiciary Committee probe is attempting to understand whether the commission it takes from developers through the App Store is anti-competitive.

Each of these investigations will create precedent which can be applied to others in the Silicon Valley fraternity. It also gives any failed attempts to limit the potential of Big Tech another opportunity. There are plenty of irons in the fire and Silicon Valley will do well to avoid a branding altogether.

With the sheer volume, breadth and depth of investigations scrutinising the business models of the internet giants, it is starting to become impossible to believe the regulatory status quo will be maintained. The sun might be setting on the Wild West Web.

To date, Silicon Valley has enjoyed what should be considered a very light-touch regulatory environment. For us, there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, regulators and legislators simply could not keep up with the progress being made by the technology industry, or perhaps did not foresee the influence these giants might be able to wield. Whether it is a shortage of bodies, skilled workers being snapped up by private industry or simply too many different segments to regulate, the progress of technology leapt ahead of the rules which were supposed to govern it. The internet giants have been profiting greatly off this regulatory and legislative void.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether regulators and legislators actually wanted to put the reigns on the digital economy and the power houses normalising it in the eyes of the consumer. These companies are driving economic growth and creating jobs. The US is at the forefront of an industry which will dominate the world for decades to come; why would the Government want to stifle the industry which is keeping the US economy at the head of the international community.

With both of these explanations, perhaps it has gotten to a point where excess is being realised. The technology industry has become too powerful and it needs to be reigned in. Some might argue that Silicon Valley has more influence than Washington, which will make some in Government feel very uneasy.

Google confirms it is in the DoJ crosshairs

The technology industry is facing regulatory and legislative assaults from all angles, and Google has confirmed it is attempting to help the Department of Justice with its own investigation.

It should perhaps be considered second-nature for Google to be dealing with some sort of investigation. It has been the subject of dozens of probes over the last few years, though there are some weighty ones on the horizon.

“We have answered many questions on these issues over many years, in the United States as well as overseas, across many aspects of our business, so this is not new for us,” said Kent Walker, SVP of Global Affairs at Google.

“The DOJ has asked us to provide information about these past investigations, and we expect state attorneys general will ask similar questions. We have always worked constructively with regulators and we will continue to do so.”

In July, the Department of Justice announced an antitrust investigation, though the subjects were not explicitly named. The probe will focus on how online platforms achieve market dominance and whether they are stifling competition and therefore innovation.

Aside from this probe, momentum is gathering to attack Silicon Valley. New York Attorney General Letitia James is looking into antitrust violations at Facebook, which could set some pretty damaging precedent. The House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee is also conducting its own investigation, and soon enough Texas might be entering the fray.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the press to gather on the steps of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington DC later on today to be briefed on yet another antitrust investigation. Details are thin here for the moment, however it is another headache for Silicon Valley to consider.

The next couple of weeks will offer much more colour to the investigations, however it is becoming increasingly obvious the technology industry is going to be very different in a few years’ time. It does appear the days of the Wild West Web are coming to a close.

Microsoft President defends Huawei, calling Trump Un-American

Microsoft President Brad Smith has leapt to the defence of under-fire Chinese vendor Huawei, suggesting the US Government should table evidence if it wants to continue on this path.

In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Smith has aired his views on the prolonged tensions between China and the US. In a similar position to some more considered regulators around the world, Smith has demanded the burden of proof to back-up serious accusation made by the White House.

“Oftentimes, what we get in response is, ‘Well, if you knew what we knew, you would agree with us.’ And our answer is, ‘great, show us what you know so we can decide for ourselves. That’s the way this country works,” Smith said.

Smith is of course 100% correct here. We completely understand some details will not be able to be released in their entirety to the general public, but certain individuals, organizations and agencies should be offered insight to evidence which the White House is hording. The burden of truth is not one which should be brushed aside, and President Trump has not earned the right to demand blind belief.

Fortunately, there are some across the world who elect to make responsible and considered decisions. We’re not talking about the Australians, the state which decided to blindly follow the orange light without asking any questions or demonstrating the ability of independent thought, but the Germans.

The fact that Huawei has not been banned from the German market tells us and the world that the White House has not deemed it pertinent to demonstrate proof of nefarious activities to one of its allies.

Last December, Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) took a bold stance against the White House, demanded the US Government produce evidence to support the claims should it want the Germans to introduce its own ban. As there has been no action taken by the German Government or any of its agencies to date, it would be a fair assumption the US Government is yet to produce anything.

The Germans are not alone in ignoring the huffing and puffing from the Oval Office, though Smith joining the party is a notable development.

What is worth noting, is this is probably a commercially based decision, though that is not necessarily something Smith should be scalded for. Like most other US companies, Smith wants the opportunity for his firm to work with one of the technology industry’s fastest growing innovators.

Huawei is one of the world’s leading smartphone manufacturers, but it has also been making some promising moves in the PC and laptop segments also. With tetherless connectivity in laptops set to become a common trait over the next few years, this segment could witness a disruption. As Windows is installed on most PCs and laptops, Smith and Microsoft will win irrelevant as to which brand triumphs, but it will want to make sure it is working with every brand possible.

Microsoft will want to continue working with Huawei, as will many other companies. At least 130 applications have been submitted to the US Commerce Department seeking exemption from the ban to work with Huawei, though none have been approved thus far.

Soon enough, the US Government will have to present evidence to back up the claims. This administration seemingly believes it can bully its way through international relations, though if US companies start turning against US ‘foreign policy’ it creates a very uncomfortable situation.

Multiple US states open Facebook antitrust investigation

An investigation has commenced in the US into possible abuses of Facebook’s market dominance regarding data, advertising and consumer choice.

The leader of the investigation is New York Attorney General Letitia James, but she has got her contemporaries from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia to muck in too. They all, apparently, are uneasy about the effect Facebook’s dominant market position has on all kinds of competition.

“Even the largest social media platform in the world must follow the law and respect consumers,” said James. “I am proud to be leading a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in investigating whether Facebook has stifled competition and put users at risk. We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising.”

Yet to be announced by James, but widely reported nonetheless, is a parallel and similar investigation by the same AGs into Google. Of particular interest in both cases seems to be the digital advertising market, which is dominated in the US by the companies in question, as you can see from the chart below from eMarketer.

emarketer us digital ad spend

Since digital now accounts for the majority of ad spending it’s legitimate to be concerned about such a large market being dominated by so few players. Having said that it’s also reasonable to note that Google and Facebook have reached this position by competing in the open market and to the victor go the spoils. But however you achieve a dominant market position, once you do different rules apply to you and there’s plenty of precedent for such companies facing significant sanctions.

Is $170 million a big enough fine to stop Google privacy violations?

Another week has passed, and we have another story focusing on privacy violations at Google. This time it has cost the search giant $170 million, but is that anywhere near enough?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced yet another fine for Google, this time the YouTube video platform has been caught breaking privacy rules. An investigation found YouTube had been collecting and processing personal data of children, without seeking permission from the individuals or parents.

“YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “Yet when it came to complying with COPPA [the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act], the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There’s no excuse for YouTube’s violations of the law.”

Once again, a prominent member of the Silicon Valley society has been caught flaunting privacy laws. The ‘act now, seek permission later’ attitude of the internet giants is on show and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of these incredibly powerful and monstrously influential companies respecting laws or the privacy rights of users.

At some point, authorities are going to have to ask whether these companies will ever respect these rules on their own, or whether they have to be forced. If there is a carrot and stick approach, the stick has to be sharp, and we wonder whether it is anywhere near sharp enough. The question which we would like to pose here is whether $170 million is a large enough deterrent to ensure Google does something to respect the rules.

Privacy violations are nothing new when it comes to the internet. This is partly down to the fragrant attitude of those left in positions of responsibility, but also the inability for rule makers to keep pace with the eye-watering fast progress Silicon Valley is making.

In this example, rules have been introduced to hold Google accountable, however we do not believe the fine is anywhere near large enough to ensure action.

Taking 2018 revenues at Google, the $170 million fine represents 0.124% of the total revenues made across the year. Google made on average, $370 million per day, roughly $15 million per hour. It would take Google just over 11 hours and 20 minutes to pay off this fine.

Of course, what is worth taking into account is that these numbers are 12 months old. Looking at the most recent financial results, revenues increased 19% year-on-year for Q2 2019. Over the 91-day period ending June 30, Google made $38.9 billion, or $427 million a day, $17.8 million an hour. It would now take less than 10 hours to pay off the fine.

Fines are supposed to act as a deterrent, a call to action to avoid receiving another one. We question whether these numbers are relevant to Google and if the US should consider its own version of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

This is a course which would strike fear into the hearts of Silicon Valley’s leadership, as well as pretty much every other company which has any form of digital presence. It was hard work to become GDPR compliant, though it was necessary. Those who break the rules are now potentially exposed to a fine of €20 million or 3% of annual revenue. British Airways was recently fined £183 million for GDPR violations, a figure which represented 1.5% of total revenues due to co-operation from BA during the investigation and the fact it owned-up.

More importantly, European companies are now taking privacy, security and data protection very seriously, though the persistent presence of privacy violations in the US suggests a severe overhaul of the rules and punishments are required.

Of course, Google and YouTube have reacted to the news in the way you would imagine. The team has come, cap in hand, to explain the situation.

“We will also stop serving personalized ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a statement following the fine.

“In order to identify content made for kids, creators will be required to tell us when their content falls in this category, and we’ll also use machine learning to find videos that clearly target young audiences, for example those that have an emphasis on kids characters, themes, toys, or games.”

The appropriate changes have been made to privacy policies and the way in which ads are served to children, though amazingly, the blog post does not feature the words ‘sorry’, ‘apology’, ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’. There is no admission of fault, simply a statement that suggests they will be compliant with the rules.

We wonder how long it will be before Google will be caught breaking privacy rules again. Of course, Google is not alone here, if you cast the net wider to include everyone from Silicon Valley, we suspect there will be another incident, investigation or fine to report on next week.

Privacy rules are not acting as a deterrent nowadays. These companies have simply grown too large for the fines imposed by agencies to have a material impact. We suspect Google made much more than $170 million through the adverts served to children over this period. If the fine does not exceed the benefit, will the guilty party stop? Of course not, Google is designed to make money not serve the world.

Openreach cuts costs by 75% to attract builders to fibre diet

Openreach will be slashing the cost of installing fibre wires in new residential developments of less than 30 plots, as it looks to tempt housing developers onto a fibre diet.

Although it might seem remarkable, house builders are not currently mandated by law to install fibre broadband infrastructure on new premises. Considering the aggressive rhetoric being spouted by the UK Government when it comes to laying future-proofed foundations for the digital economy, it does beggar belief the opportunity to cut corners and ignore fibre is still available to these developers.

The ‘Housing Crisis’ in the UK is one which does attract headlines. The severity of this ‘crisis’ does of course depend on who you are talking to, though in certain regions it is undeniable there is a shortage of properties. All you have to look at the price of a two-bedroom flat in London to understand the pickle some youngsters might be in.

This does present an opportunity for the housing developers to make a profit. During the last quarter, the Office for National Statistics estimated 42,870 new homes were completed, though not all took fibre as default. Around 88% of plots on new builds contracting with Openreach elect fibre, though this number increases to almost 100% for plots of over 30 premises.

However, there are still numerous developers which are not taking fibre as a default position. Openreach suggests 124,000 of the new homes constructed in the UK in 2018 still lack access to ‘superfast’ broadband speeds of 30 Mbps or more. The situation is gradually improving, though there still much work to do.

With this in mind, Openreach is looking to increase the attractiveness of installing fibre connectivity through cutting costs by up-to 75% for multi-dwelling housing developments up to 29 properties.

“Our existing offer already provides huge benefits to both buyers and builders alike, but we wanted to go further and make sure everybody moving into a new build property can enjoy the advantages of Fibre-to-the-Premises broadband,” said Kim Mears, MD of Strategic Infrastructure Development.

“Our new offer provides a low-cost option to housebuilders and we hope it will help encourage the adoption of this future-proof technology across smaller developments so that no-one’s left behind.”

Although internet speeds might seem like an after-thought to some, research from LSE and Imperial College Business School suggests home-owners in London are willing to pay up to 8% above the market value properties in areas offering very fast internet speeds. The benefits of fibre connectivity for housing developers is key, though there are still some who are demonstrating a preference for copper, presenting a problem to the likes of Openreach and Virgin Media; it would be far simpler to connect properties while they are in the construction stages.

The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) concluded connectivity in new builds was not anywhere near the standard it should be, while the FTTH Council Europe estimates also paint a dreary picture. Fibre penetration is as low as 1.5% across the UK, woefully short of other nations such as Latvia (46.9% penetration), Sweden (43.6%) or Spain (43.6%). Even the lethargic Germany manages to beat the UK with 2.3%.

Moving forward, the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is set to publish its opinion from a recent consultation into the matter, with the intention of making it mandatory for developers to install gigabit-capable connections to all new build developments in the future. This is a step in the right direction, though it does surprise us it has taken until 2019 for such rules to be considered.

The consultation should result in a change to the rules, though whether this goes as far as some would want remains to be seen. It would also be a fair assumption that these new rules would not be implemented immediately.

Openreach might have to use the financial carrot for a bit longer while the slow-moving cogs of government click into place.