On July 12, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google joined forces with nearly 80,000 other websites in an internet-wide protest against proposed changes to online laws. The ‘day of action’ saw the sites display a variety of eye-catching messages highlighting the importance of ‘net neutrality’ – a concept that could be under threat under the new data laws.
Earlier this year, the US communications regulator voted to change the current regulations on internet providers, removing some of the Obama-era rules protecting internet access. Net neutrality refers to the neutral stance internet providers have, until now, taken in regard to consumers’ online experience.
Should the current laws be removed, internet providers would be free to interfere with their customers’ online usage, charging consumers extra to access particular content, or even blocking certain sites entirely. Without these laws, internet providers would also be free to prioritise certain sites over others. This could lead to slower video content streaming, among other issues.
Should current laws be removed, internet providers would be free to interfere with their customers’ online usage, charging consumers extra to access particular content, or even blocking certain sites entirely
“Internet companies, innovative start-ups and millions of internet users depend on these common-sense protections that prevent blocking or throttling of internet traffic, segmenting the internet into paid fast lanes and slow lanes and other discriminatory practices,” read a Google blog post.
“Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivalled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression and opportunity. And it should stay that way.”
A host of online activists, free speech groups and librarians also joined the coalition of tech companies in showing their support for net neutrality. Greenpeace, the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union were among the pressure groups and activists championing the cause on July 12, encouraging millions of followers to press their members of Congress on the issue. One supporter, the Writers Guild of America, called the removal of net neutrality a “war on the open internet”.
The day of coordinated online action was designed to draw public attention to the cause, and encourage internet users to stand up for their online rights. More than 5.6 million people have submitted complaints to the Federal Communications Commission in response to the proposed plans, and this number continues to rise. A second vote on the proposals is expected later this year.
On July 12, Apple announced plans to build its first China-based data centre, indicating the tech giant is prepared to comply with new cybersecurity laws. Apple will partner with local data management firm Guizhou-Cloud Big Data Industry to develop the facility, which is part of a $1bn investment project in the Guizhou province.
The announcement follows the implementation of a new law requiring foreign companies to store all online data relating to national security in China. The vague wording of the law, along with the bulk nature of data collection, means companies must store all data collected from Chinese customers in China.
US tech firms have traditionally processed all customer data – regardless of origin – in US-based centres, so will be forced to invest substantially to meet the new requirements. Apple’s announcement, and the $1bn cost of the Guizhou project, reflects the expensive concessions tech companies must make in order to gain access to China’s highly lucrative consumer market. Apple’s planned centre will store all information including photos and private messages from the iPhones of Chinese customers.
Chinese authorities claim the law is not intended to harm foreign business, but a necessary response to the recent rise in online hacking and security breaches
The law has been met with concerns from tech company officials, who accuse the Chinese Government of putting unreasonable restrictions on their Chinese operations, hampering competition. Chinese authorities claim the law is not intended to harm foreign business, but a necessary response to the recent rise in online hacking and security breaches.
Privacy campaigners have also expressed concerns that data will be less secure, with processes behind accessing citizens’ data varying considerably in China and the US, where all Apple data is currently stored.
Apple attempted to dispel any privacy concerns in a statement to Reuters: “As our customers know, Apple has strong data privacy and security protections in place and no backdoors will be created into any of our systems.”
Apple added the new infrastructure would help to improve customer experience: “The addition of this data centre will allow us to improve the speed and reliability of our products and services.”
As reported by the Financial Times, other US tech firms (such as Microsoft, IBM and Amazon) already offer cloud services in China, meaning they have the infrastructure in place to comply with the law.
On July 10, Apple confirmed plans to build a second data centre in southern Denmark by 2019. The centre will be powered entirely by renewable methods, in keeping with Apple’s drive to maintain 100 precent green energy production across its fleet of global data centres.
As the use of online services has exploded, the need to build centres to house and process vast quantities of internet data has become increasingly pressing. Despite data housing provision still being a relatively young business concept, Denmark is already emerging as the European frontrunner in the sector. This reputation was reinforced in April, as Facebook announced it would build its first centre outside of the US in Denmark.
With construction already underway on Apple’s first centre in the country – and repeated delays hampering the company’s planned project on the Irish coast – Denmark is likely to be the only European country to house an Apple centre in the near future. Once completed, the centres will power Apple’s online services (such as iTunes and Maps) for customers across Europe.
The data centres will use the methane gas expelled by local agricultural waste to produce electricity
The announcement of the company’s second Danish project acts as a positive endorsement for the construction of Apple’s first centre. While Apple often meets its commitment to renewable energy generation through purchase power agreements, the original centre is designed to produce its own energy.
In order to minimise the company’s dependence on energy companies, Apple has partnered with researchers from the local Aarhus University to develop a biomass generation system. As detailed in its annual Environment Responsibility Report, the system will use the methane gas expelled by agricultural waste to produce electricity. In return, local farmers will benefit from a nutrient rich crop fertiliser – a waste product of the generation system.
If all goes to plan, the first centre will be up and running by the end of this year, with operations on the second due to commence by 2019.
Online retailer Amazon has announced it will purchase upscale grocer Whole Foods Market for $13.7bn, the largest deal for Jeff Bezos’ ecommerce group to date. The all-cash deal will see Amazon take a major step forward in its mission to break into the world of traditional retailing, with investors hailing the deal as potentially game-changing for the industry.
As news of the deal broke, Whole Foods’ stock rose by 29 percent, while shares in rival grocers in the US and Europe fell. Shares in Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, dropped by 4.7 percent, while discount store Target took a hit of 5.1 percent.
“Millions of people love Whole Foods Market because they offer the best natural and organic foods, and they make it fun to eat healthy”, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said in a statement confirming the deal. “Whole Foods Market has been satisfying, delighting and nourishing customers for nearly four decades – they’re doing an amazing job and we want that to continue.”
Founded in Texas in 1978, Whole Foods has been credited with bringing organic, health foods into the mainstream. While the firm currently has around 460 stores worldwide, it has struggled to maintain growth in recent years. However, with stocks now soaring at the upmarket grocer, the Amazon deal looks set to reverse this stagnant performance.
Upon announcement of the deal, Whole Foods’ stock rose by 29 percent, while shares in rival grocers in the US and Europe fell
Under the terms of the acquisition, John Mackey will remain CEO of Whole Foods Market, and the company’s headquarters will remain in Austin, Texas. The brand will also continue to operate under the same name.
Until now, Amazon has failed to make significant inroads in the traditional food and grocery sector. The online retailer is the fourth biggest company in the US, and accounts for 43 percent of all online sales there. However, despite launching its Amazon Fresh food delivery service over a decade ago, the company accounts for less than 0.5 percent of grocery spending in the US today.
The acquisition of Whole Foods will give Amazon an established network of brick-and-mortar stores across the country, considerably expanding its grocery delivery capabilities.
Upon announcement of the deal, Whole Foods Market co-founder and CEO John Mackey said: “This partnership presents an opportunity to maximise value for Whole Foods Market’s shareholders, while at the same time extending our mission and bringing the highest quality, experience, convenience and innovation to our customers.”
While Amazon has only represented something of a distant threat to traditional supermarkets and grocers in the past, the acquisition of Whole Foods gives the online retailer a significant brick-and-mortar presence. With stocks plummeting at rival supermarket chains in both Europe and the US, Amazon could now pose a real threat to traditional retail stores.
As of June 15, citizens of the EU are no longer subject to roaming charges when travelling anywhere in the region. The change has abolished the exorbitant fees synonymous with sending SMS messages, making phone calls and surfing the internet while abroad. Instead, travellers can now use their mobiles in any EU member state for the same rates they pay at home.
Representatives of the European Commission, Council and Parliament all agreed to the new rules, which established how wholesale roaming markets would be regulated. In other words, the agreement set a standard charge for operators whose customers entered other territories. Consequently, wholesale caps are now 3.2 cents per minute for voice calls and one cent for each SMS.
Agreements regarding data usage were far more complex however, with each provider offering its own fair use policy. EE, for example, will cap its monthly data at 15GB, unless a user’s allowance is below that level, in which case extra data will need to be paid for. Meanwhile, Three’s cap has been set at 12GB for customers on monthly contracts and at 9GB for pay-as-you-go customers. Vodafone and O2 will offer no data cap for all monthly and business customers.
What’s more, a five-year reduction programme for wholesale data caps is now in place, with the first reduction – from €7.7 ($8.6) to €6 ($6.7) per GB – set to take place on January 1, 2018. This price is set to fall to €4.5 ($5) the following year, and then to €3.5 ($3.9) in 2020, €3 ($3.35) in 2021 and, finally, to €2.5 ($2.8) on January 1, 2022.
Travellers can now use their mobiles in any EU member state for the same rates they pay at home
In a press release published by the European Commission, Andrus Ansip, Vice President for the Digital Single Market, said: “This was the last piece in the puzzle. We have also made sure that operators can continue competing to provide the most attractive offers to their home markets”
The deal has been in the making for a decade now, with the Commission securing an initial price reduction for customers in 2007. Roaming charges have since fallen by over 90 percent.
The agreement marks the first time net neutrality has become subject to EU legislation. As such, users across the entire region will now be treated to the same pricing structures, and will no longer have content blocked or experience slow service due to paid prioritisation. This means a website belonging to a small organisation will no longer be purposely slowed in efforts to drive internet traffic towards larger companies. Likewise, small businesses won’t be subject to surcharges from internet providers. Essentially, all internet traffic will now be treated equally.
Consumers also stand to benefit considerably from the EU’s new rules, as holidaymakers and business people alike are able to communicate, obtain and share information when travelling, for the same price as they do at home.
Ultimately, the Union’s new roaming agreement adheres to the very principles the organisation was founded upon, aiding the freedom of movement across all member states and driving European integration to a new whole new level.
On April 4, Boeing announced an agreement to sell airplanes worth $3bn to Iran Aseman Airlines, carving out a strong business presence in the country despite uncertainty surrounding the future of the Iran nuclear deal under Trump.
The 2015 nuclear agreement provided relief from certain sanctions, opening up the prospect of revitalised trade links and fresh business opportunities in Iran. Yet, Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly voiced hostility towards the country, prompting hesitation among US businesses looking to move into the region.
The deal places the Trump administration in a bind, forcing the President to prioritise between his domestic and foreign policy objectives
The US government’s response to Boeing’s sizeable deal will be an important litmus test for the state of Iran-US economic relations under Trump. A statement from Boeing said: “Boeing continues to follow the lead of the US government with regards to working with Iran’s airlines, and any and all contracts with Iran’s airlines are contingent upon US government approval.”
While the deal officially requires government permission to go ahead, Senator John McCain stressed it falls fully within the law. He said: “I have opposed the Iranian agreement and I am not interested in doing anything to help the Iranians but what they’ve done is completely legal.
“They’ve got the money and it’s not a weapons system, so it doesn’t require any involvement from the Congress.” This said, Senator Marco Rubio reportedly claimed he might move to block the deal.
Boeing were quick to emphasise the deal’s potential for creating jobs: “According to the US Department of Commerce, an aerospace sale of this magnitude creates or sustains approximately 18,000 jobs in the United States.”
With such a potential for job creation, the move places the Trump administration in a bind, forcing the President to prioritise between his domestic and foreign policy objectives. If the deal is allowed to go ahead, deliveries are scheduled to start in 2022.
Snap, the company behind the wildly successful app Snapchat, is expected to launch its IPO in March after recently making a formal announcement to regulators. While it will likely debut with one of the largest valuations in recent years, it will have to overcome unprofitability and find new revenue sources to impress investors.
As reported by the BBC, Snap is expected to be valued between $20bn and $25bn through the offering, with the company seeking to raise $3bn through the sale of shares. Unusually, the shares will not provide voting rights, with the company’s founders retaining full control.
Snapchat offers a more playful and ephemeral alternative to Facebook and Twitter
Snapchat first became popular in 2013 and has since captured an incredibly large user base, with The Economist reporting the app is used daily by around 41 percent of Americans aged 18-34. The app is characterised by deleting images after viewing, offering a more playful and ephemeral alternative to Facebook and Twitter.
More recently, the company has sought to position itself as a “camera company” instead of a social network. Last year, the company rebranded as Snap, reflecting its ambition to diversify its product range. The move came as the company released a limited number of camera-equipped sunglasses called Spectacles. The gadget received praise from both analysts and public alike, though it is yet to be rolled out in large numbers.
However, the company will need to become profitable in order to replicate the success of brands like Google or Facebook. While Snap made $404m last year, the company’s losses totalled $515m. Snap currently sources the majority of its revenue from in-app advertising, however a mainstream roll-out of Spectacles or another device could make hardware a big part of its business.
With a more diversified business and a strong focus on user retention and engagement, Snap will be hoping to avoid the pitfalls that befell Twitter after its IPO. In 2013, Twitter debuted at $26 per share and closed its first day of trading at $44.94. Currently, its shares are sitting slightly above $17.50 as the company struggles to grow its user base and find a consistent revenue stream.
Tesla has continued to transition from carmaker to all-round energy company with the launch of a battery storage facility in Southern California. The project marks a turning point for the company – renown for its self-driving technology – and seeks to revolutionise the way energy grids are constructed and managed.
In just three months, Tesla has manufactured, installed and switched on a large scale battery network connected to the Mira Loma substation in Edison, California, The New York Times has reported. The facility – which is made up of 396 battery stacks – is capable of storing enough power to supply around 15,000 homes for over four hours.
Battery storage could ultimately provide
a solution to the inconsistent supply
of renewable energy
The project holds the potential to address one of the primary shortcomings of renewable energy systems: the unpredictability of its supply. Many renewables, like solar and wind, reach peak supply at times when people aren’t using them. For example, while households typically use more electricity in the evenings, solar systems generate the majority of their power during the day.
Traditional energy grids operate on the assumption of a constant supply of energy, and, as a result, aren’t designed to fully accommodate the inconsistent supply of renewables. However, battery storage could ultimately provide a solution to this: storing excess energy during peak times to provide power during periods of stagnation.
Tesla’s facility is just one of a number of similar projects scheduled to open in California in the near future. The state holds a number of strong environmental policies and has been particularly quick to adopt these systems in order to mitigate a major leak at a natural gas storage facility.
The development also marks another step in Tesla’s progress from luxury carmaker to all-round energy company. While its cars might be the most public-facing product it produces, these major infrastructure projects are, in many ways, more important to the company’s future. Despite some imported parts, the battery units used to populate the storage facility are almost entirely constructed at Tesla’s Reno Gigafactory.
Although advancing far quicker than many analysts expected, battery technology still has some way to go before it can scale up to larger projects. It is likely, therefore, the success of this facility will be scrutinised to see if Tesla’s batteries can function reliably for a larger facility.
Royal Dutch Shell has confirmed plans to sell $3.8bn of North Sea oil assets as part of the company’s ongoing efforts to reduce debt. North Sea focused UK Oil firm Chrysaor will acquire a package of assets – including a mix of older oil fields and new developments – worth almost half of Shell’s entire UK portfolio.
On completion of the North Sea deal, Chrysaor will become the largest independent oil operator in the offshore basin. Over 400 Shell employees are set to transfer to Chrysaor, while the firm will also receive a 10 percent stake in BP’s Shiehallion field. Located just west of the Shetland Islands, Shiehallion is one of the largest and deepest oil developments in the North Sea.
The deal marks the largest in the
North Sea oil sector
for several years
The deal marks a significant advance in Shell’s efforts to sell $30bn worth of assets by 2019. Following the oil giant’s takeover of BG Group in 2016, Shell’s debt pile topped $80bn, prompting the firm to launch an ambitious debt reduction programme. On January 31, Shell announced it would also be selling its stake in a Thai gas field for $900m.
The oil firm has said it is looking to “simplify its portfolio following the acquisition of BG”, but stresses it remains “committed” to its North Sea operations.
While the North Sea region has a long history as one of the world’s oldest offshore basins, the area’s oil production has been in steady decline since the late 1990s. The downturn in oil prices has badly affected the North Sea workforce, with Oil and Gas UK predicting in 2016 that the industry would be forced to cut 120,00 jobs by the end of the year. Production in the region hit record lows in the 2014/15 financial year, while North Sea oil posted its first loss for the British taxpayer in 2016.
However, the Chrysaor deal marks the largest in the North Sea oil sector for several years, suggesting the industry may be emerging from a downturn spanning two decades.
Andy Brown, Shell’s Upstream Director, described the deal as “a vote of confidence in the UK North Sea”, and suggested it “offers proof that the industry’s increasing competitiveness, and improvements to the fiscal and regulatory regime, are starting to produce positive results”.
I’m certainly not going to win any popularity contests for writing this article. The last thing anybody wants to talk about after a presidential election is a patent bubble. After all, most of us took a nice stock market beat down during the recent housing bubble and mortgage crisis.
For the past 40 years, intellectual property, technology development and invention ideas have been the driving force behind the United States and much of the world’s developed economy. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Amgen have been the leaders in wealth creation. Biotech, software and communications systems have made fortunes for many, changing the world we live in.
It has resulted in a mad rush to capitalise on the ‘next big thing’. And that is creating a global patent bubble. The chase for intellectual property (IP) has created the next ‘irrational exuberance’. If the term rings a bell, it’s because it was the phrase that ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan used when warning about stocks being overvalued during the dotcom bubble of the 1990s.
It seems that the race to patent a product has overshadowed the product itself
Since Microsoft burst onto the scene, IP has been seen as the next gold rush. Companies, venture capitalists, private equity shops and universities worldwide are searching for new patents and copyrights that will create astronomical returns.
Numbers don’t lie
The prices being paid for patents are all over the place. In 1975, more than 80 percent of an S&P 500 company’s net worth was based on tangible assets, such as real estate, machinery and receivables. By 2010, that number had completely flipped, with 80 percent of the net worth being based on intangible assets such as patents and goodwill.
The numbers are clear. IP now accounts for over 38 percent of the US economy, but interestingly only 12 percent of exports. If that’s not the start of a patent bubble forming, I don’t know what is.
It seems that the race to patent a product has overshadowed the product itself. I am not discounting the importance of patents. However, when almost 40 percent of the economy is focusing on protecting the right to make a product, rather than the product itself, there is something wrong.
95 percent of patents don’t make a dime
The common perception is that patents are a path to riches. If an inventor or entrepreneur files a patent, he can then build a successful technology company under the protection of that patent, eventually selling out to companies like Apple and Facebook.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A patent does not create a shield or grant you freedom to operate without competition. Instead, it gives you a tool to attack a competitor that you believe is infringing on your patent. However, the enforcing of patent law is typically nightmarish, even for well-funded corporations. It can take up to five years and cost up to $5m to actually win a patent litigation, and even then this decision can be subject to appeal.
Ever heard of the tulip bubble?
The tulip bubble is regarded as the first record of a widespread financial bubble in history. In the early 1600s, tulips were introduced into the Dutch Republic, and investors scrambled for a piece of the action. At the peak of the bubble, a single tulip bulb could sell for 10 times the annual income of a skilled craftsman.
When the patent bubble
bursts, it could be
far worse than the mortgage crisis
Tulips became the fourth largest Dutch export at a time when food and clothing accounted for almost the entire bulk of national income. In this environment – one in which most people barely had enough to eat – it was simply bizarre that a useless luxury item commanded such a large proportion of Dutch wealth. Then, in 1637, the bubble burst and the price of tulips fell to just 1 percent of their former value. The Dutch economy crashed, and the consequences were felt throughout Europe.
The bursting of the tulip bubble didn’t just affect those who owned and traded tulips; it caused a deep recession and a liquidity crisis in the Dutch Republics. The tulip bulbs were leveraged by finance, just as we leverage homes and commodities in the US today. When a widespread bubble bursts, it upends the balance sheets of an entire nation.
The price of tulips never recovered, as you can see for yourself at any Walmart in spring – you can buy them by the dozen for less than five dollars.
At the height of the tulip bubble, single bulbs could sell for 10 times the salary of a skilled craftsmen
The Great Crash
Similar forces brought on the great stock market crash of 1929. Investors were making huge returns throughout the 1920s. The stock market was the place to be if you wanted to get rich quick. People borrowed heavily in order to purchase shares. And then, it all came crashing down.
The housing bubble – which burst in 2008 – showed us the same pattern again. Following 1999, when the tech bubble burst, the safest place to put your money was into homes. Prices rose to unsustainable levels. All was commodified for investment purposes. When it crashed, almost every major bank in the US and Europe fell into negative territory. On paper they were bankrupt. They owned a host of mortgages tied to homes with inflated values. The government had to step in just to keep the banks afloat.
The bursting of the housing bubble led to the deepest economic downturn since 1929 and its aftermath is still felt throughout the US economy.
Global crisis
It is my opinion that when the patent bubble bursts, it could be far worse than the mortgage crisis. Today, a company’s most valuable asset is its IP. Their wealth is in their patents. These patents are held on their balance sheets as intangible and undisclosed assets. They attract investment, issue bonds, and obtain credit based upon those numbers.
These patent bubble assets are not liquid and they do not trade easily. It isn’t like selling a publicly traded security. Patent assets do not trade frequently and don’t have any valuation consistency. If a company fails, it is forced to liquidate these patent assets at fractions of their assumed value. When Kodak filed for bankruptcy, experts were predicting patent portfolio sales of $1.8bn to $4.5bn. They sold between $94m to $525m – some way short of expert projections. There was nothing unique about the way Kodak was valuing its patents. They were just following accepted accounting principles. Imagine Kodak happening over and over again. It would create an international liquidity and balance sheet crisis.
Inflated prices vs economic growth
Too much money chasing the same sector results in price inflation. Those inflated prices are always unsustainable. When this patent bubble bursts, it will hurt the entire economy.
Everybody wants to believe it is different this time. But, it never is
This is the opposite of productive investment, which has given us tremendous growth and a high standard of living. Investment in goods and services for reasonable returns is vital to economic growth. Investment in paper monopolies, patents and copyright can be good for the economy. But when it gets out of balance, as it is now, it can lead to very bad economic outcomes for the global economy.
Why isn’t anybody sounding the patent bubble alarm?
When bubbles are on the rise, a tremendous amount of wealth is created. Even a pure Ponzi scheme created plenty of profit for the early investors. During the housing bubble, many on Wall Street and in government knew house prices were unsustainable. Even the Federal Reserve made comments suggesting the economy was now “different” and there would be a soft landing.
Well the economy wasn’t different. Ponzi schemes and bubbles always end the same way. Traders like Nassim Taleb, who wrote the influential book The Black Swan and made a killing by investing against the home mortgage industry, were laughed out of the room. They were called alarmists or even branded as negative and destructive. But of course, Ponzi schemes always fail. Everybody wants to believe it is different this time. But, it never is.
There is one thing for sure. We are in a patent bubble right now… And history always repeats itself.
Artificial intelligence (AI), the technology behind a number of the most exciting developments of our time, has been identified as one of the world’s most pressing risks, a World Economic Forum report has found.
The report lays the foundations for discussions to take place at the upcoming World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland – which begins January 17. Under the theme ‘Responsive and Responsible Leadership’, leaders will discuss the potential dangers arising from the fast-paced development and uptake of AI technology.
It seems there must be a careful balance between embracing the numerous benefits the technology offers and mitigating the equally harrowing risks. The report states: “Some serious thinkers fear that artificial intelligence could one day pose an existential threat: a ‘superintelligence’ might pursue goals that prove not to be aligned with the continued existence of humankind.”
Self-driving cars, drones and virtual assistants… are all examples of [AI’s] transformative potential
AI is behind technological innovations that continue to dramatically shape the future. Advancements like: self-driving cars, drones, virtual assistants and software that can translate or invest, are all examples of its transformative potential.
Furthermore, “artificial intelligence will enable us to address some of the great issues of our age, such as climate change and population growth, much more effectively”, said John Drzik, President of Global Risk & Specialties, Marsh, according to the World Economic Forum’s website.
The development of sound, regulatory measures is vital to striking the right balance between the potential risks and benefits. “With investment into artificial intelligence now 10 times higher than it was five years ago, rapid advances are already being made. However, increased reliance on artificial intelligence will dramatically exacerbate existing risks, such as cyber, making the development of mitigation measures just as crucial”, said Drzik.
One of the biggest concerns surrounding the technology is its unpredictable nature. In an effort to create machines that can substitute for humans, the technology behind ‘self-learning’ is pushing forward at an exponential rate. By creating machines that can make decisions based on their self-taught intelligence, there’s a chance robots could move beyond human mastery. As the technology develops, risks will emerge of machines operating “outside the control of humans” or in “unforeseeable ways”, the report says.
Another key risk is the prospect of weaponised AI. The report notes: “Even if there is widespread desire to restrict the progress of a particular technology – such as lethal autonomous weapons systems – there may be practical difficulties in getting effective governance mechanisms in place before the genie is out of the bottle.”
As AI and other technologies of the ‘fourth industrial revolution’ emerge, the huge potential for both risk and reward will be heightened. The outcome hangs on the development of good regulations – something that will be at the forefront of the leader’s minds as they meet in Davos.
Norway is set to become the first country to switch off its FM radio network in favour of the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) standard. The move is designed to modernise the network and save money, but has proved to be unpopular with the public.
On January 11, the city of Bodoe will switch off its FM network, with the rest of the country following suit by the end of 2017. As reported by Reuters, 66 percent of Norwegians oppose the decision, with only 17 percent in support of the move.
66 percent of Norwegians oppose the decision, with only 17 percent in support of the move
DAB offers a number of advantages over the ageing technology, including better signal quality and the ability to broadcast supplementary information to a radio with a display, such as song titles or news headlines. DAB is also a cheaper signal to broadcast and makes more efficient use of the radio spectrum, allowing more channels to fill the airwaves.
Despite these benefits, it has taken DAB a long time to become a viable alternative to FM, with early broadcasts suffering from coverage problems and increased competition from internet radio and podcasts limiting its popularity.
However, the biggest criticism levelled at Norway’s decision is the number of radios that would cease working once the changeover is made, most notably those embedded in cars. Without access to radio, many drivers will be unable to receive emergency broadcasts, raising the issue of safety. While conversion kits for cars exist, they cost approximately 1,500 kroner ($174.70).
Speaking to Reuters, Progress Party MP Ib Thomsen said the country is not yet ready for the switchover: “There are two million cars on Norwegian roads that don’t have DAB receivers, and millions of radios in Norwegian homes will stop working when the FM net is switched off. So there is definitely a safety concern.”
Other countries looking to make a similar move will be keeping a close eye on Norway’s progress as it pioneers the transition.
