Tensions between European telecommunications firms and U.S. Big Tech companies have crested, as telecom bosses mount pressure on regulators to make digital giants fork up some of the cost of building the backbone of the internet.
European telcos argue that large internet firms, mainly American, have built their businesses on the back of the multi-billion dollar investments that carriers have made in internet infrastructure.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, opened a consultation last month examining how to address the imbalance. Officials are seeking views on whether to require a direct contribution from internet giants to the telco operators.
Big Tech firms say this would amount to an “internet tax” that could undermine net neutrality.
What are telco giants saying?
Top telecom bosses came out swinging at the tech companies during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
They bemoaned spending billions on laying cables and installing antennas to cope with rising internet demand without corresponding investments from Big Tech.
“Without the telcos, without the network, there is no Netflix, there is no Google,” Michael Trabbia, chief technology and innovation officer for France’s Orange, told CNBC. “So we are absolutely vital, we are the entry point to the digital world.”
In a Feb. 27 presentation, the CEO of German telecom group Deutsche Telekom, Tim Hoettges, showed audience members a rectangular illustration, representing the scale of market capitalization among different industry participants. U.S. giants dominated this map.
Tim Hoettges, CEO of Deutsche Telekom, delivers a keynote at Mobile World Congress.
Angel Garcia | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Hoettges asked attendees why these companies couldn’t “at least a little bit, contribute to the efforts and the infrastructure which we are building here in Europe.”
Howard Watson, chief technology officer of BT, said he sees merit in a fee for the large tech players.
“Can we get a two-sided model to work, where the customer pays the operator, but also the content provider pays the operator?” Watson told CNBC last week. “I do think we should be looking at that.”
Watson drew an analogy to Google and Apple’s app stores, which charge developers a cut of in-app sales in return to use their services.
What have U.S. tech firms said?
Efforts to implement network fees have been strongly criticized — not least by tech companies.
Speaking on Feb. 28 at MWC, Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters labeled proposals to make tech firms pay internet service providers for network costs an internet traffic “tax,” which would have an “adverse effect” on consumers.
Greg Peters, Co-CEO of Netflix, speaks at a keynote on the future of entertainment at Mobile World Congress 2023.
Joan Cros | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Requiring the likes of Netflix — which already spends heavily on content delivery — to pay for network upgrades would make it harder to develop popular shows, Peters said.
Tech firms say that carriers already receive money to invest in infrastructure from their customers — who pay them via call, text and data fees — and that, by asking internet companies to pay for carriage, they effectively want to get paid twice.
Consumers may end up absorbing costs asked of digital content platforms, and this could ultimately “have a negative impact on consumers, especially at a time of price increases,” Matt Brittin, Google’s head of EMEA, said in September.
Tech firms also argue that they are already making large investments in European telco infrastructure, including subsea cables and server farms.
Rethinking ‘net neutrality’
The “fair share” debate has sparked some concern that the principles of net neutrality — which say the internet should be free, open, and not give priority to any one service — could be undermined. Telcos insist they’re not trying to erode net neutrality.
Technology firms worry that those who pay more for infrastructure may get better network access.
Google’s Brittin said that fair share payments “could potentially translate into measures that effectively discriminate between different types of traffic and infringe the rights of end users.”
One suggestion is to require individual bargaining deals with the Big Tech firms, similar to Australian licensing models between news publishers and internet platforms.
“This has nothing to do with net neutrality. This has nothing to do with access to the network,” said Sigve Brekke, CEO of Telenor, told CNBC on Feb. 27. “This has to do with the burden of cost.”
Short-term solution?
Carriers gripe that their networks are congested by a huge output from tech giants. One solution is to stagger content delivery at different times to ease the burden on network traffic.
Digital content providers could time a new blockbuster movie or game releases more efficiently, or compress the data delivered to ease the pressure off networks.
“We could just start with having a clear schedule of what’s coming when, and being able to have a dialogue as to whether companies are using the most efficient way of carrying the traffic, and could certain non-time critical content be delivered at different times?” Marc Allera, CEO of BT’s consumer division, told CNBC.
“I think that’s a pretty, relatively easy debate to be had, actually, although a lot of the content is global, and what might be busy in one country and one time may or may not be busy in another. But I think at a local level is certainly a really easy discussion to have.”
He suggested the net neutrality concept needs a bit of a refresh.
Not a ‘binary choice’
The “fair share” debate is as old as time. For over a decade, telecom operators have complained about over-the-top messaging and media services like WhatsApp and Skype “free riding” on their networks.
At this year’s MWC, there was one notable difference — a high-ranking EU official in the room.
Thierry Breton, internal market commissioner for the European Union, delivers a keynote at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
Angel Garcia | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Thierry Breton, head of internal markets for the European Commission, said the bloc must “find a financing model for the huge investments needed” in the development of next-generation mobile networks and emerging technologies, like the metaverse.
Breton said it was important not to undermine net neutrality and that the debate should not be characterized as a “binary choice” between internet service providers and Big Tech firms.
Breton’s presence at MWC appeared to reflect the bloc’s sympathies toward Big Telecom, according to Paolo Pescatore, tech, media and telecom analyst at PP Foresight.
“The challenge in Europe is it’s not that clear cut because you have an imbalance,” Pescatore said. “The imbalance is not down to Big Tech, it’s not down to streamers, and it’s not down to telcos. It’s down largely to the old, out-of-date regulatory environment.”
A lack of cross-border consolidation and stagnating revenues in the telecoms sector created a “perfect concoction that’s unfavorable to telcos,” he said.
“A potential landing zone for resolution is a framework for telcos to negotiate individually with the tech firms that generate the heaviest traffic,” Ahmad Latif Ali, European telecommunications insights lead at IDC, told CNBC. “However, this is a highly contested situation.”
Startup Figure AI is developing general-purpose humanoid robots.
Figure AI
Figure AI, an Nvidia-backed developer of humanoid robots, was sued by the startup’s former head of product safety who alleged that he was wrongfully terminated after warning top executives that the company’s robots “were powerful enough to fracture a human skull.”
Robert Gruendel, a principal robotic safety engineer, is the plaintiff in the suit filed Friday in a federal court in the Northern District of California. Gruendel’s attorneys describe their client as a whistleblower who was fired in September, days after lodging his “most direct and documented safety complaints.”
The suit lands two months after Figure was valued at $39 billion in a funding round led by Parkway Venture Capital. That’s a 15-fold increase in valuation from early 2024, when the company raised a round from investors including Jeff Bezos, Nvidia, and Microsoft.
In the complaint, Gruendel’s lawyers say the plaintiff warned Figure CEO Brett Adcock and Kyle Edelberg, chief engineer, about the robot’s lethal capabilities, and said one “had already carved a ¼-inch gash into a steel refrigerator door during a malfunction.”
The complaint also says Gruendel warned company leaders not to “downgrade” a “safety road map” that he had been asked to present to two prospective investors who ended up funding the company.
Gruendel worried that a “product safety plan which contributed to their decision to invest” had been “gutted” the same month Figure closed the investment round, a move that “could be interpreted as fraudulent,” the suit says.
The plaintiff’s concerns were “treated as obstacles, not obligations,” and the company cited a “vague ‘change in business direction’ as the pretext” for his termination, according to the suit.
Gruendel is seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages and demanding a jury trial.
Figure didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did attorneys for Gruendel.
The humanoid robot market remains nascent today, with companies like Tesla and Boston Dynamics pursuing futuristic offerings, alongside Figure, while China’s Unitree Robotics is preparing for an IPO. Morgan Stanley said in a report in May that adoption is “likely to accelerate in the 2030s” and could top $5 trillion by 2050.
Concerns about stock valuations in companies tied to artificial intelligence knocked the market around this week. Whether these worries will recede, as they did Friday, or flare up again will certainly be something to watch in the days and weeks ahead. We understand the concerns about valuations in the speculative aspects of the AI trade, such as nuclear stocks and neoclouds. Jim Cramer has repeatedly warned about them. But, in the past week, the broader AI cohort — including real companies that make money and are driving what many are calling the fourth industrial revolution — has been getting hit. We own many of them: Nvidia and Broadcom on the chip side, and GE Vernova and Eaton on the derivative trade of powering these energy-gobbling AI data centers. That’s not what should be happening based on their fundamentals. Outside of valuations, worries also center on capital expenditures and the depreciation that results from massive investments in AI infrastructure. On this point, investors face a choice. You can go with the bears who are glued to their spreadsheets and extrapolating the usable life of tech assets based on history, a seemingly understandable approach, and applying those depreciation rates to their financial models, arguing the chips should be near worthless after three years. Or, you can go with the commentary from management teams running the largest companies driving the AI trade, and what Jim has gleaned from talking with the smartest CEOs in the world. When it comes to the real players driving this AI investment cycle, like the ones we’re invested in, we don’t think valuations are all that high or unreasonable when you consider their growth rates and importance to the U.S., and by extension, the global economy. We’re talking about Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who would tell you that advancements in his company’s CUDA software have extended the life of GPU chip platforms to roughly five to six years. Don’t forget, CoreWeave recently re-contracted for H100s from Nvidia, which were released in late 2022. The bears with their spreadsheets would tell you those chips are worthless. However, we know that H100s have held most of their value. Or listen to Lisa Su, CEO of Advanced Micro Devices , who said last week that her customers are at the point now where “they can see the return on the other side” of these massive investments. For our part, we understand the spending concerns and the depreciation issues that will arise if these companies are indeed overstating the useful lives of these assets. However, those who have bet against the likes of Jensen Huang and Lisa Su, or Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others who have driven innovation in the tech world for over a decade, have been burned time and again. While the bears’ concerns aren’t invalid, long-term investors are better off taking their cues from technology experts. AI is real, and it will increasingly lead to productivity gains as adoption ramps up and the technology becomes ingrained in our everyday lives, just as the internet has. We have faith in the management teams of the AI stocks in which we are invested, and while faith is not an investment strategy, that faith is based on a historical track record of strong execution, the knowledge that offerings from these companies are best in class, and scrutiny of their underlying business fundamentals and financial profiles. Siding with these technology expert management teams, over the loud financial expert bears, has kept us on the right side of the trade for years, and we don’t see that changing in the future. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust, including NVDA, AVGO, GEV, ETN, META, MSFT.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Every weekday, the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer releases the Homestretch — an actionable afternoon update, just in time for the last hour of trading on Wall Street. Markets: The S & P 500 bounced back Friday, recovering from the prior session’s sharp losses. The broad-based index, which was still tracking for a nearly 1.5% weekly decline, started off the session a little shaky as Club stock Nvidia drifted lower after the open. It was looking like concerns about the artificial intelligence trade, which have been dogging the market, were going to dominate back-to-back sessions. But when New York Federal Reserve President John Williams suggested that central bankers could cut interest rates for a third time this year, the market jumped higher. Rate-sensitive stocks saw big gains Friday. Home Depot rose more than 3.5% on the day, mitigating a tough week following Tuesday’s lackluster quarterly release. Eli Lilly hit an all-time high, becoming the first drugmaker to reach a $1 trillion market cap. TJX also topped its all-time high after the off-price retailer behind T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods, delivered strong quarterly results Wednesday. Carry trade: We’re also monitoring developments in Japan, which is dealing with its own inflation problem and questions about whether to resume interest rate hikes. That brings us to the popular Japanese yen carry trade, which is getting squeezed as borrowing costs there are rising. The yen carry trade involves borrowing yen at a low rate, then converting them into, say, dollars, and investing in higher-yielding foreign assets. That’s all well and good when the cost to borrow yen is low. It’s a different story now that borrowing costs in Japan are hitting 30-year highs. When rates rise, the profit margin on the carry trade gets crunched, or vanishes completely. As a result, investors need to get out, which means forced selling and price action that becomes divorced from fundamentals. It’s unclear if any of this is adding pressure to U.S. markets. We didn’t see anything in the recent quarterly earnings reports from U.S. companies to suggest corporate fundamentals are deteriorating in any meaningful way. That’s why we’re looking for other potential external factors, alongside the well-known concerns about artificial intelligence spending, the depreciation resulting from those capital expenditures, and general worries about consumer sentiment and inflation here in America. Wall Street call: HSBC downgraded Palo Alto Networks to a sell-equivalent rating from a hold following the company’s quarterly earnings report Wednesday. Analysts, who left their $157 price target unchanged, cited decelerating sales growth as the driver of the rerating, describing the quarter as “sufficient, not transformational.” Still, the Club name delivered a beat-and-raise quarter, which topped estimates across every key metric. None of this stopped Palo Alto shares from falling on the release. We chalked the post-earnings decline up to high expectations heading into the quarter, coupled with investor concerns over a new acquisition of cloud management and monitoring company Chronosphere. Palo Alto is still working to close its multi-billion-dollar acquisition of identity security company CyberArk , announced in July. HSBC now argues the stock’s risk-versus-reward is turning negative, with limited potential for upward estimate revisions for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. We disagree with HSBC’s call, given the momentum we’re seeing across Palo Alto’s businesses. The cybersecurity leader is dominating through its “platformization” strategy, which bundles its products and services. Plus, Palo Alto keeps adding net new platformizations each quarter, converting customers to use its security platform, and is on track to reach its fiscal 2030 target. We also like management’s playbook for acquiring businesses just before they see an industry inflection point. With Chronosphere, Palo Alto believes the entire observability industry needs to change due to the growing presence of AI. We’re reiterating our buy-equivalent 1 rating and $225 price target on the stock. Up next: There are no Club earnings reports next week. Outside of the portfolio, Symbotic, Zoom Communications , Semtech , and Fluence Energy will report after Monday’s close. Wall Street will also get a slew of delayed economic data during the shortened holiday trading week. U.S. retail sales and September’s consumer price index are scheduled for release early Tuesday. Durable goods orders and the Conference Board consumer sentiment are released on Wednesday morning. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.