AIQ - The Now Normal

What a carve up!

The future of the internet

Commercial and geopolitical forces are threatening to fracture the internet into competing regimes, making it harder for companies to operate across borders and potentially limiting their growth. We explore the implications for investors.

In 1996, the American writer John Perry Barlow published a paper titled “A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace”, which summed up the idealistic view of the internet that prevailed as the technology became mainstream.

“Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind,” Barlow wrote. “On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather…Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement and context do not apply to us.”1

A quarter of a century on, these words look somewhat quaint. While the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted modern society’s reliance on online tools, it is also clear that the freedoms of the early internet have been sharply curbed.

Big tech companies have sectioned off cyberspace into “walled gardens”, where users are corralled, profiled and bombarded with advertisements. Governments have wrested back control of online spaces with firewalls and surveillance technology.

The result is no longer a frictionless platform but an increasingly fractured and fragmented realm. Global companies must adapt their operations to different regulatory regimes and may even be barred from some countries altogether, due to governments’ efforts to protect their “cyber sovereignty”. These trends bring new challenges and uncertainties for investors.

The splinternet

The infrastructure of the internet was built by Silicon Valley engineers, working with technology inherited from the US government’s military projects.2 But it did not become the global communications system we know today until computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989.

Tim Berners-Lee wanted the web to be open and accessible

Berners-Lee wanted the web to be open and accessible. But for authoritarian governments, the use of online messaging in fomenting civil unrest posed a direct threat. China developed a formidable “Great Firewall”, which limits access to websites the Communist Party deems subversive, and other states such as Russia and Iran followed suit.

Companies also played a role in the balkanisation of the network. While they benefited from the globalisation of the internet and rising numbers of potential customers, technology firms sought to keep users on their own platforms, limiting the interoperability of software so they could monetise a captive audience using targeted advertising algorithms.

US vs. China

In a 2019 paper, “The Four Internets: The Geopolitics of Digital Governance”, academics Wendy Lee and Kieran O’Hara argue the internet is being carved into competing systems led by various governments or private entities. And the most prominent contest is between the US and Chinese models of the internet.

The internet is being carved into competing systems led by various governments or private entities

Tensions between the two powers escalated in 2017, when the Trump administration slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, ostensibly to rectify a trade imbalance. Technology was key to the dispute: China stood accused of “forced technology transfer (FTT)”, or the theft of intellectual property from American firms.3

The US-China relationship has soured further during the pandemic, and the political stand-off has harmed the international ambitions of two innovative Chinese mobile platforms: Tencent’s WeChat and TikTok, a video streaming service developed by Beijing-based ByteDance.

In August 2020, Trump signed an executive order that imposed commercial restrictions on both apps and ordered ByteDance to sell TikTok’s US operations, due to concerns over user data collection (ByteDance appealed the decision, and as of January 2021 TikTok was still available in the US).4

“TikTok created a genuinely innovative artificial intelligence-driven platform and became the first emerging market internet company to make substantial inroads in developed markets. But this arguably happened at the wrong time given the geopolitical situation and the extra level of scrutiny now on this sort of business model,” says Alistair Way, head of emerging market equities at Aviva Investors.

Proxy battles and national champions

Chinese firms blocked from doing business in the US are increasingly looking for opportunities elsewhere. China’s Digital Silk Road initiative offers cheap financing for poorer countries, many of them in Africa, to develop their internet infrastructure using loans from Chinese banks and hardware provided by Chinese companies such as Huawei.5

US and Chinese firms are vying for customers in third countries

Meanwhile, both US and Chinese firms are looking to make up for their lack of access to each other’s markets by vying for customers in third countries such as Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, whether through partnerships with local companies or by directly offering their own services.

But in these markets, too, the splintering of the internet into national regimes is apparent, and domestic firms have been able to fend off competition by leveraging their expertise in sectors such as logistics and e-commerce.

The mobile-led internet model in emerging markets has powered a trend for ‘verticalization’, which deepens the splintering effect. Rather than access a search engine on a web browser, people in emerging markets increasingly seek out products and services using dedicated apps. This can create barriers for global tech companies hoping to generate advertising revenue on all-purpose platforms, argues Mikhail Zverev, head of global equities at Aviva Investors.

The social dilemma

A more pressing risk to the West’s tech giants may come from social and political shifts closer to home. Both major US political parties have been critical of the power of the technology giants and spoken openly about the prospect of breaking them up.6

Policymakers appear to be newly emboldened to move against internet firms

In October 2020, the Department of Justice brought antitrust proceedings against Google, alleging it has engaged in monopolistic practices to favour its search engine. The proceedings are likely to take years to play out and the company claims the case is “deeply flawed”.7

Whether or not Google is found guilty of anticompetitive practices, policymakers appear to be newly emboldened to move against internet firms. This may reflect shifts in societal attitudes – potentially a more important hazard to Google than the antitrust case itself, which was barely registered by the market.

In what Lee and O’Hara call the “Bourgeois Internet” regime in Europe, regulators have shown more willingness to crack down on Big Tech, notably in the area of content moderation, where US policymakers have been wary of interfering due to concerns over freedom of speech. The European Commission is drawing up legislation that will force tech giants to remove illegal content or face the threat of sanctions under a comprehensive Digital Services Act, due to be unveiled at the end of 2021.

Future of the internet

Tighter regulations may force tech companies to spend more on technology or human labour to moderate content on their platforms. As operating expenses among tech companies tend to be high even before these added outlays – 40 per cent of total revenue in 2019, in Facebook’s case – any increase in R&D and labour costs may have a material impact on profit margins, says Louise Piffaut, ESG analyst at Aviva Investors.

While few expect the deep technology of the internet to shift in such a way as to make regional networks incompatible, each regime is likely to continue to become more distinct in legal and regulatory terms.

Big Tech firms will need to tread more carefully as concerns over content and data ownership grow

For now, the direction of travel seems clear. In the US and especially Europe, Big Tech firms will need to tread more carefully as concerns over content and data ownership grow, potentially opening up opportunities for platforms that offer better security and data-privacy protections.

These same concerns over privacy will limit the overseas growth of China’s internet behemoths in the West. But behind the Great Firewall, they will continue to develop innovative systems and may outstrip Western firms in areas such as artificial intelligence thanks to their unfettered access to a wealth of user data. In other emerging markets, companies that can attract mobile users to vertically integrated platforms will be able to resist incursions from global internet firms.

Some experts argue a splinternet could create a more diverse internet ecosystem, offering users in different markets a more tailored, localised service that better suits their preferences. But such a system would look very different from the limitless universal space that John Perry Barlow and Tim Berners-Lee envisaged.

Want to read the rest of AIQ: The Now Normal?

Subscribe to download a PDF copy or get a printed edition delivered directly to you.

Apologies, this content is currently unnavailble.

Thank you for requesting a copy of our latest AIQ. We will send this to you shortly.

To keep up-to-date with our latest insights, please visit our main views page.

Please enable javascript in your browser in order to see this content.

Please select the format you wish to receive.

If you wish to receive a printed copy of AIQ, please enter your full postal address below.

I acknowledge that I qualify as a professional client or institutional/qualified investor. By submitting these details, I confirm that I would like to receive a digital and/or printed copy of the latest AIQ and receive thought leadership email updates from Aviva Investors, in addition to any other email subscription I may have with Aviva Investors. You can unsubscribe or tailor your email preferences at any time.

For more information, please visit our Privacy Policy.

Important information

Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

In Europe this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK Issued by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805. Registered Office: St Helens, 1 Undershaft, London EC3P 3DQ. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178. In France, Aviva Investors France is a portfolio management company approved by the French Authority “Autorité des Marchés Financiers”, under n° GP 97-114, a limited liability company with Board of Directors and Supervisory Board, having a share capital of 17 793 700 euros, whose registered office is located at 14 rue Roquépine, 75008 Paris and registered in the Paris Company Register under n° 335 133 229. In Switzerland, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Schweiz GmbH.

In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 1 Raffles Quay, #27-13 South Tower, Singapore 048583. In Australia, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd (AIPPL) for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that AIPPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIPPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIPPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business Address: Level 30, Collins Place, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia.

The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this material refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom. Aviva Investors Canada, Inc. (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) as a Portfolio Manager, an Exempt Market Dealer, and a Commodity Trading Manager. Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to: Compliance Department, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250, Chicago, IL 60606.

Related views