17/01/2018 BBC Business Live

This is Business Live from BBC News

with Ben Thompson and Sally Bundock.

The bosses of Facebook,

Twitter and YouTube face a grilling

over the spread of extremist

material on the internet.

Live from London, that's our top

story on Wednesday 17th January.

As the internet giants go

from strength to strength,

do they need to play a greater role

in tackling extremism?

That's the question they'll face

in Washington today.

Also on the grapevine...

as protectionist policies over wine.

And we'll be getting a bird's eye

view on the world of aerial imagery.

We'll be speaking to the boss

of a company helping businesses

manage acres of land from the skies.

Today we want to hear

whether you think the social media

giants are facing enough scrutiny?

Should they face greater

censorship or is this

an invasion of free speech?

Let us know.

Just use the hashtag BBCBizLive.

Bosses of YouTube, Facebook

and Twitter will attend a hearing

in the US later aimed at tackling

the spread of extremist

content online.

All three of the platforms have

already taken measures to prevent

terrorist propaganda but politicians

around the world say

more needs to be done.

Last year, Facebook said it plans

to boost its team of moderators

by more than 3,000.

And Google says it'll increase

the number of people monitoring

content to a total of 10,000.

Meanwhile Twitter has already

removed around a million accounts

related to terrorism.

It's a big concern for

governments around the world.

In Germany for example,

firms can be fined over $60 million

if they fail to take

down extremist material.

In the UK, ministers have suggested

tech giants could face punitive

taxes if they don't do more

in the fight against terrorism.

With me is Richard Kramer,

Founder and Managing

Partner, Arete Research.

Good morning. What will be achieved

at this hearing, if anything?

I

don't think much will come out of it

other than the thundering of

politicians over the role of social

media. I think those companies are

playing, running a very fine line

between being traditional

publishers, which they really are,

and saying that they are simply

neutral platforms for conversation.

This is the difficulty. We can't

seem to come to a conclusion across

the board with regards to the answer

to this issue. Ben was talking about

what companies will do to monitor

material on their platforms, as it

were, but how do we solve the

problem?

There are two parts to the

problem. Part of it gets solved why

it being commercial issues for the

companies. Twitter has sales that

are down despite the Trump effect

they were expecting. They are not a

brand safe platform given people can

anonymously say almost anything on

the platform. Looking at a company

like Facebook, they have wrestled

mightily this year with their role

in elections and the spread of fake

news. They have pledged to self

regulate. What politicians will be

looking for is whether these

companies will be serious about

their commitment to regulate their

own platforms, or they will have to

step in themselves. .

The issue with

Facebook, we will wait to see what

Robert Mueller will find out, who is

leading the special investigation

into US elections and possible

interference from Russia. Where do

we end up in terms of how the

platforms will be managed, if they

are managed at all, and by whom.

Will it be an outside body or an

onus on the companies themselves,

and if it is, at what expense will

it be to them?

In terms of the

expense, it's something the

companies can afford. Google has

$100 billion of net cash, Facebook

has about $40 billion. It doesn't

come from the traditional stream of

revenue, like the BBC. I'm sure when

you started as a journalist you were

given strict instructions about the

type of language you could use on

air. Those platforms have not

restricted themselves in the name of

free speech on the conversation they

want to have.

The people using those

platforms are not employees of the

organisation. As a BBC employee I

have a duty of care. Somebody

putting out a tweet doesn't have any

sense of that. It's just sharing

their opinion.

Looking at Google for

example in the United States, they

do offer a television service, and

in that sense they are a traditional

publisher. These companies behave

very much as traditional publishers

do, but they don't want to have the

same regulatory regime or

obligations as traditional

publishers do. I think it's only a

matter of time before there is some

balance struck between the public

content and what is separated out as

the comments of individuals on the

platforms, in the same way as you

have rules for comments sections on

newspapers.

Thank you for your

analysis and thoughts, Richard. It's

a tricky problem to try to resolve.

We would like your ideas and

comments and thoughts. A lot of you

getting in touch already, keep them

coming in.

Let's take a look at some

of the other stories

making the news...

British luxury brand Burberry has

reported a 2 percent drop in revenue

for the three months

to end of December.

It comes after sales in Europe

slipped against a year ago,

when a fall in the pound helped it

perform well in its home market.

Nestle will sell its US

confectionery business to Ferrero

for almost $3 billion as it focuses

on healthier products.

The Italian company beat out Hershey

and others for the candy unit,

which includes brands

like Crunch and Butterfinger.

The maker of Nutella will now

become the world's third

largest chocolate company.

Nestle says it wants to focus

on bottled water and baby

food for future growth.

Ford has reported earnings

for last year that came

in below expectations.

And its forecast for this year

is also lower than forecast.

The car maker's shares

fell more than 2%

in after hours trading.

The firm said higher costs

for metals and other materials,

as well as currency

volatility, could cost it

$1.6 billion this year.

Australia has filed a trade

complaint against Canada

to the World Trade Organization,

over its strict rules

on imported wine.

This follows a similar complaint

by the United States last year

over the same issue.

Leisha Santorelli is in

Singapore with more on this.

It's interesting how so many people

can get so animated about wine, but

it's a big export for Australia.

Absolutely, both the US and

Australia want equal access to

Canada's wine market because it is

worth an estimated $7 billion. A

very important market for them. The

complaint by Australia about Canada

to the WTO is the first time they

have done it in the history of the

organisation. Canada is Australia's

fourth biggest wine market, and in

the complaint Australia complains a

number of provinces in Canada

discriminate against wines produced

overseas. The provinces in question

are British Columbia, Ontario,

Quebec and Nova Scotia. Many

provinces implementing higher prices

as well as sales taxes on imported

wine. In British Columbia for

example, imported wine has to be

sold in a separate section of the

supermarket. Basically, it's a store

within a store and it even has a

separate cash registers, so it might

prevent people going to buy foreign

wine. Australia's Trade Minister, in

the complaint, in the press release,

has said Canada's protectionist

policies has the potential to

threaten jobs in Australia and so

under WTO rules, because of the

complaint, Canada has 60 days to

settle it before it can be escalated

further.

They just need to sit down

over a bottle of wine and sort it

out.

Hong Kong stocks hit their highest

ever level in late trade

on Wednesday, a day after posting

a record close despite losses

on Wall Street, where investors

cashed in after a strong run of data

and ever-rising markets.

In Europe - expected to follow that

downbeat mood from Wall Street too -

suggesting we might see some sort

of pullback from those record

highs we've seen of late.

The US market given a boost by the

tax cut in the United States.

And in the back of the mind

of investors is the potential US

government shutdown at the weekend -

if the row over budgets

doesn't get resolved.

A small dip in oil prices also

one to keep an eye on.

More on that ina moment,

but first Samira has

the details about what's ahead

on Wall Street today.

On Wednesday, the US

Federal Reserve, America's central

bank, will release the beige book.

It is published in advance of Fed

meetings and is reallly

a compilation of economic conditions

as reported by each Federal Reserve

Bank across the country.

So why is it called the beige book?

Well, the cover is beige, of course.

Bank earnings continue on Wednesday

with Goldman Sachs and Bank

of America reporting.

Trading revenues are expected to be

weaker but most analysts are pretty

optimistic about banking as a whole.

One reason of course

is the continued economic growth

and the Federal Reserve continuing

to raise interest rates.

The other big factor contributing

to better results for banks

is the passage of the tax reform.

We were just having a chuckle over

her explanation of the beige book. I

didn't know that, and I'm the

central bank geek!

I knew it but I

have spent a lot of time stood

outside the Federal reserve.

There

is a lot going on, as ever. What's

catching your attention? A lot of

people watching Bond markets right

now.

That seems to be where investor

attention is right now. They have

been very quiet over the last few

years and have done very well as

investors focus on a middle view

outcome. Some of those factors seem

to be changing and bond markets are

weakened since the year end and

investors are focused on that. As

our governments, given as the price

of money they are borrowing gap.

If

bond markets are weakened, what's

the impact?

It increases the price

of money for governments. So they

have to pay more to settle their

debts. Governments have been

borrowing cheaply for a long time.

But every bit of borrowing in the

private sector is priced of the

government bond rate and that rate

has gone up in the last few weeks.

That is the centre of attention for

investors, as to whether it's an

opportunity to buy, or whether it's

a turnaround from 20 years of bond

market strengths and we have seen.

A

word on Carillion as the saga

continues. The fallout of supplies.

Inter service is a firm that is very

similar to Carillion.

It does some

very similar things, particularly in

the support service side. There is a

lot of focus on that business. Some

of it is the nature of the business.

Long-term contracts can be quite low

margin so in essence those companies

are guessing how the contract will

progress over the length and there

is a lot of debate how one accounts

for the contract. They are different

companies, but at the end of the

day, it's the nature of that sort of

business, and it's under some

scrutiny at the moment.

Richard, you

will be back later in the programme

to talk about all sorts. We have

lots of interesting stories coming.

Still to come...

We'll tell you how you can keep

a close eye on your business

from thousands of miles away.

You're with Business

Live from BBC News.

Let's get more on the Carillion

story.

It's deadline day for private

contractors who supplied

construction firm Carillion,

which collapsed on Monday.

48 hours later,

they are having government support

withdrawn, leaving some

with huge unpaid bills.

BBC business correspondent

Jonty Bloom joins us now.

Talk us through this end of

deadline, what does it mean?

It

basically means people working on

private sector projects are left

swinging in the wind. They don't

know if they will be paid. They

don't know who will take over the

contract. It's very worrying for

them. And also many subcontractors

for Carillion, and there will have

been thousands, if not tens of

thousands, will be looking at its

books and basically what the

accountants are saying is they will

be lucky if they get 1p in the pound

of the money Carillion owes them.

They will have to write off all that

money they were due from the company

they were expecting to earn, because

they will not get it.

In the

meantime, shares in Interserve have

fallen today.

It's difficult to say

if they will be the next Carillion,

but they are a similar company and

they have also put out a profits

warning. The similarity ends there.

Carillion had expanded very rapidly,

with large overseas contracts that

hadn't been paid. They ran out of

money and the banks and government

refused to support it any further.

It went very quickly from a company

that people thought was worth

hundreds of millions, if not

billions, to a company that owed

billions of pounds. No sign that

Interserve is like that, but the

worry is most of Carillion's value

was those contracts. When it's

turned out the contracts were not

making money, the value plummeted

very quickly.

Thank you so much. Jonty Bloom, one

of our team in the business unit

trying to stay on top of this

Carillion story.

Speaking on Radio 4 this morning,

Carillion executives should forego

their bonuses. It seems incredible

this is even being spoken about but

the shadow Chief Secretary to the

Treasury has adjusted that should be

the case, they say they are owed

them, but he is then the moral point

is that they should not take their

bonuses. The full interview is on

the website.

You're watching Business Live.

Our top story - bosses of YouTube,

Facebook and Twitter will attend

a hearing in the US aimed

at tackling the spread

of extremist content online.

All three of the platforms

have already taken measures

to prevent terrorist propaganda

but politicians around the world say

more needs to be done.

What if there was a sort of baby

monitor for businesses

that allowed companies to check up

on their projects, even if they're

not on site to see them?

Our next guest has a firm that lets

companies do just that.

It uses the latest technology

to access more than 150 earth

satellites from commercial operators

that can curate 10 million square

kilometres of new images every day.

The construction industry is key

to their client base.

They monitor more than 15,000

construction sites over

the Middle East, North Africa,

China, North America and Europe.

With us is Corentin Guillo,

the founder and Chief

Executive of Bird.i.

Nice to see you. Thanks for coming

in. As soon as I heard about your

company today and read the

information, I thought, why do I

need you?

There is Google maps. I

think that's a good question and one

we ask, but what you have to keep in

mind is that that is just a snapshot

of the planet and the data is very

out of date. In the main cities in

the world, the data is replaced

every six months, outside cities,

every two years and outside that,

every five years. We have satellites

which are available but not access

markets.

Give us an example of where

this would be useful.

The

satellites, I think it is

interesting to understand how the

satellites work. They orbit around

the Earth on a global basis, but

they also depend on weather

conditions. He could get access to

satellite images all over the world

but the countries in the Middle East

are good for this because the

weather is good. At the start of the

bird.i story, we discovered that

construction companies in the Middle

East are really ready for this

technology because the market there

is growing so quickly that they

cannot keep up-to-date with it.

We

have been looking at pictures of the

Middle East and when you see a

construction site, you can zoom

right in and see what work has been

done, what is still outstanding. But

why can't you use something like

Skype? They could hold it up on the

ground and show you? What do you get

from this that you can't get from

other technology.

I think the main

value of this is that its evidence.

You have a photo that shows you what

it looks like today and you cannot

argue with this. It takes a lot of

time to call contractors if you have

15,000 sites. With the satellite

imagery and the information we

extract, you have an up-to-date view

of the site and you are also told

when the site starts and stops to

progress.

When you told me about the

costs of it, I must admit, I

thought, wow, that's expensive. But

to an individual, it's expensive,

but to businesses, it's not really,

is it, in terms of what it is saving

them?

No. For individuals, they are

not educated to start using this

type of business because they have

Google maps and that is enough. But

for businesses, using this

differently, consuming the images

could cost you 5000. We have a

system where people can subscribe

and then they pay the one price to

find all the images.

You are a

Frenchman he decided to start your

company in Scotland? Why?

When I

started the company, I moved from

being at the London Oxford area to

Scotland because they build more

spacecraft than any whereas in the

world. They have fantastic

universities and talent there and I

knew I could not do this on my own.

Richard Dunbar, our other guest in

the wings is cheering what you just

said.

The Scotland connection.

Thanks very much for coming in. It's

been absolutely fascinating.

We are going to talk more about what

is in the newspapers, specifically

about the US and how the tax cuts

that are affecting people. Before

that, how you can get in touch with

us.

Stay up-to-date on the BBC's

business live page with information

from our team of editors right

around the globe. We also want to

hear from you. Get involved on the

BBC's business live page.

Business live, on TV and online.

What you need to know, when you need

to know.

So, we asked you to get involved and

you have done today. It has been

brilliant to your views on our top

story which has been about the likes

of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube

getting a grilling in the United

States about extremist material on

their platforms.

What have people been saying? Trevor

says, no, no more regulation because

who defines what is extremist?

Another one said would it really

sells the problem because then

another one just springs up. If you

regulate one, you have to regulate

them all.

Lies shouldn't be unchallenged,

assuming all of the material is

false, some of it is not.

Another one says terrorism is go too

wired now for anything to generate

clicks.

More on that later when they are

called to account over the spread of

online extremist content.

Richard is back, as promised. Why

are Facebook, Twitter etc in the

news for other reasons today?

They

are very well run companies, we all

use their products, but there is a

lot of focus today on the media

power that they have and whether

that power is being properly used. I

think the regulators are firmly

parked on these company's lawns and

what's important is that these

companies have led to the rise in

the markets Wall Street, and if that

charge was to falter at all, that

would have implications for the

broader stock market.

They certainly

have led the charge, there is no

doubt about that. The share price

increase last year was quite

something. With those in your

portfolio, you'd be loving, wouldn't

you? Their profits have followed. I

know Twitter, our previous guest was

saying is not doing so well, but the

rest of them are, aren't they?

They

are. You are absolutely right. We

are starting to see profits and cash

being generated by these companies

and expectations of decent profits

and cash flow going forwards. If

regulators and politicians tanks are

parked on the lawns, that is a

problem for these companies, I

suspect.

Shall we talk about the

Markel sparkle, as it is being

called?

The story is that what

Meghan Markle wares will drive

business.

How do they work this out?

I suspect it would be getting rather

than forecasting.

I know the wedding

well contribute to the economy but

the point of this article is that it

overtakes Kate Middleton.

Time will

towel. It is interesting that both

Kate and Meghan, the whole group

have used that power to promote

British business and expertise, they

recognise the power they have and I

think they have used it well over

the years.

What are you going to be

doing on maybe...

Maybe 18?

I'm not sure. I should have

researched it.

It is a Saturday, isn't it, so no

day off.

No, we are not getting a day off.

That would have boosted the economy.

Or maybe it wouldn't.

I await

instructions on what I am doing on

that day.

Did you find out the date?

No, I didn't.