emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." musk on the defense. he claims that sec has violated his constitutional right to greece feedback coming down on his tweets. plus i'm a boeing facing a global crisis as more governments around the world ground is best-selling 737 max jet after a second deadly crash. and our exclusive and wide-ranging conversation with

former u.k. prime minister tony blair, weighing in on brexit, big tech, and calls to break up silicon valley's biggest players. tesla ceo elon musk is defending a pair of tweets he sent last month. in february he tweeted that the electric carmaker would make about 500,000 cars this year. a few hours later he revised that tweet saying i'm a meant to say annualized production rate probably around 500,000, i.e. 10,000 cars per week. delivery still estimated to be about 400,000. judge holding him in contempt. -- he said he has to manically decreased his tweeting so as not to get into unnecessary disputes with the sec. joining us is craig, who covers the company for us. his team filed a 140 page response. what is the argument here?

looked prettyt straightforward, where the settlement required for any information that could be reasonably considered material that musk had to go to the company and ask for preapproval to send it from his twitter feed , and tesla and musk don't deny the sec's land that he didn't get preapproval for the tweet that you mentioned earlier. so it seemed pretty straightforward. and his that musk lawyers are making are the first amendment argument you laid out, but also, they take issue with the idea that the tweet was material. the say there was in a reaction in the stock, which i can attest to. i remember when it went out, and the wasn't much movement in how the shares were trading. one thing that undercuts musk's argument is that he sent the

second follow-up tweet. make the argument they were just doing that out of an abundance of caution and point to that is evidence they are taking the settlement seriously, but the sec is saying no, you didn't get this preapproved. statement, he said yes to manically decreased his tweeting, not because he's concerned about noncompliance, but because he wants to err on the side of caution to avoid unnecessary disputes with the sec. isn't that another sideways job at the sec? it is, and it doesn't square with the way musk has been acting. it's the same guy who went on 60 minutes and said he doesn't have respect for the sec. or recently, when the sec sought to hold him in contempt of this settlement, he went on the attack again. when he says he has been proceeding with caution are trying to be careful about

getting into unnecessary disputes, he sure is getting into a lot of disputes. it doesn't really square that, there is one argument he made that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. what are the sort of penalties that he could be facing here? bethe extreme end, could he barred from running tesla or any public company? that was thend punishment the sec initially sought back in september. it only took until the next day, you saw the shares plunge on friday, and by saturday, a settlement was reached. so clearly, it is well-established that this would cause a huge negative reaction for tesla. you would think the sec, as seriously as they may be taking the case, would keep that in mind in terms of what it is seeking for punishment here and would maybe sort of guard

against seeking that again, because one of the criticisms that musk and folks who are following this case and taking his side are saying is that the sec is supposed to be looking out for the investor, and by sort of over pursuing musk and seeking to bar him from serving as an executive at the company would maybe be a punishment that would not fit the crime in this case. emily: so that is perhaps a less likely option in the interest of shareholders. thanks for keeping us updated on that story. meantime, uber has been ordered to pay $20 million to settle california lawsuits over whether its drivers are employees or independent contractors. turned on whether drivers were forced by the contracts to resolve conflicts by arbitration and prevented from joining class-action lawsuit. last year, the supreme court boasted the power of employers to -- to force individual users

off arbitration. talk about the origin of these employment claims. grexit are many suits that uber is settling, i would say for a bargain -- >> there are many suits over is settling. the essential suit was brought in 2013. this is a time when uber was just getting rolling in san francisco. there is tension over whether they should be treated as employees, or independent contractors, as uber has maintained all along. that is the origin of the central suit. emily: the lawsuits were promising. why are they getting away with settling for a bargain? >> in one word, it's arbitration. gorsuch,help of neil appointed by donald trump, with the ruling that has upheld it's arbitration agreements. so uber has made it difficult to opt out of arbitration. if you want to work for uber,

the general course for most people is they sign the agreement, they start working, and they are bound by arbitration, meaning they cannot take their cases for their conflicts support. they cannot band together in class actions. they have to fight one on one behind closed doors of arbitration. courts have consistently upheld uber's right to do that. that is the weapon they have used to like these lawsuits. these lawsuits. emily: there was a ruling that contractor should be treated as employees. joel: that's right. if you are a driver for uber, hoping to get the benefits of employees one day, this is now your big hope. it's a california supreme court ruling last year that the court said applies broadly throughout the economy. it is still early on that ruling, and cases are working their way up.

companyis taking the public, this is the one concerned that people have maybe not paid enough attention to for the business model going forward. emily: so happy that ruling affect uber? joel: the same way this case did, but it's more difficult for uber to get out from under the dynamics ruling. the relationship you have at your drivers, under that relationship, these drivers are employees and they are entitled benefits under dynamics. it's much more rigorous and difficult for uber to get out from underneath with arbitration. emily: what about the broader politics of the economy? employersall these that employee many contractors. joel: this is the case we are talking about that was settled that many looked to for the broader economy.

now the case is against grubhub. a keyummer we will have hearing, they are looking at the grubhub case and the rulings we've been discussing as the economy isow the gig going to sort out. driverso the fight for to get employee status and the benefits that come with it is ongoing, is that what you are saying? joel: it's not over. it's going to continue, and i think it will be a more fierce fight. uber is glad to have this one done, put it aside, and go public for a bargain and fight the fight down the road. appreciate your breaking down these complex legal issues for a spirit you will keep us posted on these other rulings to come. facebook removed and then restored several ads placed by u.s. senator elizabeth warren's presidential campaign monday.

the ads promote her plan to break up tech giants like facebook, amazon, and google. the social media company said the ads i laded its corporate local use policy. said, let's start with their ability to shut down there -- a debate over whether they have to much power. i want a social media marketplace it isn't dominated by single sensor. facebook restore the posts for the sake of, they said, robust debate. sided with cruz also warren, saying first time of ever retweeted elizabeth warren, but she is right. big tech has way too much power to silence free speech. they shouldn't be censoring warren are anybody else. a serious threat to our democracy. a debate we will continue to have here on our show. coming up, regulators around the globe are halting flights of the boeing 737 max, after a second

deadly crash. president trump is weighing in, saying commercial aircraft or to modern. that is next -- commercial aircraft are too modern. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: around the globe come the issue of tech regulation has been a major platform for politicians. i caught up with former u.k. prime minister tony blair and ask him if he thinks big tex needs more regulation. -- big tech needs more regulation. they see these be companies, these wealthy people who run them, and they target the

company's and target the technology as something that is going to disrupt and change our lives in ways that we cannot control and is basically a bad thing. my view is the technological revolution is a fact, but if anything, it is essentially a good thing. but we have to deal with its consequences. emily: later in the hour we will have much more of my exclusive conversation with former u.k. prime minister tony blair, including his thoughts on brexit. investigators are still piecing together by an ethiopian plunged boeing 737 max to the ground minutes after takeoff on sunday as regulators around the globe are opting for cautious that for caution. countries around the world have boeingd the planes while is still confident in the jets. tweet, i see it all the time in many products, always

seeking the one unnecessary step further when often old and simpler is far better. split-second decisions are needed and complexity creates danger, all of this for great cost yet very little gain. i don't know about you, but i don't want albert einstein to be my pilot. our guest joins us from new york. is there any truth to the president's assertion about technological risks to modern flying? is perhaps he picking up on the issue that's being blamed for the first crash of the 737 max, the line air crash back in october. aat is being blamed there is flight control system that boeing put in place to sort of a loss of the risk of lift in the airplanes. they moved the engines of higher

onto the airplane to a comedy the fact that they are larger, although more fuel-efficient. that system. faulty sensor data that triggered it up and caused the plane to die down. in that respect he does sort of have a point in that the system was thrown off the normal operations of the airplane and that were manual overrides were more difficult to execute than should have been necessary. pushback fromt of pilot saying they were not properly trained on all the features of the system and did not have the methods in place to do what they needed to do. the counterpoint would be that innovation a good thing, research is a good thing. it's a more fuel-efficient plane that supposed to be safer and smarter. all the technological advances that allow us to be very comfortable flying, i think are a good thing. emily: now you have multiple countries around the world grounding these planes and yet still not, the u.s. faa, one

a rebellioning it against the faa. how unprecedented is this? it is extremely unprecedented. you remember the 787 where they had those battery buyers and they did come out and ground those planes in that incident. unique, you have to wonder at what point it starts to reflect on the global worldview of the trump administration. it's sort of a rebuff of the faa's word to say you may think this is air worth it, but we are going to find out for ourselves. which is telling and a stunning statement on the part of the world. emily: what do you think needs to happen in order to make flyers and investors more comfortable with the technology on these planes? is this a huge setback, even though we don't know the cause of this crash? brooke: i think the groundings could be a positive thing for knowing and for general liar

confidence. if boeing wanted -- general flyer confidence. we still don't have much information about the ethiopian airlines crash, but why not play it safe? on the groundnes until we figure out what happened because we want everyone to fill comparable and confident in getting aboard these aircraft. was the 787 grounding, that thought to be disastrous at the time it happened and there were all these doom and gloom predictions. that did not come to fruition. has a stellar safety record. i don't think grounding is necessarily a death sentence. what would be is if you did have any type of tragic accident occur in the u.s. among the airlines that are still flying these planes. emily: i'm looking at the map on flight aware right now of the airlines still flying these planes in the united states. american, southwest, dozens of them are in the air right now.

the black boxes have been found and we are just waiting for investigators to determine the cause. in the meantime we will see how other countries and governments respond. thank you so much for that update. by 2025, india is set to be the world's third-largest economy, and venture capital firms are anxious to get in on the growth. what trends are they seeing in india? .nd check us out on the radio this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: india is coming online at an exponential rate, growing from 200 million to 500 million users in just three years giving investors are jumping at the opportunity to be part of that growth. lightspeed india partners has raised $310 million and with six

partners, has become one of the largest bc teams in india. now it's starting to see some of its investment spread globally. >> we started investing in india as lightspeed about 12 years ago. as the opportunity opened up, we decided we would start dedicated funds for the region. as we saw mobile growth really exploding and leading to the internet growth you just spoke about. emily: the growth has been astounding. in 2020.be 700 million how do you even begin to assess the opportunities? , or isy just exploding it pretty obvious where you should be putting your money? >> it feels like it. the same time you have internet growth exploding, you have a cycle of bp entrepreneurs in the

market that are forming from some of the more scale companies. and you have more and more risk capital available. you have the intersection of multiple different things happening. what we are beginning to see and are excited by is that technology is making its way into every industry. it can be commerce and retail, hospitality, one of our companies is doing a great job there. logistics, ridesharing, transportation, media. a lot of the things we have seen in other large digital economies is beginning to happen in india. emily: big u.s. e-commerce and commerce companies have taken an interest in india. amazon has taken an interest. how has their arrival impacted your job? net positivea

thing. as early stage investors, we want to build companies that ultimately will get public or have some form of exit. the idea that there is downstream capital or strategic investors are buyers for these companies is a good thing. in thing i often say about india is on it is the world's next big digital economy. it is open, and that means capital and interest is coming in from all over the world. there are chinese strategic's and investors that are getting active. there's capital flowing in from all parts of the world. i think that is good, provided it is ultimately used in the right way, because too much capital can also be problematic. emily: doesn't their arrival threaten startups? centre elizabeth warren cause that area the kill zone where either you get bought by big tech companies, or you get killed, because they do it themselves. it can. if entrepreneurs in india are

replicating playbooks from other markets, then you run the risk of the original playbook writer showing up and running their playbook. it's going to be tough. the largest, most bible companies will be those who are built with a very india first mentality. appreciating the nuance of that market, writing the playbook for that market. we've seen that with some of our companies. when you build companies for that market, usually there are other folks that are doing what amazon and uber can do. emily: how does investing in india differ from investing in the united states? bejul: fundamentally, we do the same thing. we have to identify great founders early, going after big markets. the fundamentals remain the same . but the business models will vary in those markets. i will give you an example. if you take airbnb in hospitality. a thin layer, largely

technology, very scalable. doesn't get involved too much in ops. in a market like india, you need to go in and fix the supply and be prepared to do some heavy lifting. emily: how do you deal with the government bureaucracy, which is infinite in india, for slowing things down? bejul: regulation is always behind business models. that is part of our job in every market, to be honest. was electednt that a few years ago is more progressive with respect to business. we feel pretty positive on that front. emily: thank you so much for joining us. coming up, theresa may's brexit plan just failed again in parliament. we will hear what former u.k. prime minister tony blair had to say about the process.

we will get his thoughts on tech regulation and talk about the private space race heating up in one company that is taking on elon musk. this is bloomberg. ♪ want more from your entertainment experience?

just say teach me more. into your xfinity voice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome.

emily: this is bloomberg technology. i'm emily chang. u.k. prime minister theresa may's grexit deal was rejected by parliament on tuesday, from the country deeper into political crisis. members of parliament expected to vote wednesday to take a no deal option off the table, but former prime minister tony blair is not optimistic. i spoke to him earlier today about the brexit process. mr. blair: parliament will reject that because there has been a huge majority against no deal. i have said it is unlikely this will happen. frankly, we will be into an application for an extension to the process. emily: i spoke about the role of

tech in government as he wraps up a tour in silicon valley and asked about an op-ed where he said "populists of both left and right have risen in prominence and further search for scapegoats, tech is firmly in the firing line." take a listen to why this concerns him. mr. blair: politicians exploit people's anxiety about pace of change, the accelerating pace of change. these big companies, wealthy people that run them. they target the companies, the technology as something that is going to disrupt and change our lives in ways we cannot control, and it is basically a bad thing. my view is this technological revolution is a fact, but it is essentially a good thing. but, we have to deal with its consequences. if it is handled in the right way, it can change our lives in good ways and offer enormous opportunities. it is up to politics to address

how we access these opportunities and mitigate the risks because it will displace jobs. emily: you also say politicians who master the tech revolution will decide how the future looks like. how? mr. blair: if i am right in saying this technology revolution is the 21st century equivalent of the 19th century industrial revolution, if i'm right, look back at what the 19th century industrial revolution did. you change the way people lived, worked. in the end, it changed the laws. it changed politics. it changed everything. the first politicians that come along and understand it, master it, make sense of it and show how this can form a narrative of the future that is essentially optimistic, those are the ones that will succeed. emily: democratic presidential candidate u.s. senator elizabeth warren has proposed breaking up the biggest tech companies -- google, facebook, apple.

i assume you don't agree, but what do you think? mr. blair: i don't agree with her proposals but i think it is a really interesting speech. to be fair to her, it is a speech with an intellectual adherence to it. what it shows is where the democrat platform may well go, and exactly the same issues are going on in the u.k., europe. personally, i think a better way to dealing with it is to regulate them. having a regulator for these large tech companies. if you try to break them up, i am not sure that really works. if you try to slice them up, you will find difficulty in doing that. it is important always to understand one of the reasons these companies are so large, they are offering a service people want. yes, there are huge questions that arise, their dominance and their power, but there is a better way to regulate this in a way that has the public interest

put into the mix when we look at these companies in a structured way than think actually if you got them in three, you will create competition. emily: what does that regulation look like to hear, and should the u.s. take the lead of the eu? mr. blair: it is less about being tough, it is about the right ways to do it. it will be sensible given the huge competitive power of china in a.i. particularly, it will be sensible of europe and america work on this. emily: how so? mr. blair: did you create a more level playing field between europe and america, you would give people the opportunity to develop technologies of the future. it would allow these companies, these big companies, but other companies to grow. it would be sensible to have a transatlantic alliance on regulation of tech for the future. the purpose of it should not to

be tough on them. the purpose should be representing the public interest. there are public interest issues. the sensible thing rather than deciding each of these issues by either breaking them up -- i am not sure that would distort their power. if you broke them up, you might find you created three monopolies, not what. one. emily: do you believe they are monopolies? mr. blair: they are incredibly powerful. they will likely become even more powerful in time to come. i think a better way of doing it is doing in terms of how do we have the public interest into this? i think these companies -- where i think elizabeth warren is right, they are like utilities. they are utility platforms. the same way when electricity and the water industry and other things were created in the 19th century, they were created first in the private sector. in time, people said these are

utilities everyone depends on so they have to be publicly regulate it, in some cases, publicly owned. if they have that amount of power, there will be a demand from the public -- the public interest is taken into account. i think a better way of doing that is having regulators to work with those companies rather than break them up. emily: facebook, for example, multiple scandals. compromised the data of millions of people. many apologies. mark zuckerberg has now said we will focus on privacy, on private communication. is that enough? mr. blair: i understand why he wants to do that, and privacy is obviously in issue. the central question is power. it is their power. they are powerful. if you look at their dominant position in advertising -- the role facebook will inevitably play in politics today. tot i think is -- you have

be responsible for everything that is happening. the truth is it is a joint responsibility. we have a public interest in making sure that they exercise their position responsibility, but we are also going to have to work with them to share that responsibility for the public policy point of view, because many of these questions whether it is hate speech or radicalization or child pornography, whatever it is, these are things that is obviously a public interest in sorting out. but, that public interest will require not just a company to behave responsibly, but a government to be alongside the process of that, making sure it is done in an effective way. emily: how can we trust the company's to understand and live up to the responsibility's? similarly, how can we trust government to not be mired in this political process as we see in the u.k. and u.s. and actually do something? mr. blair: the challenge is best addressed by a concept of public

interest regulation, and whether you do that for each individual company, you might. different issues arise. facebook, amazon and google, quite different questions arise. the bigger question is then what happens -- for example, if you take driverless cars, the next generation of cars are likely to be electric and in time driverless. this is going to change employment. it's going to change transport them. . it is probably going to change insurance. a massive series of implications. my point is this technology revolution is basically benign, because people will move to driverless cars, you reduce accidents and cost of travel, but it brings huge consequences. the role of government is to make sure the technologies and the risks and consequences that will be damaging, they will be

accounted. emily: cybersecurity experts are saying russian internet trolls are evolving. they are not creating their own propaganda to a different in the u.s. 2020 elections. they are creating fake accounts that promote propaganda to mask their identities. does that concern you? mr. blair: of course. we've got to get a real handle on it and expose it and sort it out. at this point in time, and the question for western policymakers, which is what is your sanction? at a certain point, are you going to retaliate? is it possible to get some form of agreement where countries come together and agree these things cannot happen? i think it is a difficult question. i'm not sure what the answer of the moment is, but for sure, it will become a major question because you will get -- by the way, what russia is doing could be followed by other countries. it's a completely new form of

warfare and a serious one. emily: how concerned are you about the rise of china in technology? mr. blair: very, but on the other hand, if i was chinese, i would say why shouldn't we be great in technology? we are going to be one of the most powerful countries in the world. our economy is going to be one of the largest, if not the largest. we are going to be a big political power. i would say, ok, i understand that, but i think the competition coming out of china -- it is a different political system -- it is all the more important that we as policymakers respond to this tech revolution in the right way. emily: is the rise of the chinese tech industry, in your view, an existential threat to western, liberal democracies? mr. blair: that is a very big statement to make. i think it poses challenges for us, for the moment. certainly, part of the policy debate that we've got to have is

how do we manage to maintain the technological edge? emily: you are meeting with companies. who are you interested in working with and what do you want to accomplish? mr. blair: i worked with companies large and small. what we are doing is creating within my institute a center to put changemakers and policymakers together in circumstances where we can bring a mutual understanding, and out of that should come what i call sensible policy. emily: my exclusive interview with warmer u.k. prime investor tony blair. coming up, spacex's satellite rival. how oneweb plans to win the race to create a space internet and beat out elon musk. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: satellite maker oneweb recently took the four steps towards its goal to building a space internet. using thousands of satellites to provide wi-fi access to everyone on the planet. ashley vance reports on oneweb in the latest edition of bloomberg businessweek. he joins us now. report on oneweb's very first launch of the heart of the amazon, how did that go? ashley: it was pretty interesting. guiana, the tip of south america. i have been covering oneweb for several years, waiting for them to get to this point. finally, they have launched the first six of what is meant to be 1980 satellites. emily: what exactly does oneweb

hope to accomplish? how are they taking on elon musk? ashlee: both companies, spacex and oneweb, are in this game to what you can call a space internet. basically today, there are about 3 billion people that cannot be reached by fiber-optic cables so they want the same internet that the rest of us enjoyed. these companies are racing to provide this. oneweb started out very much preaching this do-gooder type mission, of bringing the internet to people who don't have it. they tend to be in pretty poor and remote locations. oneweb has found out the service is very expensive to build, so some of the first customers they are talking about going after not is actually delivering high-speed internet to planes, cars, boats, and people that can afford to pay for this service when they are in a remote location. spacex and oneweb are racing after the same thing, and a

couple of other companies are doing this. emily: who is going to get there first? ashlee: spacex set up a couple of satellites last year. test satellites for its system. it is unclear right now how well those are working or where spacex is as far as mass-producing its satellite. in some sense, oneweb has the lead, they have six satellites that seem to be working. you also have to have these cheap antennas to receive the signals back on earth. you have to have spectrum available to run this service globally. it looks like oneweb is ahead just about everyone when you take all of these pieces together. keep talking a big game and say they are coming this year as well with hundreds of satellites. emily: there are some personal tension between the founder of oneweb and musk. tell us about that. ashlee: the founder of oneweb is this guy named greg weiler, a

pretty interesting character i have profiled over the years. that one point, he was basically working inside of google. when he first started thinking about this and in idea, it looked like he might build it in conjunction with google. at some point, he became friends with elon and they were talking about the space internet. it looked like all three of these groups might get together. as time went on, greg basically woke up one day and found out that spacex was determined to build its own space internet. oneweb had to run out and get people like richard branson's virgin group and softbank and qualcomm to fund its project. especially for greg weiler, this is on a personal level. this is some serious competition and he would like to get there before elon. emily: the amount of stuff being sent into space is rapidly

increasing. you write that current satellite orders would increase the amount orbiting earth five times over the next few years. what is all this other stuff doing? ashlee: i think we are at this interesting point with space and rockets and satellite that most people are not aware of, which is that the price of rockets have come down dramatically. there is a ton of small rocket companies that are starting to lunch like -- launch like rocket lab. the price of satellites have come way down from $1 billion to $100,000 for the small, shoebox size satellites. currently orbiting the earth, there are about 1500 satellites. if you look at the launch manifests of satellite companies like oneweb and spacex, that 1500 number over the next five years could go as high as, some people have it at 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 satellites

surrounding the earth. i sort of think of it as them building a type of computing shell that will surround the earth. it will be doing stuff like communication with the space internet. it will be taking pictures of the earth everyday. already, a company takes a picture of every spot on earth every single day. all kinds of new science will be taking place. yeah, i don't think most people are aware the skies are about to be filled with many, many times more satellites than we have ever seen before. emily: since you wrote the bio on elon musk, i have to ask you about the latest kerfuffle with the sec. sec asking musk to be held in contempt. him responding saying he has a constitutional right to free speech. meantime, this abrupt store closings. he announced he was going to close the stores and a week later, half the stores would remain open. what is your take on musk in

2019? big question. ashlee: it is an interesting time, for sure. i enjoyed the free-speech argument. you know, there is a part of elon that is so perplexing. that is kind of why he is on twitter doing all this stuff. it seems to create more problems for everyone. i think historically, he used twitter really well as a marketing tool. tesla does not buy any ads and elon had all the goodwill of people on twitter. shifted to where you still have some of that. then, you have elon going off into some pretty weird places and appearing to be -- he's perplexing to a lot of people, but this stuff, fighting the sec, that is classic elon. he is going to stick by what he

thinks is the right thing to do. but, i just have to say at some point, this is causing more harm then good overall for him. emily: yeah, you've got to wonder. we are covering every twist and turn. ashlee vance, thanks so much for joining us. check his latest story in bloomberg businessweek on new stance and online now. you can also hear from the magazine's top reporters and editors every weekend on bloomberg television, radio and bloomberg.com. still ahead, a sleeping criminal conspiracy of wealthy parents making bribes to college admissions is rocking many industries, from finance to entertainment and even tech. details ahead. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: foxconn billionaire

responded to outrage to a microsoft lawsuit tuesday. microsoft claiming foxconn owes loyalties to devices. responding, saying it is a personal attack to him and his company. >> i will say this now to microsoft -- you are afraid. if you have the guts, go and sue them. why push on the taiwanese contract manufacturer making such thin margins? michael after us? their goal is to go after public attention. why now? because the u.s. and china are about to sign a trade deal. emily: microsoft is claiming it is trying to merely enforce contractual commitments from its 2015 agreement with foxconn. parents, universities, coaches in college admission counselors among dozens charged in a sweeping criminal conspiracy that helps applicants win admission to elite universities. among those charged, the head of tpg business, he has been a

guest multiple times on this show. allegedly agreed to pay $50,000 to a charity with the understanding that his son's answers on the act exam would be corrected. the founder of dragon global management, which has invested in facebook and uber, was also accused of conspiring to bribe university officials to help his daughter game admission to the university of southern california. finally, it was 30 years ago that a british computer scientist turned in his proposal for what would become the world wide web. it came into the public consciousness with simple graphical webpages, chat rooms and aol disks. with the world wide web, the world was transformed. smartphone technology, social media, instant gratification but with all that came problems -- causing its creator to say this. >> whoops, the web is not the

web we wanted in every respect. emily: but, he also has plans to fix it all. >> the foundation is collaboratively building a contract for the web. bringing governments, companies and citizens together to commit to building a better web. we need your help to make this work. emily: let's hope this fix it all plan does not take another 30 years. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. on wednesday, we will sit down with roger maximin, elevation partners founder. we are live streaming on twitter @technology. follow our global breaking news network, tictoc, on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast.

haidi: welcome to daybreak australia. shery: i'm at bloomberg's royal headquarter -- global headquarters in new york. sophie: i'm sophie kamaruddin in hong kong. we are counting down asia's major markets open. ♪ here are the top stories. brexit blues. theresa may's revised deal is rejected again. the comments will now vote on deal or no deal. sterling heads for the eighth decline in nine sessions as may's plan collapses.