Approval of Report on Bill Against “Fair Share” Reinforces Defense of Net Neutrality
At a public hearing held on December 3 to discuss Bill No. 469/2024 – which prohibits charging fees for the use of Internet infrastructure – a key development was the approval of Congresswoman Sylvie Alves’ (União Brasil/GO) report in favor of the Bill. Her report acknowledges that implementing a network tax does not resolve the structural issues in the telecommunications sector and could ultimately harm Brazilian society.
During the debate at the CCO hearing, Alessandro Molon, representing the Open Internet Alliance (AIA), and Mauricélio Oliveira, president of the Brazilian Association of Internet and Telecommunications Providers (ABRINT), presented compelling arguments against the proposal, exposing economic misconceptions and the risks to net neutrality.
Alessandro Molon criticized the central premise of fair share: the claim that content providers do not contribute to network infrastructure costs. He described this notion – which labels content providers as “free riders” – as a false justification for unnecessary state intervention.
Molon highlighted that data traffic growth is not exponential, as major telecom companies claim, and is actually slowing down, consistent with data presented by Lucas Gallitto, a GSMA representative. He argued that telecom operators' profits are sufficient to finance infrastructure, but these companies have prioritized distributing dividends, which continue to increase annually.
Molon further warned that a network tax would undermine net neutrality, raise costs for consumers, and degrade Internet quality. He cited South Korea as a cautionary example, where a similar policy led to higher costs, poorer service quality, and the withdrawal of major content providers from the market.
Mauricélio Oliveira provided the perspective of small and medium-sized Internet providers, who serve communities neglected by large operators. He refuted the notion that traffic issues justify fair share, describing the relationship between small providers and content platforms as symbiotic.
Oliveira emphasized that small providers already make significant investments in infrastructure, such as fiber optic networks, to ensure quality user experience. He argued that imposing a network fee would be redundant, as providers already pay to maintain their networks. Comparing fair share to a “highway toll,” Oliveira explained that such a fee would add unnecessary costs to a service already paid for, ultimately harming consumers.
The arguments from Molon and Oliveira made it clear that fair share is not a viable solution to the challenges facing Brazil's telecommunications sector. The real solution lies in more efficient resource management by operators, with a focus on innovation and digital inclusion, rather than penalizing content providers and consumers. In a country where Internet access and quality remain challenges, fair share represents a regressive step.
The approval of Sylvie Alves’ report marks an important milestone in safeguarding an open and accessible Internet in Brazil, free from measures that threaten net neutrality. While the debate on fair share is ongoing, growing resistance to the measure is crucial to protecting consumer rights and the future of the Internet in the country.
To access the recording of the full hearing, click here.