Telecom Giants vs. Everyone Else: Replicating the Polarization of the European Fair Share Consultation in Brazil
The National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) has followed the lead of the European Commission by initiating a public consultation to hear the voices within the ecosystem regarding the cost-sharing policy.
Considering solely the contributions submitted through the official website (without assessing those sent through other channels, which are yet to be disclosed), the consultation has garnered a total of 37 responses.
Mirroring the situation seen in the European public consultation, Brazil finds itself in the same scenario. On one side, advocating for cost-sharing from a technical standpoint, are the telecommunications operators. On the opposing side stands the broader ecosystem, voicing critiques of the proposal.
The primary—perhaps the sole—argument put forth by telecommunications sector companies revolves around the vast volume of data traffic generated on the network by large corporations, commonly referred to as “big tech.” Consequently, these telecom companies argue that these entities should shoulder a form of “toll” to fund the physical telecommunications infrastructure.
In contrast, other submissions focus on fundamental aspects of how the Internet functions. They underscore that there exists no direct competition between “telecoms” and “big tech” precisely because these represent distinct and mutually complementary economic sectors. These submissions also question the assertion of insufficient infrastructure investment on the part of telecom companies, highlighting the potential perils associated with implementing such a policy. These dangers range from network fragmentation and the erosion of net neutrality to direct harm to users, impacting both the cost of content access and overall access quality.
Please refer to the positions articulated in the 43* contributions submitted to Anatel:
* Sum of contributions received via the subsidy website (37) and public access to Anatel’s SEI system documents (6). However, an error on the public consultation website makes it impossible to download all the contributions. Therefore, all available contributions have been analyzed here.
Stakeholder | Institution | Position |
Academia | Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society | Against |
Civil Society | ISOC (Brazilian Chapter) & ITS Rio | Against |
Civil Society | EFF | Against |
Civil Society | Internet Society | Against |
Civil Society | Epicenter.Works | Against |
Civil Society | Coalition for Digital Rights | Against |
Civil Society | IRIS | Against |
Civil Society | IDEC | Against |
Technical Sector | FENINFRA | In favor |
Technical Sector | CCIA | Against |
Technical Sector | ITI | Against |
Technical Sector | Information Technology Industry Council | Against |
Application Layer | Abrint | Against |
Application Layer | Solintel | Against |
Application Layer | Câmara-e.net | Against |
Application Layer | Akamai in Brazil | Against |
Application Layer | Meta | Against |
Application Layer | Google Brasil | Against |
Application Layer | Abranet | Against |
Application Layer | Motion Picture Association | Against |
Application Layer | ALAI | Against |
Application Layer | Vero S.A. | Against |
Application Layer | SENAI | Against |
Application Layer | ACT/The App Association | Against |
Application Layer | Netflix | Against |
Application Layer | Brazilian Association of Television Programmers | Against |
Operators | Abert | Against | | |
Operators | ASIET | In favor | | |
Operators | Oi S.A. | In favor | | |
Operators | Claro S.A. | In favor | | |
Operators | Telefônica S.A. | In favor | | |
Operators | GSMA | In favor | | |
Operators | TIM S.A. | In favor | | |
Operators | TelComp | In favor | | |
Operators | Conexis | In favor | | |
Operators | Vrio Corp. | In favor | | |
Below are the primary arguments presented in the consultation by those opposing the policy:
Civil Society
ISOC (Brazilian Chapter) & ITS Rio: “The cost-sharing initiative undermines free enterprise, exacerbates power concentration, and compromises service quality across the spectrum.”
Internet Society – ISOC Global: “The introduction of a mandatory payment model would directly contradict and be incompatible with these obligations, to the direct detriment of consumers.”
Network Rights Coalition – CDR: “It is unacceptable that ANATEL intends to expand Internet access in Brazil by adopting measures that will escalate operating costs and create conditions favoring commercial agreements.”
Brazilian Internet Association – Abranet: “ANATEL’s move into the applications layer, without taking into account the current regulatory framework and without the proper legislative authorizations, would not only violate competences but also constitute an inappropriate and disproportionate measure in relation to the fundamental principle of freedom of expression, and thus, an illegal measure on its merits.”
Instituto de Referência em Internet e Sociedade – IRIS: “We consider that the present regulatory initiative unlawfully exceeds the Agency’s jurisdiction.”
Private Sector:
Meta: “In Brazil, Meta invests in infrastructure such as submarine cables, terrestrial fiber optic networks, and edge networks. These investments enhance capacity and network resilience, resulting in lower wholesale prices, which will assist Brazilian telecom service providers in saving several billion dollars by 2028.”
Motion Picture Association: “The imposition of an additional financial obligation would diminish the resources available for content development, thereby reducing the availability and quality of works offered to consumers.”
Google Brasil: “The current debate on network usage charges rekindles an old argument that has been consistently rejected.”
Netflix: “It is widely recognized that the growth in data traffic benefits telecommunications services because the expansion and development of networks are made possible, through consumer payments, by the growth in application and content offerings.”
Technical Sector:
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA): “In addition to violating net neutrality principles, requiring additional payments from VAS providers with the highest traffic volumes, who have already made significant capacity investments themselves, is doubly unjust.”
Lawyers:
Manesco, Ramires, Perez, Azevedo Marques Sociedade de Advogados: “Such fees would amount to a violation of the principle of net neutrality, a fundamental tenet within the Brazilian legal framework, which must be upheld as long as the Marco Civil da Internet remains in effect.”