The debate about speed limits for fixed broadband internet is always controversial, but also important and necessary.
Since the beginning of 2016, when the debate about broadband internet data caps began in Brazil, much has happened and there have been numerous twists and turns. We initially went through the approval of internet speed limits for internet providers, and now there's the possibility of changes to the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) through Bill 7182/2017 , which adds another clause to the 13 items in Article 7 of the Bill of Rights, which consists of: " prohibiting the implementation of limited data caps in fixed broadband internet plans. "
In practice, the change prohibits providers from limiting or cutting off internet traffic consumption via fixed broadband and obliges them to always guarantee the same internet speed, according to the contracted speed, regardless of the consumption generated within a given period. This is the opposite of what currently happens in mobile telephony.
This change generated by Bill 7182/2017 does not apply to the General Telecommunications Law, but rather to the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil da Internet ), which is only three years old ( Law 12.965/2014 ). The Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights aims to "regulate the use of the Internet in Brazil by providing principles, guarantees, rights and duties for those who use the network, as well as determining guidelines for the State's actions".
This change could be one of the most significant in the telecommunications market since the current model was implemented almost 20 years ago.
What makes this change in legislation so significant is that, on the internet service provider side, only one form of fixed broadband marketing is now possible: through differentiation in connection speed . This is because the Marco Civil itself limited differentiation based on service quality, establishing principles of net neutrality.
The big problem is that this restriction has a general application, as it does not specify the size of the providers that must follow the rules, nor the technologies used to provide the service.
Therefore, internet data caps will affect everyone equally, from public internet providers to small and medium-sized regional providers, and large fiber optic internet providers in major urban centers. Similarly, it affects all technologies used: satellite broadband, radio access providers, fiber optics, pay-TV companies, and other existing and future means of internet connectivity.
The measure also does not foresee any analysis or review in the future. As we know, technology and the internet are constantly evolving; it is not possible to know today how services will be offered in the coming years, nor to gauge the network quality or infrastructure needed in the future.
This situation creates significant potential for future problems in the internet market, since the restriction applies generically and broadly to all internet providers and connection methods. Errors like this stem from a lack of analysis and debate among the stakeholders involved, in situations where it is necessary to assess the different scenarios and variations that exist.
In this case, we have politicians more concerned with catering to popular movements and using the situation for their own benefit than creating an efficient solution to the problem. We have Anatel , which, as a regulatory agency, has the responsibility to take a position on the matter, initially not opposing the internet data cap model, but ended up adopting a neutral stance, "washing their hands," to avoid negative public reaction regarding the speed limit for fixed broadband internet. And we also have the telecommunications companies and the entities that represent them, which failed by not presenting a set of information, practical proposals, and benefits for the market based on the fixed broadband internet data cap model.
The reality is that the internet service provider market is very broad and diverse. There are dozens of technologies, small regional providers to large national internet providers, varied types and different customer needs, distinct forms of competition in different markets, in addition to the numerous business model options that providers can follow.
For the performance of telecommunications activities, the Constitution itself defines that the rules to be followed in the provision of services are established in the General Telecommunications Law , which states that freedom prevails in the provision of services ("freedom is the rule"), also establishing a regulator (Anatel) for oversight. The Civil Rights Framework for the Internet itself ensures "the freedom of business models promoted on the internet, provided they do not conflict with the other principles established in this Law" for business activity in the market.
The debate now focuses precisely on altering the market principles and commercial practices established by law, in order to create a legal limitation on the activities of infrastructure companies, alleging a possible threat to consumer rights in the case of the application of franchises.
Considering that the internet data cap model is a common practice in mobile telephony, where operators offer numerous plan options and formats and impose restrictions with connection speed limits based on consumption, it is entirely inconsistent to not allow the application of data caps in fixed broadband telephony, both legally and according to the position of regulatory bodies and entities involved.
When analyzing this topic, one point to consider is the understanding that, with greater freedom in the telecommunications market, we can have healthy competition among providers and more alternatives in service offerings, with more internet plan options, a greater variety of services, and, above all, better quality in the provision of internet connection services.
Considering that access to quality internet is still a critical problem in Brazil, both in the corporate market and for residences, it would be up to the Government to seek ways to encourage the development of improvements in the telecommunications market, offering better infrastructure and subsidies for investment by providers. In Brazil, only half of households have fixed broadband internet and only 4% of connections are via fiber optics.
Another point worth addressing is that in Brazil, internet service providers are generally viewed as bad companies and criticized by the general public. Of course, many companies fail to offer quality service and satisfactory customer support, but part of this negative image is also due to the poor infrastructure in much of Brazil, the endless bureaucracy involved in implementing new infrastructure, the extremely high tax burden relative to the necessary investment and the return generated, the large number of rules and regulatory limitations on service provision, and all the other complications that exist in developing businesses in our country.
In conclusion, two main values/objectives should prevail throughout the analysis and debate: the purpose of improving services provided to citizens and guaranteeing the principle of freedom and free trade for businesses, customers, and the market in general.
Considering that applying restrictions to market practices limits the performance of companies and hinders the offering of personalized and even higher quality services, and that since the internet in Brazil still needs to evolve and we lack incentives from the government and regulatory bodies for this to happen, it is possible to conclude that not allowing the possibility of limiting internet consumption in fixed broadband (unlike what happens in mobile telephony) is not the best way to improve the telecommunications market in Brazil.
What's your opinion on this topic? What do you think can be done to improve the internet in Brazil? Share your opinion in the comments!
