Net neutrality bumps into International Telecommunication Regulations

Starting this week, the internet will never be the same again. The rules of the game will change in Dubai, so the rumour goes. This article looks at a three-letter acronym that is causing a real stir at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WICT): The ITRs.

International Telecommunication Regulations

Organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - a UN entity – the conference centres on the idea of modernising so-called International Telecommunication Regulations. The ITU member states last agreed on these guidelines for international telecommunications in 1988. For 24 years, they served as general principles for “facilitating global interconnection and interoperability of telecommunication facilities.”

The view then, was on “promoting the harmonious development and efficient operation of technical facilities, as well as the efficiency, usefulness and availability to the public of international telecommunication services.” In plain language, this means for instance that by establishing world telephony standards, the ITU makes it possible for manufacturers of phone equipment to produce items in one country that will interoperate with equipment from another country.

Since then, and with these regulations as a backdrop, telecommunication infrastructure has mushroomed at fast pace. The internet evolved into an omniscient communication, creation and exchange platform; mobile telephony has exploded, including in the most remote areas and; new information and communication technologies have emerged. During that time, most telecommunication operators have morphed from state agencies to private sector enterprises.

Net neutrality in danger?

To keep up with the many changes to the internet, the UN agency is set to update its ITRs by encompassing internet regulation. What this could mean concretely remains to be seen, but some governments already have a few ideas. Countries such as Russia advocate for a change in internet traffic pricing and content, so as to allow national regulation to apply. Others, like Cameroon, have made specific proposals to introduce new fees to an otherwise peer-based model. This idea is supported by operators such as Deutsche Telekom and the European operator network ETNO but rejected by civil society groups such as La Quadrature du Net.

Were the ITRs to follow these recommendations, the EU, Mexico, the US and several others argue, it would put net neutrality at risk. The agency is walking a fine line, as it needs to get legally up-to-speed with new infrastructure, while at the same time staying away from temptations by some member states to legislate internet services and content. “Net neutrality is in danger, but the threat does emanate less from international treaties than from national policies - or a lack thereof,“ says internet governance researcher Jeanette Hofmann, of the Social Science Research Center Berlin.

“It is very unlikely that the 1988 version of ITRs will see a substantial extension,“ Hofmann predicts. “International treaties depend on consensus among member states. However, there is no consensus on extending ITRs to the Internet.“

Internet governance as usual

The current allocation of authority over the internet infrastructure - particularly the Domain Name System and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions – resides with ICANN, an organisation under United States jurisdiction. Does the current status on internet governance allow for optimal infrastructure development and net neutrality? In a recent blog post on the Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller has a clear answer: “the status quo is not so wonderful. In the past two weeks ICANN’s board and CEO have made decisions that are so bad they call into question its very legitimacy as an institution.“

For many stakeholders though, an intergovernmental model such as the ITU’s is not acceptable because it largely excludes the private sector and civil society. It lacks transparency, they argue, and may be open for capture and abuse.

For all the controversy around the upcoming conference and unlike previous ITU fora, the Union has this time supported and promoted the idea of a multi-stakeholder approach to the WCIT. Will this be enough to keep the internet open, neutral and affordable once the conference comes to a close on December 14?