The debate surrounding network usage fees in Brazil has intensified following the approval of Bill 469/2024 by the House of Representatives’ Communications Committee in early December 2024. This bill prohibits telecommunications operators from charging internet companies based on data traffic. While this is merely a preliminary step in a lengthy legislative process, it signals that proposals from telecom companies to implement network usage fees are unlikely to gain traction.

For at least two decades, major telecommunications companies have sought ways to bolster profits through additional fees and by eroding the principles of a free and open internet. In June 2024, Conexis Brasil Digital, representing major Brazilian telecom operators, proposed charging large Value-Added Services (VAS) providers, such as streaming platforms and social networks, based on their data traffic. Under the guise of “sustainability in the service chain,” this proposal amounts to a wealth transfer between private companies, rather than a policy serving the public interest.

A recent mini-task force within the Internet Society Brazil Chapter, which I led, analyzed the ramifications of Conexis’s proposal (PDF) utilizing the Internet Way of Networking methodology. The findings are alarming. Conexis’s proposal, strategically timed to coincide with Anatel’s Public Consultation No. 26/2023, argues that five VAS providers (Meta, Akamai, Alphabet, Netflix, and TikTok) place a heavy burden on fixed and mobile networks, necessitating continuous maintenance and expansion. While the proposed surcharges appear to be purely economic in nature, they pose a significant threat to net neutrality, a principle enshrined in Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet (MCI), which guarantees equal access to content by preventing commercial interference with data traffic.

The proposal fails to clarify how these charges would be enforced should VAS providers refuse to comply. The most probable outcome is that telecom operators would throttle or block access to non-compliant VAS providers, in direct violation of the MCI’s prohibition against discriminatory commercial practices. This would create “connectivity islands,” where access becomes contingent upon specific financial agreements, thereby undermining the internet’s interoperability and openness, benefiting only affluent VAS providers, and stifling innovation.

South Korea’s implementation of a similar policy, although focused on peering agreements rather than traffic volume, resulted in VAS providers relocating servers abroad, leading to increased latency and degraded service quality. This fragmented the internet and negatively impacted users’ experience. The South Korean case demonstrates that this is not merely a commercial matter, but a threat to meaningful connectivity and the internet as we know it.

Implementing network usage fees would empower operators to control the flow of content, creating an internet that favors the wealthy and restricts users’ freedom to access content without commercial interference. This has a detrimental impact on the open digital environment essential for civic engagement, economic development, and social progress.

Conexis’s proposal risks undoing the progress achieved through the MCI, erecting barriers to free expression, innovation, and equal opportunity. We need an internet that remains open, accessible, and inclusive for all, which requires steadfast defense of net neutrality.

This is not a uniquely Brazilian phenomenon. Large telecom companies are pursuing similar strategies globally. The European Union is currently grappling with the same debate, and new public consultations are emerging throughout Latin America (e.g., Peru and Colombia. We must remain vigilant to ensure that the interests of large telecom companies do not supersede the principles of an open, secure, neutral, reliable, and globally connected internet.