[discuss] Mistaken interpretation of Marco Civil re net neutrality
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Sep 4 07:41:53 UTC 2014
[Sorry for possible duplications]
In the main session on net neutrality yesterday afternoon (3/sept), we
have heard some wrong interpretations of the Civil Rights Framework for
the Internet in Brazil (known as "Marco Civil"), a charter of principles
which is now a law in Brazil, in effect since June 23rd (60 days after
publication in the Official Daily). These mistaken interpretations
basically said that the entire net neutrality framework is to be decided
by the president of Brazil.
Article 9 of Marco Civil, dealing with net neutrality, is quite clear,
and I request you to read (or re-read) it below. The only two instances
in which further regulation may be required (and this only after
consulting with CGI.br and the telco regulator) are specified in para 2
and refer to prioritization of emergency services and technical
requirements essential for the adequate provision of services and
applications, and these cannot violate paras 2 and 3 of article 9.
I would appreciate if you could circulate this message among your peers
who may have similar doubts. I noticed this seems to be a confusion
which spread among some Latin Americans in the IGF and has been
expressed in other meetings here at the IGF, which I find extremely curious.
Article 9. The agent in charge of transmission, switching or routing is
obliged to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content,
origin and destination, service, terminal or application.
§ 1st Discrimination or degradation of traffic will be regulated in
accordance to the private assignments of the President of the Republic
provided in item IV of the Article 84 of the Constitution, to the
faithful implementation of this Law, being heard the Internet Steering
Committee (CGI.br) and the National Agency of Telecommunications
(Anatel), and may only arise from:
I – technical requirements essential for the adequate provision of
services and applications; and
II – emergency services prioritization.
§ 2nd In the event of discrimination or degradation of traffic referred
to in paragraph 1, the aforementioned agent must:
I – refrain from causing damage to users, as regarded in article 927 of
the Civil Code;
II – act with proportionality, transparency and equality;
III – inform the users in advance in a transparent, clear and
sufficiently descriptive manner to its the management practices and
traffic mitigation adopted, including those related to network security; and
IV – provide services on non-discriminatory commercial conditions and
refrain from practicing anticompetitive practices.
§ 3rd In the provision of Internet connection, onerous or for free, as
well as in the transmission, switching or routing, it is forbidden to
block, monitor, filter or analyse the contents of data packets,
respected the provisions of this article.
More information about the discuss