Month: September 2019

Freedom of speech research nowadays mainly concentrates on issues around communication processes on social media platforms  – with special regard to finding a legal solution to the phenomenon of social media platforms uniquely affecting the plurality of democratic discourse during their activities.

The most fraudulent promises stemming from publicity expanding intensively due to the technology of the internet were that the end of infrastructural scarcity would result in unlimited access,  and that internet publicity, which is more democratic than any previous platforms, would be unlimited in material terms i.e. free of charge. As of today we need to accept that online publicity is not free of charge – or in other terms, everything has a price.

The great hope that the service providers playing a key role in information distribution (intermediaries) would multiply the offer has been partially fulfilled, yet due to the multi-channel paradox – the arbitrary content selection and personalized offer – the notion of plurality gets inverted. This has led to the emergence of an online filter bubble.

Search-engine providers, social networks and video sharing platforms tend to use IT solutions (such as cookies) that monitor the online activities of users and gather data. Based on the digital footprint of the user, the service providers create a digital profile that is used to predict the type of content the user is interested in, the news and opinions the user might like to read, and the products and services to offer for purchase. Their aim is no less than to personalize the content based on the user’s preference. The autocomplete user interface of search engine providers does exactly the same, according to the providers, to increase the wellbeing of their users. This, despite the sonorous promise of personalization, mainly causes the fading and imperviousness of online discourse. Service providers aim to maximize their profit, degrade citizens to mere consumers and offer them on a plate to the market players they’re associated with – the market players who can then offer products and services on the basis of those consumer habits.  

The arbitrary selection activity of the intermediary service providers constitutes one of the main arguments in the debates about net-neutrality. This is because the operators of electronic communication networks and infrastructures have a growing interest in sorting the content flowing through the virtual bottleneck while cutting the costs of infrastructure development. This selection is mainly realized through the use of algorithms that are able to consider both general and specific user habits.

The online identity shaped by the algorithms has a self-fulfilling effect when it comes to the functioning of democratic public opinion. The users of the service eventually get isolated from any opinions and information different from their own because the provider constantly monitors their activities and generates content related to it.  Usually, users get into an “online opinion-ghetto” regardless of  – or in opposition to –  their choice; or as Sunstein put it, ’cybercascades’ are developing.

This phenomenon was first described by Pariser, who called it a filter bubble. The filter bubble is an artificially created virtual information sphere, where the user’s chance of finding opinions and information differing from their own views constantly decreases until they get trapped in a false perception of reality, where democratic discourses lose their ’democratic’ nature due to their polarization.

The scarcity that emerged as a technological result of the filter bubble phenomena, rather than from technical necessity, makes the revival of the constitutional arguments developed during the era of the scarcity of frequencies a current need. Finding new routes to ensure the state’s activities to protect certain institutions is yet to come. The regulatory environment is completely different than in the era of frequency scarcity of national media markets, and state regulation of the internet as a global market is an impossible undertaking.

To break free of the filter bubble is – in my opinion – a shared responsibility. The citoyen and those vested with legislative power (typically not a state, but a plethora of states within the merits of global, regional cooperation, or the EU within Europe) are capable of jointly defeating the effects of the filter bubble eroding public debates, even if it means cutting back on consumer well-being. The conscious attitude of users and responsible legislation together can contribute to finding our way back to the plurality of online publicity.

Today’s connected world offers infinite possibilities. The rapid pace of technological change and the impact of market forces are driving the evolution of the digital economy.  By the end of 2018, 5.1 billion people around the world subscribed to mobile services, accounting for 67% of the global population. In 2018, almost 300 million people connected to mobile internet for the first time.  With an average annual growth rate of 1.9% between 2018 and 2025, this will bring the total number of mobile subscribers to 5.8 billion (71% of the population).

In 2018, mobile technologies and services generated 4.6% of GDP globally, this amounts to $3.9 trillion of economic value added. The mobile ecosystem also supported almost 32 million jobs and made a substantial contribution to the funding of the public sector. By 2023, mobile’s contribution will reach $4.8 trillion (4.8% of GDP) as countries around the globe increasingly benefit from the improvements in productivity and efficiency brought about by increased take-up of mobile services.

Clearly access to mobile – and equally importantly, the mobile internet – is one of the key drivers of economic growth.  This is a huge and transformative evolution in the way in which we live, interact, create, do business; providing individuals with the means to communicate instantly and respond quickly in any given situation.

We are not, however, at a point where we have universal mobile access, and many obstacles exist to its availability, some of which reside in the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern the functioning of the telecommunications sector.  It is important, therefore, that as we acknowledge the powerful impact that mobile plays in delivering economic growth and opportunity, we take stock of the role of government in encouraging and enabling further investment from service providers, ultimately supporting innovation and digital inclusion.

Firstly, to enable economic growth, mobile has to be available, which requires significant investment in networks and infrastructure. In my opinion, there are a number of steps that government can take to encourage this investment, including:   

• the provision of technology neutral spectrum licences;
• the production of a spectrum roadmap that outlines when spectrum will be released to help operators plan investment;
• the assignment of additional mobile spectrum, particularly in the digital dividend bands;
• the reduction of spectrum costs and coverage obligations on sub-1GHz assignments; and
• allowing service providers’ full scope in passive and active infrastructure sharing.

All of these steps promote efficiency, encourage quality, and incentivise service providers to deliver the widest possible mobile broadband coverage.

Secondly, with price remaining one of the biggest barriers for consumers in low and middle-income countries, services have to be affordable.  However, as mobile consumers and operators are subject to a substantial tax burden increasingly driven by sector‑specific taxes, reforming sector-specific taxation and fees should be considered, including:

• the removal of sector-specific taxes on both consumers of mobile services, on devices and on mobile operators; and
• aligning mobile taxation with that applied to other sectors and with the best practices recommended by international organisations such as the World Bank and IMF.

Thirdly, the consumer needs the skills to engage with mobile technology and must have full trust in its safety and security.  In particular, there is a need for smart data privacy laws that provide effective protection for individuals, whilst at the same time providing organisations with the freedom to operate, innovate and comply in a way that makes sense for their business and can create positive outcomes for society.

Finally, relevant and local content plays a hugely significant role in boosting participation and adoption. Giving users the necessary skills to become digitally engaged and providing digital training and facilities to promote the development of a local content ecosystem, will enable local entrepreneurs to set up websites or develop apps that meet local needs.

As we strive towards a more connected world, governments and regulators have to put in place policies that address these enabling factors and help realise greater mobile adoption.  If network operators, regulators and policymakers can work together, this will create a positive framework for investment, and make significant steps towards enhancing the mobile experience of those already connected and extend mobile access to the unserved. 

I look forward very much to discussing these points, and hearing the opinions of my fellow panellists from across the industry, in the Forum debate “Bridging digital divides through an integrated approach” at ITU Telecom World next week!

Note: this blog post is part of a series of opinion pieces from the speakers of the Forum programme at ITU Telecom World 2019. Join the conversation onsite in Budapest or via twitter by #ITUWORLD.

We are well past the point of speculating about the consequences of unchecked use of technologies like automated decision-making systems, biometrics, facial recognition or blockchain on our lives and societies. Loss of privacy and autonomy, digital exclusion and the widespread erosion of trust in democratic institutions are only some of the unintended consequences with social repercussions that are becoming more apparent every day.

Yet every time these questions and conversations about our collective digital future come up, a chorus of voices demand better regulation sooner. While better regulation is an essential part of global technological governance, several key ingredients must be in place before we can get there.

First, we need to come up with new roles, institutions and forms of collaboration. Figuring out what that new ecosystem looks like and how it could work will provide the infrastructure we need to create better policies and regulations. It seems clear that regulators and their policymaker counterparts have a role in filling the gap between the principles and practice of responsible technology governance – but they can’t do it alone.

Digital cooperation underpinned by a digital commons architecture offers a promising way forward. Defined by the United Nations as “ways of working to address the social, ethical, legal and economic impact of digital technologies in order to maximize their benefits and minimize their harm”, digital cooperation can support the advancement of Agenda 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals while ensuring a safe, connected and inclusive digital future for all.

This sounds nice on paper, but what does digital cooperation look like in practice? After a deep exploration of what is possible in terms of funding models, modes of collaboration, regulatory environments and metrics, a digital commons architecture is not only among the most exciting of those possibilities, but also the most feasible.

One reason is because we already have successful examples of transnational cross-sectoral approaches to governing assets that belong to all: think the Law of the Sea, which imposes a duty to protect marine resources for future generations. Or in the digital world, common protocols like HTTPS that make the internet work come to mind.

So, what happens when we apply a digital commons approach to the elusive “how” of global technology governance?

You get something that looks a little like Digital Future Society, a transnational programme led by the Spanish Government and Mobile World Capital Barcelona with the mandate to convene experts from all over the world to share experiences and insights that enable us to build common assets. Digital Future Society provides the much-needed space to undertake iterative, multilateral learning on digital governance through practice.

Our commons approach to digital cooperation persistently seeks to test efficacy and develop the necessary procedures and solutions in real-world environments together with partners such as the Inter-American Development Bank, GSMA, and the World Economic Forum. One example of this type of experimental, cross-sectoral common asset might be the creation of a sandbox that ensures data is free from bias before it can be used to train algorithms. Other projects seek to advance a global metric for digital inclusion, build a global repository of digital business models that promote privacy and transparency, and map emerging govtech ecosystems around the world.

The apparatus of the government itself is a sort of commons, and regulation is the means by which we maintain the commons. But we need to establish strong collaborative mechanisms, institutions and partners with clearly defined roles to ensure that regulatory maintenance can be carried out in the first place. If “a better collective digital future for all” is the “what”, I very much look forward to discussing the potential of a digital commons approach as the “how” of regulating a safe, connected and inclusive future at ITU Telecom World 2019. See you this September in Budapest!