Skip to main content

This is a reflection on the 10th annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which I attended in João Pessoa, Brazil from 9 to 13 November 2015 as a council member of APC representing the Community Education Computer Society. APC provided support as part of the Member Exchange and Travel Fund (METF).

CECS intends to add internet governance as one if its programmatic areas, which motivated me to attend the IGF and, in doing so, developing an international perspective of internet governance in general and net neutrality and zero-rating specifically.

In September 2015, I attended the African IGF which was held at the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia as part of the APC African members meeting. My interest was piqued by the net neutrality and zero-rating debate. There is discontent among South African mobile providers who are baulking at services such as WhatsApp, Netflix, etc. – the over-the-top providers.

In the run-up to the IGF in Brazil, I signed up to all the mailing lists for the different themes. The mailing list which was the most active in my view, gauged from the e-mails received and discussions held, was the mailing list on zero-rating. It provided me with insight into the multistakeholder approach as well as the process of balancing the different interests. Thus, I elected to follow the tracks on net neutrality and zero-rating at the IGF.

To participate effectively, one needs to understand the processes, the different formats for interactions, the abbreviations used. For example you get:

  • Roundtables
  • Workshops
  • Best Practice Forums
  • Dynamic Coalitions
  • Main Sessions

Each format has a role to play to provide for inclusive participation and getting different perspectives on issues.

I attended a Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality workshop. At the start of the workshop they took a straw poll in terms of those in favour of net neutrality, those against and the maybe’s. The result was 9 for, 6 against, and 14 maybe. At the end, they took another straw poll with the result being 20 for, 9 against, and 11 maybe.

Also, at the main session on net neutrality and zero-rating it was patently clear that delegates were fervently against Facebook’s Free Basics or the zero-rating principle. I will venture to say that it was an 80-20 split against Free Basics and zero-rating.

The case for zero-rating

The following were some of the arguments in favour of zero-rating:

  • That it is a gateway to the internet.
  • That it will connect the unconnected.
  • That it will provide smaller mobile operators with an advantage over the incumbents to capture market share.
  • That it has the potential to increase demand for internet services.

The case against zero-rating

The following were some of the arguments against zero-rating:

  • That it goes against the principle of net neutrality.
  • That it will distort competition and give unfair advantage to content providers.
  • That the use of community networks (or mesh networks) to facilitate access to the internet is more sustainable.
  • That zero-rating provides a distorted view of the internet since you do not even get access to the full Facebook, but a portion of it. Thus, the internet is a “walled garden”.
  • That it is a threat to the open internet.
  • That it can potentially lead to lock-in.
  • That by focusing solely on zero-rating, other options might not be explored.
  • That users might equate the Internet with Facebook.

Participants and speakers have at different times expressed the view that there is not enough data available and that more research needs to be undertaken. What was always interesting to hear from research undertaken is that people will say NO that they are not on the internet, but will say YES that they are using Facebook.

Studies have also shown, as pointed out by one speaker, that people will prefer limited access to the internet, in terms of, for example, a certain amount of free data with which they can access whatever content they want to within the limitation, as opposed to zero-rated content.

I have gone back and re-read the mailing lists on net neutrality and zero-rating. The issue makes much more sense to me now. I can identify with the personalities.

Net neutrality and zero-rating was the hot topic of the IGF. That is where the money lies.

I also attended workshops on cyber security, multistakeholder models, the politics of encryption, FOSS and a free internet. In the process, the following terms have been used interchangeably:

  • Open internet
  • Free internet
  • Free and open internet.

It will be worthwhile to come to grips with these terms and explore their exact meaning, taking into account the nuances.
The youth also made a huge impact at this IGF. They were very vocal and presented solid ideas as a constituency. Their request is clear: they want to be taken seriously.

Attending the IGF has opened up my eyes to different perspectives on different issues. What I have learned and experienced at the IGF would have most probably taken me months to learn. It will now be incumbent that we build our own and our organisation’s capacity to contribute to and participate in IGF processes.

A big thanks to APC for the assistance with the travel costs and thus making it possible to attend the IGF.

Region
APC-wide activities