Internet freedom – for whom?

ISTANBUL, Turkey — I write this as I make my way home from the Swedish capital, site of the Stockholm Internet Forum. It has been a long week of discussions and flashes of debate.

Under the aegis of a multi-stakeholder approach and a theme about connecting the still-unconnected, about 500 of us from 90 countries attempted to make sense of what the Internet has become, the challenges, the way forward.

The weather was often downcast and chilly, but the embrace of old friends and the handshakes from new friends more than made up for it.

By the end of the conference, it surprised me that the name Philippines was among the most tweeted by SIF17 participants.

Whenever I go to SIF, thrice now since 2014, I always try to tell our story – however hard to cut across the “multi-stakeholder approach” that could airbrush the existence, role and abuses of the telecom duopoly in the Philippines. It has surprised many and angered some (in our favor).

It is the narrative of the Filipino telecom consumer, the customers of Globe and Smart, the fraud and scam that is neoliberalization of telecoms, the mistaken pining for competition, the slowest Internet services on Earth, the network shutdowns that are now getting more frequent, and the nearly 40 M Filipinos still waiting to be connected.

And then it occurred to me, a Eureka moment. SIF may not be the main venue for ventilating and articulating our narrative. Perhaps we must make such a different venue, conference, or summit that is unashamedly and straightforwardly pro-consumer, procitizen, pro-labor, and pro-progress.

We must bring matters to mass movements, national and international, and to other organizations, technical or professional. And to others who view those online not just as “users,” but as consumers, citizens, innovators, progressives, and changemakers. We must ask friends from countries in the so-called Global South, the Third World, the developing countries about their take. Or if any of them share our situation dominated by oligopoly, substandard services, neoliberal policy and – consequently – not having the Internet as an enabler that it should be.

When many among over 100 million subscribers report the loss of prepaid load every day, that’s an easy but questionable income for any telco.

When there are no wireless and wireline standards, and along the way telcos profit from deceptive advertising, that’s relevant and must be looked into.

When “praise releases” and marketing capture of influencers fail to paper over the realities of slow, inadequate and expensive data services, that is an issue we must confront.

When a duopoly browbeats a competition, gobbles up frequency spectrum as if they are theirs, and captures the top post of the ICT department, those are very legit concerns.

When telcos and government cooperate to take down cellular services without due process and due cause, at an alarming frequency and on questionable grounds, we must pause and take a look.

When the neoliberal policy that allowed a duopoly to rise is being marketed as the solution to our woes, while the duopoly takes action to stop possible competitions, that’s a cause for concern.

If invited again to the next SIF, we would bring up these issues. Again.

And more: We would press for more face and talk time about the political economy of telecoms and the internet economy. Who controls the world’s frequency spectrums, and major backbones? Who’s profiting the most, and by how much? Are the telcos and the internet economy more fair to employees and workers? What’s the connection of telcos and internet companies with governments and “classic” multinational corporations and conglomerates?

There are lots of other possible talking points and areas of concern – perhaps they are needed to enrich the ongoing discussions, complement the existing campaigns for access and for rights, and involve workers and other citizens in a more robust manner.

The phrase “Internet freedom” must mean more than telcos and big Internet companies enjoying neoliberalization, or governments freely contracting surveillance and censorship to some of them. It cannot mean a free Facebook but without photos and videos, with limited access to a few dozen of websites, no email, no FTP, and with untrammeled access to our browsing data within that walled garden (no privacy).

Come to think of it, participants like me shouldn’t be alone in thinking about the relevance of SIF. SIF must always strive to be relevant to as many countries, even to the extent of challenging the multistakeholder approach that could be affecting its vision.

The sun actually came out shining and bright by the end of SIF. It also became warmer. There is hope.