As the fair share debate rages on in Brazil, the question of how to fund more ambitious visions for comprehensive digital inclusion remains unsettled
Overhauling the definition of meaningful connectivity within Brazil’s USO
On 7 October 2025, Jadyel Alencar (Member, Chamber of Deputies) introduced PL 5031/2025 on addressing digital exclusion through universal service reform to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. The draft legislation would establish a National Plan for Significant Connectivity (PNCS) and the Statute for Significant Connectivity, aimed at extending the connectivity, devices and skills needed for consumers to participate fully in the digital economy. Alencar stated that only 22% of Brazilians over the age of 10 have access to “meaningful connectivity” as defined under the legislation, and approximately 12m households remain without any internet connection whatsoever. If adopted, the legislation would repurpose funds from the Fund for the Universalisation of Telecommunications Services (FUST) and the Fund for Technology Innovation in Telecommunications (FUNTTEL), the country’s universal service and network expansion funds (USFs) to support a much wider range of programming related to connectivity. The legislation would empower the Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) to develop and oversee the PNCS.
Anatel would develop a national plan for network expansion to be executed via USF funds and obligations in spectrum licensing
In addition to seeking to drive continued network development and improvements in access to, and quality of, broadband services throughout the country, the legislation also aims to address barriers to adoption of these services at a number of levels. Via the proposed PNCS, which would apply for a 10-year term, the regulator Anatel would develop a matrix of acceptable speeds, coverage, accessibility, price and effective use indicators for connectivity in both urban and rural regions of Brazil. These quality of service standards must specifically include:
Minimum download and upload speeds for fixed and mobile access;
Maximum permissible average latency; and
Minimum monthly availability of the service (i.e. network resilience).
That matrix would be used to set municipality-level coverage targets over four-year terms that are further guided by a prioritisation of the needs of vulnerable communities. Anatel would be responsible for estimating a budget for reaching these coverage targets in each region, and operators would be obligated, via the insertion of a mandatory clause for network expansion in spectrum licences and other similar instruments, to work to meet these targets using funding provided by the FUST and FUNTTEL. Both Anatel and operators would be required to publish coverage maps tracking progress in network expansion, and Anatel would be charged with determining the measurement methodology used to create these maps.
The legislation envisions a USO that also encompasses affordability of services, device access and skills
Operators would also be obligated to offer a mandated social tariff, referred to as the Social Connectivity Plan (PSC), under pricing, eligibility and transparency terms defined by Anatel. Additionally, operators would need to support regulator-approved digital skills programming, with a specific focus on AI skills and a target to reach vulnerable consumers such as older consumers and consumers with disabilities. The legislation again proposes that these social obligations be written into the terms of spectrum licences and other similar regulatory instruments by Anatel. For its part, the Government would be instructed to work to lower the costs of broadband through subsidies and tax relief, aiming to ensure that the full benefits of network investment can be accessed by all consumers. In its minimum conditions for “meaningful connectivity”, the legislation also names a number of other barrier-busting mechanisms for addressing digital inclusion but does not assign responsibility for implementing them, for example:
Ensuring the availability of appropriate connected devices, targeting families that are likely to experience social vulnerability;
Guaranteeing access to the internet in public education, health and social assistance institutions; and
Promoting compliance with existing laws on privacy and data protection and the rights of individuals with disabilities.
The proposal does not touch the issue of resourcing the USF, which remains at the centre of ongoing fair share debates in the legislature
Amid this comprehensive list of aims for addressing digital exclusion, the bill interestingly does not address the solvency of the FUST or FUNTTEL or reforming funding sources for the delivery of universal service. Both the Government and Anatel have expressed interest in recent years in introducing network fees, i.e. establishing a “fair share” system, to increase funding for universal service via the FUST. However, Bill 469/24, which would insert a ban on network fees into Brazil’s net neutrality framework known as the "Marco Civil da Internet", was recently approved by the Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and remains pending before the wider body. As Brazil grapples with the possibility of deepening socioeconomic inequity as a result of persistent digital exclusion, the debate around fair share in the country exposes a more implicit inequity within the global digital economy. Beyond the idea that network fees seek to better balance responsibilities for financing the supply of connectivity between tech firms and telecoms operators, the fair share debate throughout the Global South holds the wealth of largely US-based big tech firms against the disadvantages of the consumers who are systemically excluded from accessing their services.
