The debate over the funding model for telecommunications network infrastructure in the digital ecosystem has taken on new dimensions with Anatel’s proposal to regulate so-called ‘large network users’. Although technically dense, this discussion can be better understood through cultural analogies that help illustrate the tensions between tradition and innovation, permanence and adaptation.
A View Through Cinema: Fiddler on the Roof
With that in mind, I found myself reflecting on the topic after rewatching Fiddler on the Roof, a musical I consider one of cinema’s timeless classics. And the more I thought about the issue, the more I was struck by the parallels between the multiple layers of the film and the reflections presented in this article.
Just like the village of Anatevka portrayed in the musical, today’s digital ecosystem is at an inflection point. There, tradition is confronted with the need for adaptation. Here, the coexistence between digital platforms and telecom operators requires a renegotiation of the terms of this relationship.
In the story, Tevye symbolizes this tension: clinging to tradition, he is gradually urged by his daughters to accept new arrangements. In the digital realm, big tech companies play a similar role — defending a particular interpretation of net neutrality under which they benefit from infrastructure without bearing a proportional burden to the intensive use they make of it.
It is in this context that the debate around so-called ‘fair share‘ arises — or, in a formulation more aligned with the spirit of conciliation, the rational and sustainable use of networks.
Telecom operators, like Tevye’s daughters, challenge the current arrangement and propose a new pact. A pact based not on rupture, but on updating the model: more balance, more predictability, more proportionality.
The idea is not to create taxes or shift costs, but to open regulatory space for fairer contractual arrangements.
The asymmetry is clear. Big techs concentrate value and operate with high margins, leveraging the network as an essential input to their business model, without providing direct compensation proportional to the impact they generate.
More Traffic, More Pressure, and the Need for New Rules of the Game
The exponential growth of data traffic — driven by ultra-high-definition video, generative AI applications, and cloud storage platforms — intensifies this pressure.
Operators, in turn, who sustain network infrastructure investments, are largely compensated by the end user, even when they must scale their networks to support the traffic volumes imposed by platform applications.
In this context, by proposing the Regulation of Duties for Large Users, Anatel does not intend to unilaterally arbitrate this new model but rather position itself as an institutional mediator in a relationship that has become asymmetric.
To do so, it invokes its regulatory authority under Article 17, Item XXVII of Decree No. 2,338/1997, which grants legitimacy to regulate the use of networks by value-added services and mediate the terms of that coexistence. It is no coincidence that the agency proposes parameters and encourages negotiations instead of mandating direct transfers.
This is, in practice, about creating room for more sophisticated arrangements — such as commitments to regionalize traffic, transparent peering agreements, and incentives for installing caches and CDNs in strategic locations.
What is being proposed is not a universal model, but a regulatory framework that enables negotiated, proportional, calibrated, and sustainable solutions. The goal is to accommodate the continuous growth in data demand within a more efficient incentive architecture — one that ultimately benefits the end user, with more robust and resilient networks.
Interdependence, after all, is a defining feature of the digital ecosystem: without content, the network loses value; without the network, content does not reach the user.
The sustainability of this system demands more than principles — it requires practices. And regulated practices — even if lightly regulated— tend to induce more transparent and predictable outcomes.
Towards a fairer and more efficient regulatory framework
As in the song Do You Love Me?, the point is not to reject the relationship built so far, but to renegotiate it on new terms.
Much like in Matchmaker, Matchmaker, the carriers set out in search of a new arrangement — not one imposed, but one deliberately chosen. Not a dowry; rather, a mutual understanding. And the regulator plays the role of the shadchan, helping reconcile interests and vocations without forcing the outcome. Rather than conflict, the aim is a mutually convenient union, built on balance and sustainability.
As we see in the song Sunrise, Sunset, where the passage of time is met with the serenity of inevitable transformation, the same holds true in the digital world. What is at stake is not rupture, but a transition toward a more balanced model. The fiddler may remain on the roof — as long as we acknowledge that the wind has shifted and adjust the dance accodingly.
