Device Neutrality

Authors: Luã Fergus and Laila Lorenzon

‘Device neutrality’ ensures the users’ right of non-discrimination in the services and apps they use, based on platform control by hardware companies (Hermes Center, 2017; ARCEP, 2018)^{1 2}. That means users can have the possibility to choose which operating system (software) or application they prefer to use, regardless of the brand of device they are using. In other words, device neutrality is instrumental to achieving equal access to applications, contents, and services, which is essential to achieve an open Internet. It is a fundamental civil rights issue, ensuring that the user has the right and possibility to use, for example, the information and communication security tools they prefer on their devices. It is usually framed as consumer protection rather than a technical measure because it enables citizens to fight against aggressive or deceptive commercial practices that limit their use of applications and unfairly favor their content or demote competitors.

Its main principle is the idea that consumers should have the right to uninstall software, apps, and content they are not interested in. Thus, companies should also give them the right to remove default applications. It also defends the possibility that all content and service developers can access the same device function. The French Telecommunications Regulator ARCEP (2018) ³ advocates for device neutrality, stressing the need for more transparency in app store rankings and easier access to applications offered by alternative apps stores.

This concept was first introduced in a legislative proposal in Italy in 2014 by MP Stefano Quintarelli, who proposed the bill “S.2484 Disposizioni in materia di fornitura dei servizi della rete internet per la tutela della concorrenza e della libertà di accesso degli utenti”. This bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputy, and it is still waiting to be voted in Senate. It addresses Device Neutrality in Article 4, stating that that: 

Users have the right to find online, in a format suitable to the desired technology platform, and to use in fair and non-discriminatory ways software, proprietary or open-source, contents and legitimate services of their choice.

Concerning the correlation between the concept of device neutrality and net neutrality rights, the first one can be seen as an extension of the second, mostly because they both reinforce the principle of “innovation without permission”, which means that anyone, anywhere, can create and reach an audience without anyone standing in the way (Kak, Ben-Avie, 2018)⁴. Similarly, device neutrality defends that the users should have the right to non-discrimination of the services or apps in their devices regardless of the hardware companies, Net Neutrality defends the right to non-discrimination by Internet service providers, regardless of the content or applications utilized by the Internet users, unless such discriminatory treatment is necessary and proportionate to the achievement of a legitimate aim (Belli, De Filippi, 2015; Belli, 2017).^{5 6}. Thus, one’s about equal access to applications and the other about equal access to the Internet.

Another set of rules that could go in the opposite direction of device neutrality is the anti-circumvention laws, which provide penalties for those who wish to make changes to their devices and operational systems. At first, these rules were created to protect intellectual works from copyright infringement, but have proved useless over the years, only harming competition, innovation, freedom of expression, and scientific research (Doctorow, 2019; EFF, n.d.)^{7 8}.

References

Borchert, Katharina. (2016). EU Copyright Law Undermines Innovation and Creativity on the Internet. Available at: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/eu-copyright-law-undermines-innovation-and-creativity-on-the-internet-mozilla-is-fighting-for-reform/.

Italian Parliament. (2016). S.2484. Disposizioni in materia di fornitura dei servizi della rete internet per la tutela della concorrenza e della libertà di accesso degli utenti. Available at: https://parlamento17.openpolis.it/atto/documento/id/255634.

1. Hermes Center. (2017). After Net Neutrality, Device Neutrality. Available at: https://www.hermescenter.org/net-neutrality-device-neutrality/.
2. ARCEP. (2018). Devices, The Weak Link in Achieving an Open Internet, Report on their limitations and proposals for corrective measures. Available at: https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/rapport-terminaux-fev2018-ENG.pdf.
3. ARCEP. (2018). Devices, The Weak Link in Achieving an Open Internet, Report on their limitations and proposals for corrective measures. Available at: https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/rapport-terminaux-fev2018-ENG.pdf.
4. Kak, Amba U. Ben-Avie, Jochai. (2018). ARCEP report: “Device neutrality” and the open internet. Available at: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/05/29/arcep-report-device-neutrality.
5. Belli, L., De Filippi, P. (2016). General introduction: Towards a multistakeholder approach to network neutrality. In: Net Neutrality Compendium. Springer, Cham. 1-7. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/Telecommunications/LucaBelli.pdf.
6. Belli, L. (2017). Net Neutrality, zero-rating and the Minitelisation of the Internet. Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(1), 96-122.
7. Doctorow, Cory. (2019). Bird Scooter tried to censor my Boing Boing post with a legal threat that’s so stupid, it’s a whole new kind of wrong. Available at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/11/flipping-the-bird.html.
8. Electronic Frontier Foundation – EFF. (n.d.). Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Available at:https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca.