Digital Regulation Handbook

Chapter 1. Regulatory governance

and independence Ch
ap
te
r1

1.1 Introduction
The regulatory framework, as well as the regulatory governance and independence of the
institution, are key elements for effective regulation. Today, regulators and policy-makers face
multiple challenges: they must address the traditional aspects of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) and assess their appropriate roles in addressing the
regulatory and policy issues arising from new digital technologies and services.

In addition to more traditional issues, such as connectivity and infrastructure development, the
digital environment prompts consideration of a broader range of sectors beyond ICTs, such
as health, finance, education, transportation, and energy. The issues to be addressed
include content regulation, privacy, consumer protection, competition, and artificial
intelligence (AI), among others. Depending on their competencies and capacity, traditional
ICT regulators may be less familiar with these topics, have limited resources to address them,
or lack clear authority to cover them or coordinate with other entities on these issues under
their current mandates.

Overall, these discussions are still in nascent stages around the world. While some countries
are already seeking to fit digital technologies into their regulatory frameworks, many others
have yet to begin the process. Thus, there is ample space for countries to innovate, to adapt,
and to evolve. Because there is no well-worn path forward that can easily apply across
jurisdictions, outreach and open consultations are crucial to engaging stakeholders while
evidence-based decision- making processes are essential for each country to find workable,
reasonable, flexible solutions.

With these issues in mind, Chapter 1 of the Digital Regulation Handbook offers a forward-
looking analysis of how ICT regulatory governance is changing to accommodate digital
developments. The chapter begins by reviewing the evolution of regulation and policy
implementation from the traditional telecommunication environment, through ICTs, and
into digital technologies. The role and institutional design of the regulator address common
regulatory structures found
1
 Digital Regulation Handbook

worldwide and traditional areas of regulation. This analysis then focuses on how the
regulator’s mandate may shift in a digital environment, emphasizing the importance of
inclusive and effective decision-making. Next, this chapter addresses a key element of
future regulation
– regulatory collaboration – that involves coordination among various sectoral agencies and
government institutions. Alternative models to regulation, such as self-regulation or
industry/ government collaboration, are also discussed. Finally, the chapter highlights some
of the main factors for building digital frameworks, including issues relating to network and
service licensing, spectrum authorization, and innovative, evidence-based approaches to
sector regulation.1

1.2 Policy and implementation

Evolution of regulation
Sector regulation has evolved over the past three decades, beginning with the development
of telecommunication regulatory frameworks as countries started opening their markets to
competition. Regulation then expanded to encompass ICTs to address new technologies
and services enabled by the Internet. Now, the transformation from ICTs to the digital
space is underway, leading policy-makers and regulators to examine the wide-reaching
social and economic impacts of online platforms, 5G, cloud computing, and the Internet of
Things (IoT), among other emerging technologies that engage all sectors of the economy.

From traditional telecommunication environment to digital landscape

The ITU has developed a comprehensive model to assess regulatory evolution, which tracks
generations of regulation (see Figure 1.1). Generation 1 (G1) to Generation 4 (G4) presents
the evolution in telecommunication and ICT regulation, starting from the command and
control regime typically associated with state-owned monopolies, through privatization and
liberalization, the need to encourage investment, and the shift to meeting socioeconomic
objectives. Generation 5 (G5) is reflected as the latest generation, but is “seen as
complementary to the previous generations”, highlighting the increased importance of more
flexible and collaborative regulatory frameworks capable of addressing the broad impacts of
the digital economy across sectors (ITU 2020a, 26).

Figure 1.1. Generations of regulation: G1 to G5

Source: ITU, ICT Regulatory Tracker 2018, https://www.itu.int/net4/itu-d/irt/#/generations-of-regulation; ITU 2020a.

Note: Generations 1 through 4 are measured through the ICT Regulatory Tracker.Generation 5 is measured through
the G5 Benchmark.

1
For more detailed examination of the topics covered in this chapter, see relevant thematic sections on
the
Digital Regulation Platform.
2
 Digital Regulation Handbook

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) similarly recommends
that “[d]igital transformation policies need to be coordinated among all policy domains and
actors affected by (and affecting) digital transformation” (OECD 2019, 147). The OECD also Ch
recognizes that there is no single solution for governance, which must be adapted based on ap
each country’s institutions and regulatory culture and capacity, as well as understanding te
that these structures will continue to change over time. r1

While recognizing that the new shift in regulatory perspectives is important, the regulatory
frameworks of many countries still lack fundamental elements. These limitations impede
the development of their ICT sector. The State of Broadband 2019 report from the
Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development noted that 72 countries are still at
either a G1 basic level of ICT regulatory policy with regulated public monopolies and a
command-and-control regime or entering a G2 level with the beginning of market liberalization,
partial liberalization, or privatization (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development
2019). These countries may miss out on development opportunities, leading them to further
lag behind G3 and G4 countries that have enabled innovation and integrated ICTs into socio-
economic policy. The adoption of comprehensive digital strategies, as addressed below, are
key tools, but reform of the underlying systems and structures may need updating as well.

Implementation of comprehensive and technology-specific digital strategies

Digital strategies, plans, and roadmaps help identify policy goals and set targets. At least 73
countries have adopted a digital strategy or plan (ITU 2020), including Colombia, Uruguay,
Niger, and Kenya. For example, in Colombia, the Ministry of Telecommunications and
Information Technologies (MINTIC) released a new ICT Plan 2018-2022, The Digital Future is
for Everyone (MINTIC 2018). Similarly, in Uruguay, the Digital Agenda 2020 seeks to advance
the country’s digital transformation in an inclusive and sustainable manner with “proximity
government” as one of the main objectives. Proximity government encourages different
methods of approaching the relationship between citizens and the state, while promoting
transparency, accountability, participation, and the development of better services. This is
intended to generate direct contact channels between citizens and government and
improve the quality of care in services provided (AGESIC 2017). In the African region,
numerous countries have also issued digital plans. In 2017, the Nigerian government adopted
the Smart Nigeria Digital Economy Project aimed at improving economic opportunity and
competitiveness. This project includes ICT-related initiatives, such as expanding broadband
connectivity, while also focusing on digital solutions, such as increasing e-government,
engaging young Nigerians in innovation, training engineers in software development, and
fostering e-commerce (World Bank 2019). Kenya, too, adopted a Digital Economy Blueprint
in 2019, as a roadmap for its digital transformation journey, to ensure that the digital economy
benefits become their reality (Republic of Kenya 2019). The blueprint proposes five pillars
as foundations for the growth of a digital economy: digital government; digital business;
infrastructure; innovation-driven entrepreneurship; and digital skills and values. Beyond the
digital-specific, at least 118 countries have a national development strategy, digital agenda,
or economic stimulus strategy that includes broadband (see Figure 1.2).

3
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Figure 1.2. Countries with/without overall national development strategy,

digital agenda, or economic stimulus strategy including broadband

Source: ITU, Data from global survey regarding broadband policies and incentives.

Although some of these digital strategies may not contain certain key components, such as
application across multiple sectors or addressing international development goals, countries
are increasingly implementing comprehensive plans that encompass all sectors. Moreover,
these plans are key mechanisms for setting connectivity targets and goals, and reinforcing
the importance of the digital space in the overall economic and social spheres of a country.
They are also valuable tools to advocate for collaborative regulation and the engagement of
multiple stakeholders, promoting a holistic approach to digital development and planning.

Another recent trend is for countries to adopt strategies tailored to specific technologies or
issues, such as automation, robotics, 5G, AI, and the IoT. In 2017, for example, Malaysia’s
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) adopted a National IoT Strategic
Roadmap focusing on three key goals: create a conducive IoT industry ecosystem;
strengthen technology entrepreneur capabilities; and become a regional development hub
for the IoT (MOSTI 2017). Numerous countries, including Germany, have published artificial
intelligence strategies. Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Singapore, among
others, have adopted 5G policies or strategy documents. In 2015, the government of Japan
issued a New Robot Strategy, which includes measures for “realizing the robot revolution”,
as well as a five-year plan addressing cross-cutting and specific sector issues (Headquarters
for Japan’s Economic Revitalization 2015).

Assessing the need to modernize and streamline

As policy-makers start to implement their digital plans and adapt their regulatory
frameworks to the digital economy, it is crucial that they avoid the mere extrapolation or
expansion of existing, potentially outdated laws and regulations to new players or new
topics. Instead, policy-makers should adopt measures – which may include deregulation, a
self-regulation, or a coregulatory approach – that will lead to greater innovation, easier
deployment of new and emerging technologies, incentivize investment, and focus on
inclusivity and collaboration.

4
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Not only does this entail a regulatory impact assessment approach to decision-making, the
full scope of past, current, and emerging risks should be reviewed in terms of how well they
will meet the country’s targets. This will better position regulators to introduce flexible policies Ch
that support investment and innovation, thereby promoting a strong digital economy (ICC ap
2016). te
r1
In this sense, governments should shift from a rules-based to a principles-based approach.
In the digital era, guidance by high-level principles “are better suited for finding balanced,
sound solutions, especially in complex areas” (ITU 2020a, 7). The United Kingdom’s House
of Lords, for instance, proposed in 2019 ten principles for regulating in a digital world,
including parity, accountability, privacy, and ethical design (House of Lords 2019).

1.3 Role and institutional design of regulator

Institutional structure of regulator

There are three primary institutional design models for regulators overseeing the ICT sector –
the sector-specific regulator, the multisector regulator, and the converged regulator.
Traditionally, single-focus, sector-specific regulators were common for the
telecommunication sector. In today’s ICT and digital landscapes, regulators tasked solely
with overseeing telecommunications are less common than converged or multisector
regulators. Telecommunication regulators tend to also manage postal services or be
responsible for spectrum management. For instance, the Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory
Authority (ATRA) and the Barbados Telecoms Unit (TU) manage both telecommunication and
spectrum matters.2

In addition, multisector regulators, which typically involve a utilities-based regulatory authority,

were often established before liberalization of the telecommunication sector. One example
is the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) in Jamaica, which oversees the
telecommunication, power, water, and transportation sectors, although spectrum and
broadcasting are handled by two separate agencies.3 Notably, between 2014 and 2016,
Jamaica drafted a bill to create a converged ICT regulator, and this effort remains a goal of
the Ministry of Science, Energy and Technology (MSET) (Angus 2014). 4 Other countries with
multisector regulators include Denmark (Danish Energy Agency), Bahamas (Utilities
Regulation and Competition Authority), and Belize (Public Utilities Commission).

Jamaica’s path to a converged ICT regulator is in line with a decades-long trend towards
converged regulatory authorities whereby one regulator is responsible for
telecommunications, spectrum, and broadcasting/media. In 2007, converged regulators
made up about one-third of institutional structures globally (ITU 2018a). By 2017, over 70
per cent of regulators worldwide were converged. Some countries that have established
converged regulators over the past several years include Botswana and Singapore. In
Singapore’s case, the creation of a converged regulator provided an improved way to
navigate “advances in technology that have blurred the distinction between broadcasting
and telecommunications” (MCI 2016). Likewise, in 2013, the Botswana Communications
Regulatory Authority (BOCRA) was created from the Botswana Telecommunications
Authority and the National Broadcasting Board to address all matters relating to ICTs,
broadcasting, Internet, spectrum, and postal services (Botswana 2012).

2
ITU, National Telecommunication Agencies, https://w ww. itu .in t/ en /I TU- D /S ta tis t ics /Pa g es/ link s/ nta .a s px .
3
Ibid.
4
Ministry of Science, Energy, and Technology (MSET). Invest in Technology, https://www.mset.gov.jm/invest
-in-technology/.
5
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Traditional areas of responsibilities

Under the first three generations of regulation (G1-G3), and somewhat in G4, the
telecommunication or ICT regulator’s areas of responsibilities centre on setting and
enforcing relatively stringent rules deemed necessary to protect competition and consumers
as countries transition from monopoly telecommunication markets. Licensing has been the
cornerstone of the regulator’s responsibility, often involving extensive application processes
to ensure that new entrants possess the needed technical and financial capacity to be
successful.

Regulators have also traditionally imposed a range of obligations. Tariff-filing requirements,

for example, require providers to submit prices and rates for regulatory approval, which
are intended to protect consumers against unfair charges. Interconnection obligations and
termination rates have been imposed to ensure that operators, especially new entrants,
can access one another’s networks. This has also protected consumers by making sure that
they can connect to any other person, regardless of which operator provides their service.
Regulators often become dispute resolution bodies in cases where parties cannot come to
an interconnection agreement, as well as to resolve consumer complaints.

Other traditional areas of regulation include spectrum management and broadcasting,

although these responsibilities may be hosted within separate authorities outside of the ICT
regulator. Spectrum regulation is essential to protecting against harmful interference and to
promote efficient use of spectrum resources while broadcasting has generally focused on
content issues.

Shifting mandate/roles of regulators and policy-makers in the digital era

The regulator’s traditional areas of responsibilities and institutional design are expected to
largely continue in the digital environment. However, implementation of regulation should
become less rigid and more flexible. Similarly, regulators’ mandates and roles may need to
be amended to fully capture the new digital realities, as highlighted starting in G4.

With the increasing prevalence of digital services, regulators are finding that they must
address a host of new issues and potentially new areas of responsibility. Many of these focus
on online services, such as online Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or online video, and
other digital platforms, as well as navigating the IoT, AI, data privacy, competition,
cybersecurity, and other technological challenges.

These new areas are not always clearly incorporated into existing regulatory frameworks.
Many countries are debating whether their ICT and broadcasting regulators possess the
jurisdictional authority to address digital services, digital platforms, and other emerging
technologies. As countries begin assessing whether to adapt telecommunication or content
regulation to digital services, determining the scope of a regulator’s authority can be
complex without clear legislative guidance, as highlighted in Box 1.1.

6
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Box 1.1. Jurisdictional challenges for OTT video in India

Ch
In India, various courts have been examining whether online video is subject to ap
the Cinematograph Act and therefore within the regulatory purview of the Ministry te
of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), particularly for certification/licensing r1
requirements. In August 2019, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a case against
several over-the-top (OTT) video providers on the grounds that OTT video is not
subject to the Cinematograph Act. Rather than adopt a regulatory framework, the
MIB stated in March 2020 that the OTT video industry should create a code of
conduct and an adjudicatory authority by mid-2020 (see section on “Self-regulatory
models”).

Source: Dutta 2020, Oka 2019.

Governments are taking different approaches to ensure that regulators hold jurisdictional
authority. Some countries are reforming their legislative frameworks to clearly
accommodate new digital services, as the European Union has done with the European
Electronic Communications Code (EECC) (see section on “Provider perspectives: managing
regulatory compliance”). Another option is to review regulators’ competencies to determine
whether it is appropriate to expand their mandate or establish a new digital regulator. This is
further detailed in the section on “Digital regulators”.

Whether a country expands a regulator’s jurisdiction or chooses to merge different

regulatory authorities, it is important to ensure that the regulator possesses adequate
resources to execute its role. This includes staffing considerations in order to have qualified
administrators and trained employees. Merging existing authorities into a converged
regulator means that experienced staff in different areas, such as broadcasting and ICTs,
can be brought together with relative ease. Integration of the staff is essential to help
establish a cohesive team. Where a regulator’s mandate is expanded, training and capacity-
building are vital to ensure that staff understand the various stakeholder positions and
underlying legal and market issues. The use of open consultations, stakeholder outreach,
and other collaborative, evidence-based decision- making mechanisms are key components
to building sound, effective regulatory teams. When it is not feasible to expand the
regulator’s mandate, cooperation mechanisms to implement collaboration with other
agencies may be an alternative to increase knowledge and resources.

Advancing the regulator’s skills, independence, and accountability

According to ITU data, in over 80 per cent of countries, the regulatory authority for
telecommunications and ICTs is independent from the sectoral ministry in terms of its financing,
structure, and decision-making, as of the end of 2018.5 The regulator’s sources of funding
can strongly influence its level of autonomy. Generally, a financially independent regulator
obtains direct funding through legislative and budgetary allocations, allowing the regulator
to identify its budget requirements in a transparent manner. In addition to direct budget
allocations, regulators may be funded by licensing and other fees. Particularly if fees from
licensees is the regulator’s sole source of funding, they face the challenge of setting the
appropriate fee for cost recovery that balances adequate funding while not imposing
unnecessarily high fees on

5
ITU, ICT-Eye: Key ICT Data and Statistics 2018, https://www.itu.int/net4/itu-d/icteye/Topics.aspx?TopicID=
12 .

7
 Digital Regulation Handbook

licensees. A third mechanism is to allocate government appropriations to the ministry that

oversees the regulator and, in turn, the ministry distributes funding to the regulator. However,
this mechanism risks decreasing the regulator’s independence by introducing the possibility
of greater political influence in the regulator’s decision-making processes.

In traditional, converged, and digital regulatory settings, an independent regulator is

crucial to promoting objective, well-reasoned, and predictable decision-making. In the
digital era, an independent regulator is particularly important to ensuring that it can
effectively collaborate with other cross-sector agencies, as well as conduct open
consultations. These matters are further addressed in the section on “Decision-making and
rule-making in a multistakeholder environment”.

In addition to independence, regulators should be accountable by remaining free from

undue political or market influence. An element of accountability is the publication of all laws,
rules, guidelines, and other legal texts – both in draft and final form. In the digital
environment, stakeholders from an array of sectors are likely to participate, making online
publication the main mechanism for promoting inclusion and collaborative decision-making.

To fully realize the potential of an independent and accountable regulator, its staff should
have the necessary skills. Regulators must introduce mechanisms to keep up-to-date on
sector developments, both domestically and globally, to understand the financial, legal,
social, and technical setting in which they operate. Furthermore, this knowledge must be
rooted in experience dealing with these issues to serve as case studies – not exact
blueprints – for how to respond to new challenges. They must then put this knowledge to
use through effective leadership. This leadership means having the ability to choose the
path that fosters innovation and the introduction of new technologies benefits consumers
through decision-making and rule-making in a multistakeholder environment, as expanded
on further below.

Appropriate institutional structure for digital environment

A handful of governments have begun assessing whether their current regulatory authorities
are properly equipped to handle issues relating to a digital environment. Although these
discussions are generally in the early stages, analysis involves assessing whether a new
separate regulatory body solely dedicated to digital issues is required, whether to expand
the functions/ mandate of an existing ICT regulator, and/or whether the better model is an
ICT regulator with other government authorities responsible for consumer protection,
privacy, and cybersecurity, respectively. Examples include Australia, Ireland, and the
United Kingdom, as highlighted in Box 1.2. This trend may shift over the coming years as
more countries begin reviewing the existing regulator’s mandate given the digital
transformation.

8
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Box 1.2. Review of digital regulators in Australia, Ireland, and the

Ch
United Kingdom
ap
Australia. In 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) te
launched a digital platforms inquiry in 2018 that consulted on market power issues r1
of digital platforms, including social media, search engines, and other online
content platforms (ACCC 2018). In the final report issued in July 2019, the ACCC
tasked itself with addressing competition issues in the context of digital platforms
while entrusting the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
with numerous key roles (ACCC 2019).

Ireland. In January 2020, the Irish government tabled the draft Online Safety and
Media Regulation Bill in the legislature (DCCAE 2020). Rather than create a new
regulator to oversee digital content, one of the bill’s key proposals was to replace
the existing Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) with a new Media Commission.
The Media Commission would regulate broadcasting and take on the additional role
of regulating the audiovisual media sector, including online video.

United Kingdom. In April 2019, the United Kingdom’s Department for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a consultation that called for an independent
regulator to implement, oversee, and enforce a proposed new regulatory
framework to address illegal or harmful content online (DCMS 2019). In February
2020, the DCMS responded to the consultation comments, finding that the existing
ICT regulator, Ofcom, was the only regulator referenced as a possible candidate for
the online harms regulator. The DCMS reasoned that expanding Ofcom’s authority
– rather than create a new agency – would enable Ofcom to leverage its expertise,
avoid fragmentation of the regulatory landscape, and enable quick progress on the
issues (DCMS 2020).

Source: ACCC 2018; ACCC 2019; Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment
(DCCAE), General Scheme Online Safety Media Regulation Bill 2019, https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-
ie/communications/ legislation/Pages/General-Scheme-Online-Safety-Media-Regulation.aspx ; DCMS
2019; DCMS, Online Harms White Paper: Initial Consultation Response,
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online
-harms-white-paper/public-feedback/online-harms-white-paper-initial-consultation-response .

The European Commission (EC) is also in the early stages of considering digital regulation.
In its 2020 Work Programme, the EC stated its plan to publish a proposed Digital Services
Act (DSA) for public consultation in late 2020 (European Commission 2020). The proposed
DSA will update the European Union (EU) e-Commerce Directive and is expected to include
digital platform regulation. According to media reports in August 2019, the EC has at least
considered various types of digital authorities to “ensure oversight and enforcement of the
rules”, which could be a “central regulator, a decentralised system, or an extension of
powers of existing regulatory authorities” (Fanta 2019). Although it is too soon to determine
how the EC will propose to structure the authority in the DSA, it highlights the various
options available.

9
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Decision-making and rule-making in a multistakeholder environment

Evidence-based decision-making, regulatory impact analysis, open consultations

Effective regulators ensure that their decisions are sound and reached as objectively as
possible to promote regulatory certainty while minimizing legal challenges. Stakeholder
confidence in regulatory decisions may be instilled through various key components,
including the use of evidence-based decision-making, regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) that
assess the likely positive and negative effects of the proposed rule, public consultations,
and a commitment to transparency and non-discrimination (OECD 2020). Together, these
practices are founded on data collection and analysis, which afford regulators substantial, high-
quality information from a wide range of interested parties so that they can base their
decisions on sound policy rationales. In contrast, decisions made hastily or through closed-
door proceedings can undermine the regulator’s credibility and create a perception of undue
influence. Figure 1.3 highlights effective processes adopted in Brazil, Colombia, Qatar, and
Singapore.

Figure 1.3. Examples of decision-making processes in Brazil, Colombia, Qatar,

and Singapore

Source: National Agency of Telecommunications (ANATEL), Resolution 612/2013, https://www.anatel.gov.br/

legislacao/resolucoes/2013/450-resolucao-612 ; Ministry of Information Technology and Communications (MINTIC),
Decree 2696 of 2004, https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/inicio/14705:Decreto-2696-de-2004 ; Communications
Regulatory Authority (CRA), https://www.cra.gov.qa/en/Regulatory-Framework/Public-Consultations ; Infocomm
Media Development Authority (IMDA), https://www.imda.gov.sg/regulations-and-licensing/Regulations/consultations .

Engaging the full range of stakeholders through open consultations is particularly important
when adopting digital regulation because impacted parties extend beyond traditional
telecommunication providers. Stakeholders in this setting include consumers, digital platforms,
commercial players in other sectors, such as finance, transportation, and health, as well as other
government agencies with overlapping interests and jurisdictions.

Regulator perspective: managing internal procedures and monitoring

An important part of the decision-making process is determining how the outcomes will
be implemented. Effective regulators must manage the internal procedures for
assessing

10
 Digital Regulation Handbook

compliance, which may be accomplished through regular reporting requirements or other

inquiries. Regulators should also monitor the progress of implementation. This includes
monitoring regulated entities to ensure that they are complying with the rules and covers Ch
periodic review of the rules to determine whether they are effective and serving their ap
intended purpose. te
r1
Monitoring can challenge many countries, particularly where the regulator has a limited
budget, staff, or other necessary resources. These challenges are compounded in a digital
environment in which multiple stakeholders must be managed and monitored. Thus,
capacity building is a crucial element for an effective regulator.

Provider perspective: managing regulatory compliance

From the providers’ perspective, managing regulatory compliance can be a burden,

especially for newcomers unaccustomed to the highly regulated telecommunication sector.
Expanded definitions of telecommunication services add to these challenges. For example,
the EU overhauled its telecommunication framework in 2018 with the adoption of the EECC
(European Union 2018). The EECC redefined electronic communications services to include
all voice communications, even if they do not use public telephone numbers, as well as to
include transmission services for IoT, machine-to-machine communications, connected cars,
and other digital activities outside of the traditional ICT sector (see Box 1.3). EU Member
States must transpose the EECC into national law by the end of 2020. It will be incumbent
on digital players to determine whether – and how – these new rules will impact them.

Box 1.3. Expanded definition of electronic communications

services in the EECC
Article 2 of the EECC defines electronic communications service as: “a service
normally provided for remuneration via electronic communications networks, which
encompasses, with the exception of services providing, or exercising editorial
control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and
services, the following types of services:

(a) ‘Internet access service’;

(b) interpersonal communications service; and
(c) services consisting wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals such as
transmission services used for the provision of machine-to-machine services
and for broadcasting.”

Interpersonal communications services (ICS) that do not use public telephone

numbers are classified as number-independent ICS (NI-ICS). Although NI-ICS are
subject to lighter regulation than number-based ICS (e.g. NI-ICS are not required to
obtain a general authorization), many online VoIP providers are facing the prospect
of regulatory compliance requirements that they have not encountered before.

Source: European Union 2018.

In addition to expanding the definition of regulated activities, current and new regulated
entities must comply with a host of compliance requirements. Although obtaining relevant
information, such as revenues, subscriber data, and network deployment data, is an
important

11
 Digital Regulation Handbook

role of the regulator in order to understand market developments, regulators should be

aware of the costs that unnecessary reporting requirements impose on providers. Thus,
reporting requirements should be streamlined and based on a reasoned, well-articulated
need for information. Further, reporting and other compliance obligations should be fit-for-
purpose and target the appropriate entities. For example, in 2017, the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated an onerous annual reporting obligation
requiring international telecommunication service providers to submit revenue and traffic
data (FCC 2017). The FCC had used this data for decades to monitor competition among
international carriers. The FCC reasoned that collection of this information from every
international carrier was “no longer necessary as the costs of this data collection now
exceed its benefits” (FCC 2017, 2). Instead, the FCC now relies on commercially available
data and makes targeted data collection requests to specific providers, if needed.

New stakeholders in the digital regulatory environment must also manage compliance on a
potentially global basis. Unlike traditional telecommunication providers that build networks
in countries where they have a local presence, digital players often make their services
available through the Internet, enabling anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in
the world to access the services. The challenge is that digital providers may become subject
to domestic law if a country determines that making an online service available to users in
the country is sufficient. These new players face the additional challenge of navigating
patchworks of regulations where various jurisdictions adopt different, or even
contradictory, rules. This underscores the importance of intergovernmental cooperation and
collaboration to ensure consistency and predictability for the private sector.

Enforcement and sanctions in the digital landscape

Regulators should approach enforcement similarly to the rule-making process – that is, they
should be systematic, objective, and clearly identify the reasons for their decisions only after a
thorough investigation. Any sanctions should be proportional to the violation and sanctioned
parties should have access to timely review and appeals processes to help hold regulators
accountable also. These principles also apply to dispute resolution mechanisms overseen by
the regulator.

Policy-makers play an important role in enforcement, even if they are not directly engaged
in issuing penalties. This entails ensuring that regulators have sufficient enforcement authority
to conduct necessary investigations to find wrongdoing, as well as powers to effectively
remedy contraventions. Both policy-makers and regulators may need to clarify procedures
with other regulatory agencies, and sometimes courts, where there is sectoral overlap, such
as data privacy, cybersecurity, law enforcement, finance, transportation, or competition
authorities. This cross-sectoral cooperation can help to safeguard against conflicting
outcomes among regulators, as highlighted in Box 1.4.

12
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Box 1.4. The Netherlands: Cross-sectoral cooperation in enforcement

Ch
The Dutch ICT regulator, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), and the ap
Authority for Data Protection (DPA) have a long-standing collaborative arrangement te
for enforcement of data privacy matters. Under the EU e-Privacy Directive, the r1
ACM is tasked with enforcing “cookies” rules. The DPA is responsible for enforcing
the non- telecommunication portions of the e-Privacy Directive, as well as the data
protection law. In 2017, for example, the ACM and DPA coordinated an
investigation into a website administrator regarding the use of advertising
cookies (DPA 2017). While no penalties were assessed, the ACM used its
enforcement authority to order the website administrator to remove the use of
cookies without obtaining the user’s consent. Because the website administrator
also processed data on its users’ political preferences, the DPA ordered that this
data may only be processed for advertising purposes with the users’ explicit
consent.

Source: DPA 2017.

1.4 Regulatory collaboration

The ubiquity of ICTs across all sectors calls for greater regulatory collaboration among ministries,
sector and multisector regulators, and a multitude of stakeholders in order to effectively address
the impacts and promote the progress of digitalization. The ITU’s concept of collaborative
regulation under the five generations of regulation model offers mechanisms and targets for
implementing regulatory collaboration at domestic, regional, and international levels.

At the 2016 Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR-16), the ITU introduced the concept of
collaborative, or G5, regulation to describe a cross-sectoral approach toward regulation
that allows stakeholders to shape a common digital future (ITU 2016). As previously noted,
G5 regulation does not mean more regulation, but instead involves more inclusive,
evidence- based, and decision-oriented regulation between the ICT regulator and other
sectoral agencies.

Box 1.5. G5 definition of regulatory collaboration

Regulatory collaboration refers to the ICT regulator working closely with peer
regulators in other sectors. It is defined by:

1) The breadth of collaboration – whether the ICT regulator collaborates with

authorities in charge of competition, consumer protection, finance, energy,
broadcasting, spectrum management and Internet issues;
2) The depth of collaboration – whether regulators have engaged in informal,
formal collaboration, or have put in place other hybrid mechanisms.

Source: ITU 2018a, 129.

In line with this definition, governments should strive to establish meaningful and
sustainable regulatory collaboration between ICT and other regulators.

13
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Formalized and informal collaboration occurring across governments

Government institutions can work together along a spectrum of informal, semi-formal, and
formal collaboration mechanisms. Informal collaboration results from outreach between
regulators due to mutual interests and capacity building rather than from a planned, institutional
framework. Conversely, formal collaboration “…involves systematic efforts to collaborate
and define terms of engagement…”, such as through memoranda of understanding or
legislative means (ITU 2018a). Semi-formal collaboration involves elements of both and is
often part of the evolution from an informal to formal structure. Figure 1.3 provides an
overview of the state of regulatory collaboration between the ICT regulator and agencies in
charge of other matters in countries around the world, with these relationships further
detailed below. This data is based on self-reported information from the ITU World
Telecommunication/ICT Regulatory Survey 2017 and 2018 (ITU 2018b).

Figure 1.4. State of regulatory collaboration between ICT regulators and

other authorities in cases where both exist and are separate entities,
worldwide, 2018

Source: ITU 2018a, 130-150.

Note: Country sample size in order from top to bottom: 48, 22, 92, 116, 172, 72, 101, 92.

Competition

Competition authorities and ICT regulators often have long-standing coordination

arrangements to address overlapping areas of jurisdiction, particularly mergers or market
dominance in the telecommunication and ICT sector. Formal collaboration is already the
norm among many regulators, including in Namibia, Nepal, Serbia, and the United Kingdom.
Ireland, Romania, and Saudi Arabia are among the countries with a joint programme or
committee between the competition and ICT regulators.6

6
These issues are detailed further in Chapter 2 on “Competition and economics” and Chapter 8 on
“Technical regulation”.

14
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Consumer protection

As consumer protection authorities typically are not concerned with one specific sector,
Ch
their roles have generally relied on collaboration and/or support with other sector-specific ap
regulators. Trends in data privacy and protection, net neutrality, and consumer use of ICT te
services have all paved the way for collaboration between ICT regulators and consumer r1
protection authorities. As of 2018, two-thirds of existing ICT and consumer protection
regulators collaborate in some manner – half of them doing so through an informal
framework.7 Croatia, the Dominican Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, Iran, and Moldova
use an informal collaboration, while Armenia, Jamaica, Norway, and Thailand, for instance,
have formal arrangements.8

Data protection

Digitalization relies on data flows. Whether for commercial, government, health, or other
institutional purposes, ensuring that information may be collected and processed is crucial
to a digital economy but must be balanced with protecting users’ privacy rights. Given the
role data plays in all aspects of the digital economy, collaboration between data protection
authorities and other topic/sector-specific regulators is paramount to creating properly
scoped and harmonized digital regulation. Countries have adopted a wide range of data
protection frameworks, with the EU model based on the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) setting the international trend (European Union 2016). Under the GDPR, which came
into effect in May 2018, a stand-alone data protection authority (DPA) sets and enforces the
rules. The DPA generally has a clear mandate without significant jurisdictional overlap with
the ICT regulator. Although some ICT regulators and DPAs may collaborate, the majority do
not have formal mechanisms for collaboration in place, as highlighted in Figure 1.3. Where
practised, collaboration is typically informal. In many jurisdictions, an independent DPA is
fairly new so this continues to be an area where greater cooperation may evolve.9

Other sectors

Collaboration between ICT regulators and other sectoral regulators is also important.
Innovation accelerated by ICTs are disrupting and reshaping all sectors and markets.
Governments should carefully consider the roles that ICTs play in each sector and what
level of collaboration is required between regulators. Table 1.1 presents some of the many
topics that ICT regulators should consider for collaboration with other regulators.10

7
ITU, ICT Regulatory Tracker 2018, https://www.itu.int/net4/itu-d/irt/#/generations-of-regulation .
8
Chapter 4 on “Consumer affairs” delves further into these issues.
9
See Chapter 5 on “Data protection and trust” for more information.
10
These issues are addressed in greater depth in Chapter 7 on “Regulatory response to evolving technologies”.

15
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Table 1.1. Example points of collaboration between ICT regulators and

other agencies
Non-ICT regulator Topics of potential collaboration with the ICT regulator
Commerce/trade Digital taxation, online digital services

Cybersecurity Data use, end-user devices, IoT

Education Child online protection, digital divide

Energy AI, blockchain, IoT

Finance Blockchain, cybersecurity, financial inclusion, mobile financial

services, privacy

Transportation Cybersecurity, IoT, privacy

Source: TMG 2020.

Singapore has recently stepped up collaborative efforts between the ICT regulator and data
protection authority in order to enhance mutually relevant efforts concerning AI, as shown in Box
1.6.

Box 1.6. Singapore government collaborates on artificial intelligence

The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) and the Infocomm Media
Development Authority (IMDA) jointly published the first edition of the Model Artificial
Intelligence Governance Framework in January 2019, intending to frame
discussions around the challenges and possible solutions to harnessing AI in a
responsible manner. The model framework seeks to collect a set of principles,
organize them around key themes, and compile them into an easily
understandable and applicable structure. It provides guidance on measures
promoting responsible AI usage that organizations should adopt in four key
areas: internal governance structures and measures, determining an AI decision-
making model, operations management, and customer relationship management.

Source: TMG 2020.

Self-regulatory models

A self-regulatory model allows the government to offload much of its regulatory

responsibility to the players most impacted by regulation. These frameworks often stem
from a government ultimatum: either industry regulates itself in a satisfactory manner or the
government will step in. In India, for instance, the MIB is favouring a self-regulatory model
for online video streaming services content. In response, some members of the Internet and
Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) are preparing a Voluntary Code of Conduct to be
overseen by a Digital Content Complaint Council that will act as an adjudicatory body for
digital content matters.

Industry and government collaboration

Representing a bridge between self-regulation and traditional full regulation, the industry-
regulatory collaboration model offers governments some control while maintaining industry

16
 Digital Regulation Handbook

autonomy. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of
industry and regulator collaboration. To maintain network stability while an unprecedented
number of individuals work, learn, and shelter-in-place in their homes, governments have Ch
worked to increase the flexibility of their regulatory frameworks and rely on industry-guided ap
efforts. For example, on March 19, 2020, the EC and Body of European Regulatory for te
Electronic Communications (BEREC) issued, a joint statement on how to cope with increased r1
broadband network demand as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. BEREC and the EC stated
that Internet service providers are authorized to take necessary measures to mitigate traffic
congestion – representing a shift toward a more collaborative regulatory approach (BEREC
2020, European Commission 2020). Simultaneously, digital service providers, such as
Netflix, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, have taken steps to reduce the amount of
bandwidth consumed by their services both of their own accord and at the request of
regulators. Notably, the ITU has begun curating other examples of these actions and
facilitating collaborative discussions through its Reg4Covid initiative.11

1.5 Building frameworks for digital regulation

The rise of digital services can impact how telecommunication services are defined and
regulated. Amending the definition of telecommunications to encompass new digital
services may expand the scope of which types of activities are subject to regulation. For
example, whether and how to regulate various types of VoIP services has sparked policy
debate worldwide. Although governments may opt for a light-touch regulatory approach,
changes to who is regulated and how have broader implications on licensing, competition,
and other compliance obligations.12

Licensing frameworks for networks, services, and applications

The licensing framework and approach to licensing are key factors determining how easy or
difficult market entry is in a country. Choices on licensing regimes and approaches are
generally set through high-level policy decisions and adopted in telecommunication
legislation, which are then implemented through rules and regulations.

Network/service licences

The type of licensing framework that a country selects can directly impact growth in the sector.
Service-specific licensing can restrict market entry by requiring a licensee to obtain a new
license each time it wants to add a network or service to its offerings. While service-
specific licensing remains in use around the world, multiservice and unified licensing
frameworks have emerged as international best practice because they can better streamline
licensing, promote technological convergence, and encourage competition. Figure 1.5
highlights the characteristics of these frameworks.

11
ITU, Reg4Covid, https://reg4covid.itu.int/ (accessed May 13, 2020)
12
These issues are detailed in Chapter 2 on the “Competition and economics” and Chapter 7 on the “Regulatory
response to evolving technologies”.

17
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Figure 1.5. Three main types of licensing frameworks

Source: TMG.

For example, between 2013 and 2015, Myanmar reformed its telecommunication sector by
moving from a service-specific regime to a multiservice framework involving three main
licence categories, differentiating between whether or not the activity is facilities-based
(Seint Seint Aye 2015). These reforms led to a digital boom in Myanmar, with mobile
penetration rates increasing dramatically from 13 per cent in 2014 to 124 per cent in 2019
(Liu 2019).

These licensing frameworks are oriented for a telecommunications environment rather than
a digital, environment. As discussed in the section on “Shifting mandate/roles of regulators
and policy-makers in the digital era, how digital services fit into licensing schemes depends
on their characteristics and whether their regulation even falls within the mandate of the ICT
regulator.

Spectrum licensing

There are multiple ways to authorize the use of spectrum, including through individual
licensing of spectrum on a first-come, first-served basis; an administrative award; a competitive
mechanism, such as an auction or beauty contest; a class or blanket licence that authorizes
a large number of devices (e.g. terminals for satellite broadband or satellite TV dishes); or
by identifying certain frequency bands as licence-exempt or unlicensed. For example, in
June 2019, the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
(CEPT) issued recommendations to European regulators to allow for unlicensed use of the 60
GHz band for 5G services under specified technical conditions (CEPT 2019).13

Generally, policy-makers use competitive award procedures for spectrum in which demand
exceeds supply. Mobile spectrum, for example, is typically awarded by auction or beauty
contest because it is both in high-demand and of high-value. With the promise of 5G
technologies, countries worldwide are awarding a large amount of spectrum for 5G,
including in Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea (MIC 2019, IMDA 2020,
MSIT 2018).14

13
Chapters 6 on “Spectrum management” examines the various mechanisms for authorizing the use of
spectrum, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.
14
Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA). Frequenzauktion 2019. https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/
Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Breitband/MobilesBreitband/Frequenzauktion/2019/
Auktion2019.html?nn=267664; Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), Close of 5G Call for
Proposal, https://www.imda.gov.sg/news-and-events/Media-Room/Media-Releases/2020/Close-of-5G-Call
-for-Proposal .
18
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Alternative approaches to licensing

In addition to the licensing framework, the approach taken to licensing and regulation
Ch
impact market entry, competition, and availability of networks and services. The chosen ap
approach should be based on a review of international best practices, meeting regulatory te
needs without imposing burdensome requirements that unnecessarily impede entry. Even r1
under unified licensing frameworks with quick approval timeframes of one week or less,
onerous information requirements can require new entrants to expend large amounts of
resources – time and money
– simply to prepare application forms.

In some instances, more stringent approaches may be adopted to achieve specific public
policy goals, such as coverage obligations in mobile licences. However, a light-touch
approach is generally preferred to encourage greater sectoral growth, with any regulatory
interventions implemented in a targeted and reasonable manner. Thus, the overall goal is
to adopt the least rigid regulatory measures possible to meet policy goals. Figure 1.6
identifies several approaches to licensing frameworks, licensing mechanisms, and market
entry in terms of less to more onerous requirements.

Figure 1.6. Licensing approaches: less to more onerous

Innovative approaches to sector regulation

Simply applying existing – and potentially outdated – regulation to new technologies and
services risks stifling innovation. To better keep pace with technological developments,
policy- makers are examining different measures to provide clear, flexible, and objectively
applied rules that avoid hampering progress. These styles of digital regulation include
innovative ways to use spectrum, license new technologies, and facilitate universal access.

Innovative spectrum use rules

As new wireless technologies enter the field with existing services, there is an ever-
increasing demand for spectrum, including for commercial 5G, satellite services, and fixed
wireless, as well as increased spectrum needs for government use. More than ever, rules are
needed to ensure efficient

19
 Digital Regulation Handbook

use of scarce spectrum resources. Table 1.2 briefly describes some of these creative
approaches, including spectrum sharing, unlicensed spectrum, and private-use licences for
the IoT.15

Table 1.2. Creative approaches to spectrum use rules

Spectrum use Description Benefits Challenges
rules
Spectrum sharing Multiple users of Accommodates many Requires some level
different applications/ users for more efficient of management
technologies share spectrum use with potential for
the same band interference

Unlicensed No limit on the number Enables easy access to No spectrum

spectrum of users in the band on spectrum for new and management means
a licence-exempt basis varied uses higher potential for
interference

Private uses for Enables local network Supports IoT for a May limit the
IoT use for specific range of sectors with availability of 5G
industrial functions, relatively low risk of spectrum for wider
such as mining, ports, interference owing to commercial use
or health care localized use

Source: Sayed 2019, Bedi 2018, LVM 2020.

Creative licensing to spur deployment of emerging technologies

Governments are seeking new licensing models to encourage market players, including from
outside traditional telecommunication operators, to test and develop technologies. These
models include the “regulatory sandbox” and streamlining of demonstration or trial
licences. Evolved from the fintech industry, regulatory sandboxes in the telecommunication
sector enable technologies and business models to be tested for a specified period. Sandbox
licensees are generally not subject to the full regulatory regime but may receive more
regulatory guidance than standard licensees. The flexibility of such an approach may also
prove valuable in times of crises as temporary measures to test innovative solutions to ensure
connectivity. Regulators may also reduce or eliminate fees to further encourage players.
Countries pursuing this approach include France and Thailand, as shown in Figure 1.7.

15
Chapter 7 on “Regulatory response to evolving technologies” and Chapter 6 on “Spectrum management”
detail these and other spectrum matters.

20
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Figure 1.7. Elements of the regulatory sandbox model in France and Thailand

Ch
ap
te
r1

Source: Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Posts (ARCEP). Bac à sable réglementaire
(Regulatory Sandbox), https://www.arcep.fr/professionnels/startups-entrepreneurs/bac-a-sable-
reglementaire.html ; NBTC 2019.

Creative mechanisms to facilitate universal access

To facilitate access to digital technologies and services, governments continue to use

conventional universal service programmes driven by universal access and service funds
(UASFs) along with other financing mechanisms. However, because of difficulties with
accountability or oversight in implementing UASFs in many countries, other financial
mechanisms are preferred, such as pay-or-play arrangements or smart subsidies.

Thus, legacy UASF-based initiatives may be supplemented or replaced with market-based

solutions, such as in-kind contributions, to promote demand and reduce operator costs. For
example, winning bidders from Germany’s 5G auction held in 2019 must comply with
extensive coverage obligations, including a requirement to set up 500 base stations in
unserved rural areas, called white spots (BNetzA 2019). Licensees must build out the base
stations to white spot areas by the end of 2022.

During the COVID-19 crisis, some countries are assigning high-demand mobile spectrum on a
temporary basis to ensure access. The Independent Communications Authority of South
Africa (ICASA), for instance, announced in April 2020 that it is temporarily assigning
spectrum in the 700 MHz, 800 MHz, 2600 MHz, and 3500 MHz bands to existing mobile
network operators (MNOs) “for the duration of the national state of disaster in order to
ease network congestion, maintain good quality of broadband services, and enable licensees
to lower cost of access to consumers”.16

Chapter 3 on “Access for all” details UAS mechanisms, further analysing trends and best
practices to connect the unconnected.

16
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), Emergency Release of Spectrum to
Meet the Spike in Broadband Services Demand due to COVID-19, https://www.icasa.org.za/news/2020/
emergency-release-of-spectrum-to-meet-the-spike-in-broadband-services-demand-due-to-covid-19 .

21
 Digital Regulation Handbook

1.6 Key findings

Development of national digital strategies and roadmaps

• National ICT policies and digital strategies, implemented in many countries, are key
mechanisms for setting connectivity targets and goals, and reinforcing the importance
of the digital space in the overall economic and social spheres of a country. They are
also valuable tools to advocate for collaborative regulation and the engagement of
multiple stakeholders – promoting a holistic approach to digital development and
planning.

Institutional structure and role of regulator

• The ICT regulator, regardless of the institutional structure, requires appropriate
independence in terms of funding and day-to-day operations and making decisions, but
its framework should recognize and encourage that it plays a collaborative role,
sometimes primary, other times secondary, in developing the appropriate framework
for a digital landscape.
• Given the impact of ICT in multiple sectors and the broad range of issues brought on by
a digital economy, the digital landscape depends on a collaborative and
interdependent environment between the regulator, other relevant government
authorities, industry, and other key stakeholders.
• Governments need to establish mechanisms – formal and informal – to collaborate with
industry and consumer groups on setting policies, rules, and guidelines. Many of the
technologies and innovations being deployed are nascent and merit a tempered
regulatory environment in order to better assess the appropriate path to promote
innovation while protecting against consumer harm.
• Whenever possible, regulators should encourage industry to develop its own guidelines
and codes of conduct before taking enforceable measures, since industry often is
better equipped to handle dynamic and new issues.
• Policy-makers and regulators should take this digital environment as an opportunity to
reassess the need for existing, potentially outdated laws and regulations and should
adopt measures—which may include deregulation, self-regulation, or a co-regulatory
approach – that will lead to greater innovation, easier deployment of new and
emerging technologies, incentivize investment, and focus on inclusivity and
collaboration.
• While G5 or collaborative regulation is a key component in developing inclusive policies
for a digital environment, certain fundamental regulatory tools will remain under the
primary purview of the ICT regulator, such as developing regulations to facilitate
connectivity, infrastructure development and foster a competitive sector.
• Regulators should continue to make evidence-based decisions after holding public
consultations. Robust consultations are crucial for digital regulation that involves
multiple types of stakeholders, which may hail from sectors outside of traditional
telecommunication players.
• Implementation and monitoring of regulations is important, both to ensure that
regulated entities are complying with the rules and that the rules themselves are
achieving their intended purpose. Expanding rules to cover digital services should be
carefully considered, including the potential impact of imposing a patchwork of
regulation.
• Enforcement should be subject to systematic and objective investigation prior to
imposing sanctions while any remedies should be proportional to the violation.
Cooperation with other sectoral agencies is useful to ensure consistent outcomes.

22
 Digital Regulation Handbook

Building frameworks for digital regulation

• Licensing frameworks for networks and services should be as streamlined as possible
and focus on easing market entry with unified or multiservice licensing representing Ch
best practices. For spectrum resources, there are various authorization mechanisms ap
with each serving different policy needs. te
• Regardless of the licensing framework, regulators should adopt licensing approaches r1
that achieve regulatory goals without imposing burdensome requirements that impede
market entry and growth. Generally, a light-touch regulatory approach is preferred,
particularly for digital regulation that now encompasses a broad range of players.
• Emerging technologies and services may be fostered through innovative approaches
to regulation, such as spectrum sharing, regulatory sandboxes, or alternatives to UASF
mechanisms to achieve universal service. Regulators are positioned to adopt clear, flexible,
and objectively applied rules to promote innovation.

23