Confronting communication technologies in the country has repeatedly been accompanied by restrictions and bans. But can opposing new tools still eliminate users' need for free communication?
Recently Mohammadamin Aghamiri, Secretary of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, claimed that Iran has also obtained technologies to disrupt or disable Starlink service, and that these technologies are technically “operational and ready.”
Starlink satellite internet in Iran faces legal restrictions and security considerations. Therefore, the debate over this technology, beyond the technical possibility of disrupting its communications, returns to a larger question about how to deal with emerging technologies; whether restricting a technology can solve a problem that may be shaped by that technology in the future?
To examine this issue we spoke with Hamed Beidi, an activist in the field of free internet access. He believes that the confrontation with Starlink cannot be considered merely a technical issue and that to understand it one must look at the overarching governance approach in the internet domain, policy priorities, and how security is defined.
In response to the Khabar Online question of why the first approach to a new technology is confrontation, he says: “I think there is a macro view of the internet that conflicts with the current mode of governance. This conflict is not limited to the internet; it relates to governance methods in various areas, from technology policy and the digital economy to freedom of expression and recognizing diverse and plural voices in society. In fact, either the governance method must change or the internet must be confronted. Naturally, people like Mr. Aghamiri and other officials in such positions neither have an idea to change this governance method nor show the motivation and will to do so. Therefore, what remains is spending resources and capabilities to confront the phenomenon of the internet; without regard to what the technology in question is, how much it costs, and what consequences it will have.”
He also, in response to whether instead of confronting Starlink one could use its capacities to expand internet access and why such a view is not prominent in policymaking, says: “As I said, our current governance method is not aligned with and does not recognize the existing global order. At the international level we also witness various confrontations. Inside the country the main priority is managing dissenting voices and ensuring internal security based on official definitions; even if this approach in practice is accompanied by contradictions and unconventional methods. In contrast, issues like justice in internet access, access inclusivity, and technological growth are lower priorities. For this reason, under the pretext of providing security, whether internal or external, and using concepts like independence, restrictions are imposed on the internet that ultimately do not even tolerate access to different forms of this technology.”
Hamed Beidi believes Starlink is no exception to this rule. This technology, like previous cases involving seizing receivers and collecting dishes, challenges the existing methods of internet governance and therefore is confronted. This confrontation may lead to limited and temporary successes at times, but the main issue remains.
He also, when asked specifically about methods conceivable for confronting Starlink and the consequences of such actions, says: “Regarding Starlink, methods are discussed ranging from network disruption and attempts to detect users' probable locations to using tools and equipment to identify the installation sites of this network's equipment. There are even reports of spot inspections and arrests of individuals who had been active in the field of the right to free internet access.
He explains: “The important point is that such actions should be analyzed within the framework of the current governance method. It seems the social and economic costs of this approach are not a serious obstacle to its continuation. Since the 1980s, any technology or phenomenon that has especially challenged media, media monopoly, and monopoly of narrative has faced coercive, exclusionary, and repressive responses. The confrontation with Starlink can also be seen as a continuation of this trend.”
This activist, in response to whether economic interests might play a role in the continuation of the Starlink ban, says: “There is a possibility that alongside other consequences of such policies, a ground is created for informal markets and earning incomes outside transparent mechanisms. We have seen examples of this situation in informal markets related to media receiving equipment in past decades and also the market for circumvention tools in recent years.”
According to him, an informal market may also form around Starlink which, due to the ban, lack of transparent mechanisms, and difficulty in setting a clear rate, provides grounds for informal activities. But one must distinguish between the cause of adopting a policy and its economic consequences. Any policy decision, whether a ban or permissive use of a technology, can create different economic beneficiaries. One should not reverse this causal relationship and assume that merely the existence of economic interests was the main reason for that decision.
He says: “If formal interaction with Starlink company and the conclusion of memoranda of understanding and legal contracts were possible, it would be possible, while using standard global mechanisms and procedures, to create the grounds for forming a formal market. Such a situation could have significant benefits for companies with official representation and economic actors in this field. However, the formation of informal markets should be considered one of the probable consequences of policy decisions, not necessarily their main cause.
Hamed Beidi, an activist in the field of free internet access, concludes: “To understand this issue we must go beyond merely the technical examination of Starlink and pay attention to the governance approach and policy priorities. As long as free internet access, technology development, and justice in access are not accepted as main priorities, the same pattern of confrontation and restriction will likely repeat with the arrival of new technologies.” / Khabar Online