A/HRC/35/22 similar applications (for example, zero rating certain music streaming services rather than all music streaming). Additionally, States should require meaningful corporate disclosures about network traffic management practices. For example, Chile requires ISPs to disclose Internet access speeds, price or speed differentials between national and international connections, and related service guarantees. 56 III. Digital access providers and freedom of expression 29. While the duty of States to respect and protect freedom of expression is wellestablished, the private actors that establish, operate and maintain digital access also play a critical role. A. Telecommunications and Internet service providers 30. Telecommunications providers (Telcos) and ISPs (collectively referred to in the present report as “providers”) offer a diverse range of services. While they principally operate and sell access to the series of networks that comprise the Internet, they also enable users to communicate and share information through mobile services and traditional landlines (see A/HRC/32/38, para. 16). While providers remain State-owned in many regions, a growing number are now privately established and managed. The industry is also increasingly multinational: some of the world’s biggest providers operate networks in multiple countries and regions, often through partnerships with domestic companies or their own subsidiaries. 31. As gatekeepers of vast information networks, providers face significant government pressure to comply with censorship and surveillance activities. To operate a network in a country, they are required to invest substantial physical and business infrastructure, including network equipment and personnel. They are typically subject to local law and other licensing requirements set out in agreements with the State. In addition to legal pressure, providers have also faced extralegal intimidation, such as threats to the safety of their employees and infrastructure in the event of non-compliance.57 32. While several providers attempt to resist censorship and surveillance requests, many assist in government efforts without meaningful challenge. In the United States, one of the country’s largest providers is alleged to have created a “super search engine” to facilitate law enforcement access to customer phone calls, even though not legally required to do so. 58 In the United Kingdom, a complaint filed with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development alleged that major providers granted the country’s intelligence agency access to their networks and customer data well beyond what was required by the law at the time.59 33. A growing number of providers are establishing arrangements with media and other content-producing companies that threaten net neutrality and are lobbying intensely for concessions on net neutrality standards. For example, as European regulators were developing net neutrality guidelines, 17 major providers in the region issued the “5G Manifesto”, warning that “excessively prescriptive” guidelines would delay their investment in 5G, the next generation of mobile Internet connection. 60 56 57 58 59 60 10 Chile, Ley No. 20.453, art. 24 H (D). Telecommunications Industry Dialogue submission, p. 10. Dave Maass and Aaron Mackey, “Law enforcement’s secret ‘super search engine’ amasses trillions of phone records for decades”, Electronic Frontier Foundation (29 November 2016). Privacy International, “OECD complaint against BT, Verizon Enterprise, Vodafone Cable, Viatel, Level 3, and Interoute”. Article 19 submission, p. 9.