The front is chaired by federal deputy Thiago Peixoto (PSD-GO)
Below, in an interview, the president of the Parliamentary Front for Digital and Collaborative Economy, deputy Thiago Peixoto, explains the context, reasons and plans from now on.
How did the idea for this front come about?
In the debates on the regulation of Uber and other apps, between last year and this one, I noticed a gap in the National Congress. Despite everything they represent and because they are very strongly present in the daily lives of all of us, Digital Economy companies did not have a point of convergence, they did not work in the same direction within Congress. Discussions were a little loose. And they need, in addition to being part of the discussions, to act closer to each other. Although each of them has different profiles and fields of activity, what unites them is the fact that they belong to this new economy that is based on innovation and technology. Along these lines, I decided to work to create the Parliamentary Front for the Digital and Collaborative Economy so that it could be that point of convergence, give that direction.
And when did that happen?
At the beginning of December, right after an intense debate on the regulation of people transport apps (whose decision ended up being postponed to 2017), I started the articulations and conversations to create the front. So, on December 15th, we got the necessary signatures from federal deputies and senators and installed the front. It's going to be officially launched now, but we've been actively involved in the discussions and behind the scenes since forever.
What is the proposal?
There are several aspects. In a simplified way, we will bring the debate on Digital Economy into Congress in an organized way. We will identify all the propositions that are in progress on topics related to new technologies. Of course, the two Houses (House and Senate) have their rites, but the front can act as a link between Parliament, Digital Economy companies and society. It so happens that, many times, pressure and lobbying from representatives of traditional sectors end up having a very great relevance over Congress, and this is absolutely legitimate, and the New Economy does not have such a large presence even because many of them have only been in operation for a few years. . The focus is not on the companies themselves, but on seeing how important it is for the population that these technological groups have their space guaranteed in the debate. After all, society enjoys a lot of innovations in everyday life.
But cannot guaranteeing the presence of companies in the national debate mean conflicts of interest?
Not. This is legitimate and has always occurred. The National Congress represents society, in the case of the Chamber, and the States, in the case of the Senate. In this sense, here is a space for constant dialogue, where different sectors are heard and represented. What it cannot do is be done in a nebulous way. If the discussions take place in a transparent and democratic way, that is very fair. What cannot happen is that traditional and historical sectors want to pressure so that newer companies are not represented or heard in the elaboration of laws and public policies aimed at society.
From what you said, the front will have a much more internal role…
Not only that. It will have, as I said, a profile of turning to the propositions on the subject that are in progress. But she will also act in contact with representatives of the Digital Economy to seek subsidies to improve our legislation. We will also have an outward look, to other countries, to understand how legislation is being built around the world. People need to understand that laws are not stony, immutable. The legislation undergoes constant changes and improvements. Here in Parliament we do that. In this case of the Digital Economy, it is essential that many parliamentarians understand that the bias is to understand what can be favorable to society and what it expects.
What do you mean by that?
It's simple. In a conflict of interests between a traditional sector and a New Economy company, what has to prevail is what is most favorable to society. Parliament has to act in this direction. Traditional sectors cannot use legislation as a shield to guarantee market reserve and prevent technological advancement and development. Corporatism cannot beat innovation.
We know that, in fact, technology, the internet, smartphones and applications are part of our daily lives, but does this so-called Digital Economy really have economic weight?
I will not give an opinion. I will speak in numbers. Statistics from McKinsey consultancy show that, while the flow of trade in goods and finance is slowing, that of data has been growing exponentially. Between 2005 and 2014 this volume grew no less than 45 times in the world. To give you an idea, in 2014, data flow added 2.2 trillion dollars to Global GDP directly and another 2.8 trillion dollars indirectly. Do you know what that represents? It corresponds to Brazil's GDP before the recession. In 2014, our GDP was 2.416 trillion dollars.
As for legislation, has it advanced in Brazil?
In some cases, yes, as in the definition of the Marco Civil da Internet, in the last legislature. In many others, unfortunately, not. Progress is still timid. We have a lot to do. Recently, the Chamber gave a clear example of setback by approving a regulation that, in fact, prevents free competition and the proper functioning of digital applications that work in the transport of people, such as Uber, 99 and Cabify. What Casa did, despite all our warnings, was to make an analogical, backward and traditional reading of something that is innovative and technological. They want to treat something that is part of the reality of the 21st century with the eyes of the last century. It is not possible to treat in a superficial and traditional way what is linked to innovation and technology. Things are constantly changing and the deputies did not understand this. They were tinkering and creating outdated rules for services that have the support of society and that work very well. All surveys show that more than 90% of people support using the apps as they are new commuting alternatives and at lower prices. What the said regulation did was create new categories of taxis. It is not possible to treat as the same things that are completely different. It was absurd! And time will show that the decision was wrong, as has happened in other similar conflicts in the past.
What conflicts?
These are historical questions. We have several examples of negative reactions from traditional industries to new developments. This occurred with the invention of electricity, the electric light bulb, the automobile, the computer and at various other times. But time passed and these innovations were integrated into the life of society and brought us many benefits. The biggest problem is when they try to use existing legislation and rules to hinder progress, as happened in the dispute between Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison, for example.
How did this happen?
It was in the so-called War of Currents, in the 19th century, in the United States. Edison and Tesla disputed, at the time, the distribution of electricity and use in North American cities. Edison and his company, General Electric (GE), seeking to keep the profits from their patents in direct current, defended direct current and did not want the alternating current system, created by Tesla, to be applied in the electrical sector. Alternating current, in fact, as it turned out later, was much more efficient and made it possible to distribute energy more safely. It so happens that Thomas Edison, who was very influential and well-known, used legal mechanisms to curb the adoption of innovations. This ended up delaying the process. However, time passed and Edison was proven wrong. He and his company had to surrender to Tesla's proposal and GE remains in the market to this day, having even grown based on the alternating current created by Tesla.
But you point to a case in which legislation was used to prevent progress, but we should certainly also have examples of cases in which it favored innovation.
No doubt. Between the 1980s and 2000s, Microsoft and Apple fought a battle over the hegemony of the computer operating system in the United States. The legislation in force at the time, which had already been amended, updated, modernized, allowed this dispute to take place fairly. The result was the massification of microcomputers, which made possible the information revolution that we are currently experiencing.
In the case of Brazil, what needs to be done?
We had the approval of the Marco Civil da Internet in the last legislature. I even voted in favor and defended it. But we still have a lot to go. The work is barely getting started. The National Congress has a key role. It is necessary to regulate, but not in a way that prohibits the performance of applications and new technologies. The already consolidated sectors need to adapt to the new realities. In addition to being an inevitable trend, society calls for it. The fight that more traditional sectors have been doing with new technologies, in the sense of banning them, is to fight against history, as I have already said. In times like the current one, the role of legislation is to allow innovation, competitiveness and avoid abuses, guaranteeing the user's right to choose.
And how can the front act in these cases?
It can interact with New Economy companies and seek contributions to improve our legislation. With the front, the Digital Economy will have a north, a space, which previously did not exist here within the Congress. Instead of each company running from one side to the other and acting in isolation, it will have a space for convergence. However, as I said, the main bias is to understand what can be more favorable to society as a whole.
Will this debate be restricted to the National Congress?
Not. Much of the legislation depends on federal guidance, of course, but much also occurs in states and municipalities. In this sense, the Parliamentary Front for Digital Economy can encourage and be a partner in the creation of similar fronts in Legislative Assemblies and Municipal Councils. The broader the debate, the better.
What will the dialogue with the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications look like?
We will have a constant dialogue and a great approximation. Minister Gilberto Kassab is an enthusiast of new technologies and is always open to hearing new ideas and, if necessary, redefining positions.
EN 
PT 
