8/22/22, 10:18 PM Myanmar: Freedom on the Net 2019 Country Report | Freedom House spectrum, addressing consumer protection, inspecting and supervising telecommunications providers, and carrying out any administrative actions against providers. 56 However, both the PTD and MPT lack proper safeguards to protect regulatory and operational independence, making them vulnerable to political interference. Furthermore, the bodies’ decisionmaking processes are opaque and they rarely engage or consult with civil society. 57 Article 86 of the 2013 Telecommunications Law outlines a Myanmar Communications Regulatory Commission (MCRC), which has yet to be established. 58 The MCRC, which would have insufficient safeguards for independence, would take over regulatory functions and institute a mechanism to adjudicate any administrative issues in the telecommunications sector. Many analysts believe that the government’s failure to establish the MCRC is due to its unwillingness to relinquish direct control over the telecommunications sector. 59 The Pricing and Tariff Regulatory Framework showcases how telecommunications rules favor stateowned service providers. The framework, an initial set of rules for mobile service providers, came into force in 2017 and included new floor pricing and a ban on offering free SIM cards or supplying telecommunications services below cost, among other rules. The rule on floor pricing included a minimum charge for data ($0.00065 per 1 MB of data), calls, SMS, and other services. The floor pricing, which was more expensive than some providers’ prices at the time of adoption, was established for all providers to follow. However, the government waived floor pricing for the military-owned Mytel, reportedly to enable it to achieve rapid growth when it was first launched. 60 Another state institution, the Myanmar Computer Federation, which was formed under the 1996 Computer Science Development Law and is comprised of industry professionals, is the designated focal point for coordination with technology-related associations, working groups, and other stakeholders in the sector. Civil society groups have raised concerns that the federation is progovernment and operates opaquely. 61 For example, the federation’s leadership has supported some of the government’s more draconian digital surveillance policies. 62 B. Limits on Content While the government continues to refrain from applying direct limitations on content, self-censorship on a range of subjects including the military, corruption, and the Rohingya, remains high. Social media companies have responded to pressure by opaquely increasing content removals, which has removed legitimate content. Users are free to access the internet, but there is a lack of diversity in the ownership and content of online media outlets. Meanwhile, the government and military actively promote their own narratives online and reject much independent reporting as “fake news.” B1 0-6 pts Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content? 6/6 The government has continued to refrain from blocking or filtering content. In 2012, the government lifted all prior censorship of traditional and electronic media, with the exception of films, dissolving the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division shortly thereafter. The government does not actively publish https://freedomhouse.org/country/myanmar/freedom-net/2019 6/20