AI War - Who sets the Rules?

Regulating artificial intelligence is like driving a car: some prefer clear speed limits and guardrails, others enjoy an open road with minimal signs. The EU and the US exemplify these two different philosophies in AI regulation.

🇪🇺 The EU’s strategy prioritizes safety, fundamental rights, and transparency, ensuring responsible innovation and trustworthiness in AI systems. The objective is to protect individuals from a technology that might be dangerous but also to create a regulated environment where EU entities might better compete against US giants.

🇺🇸 In contrast, the current US approach, under the Trump administration, is notably less restrictive, summarized as a “let’s see what happens” policy. The goal is to have minimal constraints allowing rapid development and deployment of AI models, including open-source or freely available powerful AI systems.

Listen to the episode where Giulio Coraggio, data and technology lawyer at the global law firm DLA Piper unravels the complexities of the issue. Also, if you want to know more on the topic, read DLA Piper's AI Law journal available HERE

📌 You can find our contacts 👉 www.dlapiper.com

Transcript

Welcome to Diritto al Digitale, the podcast that explores the intersection of technology, law, and innovation. I’m Giulio Coraggio, a lawyer specializing in new technologies, and in this space, we analyze how the digital world is rewriting the rules of business and society.

Today, we’re starting with the Starlink case to tackle a bigger and more crucial issue: the right to internet access. We assume it’s a given, but in reality, it’s still fragile, subject to political and commercial decisions.

Over the past few decades, the internet has evolved from a tool for the few to the backbone of our society. Consider everything that depends on online connectivity:

• Communication – Our digital lives revolve around emails, instant messaging, and video calls.
• Work – Remote work, digital finance, and collaborative platforms all require internet access.
• Education – Universities, e-learning platforms, and research rely on the web.
• Essential services – Healthcare, public administration, and financial transactions are now digital.

Shutting down the internet, even temporarily, isolates people, limits their freedoms, and in some cases, puts lives at risk. And yet, deliberate disconnections happen more often than we realize.

Losing access doesn’t always mean a global blackout. Sometimes, internet shutdowns are intentional:

• Authoritarian regimes like China, Iran, and Russia control internet access, block content, and filter information to suppress dissent.
• Government-imposed blackouts – India has repeatedly shut down the internet in entire regions to curb protests and control unrest.
• Big Tech and private companies – SpaceX’s Starlink or Amazon’s cloud services could, in theory, decide to restrict services in specific areas or to certain customers for political or commercial reasons.

Which raises a crucial question: if the internet is essential, who has the power to control it?

In 2016, the United Nations declared internet access a fundamental human right, recognizing its importance for freedom of expression and access to information.

But this recognition is largely symbolic—there’s no binding legal framework ensuring universal access. Different regions take different approaches:

• European Union – The 2015/2120 Regulation protects net neutrality but does not mandate universal access.
• Italy – The Italian Declaration of Internet Rights (2015) recognizes internet access as fundamental, but the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee it.
• Finland & Estonia – These are among the few countries where broadband access is legally recognized as an essential public service, requiring the government to ensure universal coverage.

Despite these efforts, no global legal mechanism guarantees uninterrupted internet access as an enforceable right.

The Starlink case exposes the reality behind the myth of a "neutral" internet. Initially deployed to provide communication in crisis zones, Starlink became crucial in Ukraine’s defense efforts. But this dependency also created a vulnerability.

• Starlink’s service can be restricted or blocked at any time—Elon Musk himself has admitted to limiting its use for military operations.
• The U.S. could leverage access to Starlink as a geopolitical tool, linking it to diplomatic and economic negotiations.
• Countries that rely on Starlink or other foreign-controlled infrastructures face a national security risk, as their digital sovereignty depends on private companies.

This is not just about Ukraine. It’s about the broader issue of internet sovereignty. If essential internet services are controlled by a handful of companies based in specific countries, those companies (or governments) can decide who stays connected and who gets cut off.

Even if internet access were universally recognized as a right, practical barriers would still exist. The digital divide separates those with access from those who are excluded due to economic, geographic, or social factors:

• Lack of infrastructure – Rural and remote areas often have poor or no internet coverage.
• High costs – Broadband services and digital devices are unaffordable for many people.
• Limited digital skills – Having internet access isn’t enough; people need to know how to use it effectively and safely.

The solution? A mix of public investment, regulatory frameworks, and policies that make connectivity accessible and secure for everyone.

In telecom law, the concept of universal service is key. Traditionally applied to telephone access, universal service obligations require governments and telecom operators to ensure basic connectivity for all citizens, even in unprofitable areas.

Could a similar framework be applied to the internet?

• Governments could mandate broadband access as a universal service, just as Finland and Estonia have done.
• International agreements could create binding obligations for countries to protect internet access during conflicts or crises.
• A decentralized infrastructure could reduce dependence on a few major providers, making internet access less vulnerable to political interference.

The internet is the backbone of modern life, but its access is not guaranteed. It remains vulnerable to political, economic, and technological control.

If we truly consider internet access a fundamental right, we must move beyond symbolic declarations and implement stronger legal protections.

So, what do you think? Should internet access be guaranteed through new laws and regulations, or should control remain with private companies and governments?

Let’s discuss—reach out to me with your thoughts.

I’m Giulio Coraggio, and this was Diritto al Digitale. See you in the next episode!