Summary

  • Anatel’s rules turn duly justified consultation submissions into a document that must state why suggestions were accepted or rejected, while the Board must examine public input before adopting a Resolution.
  • That creates an auditable decision trail, not a plebiscite: the agency need not follow the most popular view, and a public response does not prove that the resulting rule will work in networks.

A consultation is often counted by the number of submissions it attracts. For a telecom operator, that count is the least useful part. The consequential question is whether the regulator’s eventual decision can be traced back through the evidence, objections and technical judgments that informed it.

Anatel’s new Internal Rules, approved by Resolution 791 and effective from 4 October 2026, specify more of that path. Article 69 describes consultation as a process for submitting a draft rule, document or matter of relevant interest to public criticism and suggestions. For normative proposals, the consultation follows the statutory minimum period subject to legal exceptions; other consultations must last at least ten days. The rules also identify materials to accompany a consultation, from technical-area reports and available legal opinions to council votes and records of debate.

The key obligation sits in Article 69(6). Justified criticisms and suggestions must be consolidated in a separate document, sent to the authority responsible for the matter, and accompanied by reasons for adopting or rejecting them. That document becomes part of the administrative case and remains available on Anatel’s portal. Article 75 adds a decision-stage duty: before issuing a Resolution, the Board must examine comments from public consultation and, where applicable, internal consultation, public hearings and committees.

Reasons for adopting or not adopting the technical area’s conclusions must also be set out in a document archived publicly.

Federal Law 13.848/2019 supplies a wider frame. It calls consultation a decision-support tool through which any interested party may offer input. It requires publication of submissions and the agency’s position, normally within 30 business days after the Board’s final deliberation meeting. The law separately requires agencies to state the factual and legal premises for decisions, including decisions on whether to issue a rule.

These provisions make a consultation more than an inbox. A company can compare the record it helped create with the regulator’s eventual reasoning: Was the objection acknowledged? Was its factual basis accepted, rejected or treated as immaterial? Did the final decision distinguish a technical finding from a policy choice? This is useful when planning interconnection, coverage, spectrum, compliance or capital deployment, because a reasoned disposition gives operators a better view of the rule’s assumptions and the questions likely to recur.

But an answer is not agreement. The statute makes consultation support for a decision, not a binding vote. The Board remains responsible for the result; it can reject a submission if it explains why. Nor does a well-documented decision establish that a network obligation will be funded, implemented or effective. Those claims require later evidence from the rule’s operation.

The test is therefore not whether an operator’s preferred text prevailed. It is whether a reader can follow the route from public evidence to administrative judgment. The new rules establish a record where that test can be applied. They do not establish that every consultation will produce a persuasive explanation, or that the explanation will predict the field outcome.

Heng Lu’s Note 32, “On The Agency Problem at the Core of Internet Governance,” informs the editorial question of how delegated authority is made answerable to those affected by it. It is a lens, not evidence about Anatel or Brazilian law.

Sources