Russia Wants Surveillance in Place Before Internet Access

Russia's government is preparing new rules for internet service providers. The Ministry of Digital Development wants operators to meet the requirements of SORM, the country's system for supporting law-enforcement surveillance, before receiving a telecommunications license. That would make readiness to provide authorized agencies with access to network infrastructure a prerequisite for entering the market, rather than an obligation to be fulfilled after operations begin. Deputy Digital Development Minister Dmitry Ugnivenko outlined the proposal in October, and industry reporting in November indicated that discussions were continuing.

Surveillance first, service later

SORM is not a new system. Russian telecommunications operators are already required to provide the technical infrastructure for operational-search activities. Under the existing arrangements, however, a company can obtain a license and then implement an installation plan agreed with the Federal Security Service (FSB). According to Ugnivenko, such plans may allow up to two years for compliance. The ministry argues that some companies exploit this arrangement by shutting down and registering new legal entities before completing the installation.

The proposed change would reverse that sequence: an operator would have to satisfy SORM requirements before it could begin providing service. Installing costly surveillance-related equipment would therefore become an upfront expense, incurred before the company connects its first customers. As of this article's preparation, this remains a proposal under discussion, not a new rule already in force.

The overhaul goes beyond SORM

The broader reform is not limited to access for security agencies. The ministry has discussed replacing the existing licensing structure with three tiers—basic, universal and general—and introducing requirements concerning operators' capital, telecommunications revenue and geographic coverage. Earlier versions of the proposals included license fees of one million, ten million and fifty million rubles, depending on the license category. The figures and other conditions have changed during negotiations with the industry and should not be treated as final.

In September, seven telecommunications industry associations appealed to the president to soften the proposed reform. They warned that smaller regional operators could be forced out of business, reducing service availability and concentrating the market. Ministry officials and industry representatives met in October. Following talks on October 23, ComNews reported that the parties had agreed a proposed interagency commission would not automatically strip companies of their licenses or ownership of their networks. That was a significant adjustment to earlier proposals, although negotiations over other provisions continued.

The cost of compliance

For smaller providers, the proposed rules would mean financing network expansion, meeting regulatory obligations and installing SORM equipment before generating revenue from new customers. Industry representatives say that formally uniform requirements would impose a disproportionate burden on regional companies. If some of those operators leave the market, consumers may face fewer choices. That is a risk identified by industry groups, not an outcome that has already occurred.

The ministry also presents an economic rationale for reform. It argues that current rules allow companies without adequate technical and financial resources to enter the market. But licensing criteria do more than determine service quality. When permission to operate depends on installing infrastructure that enables access to communications, the machinery of state surveillance becomes embedded in the licensing process itself.

What it means for freedom of expression

The rights to privacy and freedom of expression are protected, among other provisions, by Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Lawful criminal investigations may involve access to communications. The central questions are whether safeguards against arbitrary interference exist, whether measures are necessary and proportionate, and whether meaningful independent oversight is available.

In Russia, those questions are particularly urgent against the backdrop of prosecutions over political statements, anti-war posts and independent journalism. The technical ability to link online activity to identifiable users can encourage self-censorship. The existence of SORM does not, by itself, establish that every subscriber is under continuous individual surveillance. The issue is the infrastructure and the powers it makes possible.

Control built into the network

For internet users, restrictions have often been visible as blocked websites, throttled services or bans on particular information. Licensing reform reaches an earlier stage: the conditions under which a company is allowed to connect anyone to the internet in the first place. If the proposed requirement is adopted, the ability to provide state agencies with access to communications infrastructure will become a condition for a new provider to operate.

The final text and eventual scope of the broader reform have not been confirmed. In October, the government also approved a separate draft bill concerning licensing requirements in telecommunications; without comparing the legal texts, that measure cannot be assumed to contain every proposal discussed by the ministry. Nevertheless, the direction of the debate is clear: Russian authorities are seeking to move control upstream, from operators' individual activities to the conditions governing entry into the telecommunications market.