Reporters without borders, France
Aug 23 2004
Armenia
Population : 3,072,000
Internet users : 60,000 (2002)
Average charge for 20 hours of connection : 35 euros
DAI* : 0.30
Situation** : middling
Armenia is one of the few countries in the sub-region where the
Internet is not censored. But the government is slow to develop
Internet activity and not many people have access. A law to regulate
it has been passed that broadly respects freedom of expression
despite several inconsistencies.
With only 60,000 users and about 3,500 websites registered under an
“.am” domain-name, the Internet is not yet important in Armenia. The
high price of connection is the main obstacle to its growth, with a
private line costing nearly 50 euros a month. Line quality is also
poor, slowing access to webpages.
The 15-year telecom monopoly granted to the Greek firm OTE in 1998
also slows progress because the company has not made the investment
needed to improve access. Its charges to customers are unduly high
and it demands an exorbitant price for renting access to other ISPs.
Internet users pay the price for this lack of commercial competition.
Access is also largely confined to the capital, where most cybercafés
are.
Online media prevented from covering elections
No online media were accredited by the central elections commission
to cover the presidential and parliamentary elections between
February and May 2003. The commission decreed on 22 August 2002 that
only media duly registered with the justice ministry could be
accredited. Since websites were not at the time legally classed as
media, none could register and thus qualify.
Legal situation
A media law passed on 13 December 2003 by parliament gave websites
media status. The measure, more liberal than previous legislation,
defined media very broadly, with even posters included as such. The
Internet was exempted however from some requirements made of the
traditional media, such as registering with the government.
The law seems similar at first sight to those passed in the
sub-region’s more repressive countries, such as Belarus and
Kazakhstan, but is not such a threat to freedom of expression.
However it does contain some inconsistencies that might harm the
growth of the Internet, including a requirement that online
publications must provide the government with details of income and
expenditure. This is seen locally as completely impractical and a
heavy burden on website editors.
An online journalist threatened
John Hughes, editor of the online weekly Armenianow, informed
military prosecutor Gagik Jhangirian in a 4 November 2003 letter that
one of his journalists, Janna Alexanian, had received phone threats
from the father of two soldiers murdered on 6 August in Vanadzor and
about whom the journalist had written an article on 15 August. Their
father accused her of defending the killers. Hughes said the
complaint was in fact triggered by Alexanian writing that the
soldiers’ family was involved in petrol racketeering. The threats
stopped soon after the letter was sent.
Links
The Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) site about Armenia
?i6
* The DAI (Digital Access Index) has been devised by the
International Telecommunications Union to measure the access of a
country’s inhabitants to information and communication technology. It
ranges from 0 (none at all) to 1 (complete access).
** Assessment of the situation in each country (good, middling,
difficult, serious) is based on murders, imprisonment or harassment
of cyber-dissidents or journalists, censorship of news sites,
existence of independent news sites, existence of independent ISPs
and deliberately high connection charges.
From: Baghdasarian