THE telecommunications duopoly will be summoned by Congress to explain why their legislative franchises should not be revoked due to poor service, an official says in a House resolution.
“The House of Representatives requests the major telecommunication providers, Smart Telecommunications and Globe Telecommunications, to explain why the Filipino people are not receiving the quality of service that they deserve, and to show cause why they should have the privilege to keep their franchises despite the same,” Kabayan Rep. Harry Roque says in House Resolution 238 that he has filed.
He invoked Section 20 of Republic Act 7925, which gives all telecommunications users the right to reliable services and demands that all telecoms providers comply with the standards set by the National Telecommunications Commission.
But Roque says “common experience would reveal that the services provided by the major telecommunications service providers have been below standard or inadequate as evidenced by the poor signal reception, frequently dropped calls, unexplained exorbitant bills and sudden and abrupt disconnection of contract services.”
Roque is the second lawmaker to demand answers from Smart and Globe.
1Pacman Rep. Enrico Pineda last week delivered a privilege speech denouncing the “greed” of the telecom duopoly which, he claims, rake in some P104 million in net profits daily despite their “lousy internet service.”
Pineda echoed President Rodrigo Duterte’s warning to the telecoms duopoly to “shape up or face the consequences.”
“The lucrative telecoms industry is controlled only by a duopoly which easily rakes in a net profit of P104 million a day,” Pineda told the plenary.
He says the country’s internet speed is 22 times slower than Japan’s but it is 96 times more expensive.
“Not only are we being given the poorest service, we are also being forced to pay the highest rates. To say that we are being shortchanged is an understatement,” Pineda said.
“Telecommunications companies are bound to comply with the provisions of general telecommunications and broadcast laws as provided by their franchises,” Roque said.
“Failure to comply with the statutory obligations provided under one’s franchise is a ground for penalty, suspension or removal of such franchise.”
