“ISPs can cut corners to achieve quick gains, potentially leading to widespread service disruptions, inadequate customer support, and a lack of innovation in the sector”
This is a follow thru of my Aug. 12 commentary on the potential security risks of Senate Bill 2699 or the “Konektadong Pinoy Act,” a LEDAC priority bill aimed at enhancing digital connectivity wherein other concerning effects that have more internal dynamics and as critical as the geopolitical dynamics of national security need careful attention.
One of the central issues with the bill is its potential weakening of regulatory oversight of the National Telecommunications Commission.
Currently, the NTC rigorously vets companies entering the telecommunications sector, ensuring only qualified operators with the necessary resources provide reliable services.
Senate Bill 2699, however, proposes reducing the NTC to an administrative body that merely registers new entrants.
This shift could allow operators with questionable capabilities to flood the market, prioritizing speed over service quality and reliability.
Without stringent checks, the market could become saturated with providers who lack the technical expertise or financial stability to maintain consistent and reliable services leaving Filipino consumers with subpar internet access.
This risk is particularly high in underserved areas, where reliable connectivity is already a major challenge. By reducing regulatory safeguards, the bill could worsen the digital divide rather than bridge it.
Another significant issue from the bill is the potential erosion of consumer protection.
The current regulatory framework ensures telecommunications providers are held accountable for their services with the NTC monitoring compliance with standards that protect consumer interests.
If the NTC’s role is reduced to mere registration, this could lead to a scenario where consumers have little recourse if they experience poor service or unfair practices.
Additionally, the bill could inadvertently encourage a short-term focus among Internet Service Providers.
By making entry too easy and free of a congressional franchise, this bill might incentivize companies to prioritize rapid expansion and market penetration over long-term investments in infrastructure and service quality.
ISPs can cut corners to achieve quick gains, potentially leading to widespread service disruptions, inadequate customer support, and a lack of innovation in the sector.
The emphasis on deregulation and rapid market entry also raises concerns.
We already have three telcos with the third one having difficulties.
Proponents want more, possibly foreign players – whose profits will be remitted outward – to come in and force a price war to bring down costs.
New entrants must operate with lower costs to offer cheaper services. Sounds nice but will the quality of services be sustainable?
The experience of other countries with similar open-access policies offers valuable lessons. For instance, Australia’s National Broadband Network project, despite substantial government investment, also faced significant challenges, including cost overruns and delays.
In contrast, countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, which have successfully implemented open-access models, relied heavily on robust municipal oversight and public-private partnerships to ensure that underserved areas were not neglected.
These cases highlight the importance of balancing deregulation with strong regulatory frameworks and massive government investment in telecommunications infrastructure to ensure equitable service distribution across all regions.
In the Philippine context, however, the burden of infrastructure development almost entirely on the private sector.
Without significant public investment or well-designed regulatory mechanisms, the bill’s promise of improved connectivity for all may ring hollow, especially for those in rural areas who stand to gain the most from a more inclusive digital infrastructure.
The focus on easing market entry without corresponding measures to ensure infrastructure development in less profitable regions risks creating a two-tiered digital society, where only urban areas enjoy the benefits of fast and reliable internet while rural communities remain disconnected.
The potential weakening of legislative oversight in telecommunications could have lasting effects on governing critical infrastructure.
Currently, congressional franchises for spectrum allocation provide public accountability and transparency.
Eliminating this requirement, risks reducing public oversight and favoring corporate interests over the public good, setting a worrisome precedent.
Senate Bill 2699, though well-intentioned, requires a more balanced approach.
Instead of dismantling the existing framework, lawmakers should refine it with adequate safeguards against the inherent risks of the digital world.
Strengthening the NTC’s capacity, rather than diminishing it, is essential, including streamlining processes, enhancing capabilities, and ensuring adequate resources for managing a complex and fast innovating industry.
Additionally, the government must play a more active role in ensuring broadband connectivity in underserved areas.
This can be achieved through aggressive government investments in digital infrastructure, particularly in rural and remote regions, and by introducing incentives for companies to expand their services to these areas.
A regulatory framework that balances market competition with government oversight is essential for ensuring that the benefits of fast connectivity are shared equally across all regions.
