Jacinto not willing to negotiate on telco tower cap

MANILA, Philippines — Presidential adviser for economic affairs and information technology communications Ramon Jacinto said a provision limiting the number of registered common tower companies in the country initially to two is non-negotiable, even if pushing for it means clashing with telcos, tower firms, and Information and Communications Technology Secretary Eliseo Rio himself.

“I was put in charge of common towers by the President and I am flexible to reasonable suggestions, but not this one. Opening it up would be chaos,” Jacinto told The STAR.

“Secretary Rio and I work well together. I supported his position with the third telco. He already initially approved these guidelines and I am sure we can work this common tower matter out well,” he said.

In Aug. 11 last year, President Duterte gave Jacinto a special mandate to “oversee and take charge of government initiatives aimed at achieving a speedy online connectivity of government agencies” such as the implementation of a common tower policy through the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

A draft version of the proposed memorandum circular of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and the NTC on common telecommunications infrastructure was presented to stakeholders in a public consultation last week.

Under the draft, a maximum of two independent tower companies will be registered by the NTC in the first four years of the implementation of the common tower policy, after which the NTC may register new tower firms, if necessary, especially in rural areas.

Deployment of all telecommunications towers should be performed only by the NTC-registered tower companies, except when it is unable to do so despite the request from the telco operators.

This provision has received strong opposition from foreign tower companies as well as industry giant Globe Telecom Inc.

Rio, for his part, said nothing has been made final yet and the companies’ recommendations would be considered in making the final version.

“I have the last say and it’s not RJ (Jacinto),” he said.

The DICT chief earlier said he is keen on doing away with limiting the number of companies to build common cellular towers to accommodate all interested firms.

Jacinto, however, said “the independent towercos have to be definitely regulated especially in the initial stages to bring the best and most efficient service to the people.”

“Like a subway system or an airport you cannot just allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry to build something sensitive to national security. The initial stages are the most sensitive and this is our last chance as a country to catch up with the world,” Jacinto said.

“After four years there is a mechanism anyway to allow others to come in if the two towercos prove inadequate. By that time the third, or even a fourth, mobile operator will have stabilized already,” he said.

Jacinto said Singapore-based Frontier Tower Associates, one of the foreign tower companies which raised concern over the cap in the public hearing last week, has doubtful credentials “as they just sold their tower assets in another part of the world.”

“What we need in our country are companies that are here to build the towers we need and not use the licenses that the government grants them to flip and make a profit. American Tower met with me a day after the public forum and even they are convinced opening it up would be foolish,” he said.

In a statement over the weekend, Globe has reiterated its call for the DICT not to limit the building of cell sites to two independent and private tower companies under the proposed common cell tower policy.

Globe general counsel and senior vice president Froilan Castelo said the company supports the proposal to put up tower companies in order to address the lack of cell sites in the country, but the DICT should allow as many players as possible and should also allow current and future telcos to have a stake in them.

“The proposed rule of limiting the entire tower sub-industry again only to two independent, private tower companies is anti-competitive, retrogressive, and against global best practice,” Castelo said.