A tricky telecompetition

I remember way back in the mid-1990s when I sent my very first fax transmittal. This was the very forefront of communications technology, I thought to myself; the stuff of science fiction. Indeed, how was it possible that a physical document was passing through a device and being duplicated miles away?

Nowadays, of course, the fax has long been rendered obsolete, and information technology has brought our level of communications to almost unimaginable heights. At any given time – quite literally – we have the sum of human knowledge instantly accessible at our fingertips. Distance has been rendered meaningless, and the internet has changed the composition of how we interact, socialize, and entertain ourselves forever.

Needless to say, great empowerment often comes with great dependence. Just think of all those frantic moments when you could not get mobile phone signal, the lines were choppy on an important call, or when the internet service was down. Even a senior citizen like me can experience great anxiety during these times, so I can just imagine what it is like for perennially connected millennials. 

As I wrote in my previous column, given the importance of telecommunications technology and service, it is not surprising why the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) has made the entry of a third telco player an urgent priority. Even the Senate committee on public services held a hearing yesterday in order to be updated on the latest developments surrounding this concern.

Given the current duopoly in the industry, a new contender may present more reliable services, lower prices, and increase overall competitiveness in terms of operations. Here’s the thing, though: making something an “urgent priority” does not have to mean that it will be rushed and done haphazardly. From the stands, it sure appears like the DICT could have given its selection process a lot more thought.

Insiders say that, because the bidders are merely required to write down assurances and guarantees, the selection will most likely end up in a literal coin-flip. From all indications, the DICT will not even check or verify any of the claims that the bidders will put in their respective documents.

While we can be positive about it and assume that the bidders will be able to provide the specifications they declared in their respective bids, having a thorough audit is still necessary. On the other hand, if we will be pessimistic and assume that some bidders will just promise the DICT (and the Filipino people), the moon and the stars then figure it all out later, then the entire bidding exercise would have been pointless.

At the risk of being credulous, why not do this: instead of looking at what they say they can do, why not look at what they’ve done? Examining past performance should be a lot easier than creating or assuming projections. Indeed, an educated decision based on historical data is better than a leap of faith based on a promise.

Another key consideration that the DICT should prioritize is security. The same ease of access that technology affords us to do good things, can just as easily be used for bad things. While online privacy and security is a shared responsibility, I doubt that there is much we can do if the breaches happen at the provider level.

I have heard from friends that quite a number of Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) personnel are wary about one particular foreign bidder. This is not surprising, considering that the relationship between our governments is shaky at best. It also does not help that there have been recurring allegations that this country employs hackers and to access home networks and key government agencies in order to obtain vital intelligence.

Admittedly, I’m not the most technical person, so I wouldn’t really know the ins-and-outs of network security. Given that there are concerns like that in the news, however, I would definitely pause and take a closer look. The good news is that during yesterday’s Senate hearing, the term being used was “provisional third telco provider,” which I took to mean as something of a trial period. This makes sense, given that issues may only come to light when phase-in operations are actually being undertaken.

I wish the DICT all the best in facilitating this “tricky telecompetition,” especially because I know that a third telco will ultimately give the industry a much-needed jolt that will favor the consumers. But they must remember that we can only reap such a benefit if they choose well.

* * *

The State of World Population 2018, released by UNFPA, the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency, reveals that the global trend toward smaller families is a reflection of people making reproductive choices. It states that “the historic transition to lower fertility has emerged through people claiming their right to make choices about their reproductive lives, and to have as few, or as many, children as they want, when they want.”

According to the report, entitled, “The Power of Choice: Reproductive Rights and the Demographic Transition,” family size “is closely linked with reproductive rights, which, in turn are tied to many other rights, including the right to adequate health, education and jobs. Where people can exercise their rights, they tend to thrive. Where these rights are stifled, people often fail to achieve their full potential, impeding economic and social progress.”

 Accordingly, “When a woman has the power and means to prevent or delay a pregnancy, for example, she has more control over her health and can enter or stay in the paid labor force and realize her full economic potential.”

The report notes that there is no country that can claim that all of its citizens enjoy reproductive rights at all times. “Most couples cannot have the number of children that they want because they either lack economic and social support to achieve their preferred family size, or the means to control their fertility. The unmet need for modern contraception prevents hundreds of millions of women in the world from choosing smaller families.”

According to Iori Kato, UNFPA country representative in the Philippines, the Philippines is the second largest country among the 10 ASEAN members, and its population is fast growing with the highest total fertility in the ASEAN. Over half of Filipinos are 24 years of age or below. “For the youthful country to reap a demographic dividend, there is an imminent need to invest more in health, education and employability of young people and on gender equality.”

Kato noted that many Filipino adolescents and youth have been left behind, and that 49 percent of unmarried, sexually active women and 17 percent of married women have an unmet need for family planning. One in five girls age 19 is either pregnant or has given birth.

“Millions of Filipinos would benefit from having the power to choose whether and when to have children, and how many children to have. If you can plan your family, you can plan your life,” Kato said.

* * *

Email: [email protected]