By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
Let me share some emails in my ongoing effort to extract some information on the implementation of NTC MO 07-07-2011 (for telcos to set the minimum speeds and reliability thresholds and to properly inform the public thereof) from NTC Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba which was the subject of my last column.
On May 29, 2017 from me to Cordoba:
“Relative to my letter dated May 9, 2017 asking about the implementation of MC 07-07-2011, are the emails of Engr. Jose T. Bartolome of the Consumer Welfare and Protection Division the official responses of the Commission?
I ask the question because of the following:
First, Engr. Bartolome has made contradictory statements. On May 12, he wrote that the Commission does not have data on the minimum speeds of the Internet plans of Globe Telecom and Smart Communications and had referred my letter to the two telcos for action. When I asked him to categorically state if the telcos have complied with MC-07-07-2011, he emailed on May 25, 2017 and I quote: “Yes , i think all telco have complied with that MC, because as of today we have not receive yet any complaint against MC 07-07-2011 except for you.” I find the two statements contradictory because had the telcos complied, then I assume the Commission would have the subject data considering that the precise point of the MC is to make telcos set such speeds and to disclose the information. How could the Commission say the telcos have complied to the MC if it is unaware of and does not have in its possession such data? As a regulatory body, doesn’t the NTC require telcos to submit proof of their compliance to regulations?
Second, as you can see in the above-quoted portion of his email, Engr. Bartolome does not understand the meaning of the word “categorically.”
Third, Engr. Bartolome cannot also differentiate a request for information from a complaint.
May I also ask if the Consumer Welfare and Protection Division is the proper office to deal with my letter considering that it refers to the implementation of an MC.
Earnestly appealing that my inquiry dated May 9, 2017 will be clearly answered finally.”
The office of Cordoba did not reply — until now. But I got this letter from Bartolome on May 31:
“This is relative to the information on the compliance of Globe and Smart to NTC MC 07-07-2011 particularly, in providing subscribers/users/consumers information on their offerings such as minimum connection speed of their internet Plans and quality of their broadband/internet connection.
The Commission is mindful of the strict compliance of the public telecommunication enteties to the above regulation. It is in this regard why prior to the publication and advertisements of their offerings/promotions, PTEs are required to secure endorsement from the Commission. Further, we would like to inform you also that promotions/offerings are still subject to the approval of the DTI and Advertising Standard Council as pertains with the mechanics and advertisement of their promotions/offerings, respectively.
Based on the record of Consumer Welfare and Protection Division of this Commission for the year 2016 recorded complaint, there is no violation of the said circular.However, subscribers/consumers/users are encouraged to file before the Commission a valid complaint should a particular public telecommunications entities failed to comply MC 07-07-2011.
We will highly appreciate your assistance and cooperation by informing the Commission if there are any violations on the above circular by the public telecommunication entities.
Rest assured the Commission, through its Consumer Welfare and Protection Division monitor violations of NTC MC 07-07-2011 and provides resolutions to violations of telecommunications entities.”
Same day, I replied as follows:
“Regarding the second paragraph, I would like to know if the Commission had already indorsed the contents of the planned ads of the offerings/promotions of each of the telcos. I ask this because if such indorsements have already been issued by the Commission, it means that the Commission has the data on the minimum speeds of plans because the prime mandate of MC 07-07-2011 is for the telcos to set the minimum speeds and service reliability of their Internet plans. It follows that the Commission would not indorse or approve such ads unless they are compliant to the basic content of the MC.
In view of the above observation, I reiterate my request for the data on the minimum speeds of the Internet plans of the local telcos.”
There being no answer after two weeks, I followed up thus on June 14:
“This is to remind that up to now you have yet to answer my email dated May 31, 2017 reiterating my request contained in my email dated May 9, 2017 for data on the minimum speeds of the Internet plans of the local telcos. On the basis of your claim in your May 31, 2017 email that the NTC is very strict in the implementation of NTC MO 07-07-2011 along with the fact that the order was issued almost six years ago, I assume that the agency has at least indorsed the ads of the telcos to the DTI and Advertising Standard Council which means you already have the data on their guaranteed minimum speeds and reliability thresholds.
Hoping that you could clarify your contradictory statements. At first you claimed you do not have the data and then later you alleged that you are strictly implementing the MO and that all the telcos may have complied because it is only me who is complaining about the issue (Yes , i think all telco have complied with that MC, because as of today we have not receive yet any complaint against MC 07-07-2011 except for you.). If they have complied, how come you do not have the information on the minimum speeds they have set per MO?
By the way, since you seem unable to distinguish a complaint from a request for information, I want to clarify that the purpose for my communications to the NTC is to elicit information.”
Still failing to make them break their silence, I called Engr. Bartolome on June 15. Among others, I gathered the following from the conversation: he does not know the contents of MO 07-07-2011; and that my inquiry should have been routed to the Regulation Branch.
I next called Argy Eusebio Pamplona, the person who routed my inquiry to the Consumer Welfare and Protection Division (CWPD). He maintained that all comments, inquiries and complaints from the public should be referred to the CWPD. He also assured that the Commissioner is aware of the query. When I asked just when the query will be answered, he said he will relay my words to their chief of staff.
All I can say now is if there was an intent to really give me a forthright answer, they could have done so a long time ago. I sense that as usual with the NTC, they are trying to give me the runaround perhaps thinking they could shake me off that way.
This will get interesting in the near future. For one thing, President Rodrigo Duterte has no patience with inept and irresponsible people in government.**
