By Estanislao Albanao Jr.

On July 15, 2011, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued Memorandum Order 07-07-2011 as a solution to the deceptive practice of telcos of stating just the maximum speeds of their Internet plans in their “advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements” and keeping the public in the dark about the minimum speeds of their plans. The MO mandates telcos to specify the minimum speeds and minimum reliability of their Internet services and to properly inform the public by indicating the data in their promotional materials and service agreements.
On May 9, 2017, I wrote NTC Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba asking for the minimum Internet speeds of the telcos specially Smart and Globe as they are the ones operating in our province. Engr. Jose Bartolome of the Consumer Welfare and Protection Division (CWPD) emailed me on May 12 that they do not have the said data but that he will refer my letter to the telcos. In the same email trail, Bartolome had asked Globe and Smart to provide me the data I am looking for a copy furnished the Commission.
Putting two and two together, I concluded that the telcos have not complied with the MO otherwise the NTC would have in its possession the basic proof of compliance — the data on the minimum Internet speeds of the plans the telcos are offering. So there be no room for doubt, however, I asked Bartolome on May 22 to state categorically if the telcos have complied with the regulation and also what the NTC has done so far to the defiant telcos pursuant to the mandate of Rule 4 of the MO which states that the Commission will file administrative cases against erring telcos. Bartolome answered on May 25 claiming that the telcos have all complied because they have not received a complaint regarding the implementation of the MO except from me. (He could not distinguish a request for information from a complaint and could not understand the word “categorically.”)
On May 31, in answer to my observation that Smart and Globe are not heeding his request to them to answer my query, Bartolome alleged that the Commission is strictly implementing MO 07-07-2011. He went on to explain that before telcos could print their advertisement/promotional materials, they must secure the indorsement of the Commission and the nods of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Advertising Standard Council. He went on to claim that per 2016 CWPD records, there are no violations of the MO because there were no complaints on the implementation thereof.
On June 1, I reiterated my request for the minimum speeds and reliability data of the telcos on the logic that if the Commission had indorsed the proposed ads of the telcos, it already has the data on the minimum speeds of the Internet services of the telcos because the main mandate of the MO is the setting of minimum speeds and reliability of Internet plans. Bartolome still has to answer the letter until this writing (June 9, 2017) and I do not expect him to do so at all because he is now hopelessly tangled in his contradictory statements.
Meantime on May 30, through an email exchange in the PLDT Customer Care official account, customer representative Jomel Acompanado informed that PLDT has set 60-80 percent of the advertized speeds of their plans as minimum speeds thereof but that they have not incorporated the information in their promotional materials.
I also take note that had they complied with the MO, it would have been very easy for Globe and Smart to heed the request of Bartolome to provide me their minimum speed data but they still have to reveal the same to me and the Commission almost a month after Bartolome wrote them.
If the telcos continue to take MO 07-07-2011 for granted, it is because there is no serious intent on the part of the NTC to implement the same. In fact, it did not even make an effort to inform the public of the contents of the said regulation proof of which the MO which is so important for the protection of consumers could not be found in the agency’s website.
Another proof that the NTC never planned to inform the public about the important MO is the fact that nobody in the NTC-Cordillera starting from OIC-Regional Director Dante Vengua are aware of the existence of the regulation. Early this year, I asked Vengua about the minimum speeds of the Internet plans of Globe but he said he is not in a position to answer my query. Perhaps his ignorance is shared by all his subordinates because he eventually directed me to Engr. Susana Panes of the NTC central office. Panes told me that per NTC MO 07-07-2011, the minimum speeds of plans should be 80 percent of the advertised speed. However, I would find out later from a news item on MO 07-07-2011 online that the 80 percent refers to the reliability threshold imposed by the MO and not the minimum speeds of Internet plans.
And when I went to the NTC-CAR for a copy of the MO on May 5, 2017, the employee who attended to me said he could not find it online and in their files even as he expressed doubts about the existence of MO surmising that it is possible there might have been plans to issue one but was eventually abandoned. I pointed out that MC 07-08-2015, the MC which sets the minimum broadband speed at 256 Kbps, states that MO 07-07-2011 remains in effect. It was only then that he told me to submit a written request so that if they find the MO, they could email me a copy. I did that and an hour later, NTC-CAR sent me a copy.
The gall of the Commission to now invoke the absence of complaints on the implementation of the MO as proof of successful enforcement when it’s people who are mandated to enforce it are not even aware of its existence.
How could the NTC now have the credibility to ask Congress for more teeth so they could force erring telcos to toe the line when up to now, it has not displayed any intent and will to put its existing teeth to good use? What will it do with more teeth when it does not still know how to chew? What the NTC needs is not more teeth but an overhauling job that would finally position people there who take seriously the mandate of the agency to regulate the telcos and in so doing, protect the people from the abuses and stinking services of these companies.**