In the hallowed halls of public discourse, a familiar tune is playing: well-intentioned legislation meeting a wall of practical and security concerns.
The latest number on this playlist is the Konektadong Pinoy (KP) Bill, a piece of legislation that, on the surface, promises a more connected and affordable Philippines.
But as they say, the devil is in the details, and according to former DICT Undersecretary Jeffrey Ian Dy, this particular devil is wearing a very problematic disguise.
In a recent Huntahan news forum, Dy expressed his opposition to the stand of his former colleague, incumbent DICT Secretary Henry Aguda, arguing that the KP Bill, particularly its controversial Section 16, is a classic case of oversimplification.
This isn’t just a friendly disagreement; it’s a stark warning that the bill, in its current form, could do more harm than good.
Dy, who has been a proponent of infrastructure sharing in the past, finds fault with the bill’s blanket mandate that all Data Transmission Industry Players (DTIPs) must co-locate and share their infrastructure.
He points out a series of glaring weaknesses that expose the bill’s naiveté about the telecommunications market:
First, it fails to address the root cause of many infrastructure woes: the exorbitant fees charged by real estate developers.
Instead of holding these powerful entities accountable, the bill places the burden squarely on the DTIPs, perpetuating a cycle of high costs and limited expansion.
Second, the bill’s enforcement provisions are toothless. While it targets DTIPs with penalties, it conveniently overlooks the landlords and developers who hold the keys to the infrastructure.
This creates a regulatory imbalance that will likely leave consumers with the same old expensive and unreliable services.
Third, the bill’s global applicability is questionable at best. With 99% of our internet traffic flowing through international undersea cables, how can a local law realistically dictate the terms of a global network?
This provision seems to exist in a vacuum, ignoring the complex realities of international telecommunications regulations.
But perhaps the most alarming of Dy’s warnings are the national security risks.
The bill’s framework, he argues, could open the door to foreign entities, particularly those with ties to nations of concern, connecting their fiber networks to our local infrastructure.
This isn’t a hypothetical threat; it’s a clear and present danger that could compromise sensitive national interests.
He further cautions about the relaxed regulations for satellite operators, which could allow foreign entities to control orbital slots above our country, further eroding our national control.
In the end, Dy appealed to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., to hit the brakes and take a second hard look on the KP bill.
He pointed out that the goal of a more competitive and affordable telecommunications market is noble, but this bill is not the vehicle to get us there.
For him, it’s a bill built on a flawed understanding of the industry, riddled with loopholes, and fraught with national security risks.
It needs a comprehensive study and a serious rethink before it is allowed to become law.
And Dy actually might have a point, after all, a poorly constructed bridge to a better future could surely lead us off a cliff.
