by Yfur Porsche P. Fernandez

Despite the Internet’s appreciation as an accepted information source, non-adult consumers should still be aware of its limitations and threats.

However, while books are still regarded as the most trusted sources, sets of good references are also now available online.

A ‘rational’ choice?

As many people consider the Internet as an inseparable part of today’s educational system, increasing number of academic institutions view it as an almost, if not an indispensable component of a ‘revolutionized’ educational structure, especially in the post-modern culture.

While this medium has metaphorically minimized the pain and maximized the gain of students, researchers and other Internet-users, a direct consequence of it now flounders — as it moves closer to the consciousness of its principal consumer,the young minds.

Being mindful, not alarmist

The society (parents, private sector and education authorities) faces a demanding and challenging task of protecting students from negative elements the Internet has uncovered – including, but not limited to pornographic sites, sexual dating sites, and many others.

Putting it in context, though the Internet has irrefutably contributed useful and speedy impacts on today’s social DNA, it has unfortunately magnified sinister elements to flow liberally and navigate spontaneously, in an instant.

Highlighting the “goods”

Recognizing the share of Internet’s bad effects, many U.S. academicians nowadays, are promoting e-books, which are technically books, discarding the sensation of experience, due to its very nature of being “electronic.”

An article entitled Best References for Students Today presents a list of top websites that vows to address the educational needs of the students today.

The list includes general publications, electronic libraries, organization websites, government portals, news agency sites and other relevant materials. (Suite 101 Media, published October 14, 2010, accessed July 29, 2011)

Here are some of the links applicable to the Philippines:

• Encyclopedia Britannica – an online version of one of the world’s most trusted sources of information on science and technology, history and society, arts and entertainment, travel and geography and many others

• Information Please Almanac – a useful tool to search facts on a wide array of subjects

• iTools Research –collection of online dictionaries, translations, quotations and more

• Smithsonian Institution – a user-friendly site from the world’s largest museum complex and research organization

‘Erosion of the Mind’

Neil Maroki, in The Impact of the Internet on the Educational Systems in the New Millennium,says one major drawback of the Internet is the erosion of the mind.

He writes, “The Internet will eventually cause the mind to be obsolete simply because it will not be used anymore. For this reason, the thinking ability will greatly diminish and man will not be able to do simple things in the future.”

Maroki explains that it will greatly affect the educational process in the future because the thinking abilities of the students will be impaired and the information will be stored in the computer’s memory not in the student’s mind.

At the moment, what appears to be the problem is the limitless movement of information of “all” kinds. While there is already an option to filter searches, one can still choose to turn this option off as a human tendency.

The medium has apparently launched a wide array of risky and malicious content sources and research sites. Most of them successfully intrude the moral and values, if not tease young minds’ vulnerabilities.

An integrated role

Even though reference tools and research sites are now available in just few clicks, parents still have supervisory roles in a child’s consciousness-building.

On the one hand, public officials should make it a crusade not to stop framing tangible and accurate measures to lure away non-adult users from insidious mechanisms that aim at corrupting their minds — even if this means some sides affronted.

The Internet definitely has good use, as long as it is neither misused nor abused. Each of us may take part in wisely maximizing its advantages and utilize its product for a good cause.

While we may not, at this moment obliterate its share of disadvantages, we can start echoing our sentiments to debunk its “improper” use.

Though this may sound an ‘old moniker,’ the youth really is the frontrunner of the society, and therefore realistic preparations are necessary before win.

While fluctuations in TV ratings may suggest viewers are now switching channels — from watching newscasts to watching a variety/game show, it is still early to conclude that the viewing habit of Filipino households has already changed.

TV5′s bold move to introduce a variety show in an early evening time slot (which is usually ruled by primetime news programs) may be considered a timely and wise strategy for a network trying to show its metal.

“TV5 dares to change viewing habit”

It shall be noted that since the re-opening of different forms of mass media in 1980′s, majority of evening viewers has been used to open television sets to watch prime-time news — at that time, ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol was lording the ratings.

It was able to set the standard on the “magnetic” approach to tackle news regardless of its veracity and kind.

After TV Patrol’s decades of existence, many news programs from GMA7 and ABC5 (now TV 5) have come and gone. It was only in 2004 that GMA 7 has finally drawn its flagship news program (24 Oras) to decrease ratings gap with TV Patrol.

At that time, there were only two recognized “Giants” namely, ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7.

Since the habit of watching news programs remained unchallenged for a long period of time, no TV network dared to launch a show in an early evening time slot with a completely different genre, aside from news.

Until ABC5 repackaged itself as TV5, making the roster of mainstream evening news shaken.

TV5 dares to reinvent primetime experience and attempts to reverse viewers’ habit of watching news to watching entertainment.

“Entertainment, instead of news”

Boldly speaking, Willie Revillame’s show satisfies the “wants” of typical households, tired of dealing with restrictions imposed by their material conditions.

A typical member of a household, who wants to take a break from the reality manifested in TV news,may prefer to watch a game show than a news program. Likewise, he or she who wants to temporarily disengage from a stressful day, may prefer to do the same.

Perhaps so, as some consider news programs as “visual reminders” of many displeasing things surrounding the society.

HOWEVER, the question remains: do you think this kind of show (regardless of network producer) communicates and addresses the real “NEEDS” of the people?

“Culture of escapism”

People’s need is to take hold of the Truth and ‘relevant’ information to enable them fulfill their citizen-critic duties, as members of a ‘supposed-democratic’ society.

A show like Willing-Willie/WilTime BigTime or any variety show for that matter, cannot give the same dose of effects as news programs can possibly contribute.

We are not saying though, that news programs completely fulfill the need of the people as they are also subject to various flaws concerning reputation, credibility and credence as information-gatherers, news providers and watchdogs, respectively.

The point is, news programs are more inclined to providing the needs, not the wants. News programs, compared to variety/game shows are closer to the aim of having an information-rich and a Truth-driven society.

People have already taken the initial steps and it certainly poses a problematic future if they take huge step backwards and completely change their habit of watching news.

The many flaws of today’s mainstream journalism may be viewed as a huge problem in the realm itself. Shortcomings of which, may even justify people’s choice not to watch newscasts anymore. Even the idea of having an information-rich, Truth-driven society may still be debatable.

HOWEVER, thinking the wild possible diversion of Filipino habit from watching news to plain entertainment in the future is a greater social concern to mull over compared to the problems surrounding the media.

This may suggest that people are no longer interested, (1) to know relevant issues affecting them, (2) to take hold of the Truth and information, and (3)to practice their real democratic functions as citizens.

Escapism is never a solution to problems.

“An insidious move”

Taking it from the lens of a business mogul, we can say that TV5′s brave move to challenge the timeslot dominated by news programs was indeed a wise corporate decision.

ABS-CBN and GMA are already taking this situation as a challenge to further their affinities to viewers.

Let us see how ABS-CBN and GMA respond to this, if the trend goes good.

Will they develop new shows to compete a variety show — and finally change their respective news programs’ time slots?

When this happens, is it safe to conclude that TV5 has been victorious in setting a new historic television trend — where early evening is no longer about the headlines?

The move is quite insidious, as it intends to take advantage of the fact that people no longer “want” to hear anything bad as inevitably given by news programs.

The move is treacherous as it takes hold of viewership by means of entertainment. It is able to influence people’s consciousness by making a strategy out of their weaknesses.

As people look for ways to withdraw themselves from the unfortunate traces of reality seen via TV news, TV5 takes the opportunity to move.

“Developmental journalism”

This is a long discussion between what people need and what people want.

But if mainstream TV news will work hard to make people realize how important it is to be aware of and to take hold of “relevant” information surrounding them, then they may still have a chance to resurrect their viewers.

Relevant information are those, which are NEEDED by the people to exercise their citizen-critic duties.

The mainstream TV news shall begin at improving their “developmental” efforts to news and public affairs.

Reporting a story is different from informing the people. By way of informing the people, journalists take commitment not only to report the facts and make people understand complex issues, but also to present sound options and/or logical alternatives, without inciting personal judgment.

This is completely different from merely telling a story as it answers the who, what, where, when, how and why.

Presenting the problem coupled with proposed actions, alternatives or options make a story “developmental” in approach. It goes beyond the simple airing of concerns and grievances, as it becomes part of the solution.

A United Nations report released on Friday says that Internet access is a human right.

“Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all states,” said the report from Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the United Nations, who wrote the document “on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

La Rue added that access to the Internet is particularly important during times of political unrest, as demonstrated by the recent “Arab Spring” uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, among other countries. In the Philippines, the internet has started to make citizens use it as a platform to advocate social change especially in Facebook and Twitter.

From the report:

The Special Rapporteur believes that the Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.

Indeed, the recent wave of demonstrations in countries across the Middle East and North African region has shown the key role that the Internet can play in mobilizing the population to call for justice, equality, accountability and better respect for human rights.

The report notes that while the Internet has been in existence since the 1960s, it is the way people now use the Internet, across the world and across age groups, with “incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life,” that makes the Internet an unprecedented force.

On the Promotion and Protection of the Right of Freedom of Opinion & Expression

“According to the International Telecommunication Union, the total number of Internet users worldwide is now over 2 billion,” the report said, also pointing out the huge growth in the number of active users on Facebook, which has surged from 150 million in 2009 to 600 million this year.

La Rue also urges governments to eschew laws that allow for people’s access to the Internet to be blocked.

From the report:

The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States’ international human rights obligations, whether it is through the application of existing criminal laws to online expression, or through the creation of new laws specifically designed to criminalize expression on the Internet.

Such laws are often justified as being necessary to protect individuals’ reputation, national security or to counter terrorism. However, in practice, they are frequently used to censor content that the Government and other powerful entities do not like or agree with.

La Rue describes the Internet as “revolutionary” and unlike any other communication medium such as radio, television or printed publications, which are “based on one-way transmission of information.”

The Internet, on the other hand, is an “interactive medium” that allows not only for the sharing of information, but also “collaboration in the creation of content,” which makes people “no longer passive recipients, but also active publishers of information.”

As such, the Internet can be a tool of empowerment and aid in the protection of and access to other human rights — as well as contributing to growth economically, socially and politically — benefiting mankind as a whole.

From the report:

Such platforms are particularly valuable in countries where there is no independent media, as they enable individuals to share critical views and to find objective information.

Furthermore, producers of traditional media can also use the Internet to greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. More generally, by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable.

This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole.

But while La Rue argues that Internet access is a basic human right, he also notes that giving people that right isn’t yet always feasible in every nation. But that shouldn’t stop governments from trying to give their people affordable access to the Web.

From the report:

Given that access to basic commodities such as electricity remains difficult in many developing States, the Special Rapporteur is acutely aware that universal access to the Internet for all individuals worldwide cannot be achieved instantly.

However, the Special Rapporteur reminds all States of their positive obligation to promote or to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and the means necessary to exercise this right, including the Internet.

Hence, States should adopt effective and concrete policies and strategies –- developed in consultation with individuals from all segments of society, including the private sector as well as relevant Government ministries -– to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all.

Conceivably, viewers have witnessed how evening television newscasts covered a developing story on a bus bombing tragedy in EDSA last January 25.

TV Patrol, 24 Oras, Aksyon and other mainstream newscasts made a spontaneous function in reporting blow by blow of events through news correspondents stationed in specific live points to cover at least three major beats (enough, to be considered a developing story): (1) latest development on the actual bomb site, (2) road traffic situationer and alternative routes, and (3) casualty rundown.

At this point, viewers/listeners may have, consciously or not, seen the “dynamic,” or should we say the “politics” of live reporting.

Reporters, as expected were in a rush to get live interviews to some of the key officials concerned in the said tragedy. These “live” interviews were intended not only to substantiate a reporter’s story but also to serve as “key informant” sources with studio anchors asking questions. It’s like hitting two birds with a stone.

At any rate, this kind of live reporting with live interviews adds credit to news networks and may actually contribute a certain degree of “news exclusivity and sensibility,” in favor of the reporter and of course, the news network in its entirety.

In such a case, we can see that the law of impenetrability works for news reporters. This law states there are no two things that can occupy the same place, at the same time.

Say, a reporter who gets the first highest key informant for an interview in a live 6:30PM newscast for Network A may declare a win over other reporters since the same highest key informant may not appear for an interview in a live 6:30PM newscast for rival Network B.

There is a sort of ‘information warfare’ happening in live reports and “keen” reporters are surely aware of it.

A reporter’s credibility is a separate story. For example, a city mayor may have the tendency to accommodate an interview first, with a famous and veteran lady reporter from Network A than with a young reporter from Network B.

In covering a developing story, reporters experience a more competitive function. The goal does not end in gathering facts and details, building a story then merely reporting it.

We shall take into account that these mainstream reporters work in a corporate system — whose aim is not only to report significantly, but to look for unique and inimitable stories with distinct angles to be able to put up the best possible fight against its rank of competitors.

But more than anything else, we as citizen-critics should go back to the many different ways that define a “meaningful coverage.” It shall be noted that a “meaningful coverage” is not defined by time or space, instead it is defined on the basis of how important or significant a piece of information has been – sufficient to influence people’s everyday lives, to make them informed and to entice them to act for a reason.

Written by Yfur Porsche P. Fernandez

On a Sunday afternoon, I heard a male talk show host saying Twitter has created a certain degree of equality among members of the society. I disagree. Social networking sites are non-social levelers.

Though social networking sites, are as their tags clearly reflect, instruments of communication installed in the burgeoning matrix of the new media, it is not safe to say that these spell as a ‘great equalizer.’

Erasing social inequality?

Putting this argument in context compels us to look at the material relations and conditions surrounding a society, which is stratified according to class and according to social rewards and benefits received, at least for the Philippines.

Let us not be hemmed in the school of thought of the mainstream by deliberately saying that a social site like Twitter or any social networking sites for that matter obliterate social inequality, at least on the basis of subscription.

Not all Twitter subscribers are celebrities. Not all are upper middle-class. Some are still in the episode of considering this a “trend,” or a “fad” — a reason that gave birth to an obsolete idea that having an account makes one “in.”

No free lunch

While it is true that everyone may have an account, say on Twitter because of its free sign-up offer, not all are able to receive the same attention celebrities and famous people are receiving from numerous followers and fellow subscribers. On that basis alone, how do we qualify equality within?

While it is true that everyone may have an account, say on Facebook, not all have the “willingness” and “ability” to maintain or sustain an account due to different valid reasons. And some of the reasons may be viewed at varying degrees and I’m sure you still have a lot to include.

A mother, who is a regular government employee working from 8am to 5pm may have less time to, at the very least check/open her account because of the time consumed by work plus other activities, which take away a lion’s share of her time being a mother.

A mother, who is a regular government employee working from 8am to 5pm, may also have less time to, at the very least check/open her account because of inaccessibility to network signal, or Interweb.

There is no free lunch. Having, maintaining or sustaining a particular social networking site requires Internet access, which most of the time is not free. The point is, not all have the ability to pay for Internet service.

Even establishments, which offer free wifi before, now have security features to omit excessive use of free internet from non-customers/ free-riders. Customers, before availing this free wifi service, have of course, already taken a fraction of their money to buy or purchase even the cheapest thing available in cart. Well at least to qualify as a “customer.”

Aside from these factors, we shall also consider the age bracket of subscribers and recognize reasons why they chose to subscribe:

1. Most number of accounts
2. Most number of “active” accounts
3. Class stratum having the most subscribers
4. Have registered an account because of peer pressure
5. Have registered an account because it is the trend
6. Have registered an account because it is needed (work related, business related, etc.)

HOWEVER, regardless of reasons and age bracket, it is still difficult to say that a social network is a social leveler UNLESS one makes qualifiers. Say, by mentioning a specific social stratum, in this case, as amongst the middle class.

“Overstretching” the purpose of the new media

When one says, Twitter provides a degree of “pagkapantay-pantay,” he may be referring to an idea that everyone “may” avail the free sign-up offer of a social networking site — regardless of gender, age and race, among others. However, NOT everyone “has the ability” to avail this free sign-up due to absence of enabling conditions (i.e. access to Internet service, literacy, etc.)

We recognize the positive ideals behind the creation of these social networking sites: smooth flow of information, information revolution, technological development and a new communication brand. No debate about these. It is important to note that the purpose of social networking sites is to connect people. Now, the problem is some subscribers themselves use the new media beyond the purpose.

Interestingly, I would like to share an argument presented by UP Mass Communication Professor Danilo Arao on the limits of Twitter.

He writes, “Since it is practically impossible to provide proper context to one’s 140-character message, a person’s tweet can only do so much to explain one’s point. It is not surprising that their respective Twitter wars did not resolve anything. They failed to raise discourse to a higher level since micro-blogging deprived them of explaining in full detail what they had wanted to convey.” (The Lobbyist, March 1, 2011)

A battle of discourse

While many say through Twitter, one develops the discipline (others say, an art) of short messaging, others are asking a quite reasonable argument, the 140-character message feature offered by Twitter gives premium, if not control to communication – opposing its principal purpose of “communication.”

In such situation, vulnerability to misinterpretation due to context-restricted statement is an all-time high.

Behavioral scientists may say Twitter is a reinvented text messaging in the Internet. Communication enthusiasts may agree that Twitter promotes “short-cuts,” thus allowing wrong word spelling. Philosophers may say this issue is permissible as long as two parties are communicating and are in the same language game. It is indeed a battle of discourse.

Let us go back to our nomenclature when these social networking sites are still hiding behind the curious minds of their creators, and re-examine how we existed using the basic “human” brand of communication — those times when the power of communication is still sharply utilized within our hands. Then, let us think.

@jesterinexile attended the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC ) public hearing in Baguio last Friday. Apparently the NTC “believes, and continues to believe that broadband is a value added service. Value added service is another speak for, “add on.” NTC believes that this isn’t the telco’s main business, but their side business.”

@rom emphasizes that “DepEd & CHED must step in and tell NTC that poor broadband services gravely affect education, specially distance education. #betterinternet”

Anything non-voice daw is is Value-added-service which I think is an excuse to dictate prices.

@cocoy in Is internet a value added internet service? adds that:

What is pretty clear in the face of global change, in the face of how much the Internet is instrumental in every part of people’s lives, and continues to grow, the Internet access must be considered as a right. At the same time, Internet infrastructure must maintain its core ethos: that no one group controls it and any law or policy must respect network neutrality.

Times have changed. NTC should review the broadband access classification as value-added service (VAS) .

Broadband is not VAS when it can be sold independently of its main services (i.e. cellular, landline). Internet usage is not the same as it was ten years ago. Bayan Telecommunications, agrees the real revenue is in broadband as demand for it increased more than traditional revenue sources like voice calls and international long distance calls.

Today, internet connection is a basic service needed by consumers to communicate with family members, acquire information and knowledge.

Here are the live tweets from @jesterinexile and others who were watching the public hearing on ustream. The videos can be viewed here.

photo credit

Everyone is encouraged to come to the Tweetup 9:00 AM on Friday, February 4! Signup here.

It started when I saw @sagadasun tweeting on broadband cap with @rom and @latex . I thought he had such great ideas and suggested he write a position paper on it. Well, @sagadasun being @sagadasun claims he has twitter ADHD.

A tweetup was then suggested by @cocoy @rom and everyone else so here it is.

To those interested , whether you are in Twitter, Plurk or Facebook

A tweetup has been called for February 4, 2011 to discuss the Broadband situation in the Philippines. It will be at Figaro’s, along Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center. #

Everyone is encouraged to come! Signup here.

(cross posted from Propinoy)

This proposed draft was prepared by Jester in Exile and collaborated by Cocoy Dayao and other bloggers. This was also sent to the NTC on January 26, 2011.

Original post may be found at Propinoy Project.

Hon. Gamaliel A. Cordova #

Commissioner #

National Telecommunications Commission #

BIR Road, East Triangle #

Diliman, Quezon City #

Subject: Position Paper on Draft Memorandum Order on Minimum Broadband Speeds #

#

Dear Sir: #

Greetings! #

We who are internet connectivity consumers would like to present for the Commission’s consideration our position paper on the memorandum order on minimum broadband speeds currently being drafted by your agency. We believe that our paper, exhaustive as it is, presents essential fundamentals that shall provide fairness between subscribers and service providers of internet connectivity. #

Should your office require clarifications, we stand ready to be of service. #

Cordially, #

(signed) #

Engr. Pierre Tito A. Galla, ECE #

IT Professional and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Edward Angelo M. Dayao #

Editor (The ProPinoy Project, http://propinoy.net/), and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Noemi Lardizabal-Dado #

Blogger, Project Editor (BlogWatch; http://blogwatch.ph), Features Editor (Philippine Online Chronicles; http://thepoc.net) and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Fritz Karl M. Tentativa, CPA #

Financial Professional, Blogger, and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Arbet W. Bernardo #

IT Professional and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Maria Jose #

Blogger and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Ernesto Galvez Sonido Jr. #

Blogger and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Jacinto A. Limjap, jr. #

IT Professional and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

#

#

Lester Cavestany #

Educator and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

#

#

Laya Isabelle Garcellano Florendo #

Writer, Blogger, and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Aileen Estoquia #

IT Professional, Blogger, and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

Jaime Oscar M. Salazar #

IT Professional and Internet Connectivity Consumer #

#

Position Paper on the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) Draft Memorandum Order on Minimum Broadband Speeds #

#

#

Relevant Law and Policy #

The law governing the regulation of internet service providers is the R.A. 7925, “An Act to Promote and Govern the Development of Philippine Telecommunications and the Delivery of Public Communications Services”, otherwise known as the “Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines”, which took effect in 1995. #

R.A. 7925 provides the national policies that should guide the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), the government agency empowered to enforce this act, and the policies germane to the debate include: #

“a) A fundamental objective of government is to develop and maintain a viable, efficient, reliable and universal telecommunication infrastructure using the best available and affordable technologies, as a vital tool to nation building and development; #

e) Public telecommunications services shall be provided by private enterprises. The private sector shall be the engine of rapid and efficient growth in the telecommunications industry. #

f) A healthy competitive environment shall be fostered, one in which telecommunications carriers are free to make business decisions and to interact with one another in providing telecommunications services, with the end in view of encouraging their financial viability while maintaining affordable rates; #

i) For efficiency, practicability, and convenience, but with due regard to the observance of due process at all times, regulation of telecommunications entities shall rely principally on an administrative process that is stable, transparent and fair, giving due emphasis to technical, legal, economic and financial considerations.” #

R.A. 7925 also provides the duties of the NTC that are germane to the policy debate: #

“b) Ensure quality, safety, reliability, security, compatibility and inter-operability of telecommunications facilities and services in conformity with standards and specifications set by international radio and telecommunications organizations to which the Philippines is a signatory;#

d) Foster fair and efficient market conduct through, but not limited to the protection of telecommunications entities from unfair trade practices of other carriers; #

e) Promote consumers’ welfare by facilitating access to telecommunications services whose infrastructure and network must be geared towards the needs of individual and business users; #

f) Protect consumers against misuse of a telecommunications entity’s monopoly or quasi-monopolistic powers by, but not limited to, the investigation of complaints and exacting compliance with service standards from such entity.” #

R.A. 7925 also provides for the basic rights of telecommunications services end-users that are germane to the policy debate, most notably: #

“a) Entitlement of utility service which is non-discriminatory, reliable and conforming with minimum standards set by the Commission.” #

R.A. 7925 also provides basic terms definitions that are germane to the policy debate: #

“a) Telecommunications – any process which enables a telecommunications entity to relay and receive voice, data, electronic messages, written or printed matter, fixed or moving pictures, words, music or visible or audible signals or any control signals of any design and for any purpose by wire, radio or other electromagnetic, spectral, optical, or technological means. #

b) Public telecommunications entity – any person, firm, partnership or corporation, government or private, engaged in the provision of telecommunications services to the public for compensation. #

h) Value-added service provider (VAS) – an entity which, relying on the transmission, switching and local distribution facilities of the local exchange and inter-exchange operators, and overseas carriers, offers enhanced services beyond those ordinarily provided for by such carriers.” #

This position paper is framed within the relevant national law and policy, and puts these over and above any other considerations except fairness and equity among all the stakeholders. #

Internet Connectivity Promotes Transparency in Government #

The experience of the United Kingdom in making government data public is a practical example. #

The British government made non-confidential data available to the public, and the public went ahead and developed ways and means of using the data – from free software applications that gave stakeholders information on road conditions and infrastructure spending to group efforts related to citizen watchdog activities ensuring the integrity of public servants. #

Closer to home is the pedestrian example of the livestreaming of public hearings, an activity with far-reaching benefits. Without internet connectivity, the NTC hearing could not have reached the public, and the Commission would have failed to live up to its mandate of protecting the Filipino telecom consumer. It is noteworthy that the NTC hearing that was livestreamed has resulted in citizens being informed of the Commission’s efforts, and citizens are now showing their appreciation via position papers such as this one. #

Of course, the online viewers found it disappointingly ironic that the unreliability of the internet connectivity resulting in audio gaps and skips demonstrated the need for fair reliability that service providers seem unwilling to acknowledge. #

As internet connectivity is a great enabler, it is in the best interests of the public through the efforts of the NTC to have internet connectivity to be provided with low barriers to entry and consumer-oriented reliability. #

#

Internet Connectivity Promotes Civil Rights and Enables Communities #

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a policy speech on 21 January 2010, said that “The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet.” #

She then described “Internet Freedom,” which is the Freedom to Connect.  She said, “The Freedom to Connect is the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the Internet, to websites, or to each other.  The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace.  It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate.  Once you’re on the Internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon, or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.” #

Furthermore, internet connectivity promotes and facilitates constitutionally-guaranteed rights, such as the right to free expression, the right of association and peaceful assembly, the right to information on government activities and matters of public interest. Through internet connectivity, mass media allows for greater depth and breadth of reportage, as well as convenience and ease of access of media coverage. #

Over and above these, internet connectivity not only promotes the civil rights, it also is an enabler in the saving of lives. Without internet connectivity, the “bayanihan spirit” of the online Filipino could not have been leveraged during the typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. Then, internet-connected Filipinos aided in the mobilization of volunteers, the identification of priority areas, the collection and allocation of donations – all towards helping less-fortunate Filipinos. Without internet connectivity, these laudable efforts could not have happened in ways that are equally as fast and as actively pursued. #

Clearly, internet connectivity supports and promotes the enjoyment and protection of civil rights, as well as enabling communities to serve best as fellow citizens of the Philippines. #

It is therefore required of the Commission to ensure the continued protection of civil rights as enabled by internet connectivity, by way of promoting fairness between service providers and the Filipino consumer. #

Internet Connectivity is Beneficial to the Economy #

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development in 2008 published “Broadband and the Economy.”  It is a paper that examines how broadband networks interact with the economy. #

It concluded several things.  First, broadband networks are integral part of the economy, and collectively is a “general purpose technology enabler”: #

“GPTs are technologies that enable changes, which is also the case for ICTs, with broadband acting as the required infrastructure enabler (like the electricity transmission and distribution network in the case of electricity), and the Internet as the platform supporting an endless variety of applications. Thus, their effects are likely to build up over time. They can be expected to raise productivity, and give rise to network economies with network effects expanding over time. There will be new process, product and organisational innovations beyond what can even be imagined today.” #

Second, broadband has become an integral part of almost every aspect of a knowledge based economy. #

Broadband is the 21^st equivalent of what roads, railways, telegraphs and postal services were to the 19^th and 20^th century. #

Third, OECD noted that, “ICTs and broadband create new ways for companies to exploit the creativity and innovativeness of their workforce. Blogs, wikis, podcasting, tagging technologies, and lessons of community and social networking sites are increasingly seen as important tools to improve the efficiency of employees (Bughin, 2007; The McKinsey Quarterly, 2007; Wunsch-Vincent and Vickery, 2007).“ #

Fourth, in the Philippines, online workers such as The Lady Programmer who rely on the Internet for income will be grossly affected by a broadband cap, and is grossly affected by the slow internet in the Philippines. #

The World Bank determined that for low- and middle income countries, that for every 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration, it accelerates economic growth by 1.38 percentage points. #

Broadband Speeds Promote Faster National Growth #

The Global Network Readiness Index for 2009-2010 ranked the Philippines as 85 out of 133 countries.  This report measures the propensity for countries to exploit the opportunities offered by information and communications technology. #

Broadband is Not a VAS, and Can and Should be Regulated as a Utility #

The first point of contention is whether or not the internet broadband service provided by the telecom companies such as BayanTel, Digitel, Globe Telecom, Liberty Telecom, PLDT, Smart Communications, and Sun Cellular, is a value-added service (VAS). #

We submit that data services such as internet connectivity are no longer VAS. #

Telecommunications entities locally and worldwide have switched their telecommunications technology from analog to digital. Data communication over the public switched telephone network (PSTN) is no longer an enhanced service over and above voice services, which was previously analog. With the current technology used by the telecommunication networks, voice and data are normal services carried over digital networks. #

Since data services are now ordinarily provided by carriers via their digital wireline and wireless networks, data services are not VAS. As such, internet broadband cannot be a VAS. #

Clearly, because internet connectivity, broadband or not, is not a VAS, internet connectivity should not be a deregulated service or utility. As broadband is not a VAS, minimum service standards can and should be imposed for the protection of the Filipino consumer. #

#

Broadband is Not Completely Subject to Free Market Dynamics #

A contention of those supporting broadband as a VAS and therefore should be deregulated is that the dynamics of competition and a free market is what will result to service quality appropriate to the Filipino consumer. #

This is patently false. Enshrined in our Constitution is the prohibition of the entry of foreign-owned companies, thereby promoting a protectionist environment for local telecommunications firms. There is little means for outside companies to come in and pose the kind of competition to local service providers that will result in better service quality. #

Furthermore, telecommunications companies require legislative franchises, making the entry and establishment of new local firms more careful and longer in time. As such, the market can be and is already limited to a small number of players — an environment that is not conducive to competition that will result in better service quality. #

As such, since the Republic provides haven and protection for local service providers, it is incumbent upon the NTC on behalf of the Filipino consumer to demand minimum service standards, of which the service providers can use as a baseline for their competition to begin. #

In a study conducted by the World Bank called, “Rising Growth, Declining Investment: The Puzzle of the Philippines,” published in 2008, Alessandro Bocchi asked, “Over the last 10 years, however, domestic investment, while stagnant in real terms, has shrunk as a share of GDP.  In an open and growing economy, why the decline?” #

Bocchi answered that one of the reasons is that capital-intensive private sector does not want to invest. #

The expectations on future profitability of investment are low. #

Broadband Strategies That Work #

Building Broadband: Strategies and Policies for the Developing World by Yongsoo Kim, Tim Kelly, and Siddhartha Raja, suggests that policy makers approach Broadband holistically.  It recommends to follow the Korean experience as that market has experienced rapid growth in Broadband market, outperforming higher income countries, but at the same time, the Korean feature is relevant to low to middle income countries. #

What were the key plays down by the Korean government?  According to Kim, Kelly and Raja, the effort included public investment in broadband infrastructure and incentives for private investment. #

More importantly, Korea viewed it as more than a network, or improved communications service. #

They developed a vision of the information society, and set development frameworks to creating a supply and demand-side policies such as lowering market entry barriers and spurring demand. #

#

Different Definitions of Broadband are Not Hindrances to NTC Definition #

We concede that there does not yet exist a commonly-accepted definition of minimum broadband speed, despite the existence of technical definitions of technologies such as ADSL and HSPA, as well as full knowledge of their technical capabilities. Thus, it is unnecessary for the NTC to define the technologies, given that their definitions already exist; however, it is necessary to provide for the Filipino consumer what is the market definition of broadband in the Philippine, irrespective of the technology used. #

The definitions we propose are: #

Dial-up internet: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream data rate of 56.6 kbps and theoretical upstream data rate of 48.8 kbps, as provided for by ITU-T Recommendation V.92 “Enhancements to Recommendation V.90?, or less. #

Wireline internet: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream or theoretical upstream data rate less than wireless broadband but greater than dial-up internet. #

Wireline broadband: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream data rate at least 1 Mbps and theoretical upstream data rate of at least 768 kbps. #

Wireless internet: OTA connectivity with theoretical downstream or upstream data rate less than wireless broadband. #

Wireless broadband: over-the-air (OTA) connectivity with theoretical downstream data rate at least 768 kbps and theoretical upstream data rate of at least 384 kbps. #

These definitions as proposed allow flexibility on the part of the Commission and on the part of the service providers in terms of the technologies that the service providers will deploy (e.g., fiber, cable internet, HSPA, WCDMA, WiMAx). In line with such flexibility, such definitions provide clarity to the Filipino consumer and therefore a better and fairer environment for the service providers to compete in. #

Promoting such an environment on behalf of the Filipino consumer is part of the mandate of the NTC. #

Service Providers Have no Authority to Set Caps Under the Premise of Anti-Piracy #

What a subscriber pays for to telecommunications companies is access to content; hence, “subscriber line.” Data volume caps are iniquitous and inequitable because it empowers telecommunications limit content to which they do not own, and furthermore have no right to limit. #

Data volume capping and speed throttling will not prevent unscrupulous subscribers from accessing pirated content; instead, it will merely make the access longer.  What is certain is that content piracy is the subject of content licensing, and content piracy is a business issue of content providers, not of telecommunications companies. #

In the past decade there has been a clear winning formula in the fight against piracy.  It is this: make content people want available.  Make it easy for them to pay for that content and lastly make it easy for them to get that content.  The ease of digital downloads from stores like iTunes, Amazon, and Steam shows that such companies are clear winners in understanding the formula, and people are buying from these stores instead of shopping for pirated ware. #

Recently, Wired Magazine published an article declaring that the Age of Music Piracy is over. #

The death is attributed to the availability of paid music downloads.  The barrier for entry is so low, that anyone can now buy music easily through credit card or prepaid cards on Amazon or iTunes. #

However, the same content licensing that is abundant in the United States is limited in the Philippines, and should broadband caps be approved purportedly because of content licensing, additional barriers to entry will be erected by the government and service providers. Such will instead encourage digital piracy. #

Today, games could be readily bought online, and downloaded, and the data volume required is in the multi-gigabyte range.  Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) is a billion dollar industry and is one of the things people play in internet cafés in the Philippines, which is the primary method of access of the Filipino consumer. Should barriers to access be erected by capping broadband data volumes and speed throttling, pirated computer games shall see a re-emergence, as online games no longer are accessible to consumers, effectively encouraging piracy instead of combating it. #

Clearly, data volume capping and speed throttling based on content issues is a short-sighted alibi of telecommunications companies. Connection must be irrespective of content, in the same way a toll way does not demand that only trucks with bottles can pass, disallowing trucks carrying cans. #

A final point: piracy is within the purview of the Optical Media Board and the Business Software Alliance. Once it is made clear that the long term result of broadband capping is greater incidence of piracy, their opinion should hold weight – not those of telecommunications service providers. #

“Network Abuse” is a Vague Term Promoting Service Provider Self-Interest and is Against True “Fair Use” #

Terms such as “network abuse” and “abusive users”, used by service providers to justify the lack of minimum service standards while calling for the establishment of a “fair use policy” are at best vague and at worst misleading. #

Service providers, service provider organizations, and knowledgeable sources themselves admit the following: #

1. Users who maximize their data rate and data volume use constitute no more than 5% of the entire subscriber population. #

2. Service providers practice “overbooking”; i.e., service providers “sell” more than is their available capacity to deliver, on the premise that not all subscribers use their internet connectivity at the same time. #

3. Service providers automatically assume that maximizing one’s use of one’s subscription is indicative of using it for commercial or illegal (“unfair use”) purposes. #

These positions above of the service providers ensure that no Filipino consumer can use in full the internet service he is being billed for in full. #

The concept of “fair use” is itself laudable when being done towards the protection of the consumer, and the concept we support. The concept, however cannot exist in practice if the service providers make the assumption that a consumer’s maximization of his subscription is unfair. #

On the concept of using data volume caps as a means of measuring fair use: accessing the internet through any means makes certain that data is downloaded and uploaded while the subscriber is connected. Unless and until “goodput” — only useful information for the subscriber — becomes the measure of data volume instead of “throughput” — data volume that is inclusive of signaling packets and other non-information packets over and above the useful information to the subscriber, then data volume must not be used as a measure of “fair” or “unfair” use. #

Furthermore, the laws of physics, which cannot be repealed nor regulated by service providers or legislation, themselves dictate the volume of data that can be transmitted by a specific connection speed per amount of time spent connected. As such, using data volume to measure “fair use” provides an additional constraint over and above constraints of time of use, furthering the unfairness suffered by the Filipino consumer. #

Such a definition of fair is tantamount to a wet market association asserting to the Department of Trade and Industry that consumers must pay full price for a sack of rice that is half its size underweight. #

Therefore, we reject the idea of data volume capping as a means of determining “fair use”. Should the data volume be used as a means of determining “fair use”, we recommend that the data volume cap per day must not be lower than 80% of the data volume as calculated using Shannon’s Law, with the assumption that the data transmission is lossless and zero carrier or transmission medium noise. The 20% margin allows for carrier loss, noise, multipath fading, and other factors that degrade data transmission. #

As such, we propose the following concepts to compromise with the service providers towards defining “fair use”: #

1. The service provider may declare how many hours per 24-hour period constitute “fair use”; however, the service provider: #

a. Shall not declare the “fair use” period to be less than 80% of a 24-hour period, or 19.2 hours; #

b. Shall not restrict the “fair use” number of hours to a specific time period or time periods within the 24-hour period; #

c. Shall not “carry over” usage hours from the previous 24-hour period to the present 24-hour period in the computation of “fair use” hours;#

d. Shall not use data volume as a measure of “fair use” if the service provider uses usage time as a measure; and, #

e. Shall begin the 24-hour period at midnight, local time, and the count of hours is reset as soon as midnight is reached. #

2. The service provider may declare how much data volume per 24-hour period constitutes “fair use”; however, the service provider: #

a. Shall not declare the “fair use” data volume to be less than 80% of the data volume that can be provided by the advertised “up to” speed in a 24-hour period, assuming lossless transmission and zero carrier or transmission medium noise; #

b. Shall not “carry over” data volume from the previous 24-hour period to the present 24-hour period in the computation of “fair use” data volume; #

c. Shall not use usage time as a measure of “fair use” if the service provider uses data volume as a measure; and, #

d. Shall begin the 24-hour period at midnight, local time, and the data volume measurement is reset as soon as midnight is reached. #

3. Should a service provider choose not to provide a “fair use” policy, the default “fair use” standard shall be based on hours of use. #

Promoting a true “fair use” environment on behalf of the Filipino consumer and the service provider is part of the mandate of the NTC. #

The Reliability of Internet Connection Must be Fair #

For a “fair use” environment to thrive and be embraced by the public, service providers must provide a fair level of reliability for their subscribers. “Fair use” cannot coexist when demands are only made by one side for the other to answer. #

The measurement of reliability within a time period is insufficient if time is the sole basis for determining reliability of an internet connection. Such a basis can be abused by an unscrupulous service provider, who can say that his downtime — the amount of time there is no connectivity provided to the subscriber — is zero percent, when the reality is that the unscrupulous service provider is consistently providing a connection speed that is already cheating the subscriber. #

As such, we propose the following concepts to ensure more precise measurement of reliability: #

1. Data rate reliability is measured over a period and calculated as: #

Data rate reliability = {[(Average downstream data rate during actual use during the period)/("Up to" downstream data rate)] x [(Average upstream data rate during actual use during the period)/("Up to" upstream data rate)]} x 100% #

2. Data rate reliability shall not be below 80%. #

3. Service reliability is measured over a period and calculated as: #

Service reliability = {[(Number of seconds of actual subscriber use during the period) - (Number of seconds below service data rate during actual subscriber use during the period)] / (Number of seconds of actual subscriber use during the period)} x 100% #

4. Service reliability shall not be below 80%. #

5. Overall reliability shall be calculated as: #

Overall reliability = Data rate reliability x Service reliability #

6. Service reliability shall not be below 80%. #

7. Periods of data rate, service, and overall reliability measurements must be identical for prepaid and postpaid subscribers, and neither subscriber shall be subject to periods of measurement that make calculation inconvenient; i.e., users subscribing via daily prepaid services shall not be subject to reliability measurements longer than a per-hour basis. #

Providing consumer protection for the Filipino internet users via the requirement of minimum service reliability is part of the mandate of the NTC. #

Speed Throttling Must Be Fair #

One means adopted by service providers in managing their networks is the use of speed throttling — i.e., the automated reduction of the data rate — which is not in itself necessarily unfair to the consumer. #

However, the statement above comes with a caveat: speed throttling must not be to a level of service that is unfair, and by unfair we mean that that the connection speed must not go below a speed that is hampers or hobbles the customer experience. #

Therefore, we propose the following concepts to compromise with the service providers towards regulating speed throttling: #

1. The service provider may use speed throttling as a means of managing network use, provided: #

a. Only the subscriber whose use exceeds “fair use” guidelines shall have his internet connection subject to speed throttling; #

b. Speed throttling must not result to a connection speed that is lower than 50% of the subscriber’s minimum data rate; and, #

c. The data rate is returned to normal at the same time “fair use” measurements are reset; i.e., if the “fair use” period is measured starting midnight of the previous day to midnight of the following day, and speed throttling is applied within the period, then the data rate shall be returned to the subscriber’s minimum data rate upon midnight of the following day. #

2. The unwarranted application of speed throttling will be considered a breach of service reliability, and the service provider will be subject to the appropriate penalties, along with rebates and refunds due to the subscriber due to the breach of service reliability. #

Promoting an equitable service environment between the Filipino consumer and the service provider is part of the mandate of the NTC. #

Encourage Fair Minimums for “Best Effort” Services to Stimulate Competition and Promote Growth #

We as internet connectivity consumers are cognizant of the role of competition and market forces to promote growth in the telecommunications industry. As such, we do not oppose the marketing of “best effort” services as one more set of products in a service provider’s portfolio of services. #

However, “best effort” services must be truly reflective of a service provider’s best efforts; while “best effort” services are not expected to be at par with minimum levels of service as guided above, they must be at a level that does not compromise consumer protection. #

Such an approach is akin to providing certain brands of rice at prices less than the prices of premium brands, but a kilogram of rice still contains a kilogram of rice — a concept that the Department of Trade and Industry promotes as a means of consumer protection. #

Therefore, we propose the following concepts to compromise with the service providers towards “best efforts” services: #

1. Service providers may offer broadband/ internet connection services on a “best efforts” basis, provided: #

a. Minimum actual downstream and upstream data rates shall not be less than 50% of advertised “best effort” data rates; #

b. “Best effort” data rate reliability shall not be below 50%; #

c. “Best effort” service reliability shall not be below 50%; and, #

d. “Best effort” overall reliability shall not be below 50%; #

2. Service providers shall offer “best efforts” basis broadband/ internet connection services, only if: #

a. Any advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements including “burst” speeds in their promotion of “best effort” services shall specify the minimum lengths of actual connection time and the start and end times of periods of internet connection use within which “burst” speeds can be enjoyed; #

b. “Best effort” services shall not be the sole product of service providers, and shall not be the sole non-commercial internet connectivity product of service providers; and, #

c. Customer complaints regarding “best effort” services shall be resolved in favor of the subscriber, unless the service provider is able to provide preponderance of evidence that the fault does not lie with the service provider. #

Ensuring fair “best efforts” services protects customers while ensuring the growth of telecommunications services, which the NTC is mandated to do. #

Any Penalties Must Be Fair, and Subscribers Must Not be Unduly Inconvenienced #

The bulk of communications products being marketed today use prepaid as a model; as such, prepaid subscribers can be unduly inconvenienced if pressed to claim refunds and rebates in the same manner as postpaid subscribers do. #

As such, while postpaid subscribers can be afforded premium customer service, prepaid subscribers must not be left in the lurch. #

Therefore, we propose the following concepts to compromise with the service providers towards providing rebates and refunds without compromising the customer experience: #

1. Actual downstream and upstream data rates shall be measured at the subscriber end. #

2. Actual downstream and upstream data rates shall be measured during periods of actual subscriber use. #

3. Actual download data volume shall be measured at the subscriber end. #

4. Actual data rate reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

5. Actual service reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

6. Actual overall reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

7. The NTC, upon recommendation of all stakeholders, will determine the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool to be used to measure network traffic. #

8. The information generated by the official data rate measurement and monitoring tool shall be the primary basis to resolve disputes regarding data rates, service reliability, and data volumes between service providers and subscribers. #

9. Service providers shall provide automated means for the subscriber to be made aware that the use of his internet connection is nearing “fair use” thresholds, has reached “fair use” thresholds, and has exceeded “fair use” thresholds. Service providers shall not apply speed throttling or data volume capping without such automated means of informing the subscriber. #

10. Service providers shall provide automated means for the subscriber to be made aware that the subscriber is nearing the end of the “fair use” period, has reached the end of the “fair use” period, and that a new “fair use” period has begun. Service providers shall not apply speed throttling or data volume capping without such automated means of informing the subscriber. #

11. Automated means of refund or rebate shall be provided by the service provider, should minimum standards not be met by the service provider. The service provider shall provide the refund or rebate immediately to the subscriber upon resumption of the levels of service subscribed, without need for demand on the part of the subscriber. #

12. Service providers shall provide the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool free to all their subscribers. #

13. Service providers shall ensure that the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool shall be compatible with the operating systems of their subscribers. #

Ensuring a just, fair, and equitable environment for subscribers and service providers is not only the mandate of the NTC, it is enshrined in the civil rights guarantees of fairness for all. #

Proposing a Draft Memorandum Order With Fairness for Subscribers and Service Providers in Mind #

We respectfully wish to submit for the Commission’s consideration a draft memorandum order embodying all the concepts above, with the goal of providing fairness between subscribers and service providers. Below is the draft memorandum order: #

(Draft begins here.) #

MEMORANDUM ORDER #

#

#

SUBJECT: MINIMUM SPEED OF BROADBAND CONNECTIONS #

WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution fully recognizes the vital role of communications in nation building and provides for the emergence of communications structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation; #

WHEREAS, the promotion of competition in the telecommunications market is a key objective of Republic Act No. 7925 (RA7925, for brevity), otherwise known as The Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines, which mandates that “a healthy competitive environment shall be fostered, one in which telecommunications carriers are free to make business decisions and interact with one another in providing telecommunications services, with the end in view of encouraging their financial viability while maintaining affordable rates”; #

WHEREAS, RA7925 further defines the role of the government to “promote a fair, efficient and responsive market to stimulate growth and development of the telecommunications facilities and services”; #

WHEREAS, RA7925 mandates the National Telecommunications Commission (the Commission/NTC, for brevity) to promote and protect the consumers of public telecommunications services; #

WHEREAS, customers/ subscribers/ users have the right to be informed of the quality of the broadband/ internet connection service being provided; #

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to RA7925, Executive Order (EO) No. 546 series of 1979, and in order to maintain and foster fair competition in the telecommunications industry, and promote and protect the rights of broadband service customers/ subscribers/ users, the National Telecommunications Commission hereby promulgates the following definitions and rules: #

A. Definitions #

#

A. 1. Wireless broadband: over-the-air (OTA) connectivity with theoretical downstream data rate at least 768 kbps and theoretical upstream data rate of at least 384 kbps. #

A. 2. Wireless internet: OTA connectivity with theoretical downstream or upstream data rate less than wireless broadband. #

A. 3. Wireline broadband: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream data rate at least 1 Mbps and theoretical upstream data rate of at least 768 kbps. #

#

A. 4. Wireline internet: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream or theoretical upstream data rate less than wireless broadband but greater than dial-up internet. #

A. 5. Dial-up internet: internet connectivity via terrestrial landline networks with theoretical downstream data rate of 56.6 kbps and theoretical upstream data rate of 48.8 kbps, as provided for by ITU-T Recommendation V.92 “Enhancements to Recommendation V.90?, or less. #

A. 6. The Commission shall adopt the official technical definitions of technologies such as but not limited to GSM, HSPA, WiMax, LTE, and so forth, as provided for by the ITU and other international bodies and consortia. #

#

B. Rules #

B. 1. Service providers shall be allowed to specify the maximum (“up to”) theoretical broadband/ internet connection data rates and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements. #

B. 2. Service providers shall specify the minimum actual broadband/ internet connection data rates (“minimum data rates”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements. #

B. 3. Minimum actual downstream and upstream data rates shall not be less than 50% of advertised “up to” data rates. #

B. 4. Upon the occurrence of periods where the actual downstream or upstream data rates are below the minimum data rate (“below service level data rate”), said periods (“below service level period”) shall not be subject to billing by the service provider. #

B. 5. Service providers shall be allowed to specify the maximum data rate reliability (“best data rate reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements.#

B. 6. Service providers shall specify the minimum data rate reliability (“minimum data rate reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements. #

B. 7. Data rate reliability is measured over a period of one (1) day and calculated as: #

Data rate reliability = {[(Average downstream data rate during actual usage during the day)/("Up to" downstream data rate)] x [(Average upstream data rate during actual usage during the day)/("Up to" upstream data rate)]} x 100% #

B. 8. Data rate reliability shall not be below 80%. #

B. 9. Service providers shall be allowed to specify the maximum service reliability (“best service reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements.#

B. 10. Service providers shall specify the minimum service reliability (“minimum service reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements. #

B. 11. Service reliability is measured over a period of one (1) day and calculated as: #

Service reliability = {[(Number of seconds of actual subscriber use during the day) - (Number of seconds below service data rate during actual subscriber use during the day)] / (Number of seconds of actual subscriber use during the day)} x 100% #

B. 12. Service reliability shall not be below 80%. #

B. 9. Service providers shall be allowed to specify the maximum overall reliability (“best overall reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements.#

B. 10. Service providers shall specify the minimum overall reliability (“minimum overall reliability”) and the service rates in their offers to consumers/ subscribers/ users in their advertisements, flyers, brochures and service agreements and service level agreements. #

B. 11. Overall reliability is measured over a period of one (1) day and calculated as: #

Overall reliability = Data rate reliability in % x Service reliability in % #

B. 12. Overall reliability shall not be below 80%. #

B. 13. Service providers may set maximum limits on the data volume allowed per subscriber/user per day, provided: #

B. 13. a. The limit shall not be less than 80% of the data volume that can be provided per day by the maximum (“up to”) theoretical broadband/ internet connection data rate; e.g, the data volume limit of a 768 kbps downstream connection shall not be less than 80% of 7.9 GB per day, or 6.3 GB per day; #

B. 13. b. No limits shall be set for upstream data volumes. #

B. 14. The service offers made through advertisements, flyers, and brochures shall contain the service rates for broadband/ internet connection data rates, data rate reliability, and service reliability using any of these methods, e.g.: #

B. 14. a. PhP 900.00/ month for “up to” 768 kbps maximum downstream data rate, “up to” 384 kbps maximum downstream data rate, 95% best data rate reliability, and 95% best service reliability; or, #

B. 14. b. PhP 900.00/ month for 384 kbps minimum downstream data rate, 192 kbps minimum upstream data rate, 80% best data rate reliability, 80% best service reliability, and 6.4 GB daily download cap. #

B. 15. Service agreements and service level agreements shall contain the service rates for broadband/ internet connection data rates, data rate reliability, and service reliability using both methods B. 14. a. and B. 14. b. #

B. 16. Service providers may offer broadband/ internet connection services on a “best efforts” basis, provided: #

B. 16. a. Minimum actual downstream and upstream data rates shall not be less than 50% of advertised “best effort” data rates; #

B. 16. b. “Best effort” data rate reliability shall not be below 50%; #

B. 16. c. Service reliability shall not be below 50%; #

B. 16. d. Overall reliability shall not be below 50% #

B. 16. e. “Best efforts” services must not be the sole product of the service provider. #

B. 16. f. Automated means of refund or rebate shall be provided by the service provider, should any of the rules B. 16. a., B. 16. b., B. 16. c., and B. 16. d. not be met by the service provider. The service provider shall provide the refund or rebate immediately to the subscriber upon resumption of “best effort” service, without need for demand on the part of the subscriber. #

B. 16. g. Should the service provider be unable to show proof of compliance with B. 16. e., the Commission shall file the appropriate administrative charges. #

B. 17. Actual downstream and upstream data rates shall be measured at the subscriber end. #

B. 18. Actual downstream and upstream data rates shall be measured during periods of actual subscriber use. #

B. 19. Actual download data volume shall be measured at the subscriber end. #

B. 20. Actual data rate reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

B. 21. Actual service reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

B. 22. Actual overall reliability shall be calculated at the subscriber end. #

B. 23. The NTC, upon recommendation of all stakeholders, will determine the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool to be used to measure network traffic. #

B. 24. Service providers shall provide the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool free to all their subscribers. #

B. 25. Service providers shall ensure that the official data rate and volume measurement and monitoring tool shall be compatible with the operating systems of their subscribers. #

B. 26. The information generated by the official data rate measurement and monitoring tool shall be the primary basis to resolve disputes regarding data rates, service reliability, and data volumes between service providers and subscribers. #

B. 27. Service providers shall provide automated means for the subscriber to be made aware that the use of his internet connection is nearing “fair use” thresholds, has reached “fair use” thresholds, and has exceeded “fair use” thresholds. Service providers shall not apply speed throttling or data volume capping without such automated means of informing the subscriber. #

B. 28. Service providers shall provide automated means for the subscriber to be made aware that the subscriber is nearing the end of the “fair use” period, has reached the end of the “fair use” period, and that a new “fair use” period has begun. Service providers shall not apply speed throttling or data volume capping without such automated means of informing the subscriber. #

B. 29. Automated means of refund or rebate shall be provided by the service provider, should minimum standards not be met by the service provider. The service provider shall provide the refund or rebate immediately to the subscriber upon resumption of the levels of service subscribed, without need for demand on the part of the subscriber. #

B. 30. The subscribers/consumers shall be properly informed of the broadband/ internet connection service being offered to them. #

B. 31. Service providers may request the Commission for adjustments of data rate reliability, service reliability, and overall reliability minimum thresholds stated above, provided: #

B. 31. a. The service provider submits proof that their subscriber base is not greater than 80% of their capacity; #

B. 31. b. The service provider submits proof that even if their subscriber base is not greater than 80% of their capacity, their ability to meet minimum reliability thresholds is limited; #

B. 31. c. The reduction in reliability thresholds shall not result in reliability thresholds less than 25% below “best efforts” reliability thresholds. #

B. 31. d. The service provider shall reduce the service rates equitably, and the reduction in service rates shall not be less than 25% of the current service rates. #

B. 31. e. The reduction in reliability thresholds shall be effective for only one (1) year, after which the service provider is required to comply with the minimum reliability thresholds prior to the reduction allowed by the NTC; #

B. 31. f. Should the service provider be unable to show proof of compliance with B. 31. a., B. 31. b., B. 31. c., and B. 31. d., the Commission shall reject the application without prejudice to the filing of applicable administrative charges. #

B. 31. g. Should the service provider be unable to show proof of compliance with B. 31. e., the Commission shall file the appropriate administrative charges, without prejudice to requiring the service provider to pay penalties and fines deemed equitable by the NTC. #

B. 31. h. The Commission shall hold public hearings upon receipt of a request of a service provider for the reduction of minimum reliability thresholds. #

B. 31. i. No service provider shall be allowed to make a request for the reduction of minimum reliability thresholds within one (1) year of a disapproved request for the reduction of minimum reliability thresholds or two (2) years of an approved request for the reduction of minimum reliability thresholds, whichever is applicable. #

B. 32. The Commission may allow service providers different service rates for prepaid services, provided: #

B. 32. a. Data rate reliability, service reliability, and overall reliability shall comply with minimum thresholds as provided for above. #

B. 32. b. Prepaid services shall not be subject to speed throttling. #

B. 32. c. Prepaid services shall not be subject to data volume capping. #

#

B. 33. Service providers offering committed information rate (CIR) shall comply with NTC MC No. 12-19-2004. #

B. 34. Upon failure on the part of a service provider to comply with this Order, the Commission shall file the appropriate administrative case against the said service provider. #

B. 35. Any circular, order, memoranda or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are deemed repealed or amended accordingly. #

B. 36. This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation and three (3) certified true copies are furnished the UP Law Center. #

(Draft ends here.) #

Concluding Remarks #

We applaud the National Telecommunications Commission’s efforts towards protecting the Filipino broadband consumer. It is because of wholehearted efforts that we are confident that transparency in public service – the “tuwid na daan” – will result in fair and just rules for all stakeholders. #

As such, we shall watch the process with great interest, and we commit to be of assistance to the Commission in however best we can. #

The broadband internet hearing last January 11, 2011 brought a minor victory where NTC decided to remove the broadband cap in the draft memo. ANC featured a special episode on broadband internet last week where I listed down the demands of the online petition “No to broadband cap, yes to #betterinternet in the Philippines” and Tonyo Cruz presented his position paper.

Here is part 1 of the video.

starts at 2:21

The rest of the videos at ANCalerts youtube channel.

Other stories on #betterinternet

Briefer:

“What is Broadband Capping, and Why is it Bad for Filipinos?” by Cocoy

“Deal or no Deal?” by The Jester-in-Exile

“Telco’s easy way out” by Karen Ang

“Limiting your Internet use is good for you” by Liberty Chee

“A Student speaks out on Broadband Cap” by adtcruz

On policy:

“ A Better Draft memorandum order on Minimum Speed of Broadband Connections” by The Jester-in-Exile

“An Open Letter to President Aquino, and the 15th Congress on NTC Broadband Capping by Cocoy”

“No to Broadband Cap” By Ria Jose, and is the official position of Mindanao New Media andDavao Bloggers

Bloggers

Continued vigilance needed for #betterinternet in Philippines

It takes two to tango by Noemi Lardizabal-Dado

SLOW … SLUGGISh …Boredband – Broadband by Juned Sonido

With Broadband caps deleted, NTC should take steps for PH to get #betterinternet by Tonyo Cruz for TXTPower.org

Limiting your internet use is good for you by Caffeine Sparks

Broadband Cap? What broadband?? By Blogie

Filipino netizens debate on broadband cap by Julius Rocas

NTC to cap our broadband connections by Lady Programmer

Media reports

On Broadband speed by Ducky Paredes

Broadband data cap a big blow to local IT firms by Computer World

Filipino up in arms over Gov’t “telecom reform” Big telecom reform authored: 5GB National cap proposed by Stop the Cap

The Real Reasons for the Philippines’ Internet Overcharging: 2010 Was a Rough Year for Profits by Stop the Cap

Broadband dunce cap by Chin Wong

House Resolutions

HR 407- Inquiry on Broadband Internet Services by Kabataan Party List

Draft HR on Broadband Speed NTC by Rep Teddy Casino

Social Media reactions

It is good to read on Rom Feria’s take on the broadband cap is “It is capped already” and sort of a rebuttal of Art Samaniego’s “the Unfairness of the Internet“.

The general point of the matter is this – our broadband subscription is already capped by the subscribed bandwidth that we pay for every single month. Telcos want to further restrict the data volume that we can transfer (so they will not need to invest more in their infrastructure) WHILST not providing the full bandwidth that we are paying for (substandard is an understatement, IMHO). The “best effort” service that telcos claim is their special privilege, protected by law (I hope not), to screw subscribers. Ask ANY broadband subscriber and chances are s/he only gets 40% of his/her subscribed bandwidth. And don’t get me started with the latency issue! And IPv6? Hell, what is NTC doing about this? I hope they are NOT PROTECTING the telcos!

I hope the NTC is not protecting these telcos, please. The mere fact, consumers were not involved in the first draft memo shows how little they cared of the consumers. It was much later that we, the consumers were taken into account.

I have three internet connections and half of the time, my connection is only 50 percent of the “promised” speed.

Despite the small percentage of abusive users, NTC has to consider the greater majority who are also customers.

Here are other reactions from social media: