Policy reversals and the NBN

Policy reversals and the NBN

egitimate issues about the project to install a government-owned Internet NBN—a national broadband network—are being drowned out by exciting but peripheral noises. This is unfortunate.

Allegations of bribery and other forms of corruption, violations of the law, the incompetence of officials who lost their copies of the contract, questions about whether there is indeed a contract between the government and the ZTE corporation, etc. have been making the headlines.

They give a lot of titillation. But they keep the public from understanding the proposed government-owned NBN project and what sound reasons there are for not going ahead with it.

If there is indeed a deal, the government’s national broadband network is supposed to be installed by China’s ZTE corporation. The Internet NBN is supposed to serve as the backbone of a multi-media communications system among the Philippine government’s multitudinous branches, extensions and smallest local units and subunits in our archipelago of more than 7,100 islands.

Most experts agree that there is a need for such a backbone to insure fast Internet and multi-media interconnectivity among government offices.

An issue we would like to raise is the question of whether this government-dedicated NBN should be owned by the government.

There are at least two private sector Philippine corporations that can provide the NBN—PLDT and its Smart subsidiary. Globe, ABS-CBN/SkyCable and others can also form consortiums and do everything that ZTE (or its Chinese and American competitors) can do.

Have we abandoned the principle of allowing the private sector to do the work and allow business to profit from the country’s infrastructure projects? Are we about to launch a new period of state capitalism?

Does this mean that government should now also go into shipping? The leading companies in the passenger and cargo shipping industries are not expanding fast enough to meet the economic-productivity and basic-commodity price reduction and price stabilization goals of the Arroyo administration. Should the government therefore also fund and operate a mammoth national shipping network and compete with, or even swallow up, the existing shipping companies? We are sure China will only be too happy to provide the multibillion US-dollar loans for this supershipping project.

Is government going to dispense with the services of the many private contractors hired to build our roads and highways that year in and year out have to be repaired after every rainy season?

Another issue that has not been raised in the media is the claim of proponent government officials that a government owned NBN will save the government half of the P4 billion it now spends on “communications expenses.” This claim seems to ignore the meaning of savings. If you have a budget of P4 billion to achieve some work and you spend only P2 billion you have indeed made a saving of P2 billion.

But in this case, the government has to spend about P16 billion (exclusive of the 3-percent annual interest) to pay for ZTE’s setting up of the NBN. Government will also have to spend for the network’s operation. Where then are the savings? And IT is constantly advancing so that prices are always going down. Wouldn’t the P4-billion communications costs today be much less three years from now using private-sector facilities?

Apparently President Arroyo herself had questioned the need of a “government broadband.” This was, apparently, during a meeting of the Cabinet and the experts of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in Malacañang in November 2006. The NEDA had told the President and the Cabinet that it was indeed necessary to link all the central government agencies with all government sub-units. But Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri batted for creating the connectivity through the private sector. The President herself then insisted that the NBN be handled as a build-offer-transfer project, not a government-owned project to be financed with a loan that the national treasury would have to shoulder for years. Why has this policy been reversed?

These policy reversals are very serious issues. They have far more enduring consequences for our nation’s future than the exciting side issues surrounding the ZTE deal.

The truth about the bribery, overpricing, incompetence and other sensational matters must, however, also be exposed.

No longer amusing

GAME shows and quiz programs are closely monitored in other countries because the fabulous cash prizes could promote cheating. In 2001 it was discovered that the winner of the 1-million pound prize in the British Who Wants To Be A Millionaire had been coached by a fellow contestant. In the 1950s, several contestants on the US quiz show Twenty One admitted they were coached by the producers.

Sen. Mar Roxas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, has filed a resolution seeking an inquiry, in aid of legislation, to strengthen protection of consumers or contestants who join TV game shows.

“Millions of Filipinos watch these game shows and send text messages or purchase products so they could become contestants, hoping that they win and uplift their lives with the prize money,” he said.

Allegations of cheating erupted over a recent edition of the popular ABS-CBN game show Wowowee. The host had reportedly switched the winning numbers to avoid giving away P2 million to a contestant. The studio blamed the incident to a “technical glitch.” But some viewers and a rival studio took potshots at the Wowowee host and producers.

With the proliferation of game shows and the millions given away, we must ensure fairness and transparency on TV and determine the government action needed to regulate them and ensure the protection of consumers and contestants. The Roxas resolution is timely.

Sleight of hand or mechanical glitch?

Sleight of hand or mechanical glitch?

Insinuations that a game in the popular noontime show Wowowee was rigged spread via text messages last week. A video clip of the supposed sleight of hand was posted on YouTube, further fanning speculations. In the clip, show host Willie Revillame pulled out a box that supposedly contained the number 2, which represents the P2-million grand prize a contestant had failed to win. What appeared, however, was the number 0. Realizing that the number was the wrong one, the host promptly pulled out of the same box the number 2.

Not surprisingly, the gaffe was played up by Joey de Leon, one of the hosts in the noontime show on a rival network. Revillame was compelled to issue a rebuttal, and a full-blown word war was on.

Like a typhoon drawing energy from the high seas, the controversy has since grown in size and intensity. Sen. Mar Roxas feels the issue merits a congressional inquiry. Roxas said there is a need to determine if the Consumer Protection Act has to be amended as it pertains to game shows.

De Leon himself has volunteered, along with his longtime show-biz buddies, former senator Tito Sotto and Vic Sotto, to explain the workings of a game show if an investigation is called.

Some might scoff at the idea of the Senate spending its time and resources on a hearing to find out if deception was committed during a TV game show, when other, more pressing issues cry for its attention. We think such an inquiry is in order. If there has been an attempt to deceive not only game show contestants but television viewers, it becomes a consumer concern that is worth investigating.

In the 1950s, several celebrity contestants in an American TV quiz show, Twenty One, admitted during a congressional probe they were coached by the show’s producers. As a result, the US Congress passed a law banning fixing in game shows.

More recently, scandal tainted the British version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. In September 2001 a contestant won the show’s grand prize of 1 million pounds. When the tape of the episode was reviewed by the producers, they found that the contestant was being helped along by an accomplice in the studio audience who was using coughs as cues. The prize was withheld, and Scotland Yard was summoned to investigate.

In the end, the contestant, his wife and his prompter, a college lecturer, were charged with deception and conspiracy.

ABS-CBN has attributed the Revillame’s faux pas to a “mechanical glitch.” The network, however, did not explain in detail what the problem was. It should have, if only to quell speculations that it was covering up for its high-rating show.

We would also like to hear from the Department of Trade of Industry, which monitors game shows, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, the organization to which ABS-CBN belongs. They should have been the first to react to the allegations of deception. In the Wowowee issue, their silence is deafening.