Solon, transparency watchdog air concern over rush in selecting 3rd telco
Serious concerns over the “rush” in the selection of a third telecommunications player were aired yesterday as a transparency watchdog and a veteran lawmaker warned the Department of Information and Communications Technology against taking shortcuts that might sacrifice quality and reliability in processing applications.
The Transparency in Public Service (TIPS) said the manner by which the agency will go about in deciding the third telco might not guarantee the required qualities of a new telecommunications company needed by the country.
“Everyone wants a cheaper and more reliable alternative to the existing duopoly, and of course Filipinos would like this new company to come in as soon as possible,” said TIPS spokesperson Brent De Jesus.
He added: “This doesn’t mean, however, that we should cut corners and take shortcuts in selecting the best and most qualified aspirant.”
Muntinlupa City Rep. Ruffy Biazon joined TIPs in urging DICT to slow down in choosing the third Telco.
“I do not think we have to rush just for the sake of having a third telco. What we need is a telco which can guarantee reliable, affordable and efficient service which is free from the influence of the established Telcos and most important, will not compromise our national security,” said Biazon.
Nevertheless, Biazon stressed that government’s vetting process should not be delayed.
It was gathered that nine companies have formalized their intent with the DICT as prospective bidders. In this case, however, the government will no longer apply the traditional auction model, and will instead adopt a so-called ‘beauty contest’ format based on the highest level of commitments on speed, coverage, and financial capability.
“The DICT has repeatedly emphasized the word ‘commitment’ in its selection criteria, so in effect, they will be making a highly crucial decision based on a promise and a pledge,” noted De Jesus.
De Jesus lamented that the DICT has been pressured by the self-imposed November deadline that they might be liable to accepting the pledges of applicants “at face at face value, and simply hope that the companies will keep their word.”
The TIPS official also questioned DICT’s procedure of assigning points for each category (speed, coverage, and financial capability) based on committed thresholds and minimums.
“It would not make any sense for a bidder to commit the minimum requirement, so they will most likely list the maximum threshold for each category. It is inevitable that there will be a tie, if not multiple ties, and the DICT will then resort to a ‘game of chance’ to determine the winner,” he pointed out.
De Jesus stressed: “That’s one huge gamble, considering what is at stake,” De Jesus further noted.
He called on the DICT to consider other factors aside from the submitted forms.
“Some companies are totally new to the telecom industry, while others have a proven and measurable track record of delivering services. I think it is but fair to take these into consideration. On the other hand, there is a bidder that may pose a threat to our sovereignty and national security. Shouldn’t that be taken into account as well?” De Jesus concluded.