So about those barriers to Convergence, here’s an illustration: Convergence has broken down the boundaries between broadcast (one-way info transmission) and communications (two-way info exchange). However, the Constitution distinguishes between the two. Foreigners may own up to 40% of a telephone firm, while ownership of television and radio networks are limited to Filipinos; broadcast firms may be allowed to enter into the telecommunications, but telecommunications business, all of which have foreign stakeholders, may not go into broadcasting. So the legal barriers prevent these groups from carpooling to provide more efficient services. At least I think that’s what it means. Please feel free to correct me.
It is said that the lack of a law on convergence discourages investors from engaging in new services such as Internet over cable, Internet via satellite, cable telephony and voice over data. Hence, industry players and some policy makers have been pushing for a new law that will set a framework for a combined communications and broadcast industry. I wonder though how effective a Convergence law might be without a concurrent amendment to the Constitution, considering the built-in Convergence barriers. That might explain why none of the proposed Bills have become a law. Tsk.
It is said that the lack of a law on convergence discourages investors from engaging in new services such as Internet over cable, Internet via satellite, cable telephony and voice over data. Hence, industry players and some policy makers have been pushing for a new law that will set a framework for a combined communications and broadcast industry. I wonder though how effective a Convergence law might be without a concurrent amendment to the Constitution, considering the built-in Convergence barriers. That might explain why none of the proposed Bills have become a law. Tsk.
No comments:
Post a Comment