Introduction
The proposed Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law faced significant opposition from the Fourth Transformation regime, Morena, and Claudia Sheinbaum’s government. The reality of an authoritarian approach to change, rushed legislation, sectoral ignorance, and ideology collided with a well-prepared, technically competent telecommunications, technology, and digital community. This article explores the challenges and key developments in this legislative process.
Background on the Telecommunications Law
The proposed Ley Telecom faced unprecedented rejection, with no substantial arguments or ideological attacks missing from the debate. The federal executive paused to seek legislative dialogue, acknowledging errors and requesting the removal of controversial, poorly drafted articles. The fast-track approval in the Senate, typical of Morena and its allies, was halted. Even a public official directly involved in the process proposed changes to the draft text, encroaching on the legislative branch’s domain.
The Digital Divide and Shared Concerns
Both the proposing government and those opposing the law’s content and implications share the same data: 16.9% of the population is not internet users, and successive governments have failed to close the digital divide. The ideology’s collision with data, statistics, and technical analysis has made it difficult for its advocates to push through such detrimental legislative changes.
The Role of Ideology and Technical Expertise
Political and ideological reasons led to the extinction of the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT) and constitutional autonomy. However, the government cannot justify or convince anyone that the new Agency for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications (ATDT) should have such concentrated power and policy-making, regulatory, and digitalization authority in a single person.
José Antonio Peña Merino and the ATDT
José Antonio Peña Merino, head of the ATDT, had to address the press conference to explain and announce changes to the Ley Telecom before the Senate discussions concluded. The primary change was not to concentrate so many powers and propose a decentralized, sector-specific body for the ATDT with technical independence and composed of five board members proposed by the executive and ratified by the Senate.
The Need for a Technically Independent Regulator
The telecom, radiodiffusion, technology, and digital sectors’ interested community has achieved a preliminary success in redesigning the institutional framework for the new law. Although the IFT’s extinction is irreversible due to political and ideological reasons, there is a unified demand for a regulator that, though not autonomous, is technically independent and makes decisions collectively and transparently.
Government’s Role as Telecommunications Operator
José Antonio Peña Merino also clarified the state’s role as a telecommunications service operator. Given the lack of competitive neutrality in the Ley Telecom, he explained that commercial radioelectric spectrum allocated to the state-owned CFE Telecom would be under equal conditions as private providers.
The Significance of the Debate
Senator Javier Corral’s organization and moderation of conversations around the Ley Telecom have fostered a high-level, technical, specialized, and respectful debate. The simulated and preemptive legislative approaches have no place in a digital ecosystem that recognizes internet access as a right, understands technologies as enablers of fundamental rights, views digital infrastructure as development’s foundation, acknowledges connectivity’s multiple benefits, and embraces digital transformation as irreversible.
Key Questions and Answers
- What was the main issue with the proposed Ley Telecom? The primary concern was the excessive concentration of power and authority in a single individual within the ATDT, which contradicts the need for a technically independent and colegiated regulatory body.
- Who opposed the Ley Telecom, and why? The opposition came from various sectors, including the tech community, users, platforms, and businesses. Their concerns stemmed from the lack of competitive neutrality, potential censorship, and the centralization of power.
- What changes were made to the Ley Telecom? Changes included decentralizing power within the ATDT, ensuring technical independence, and making decisions collectively and transparently. The government also eliminated the controversial Article 109 that proposed blocking digital platforms temporarily for fiscal reasons.
- What is the significance of this legislative process? This process highlights the importance of data-driven reasoning, technical analysis, and international experience in countering ideological forces, devaluing opposing viewpoints, and promoting inclusive discussions.
