Introduction and Context
The proposed amendments to the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, published at the end of April, have not been well-received in Mexico’s telecommunications market. However, the majority of analyses have focused on outlining the issues stemming from this document as if it were an isolated incident.
It’s crucial to remember that the main elements of the telecommunications reform primarily aim to sustain a government strategy initiated during President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s term, with the 2024 judicial reform and continuing in 2025 with energy and technology sector legal framework reforms.
Key Features of the Reform
The reforms’ primary characteristic is the establishment of a presidential position with nearly absolute powers. From the National Palace, not only will the Judicial Power be controlled, but decisions on competition, concession allocations, and penalties will also be made.
The government aims to eliminate the autonomous powers of various state dependencies, which were previously seen as a positive factor for enhancing transparency and neutrality in decision-making. Instead, these institutions will become appendages of the Executive Power, making their performance discretionary and unlikely to dictate sentences or promote norms contradicting the President’s desires.
Article 109 and Potential Censorship
Critics argue that justifying the proposed text with President Claudia Sheinbaum’s intentions, such as Article 109 granting the government power to temporarily block a digital platform due to non-compliance with regulations, is insufficient.
Article 109 states:
“Competent authorities may request the Agency’s (for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications) collaboration for the temporary blocking of a digital platform when deemed appropriate due to non-compliance with provisions or obligations set forth in the respective applicable regulations.”
“The Agency shall issue Guidelines regulating the procedure for blocking a digital platform.”
The difference between ANATEL’s actions in Brazil and what could potentially happen in Mexico is that the Brazilian regulator is an autonomous entity, making decisions without needing alignment with Brazil’s head of state. In contrast, Mexico’s actions could lead to censorship.
Centralization of Power and its Risks
The centralization of power in Mexico, weakening the Judicial and Legislative powers, essentially takes the country back to the priista single-party era where the only question was who would be appointed as successor by the outgoing president.
Creating a presidential position with nearly monarchical powers allows influence over judges’ decisions, media concession holders, telecommunications operators, digital platforms, energy providers, fuel distribution, and the issuance/revocation of permits for hydrocarbon management.
In essence, the President holds the power to define how, where, and when a national development strategy is implemented. Entities like the Secretariat of Energy (SENER), CFE, PEMEX, and the Digital Transformation and Telecommunications Agency (ATDT) are merely tools for the President to exert political control.
Moreover, the President already controls the country’s main security forces, which could be used to ensure the implementation and compliance of orders sent to subordinate federal agencies.
Concerns and Questions
- What are the potential risks of this centralization of power? The concentration of power is unhealthy and will eventually compromise citizens’ rights to impartial justice, freedom of expression, and abuse of power. Autonomous entities were created to prevent government power abuses.
- How could this law potentially impose censorship? The proposed law contains several articles that could be interpreted as promoting the censorship of government critics. Additionally, the subjective concept of transmitting foreign propaganda, punishable with fines up to 5% of revenues, could lead to controversial interpretations depending on the parties involved.
- What are the concerns regarding spectrum administration? The Executive’s definition of all matters related to the radioelectric spectrum raises concerns among sector actors. There are questions about the experience in Presidency regarding spectrum administration, who might receive direct concessions, and how the country’s connectivity policy will be decided—whether prioritizing states with friendly governments or creating a nationwide implementation schedule covering the entire country.
- What are the implications of neglecting network neutrality and embracing an entirely IP environment? The proposed law’s shortcomings, such as vulnerabilities to network neutrality due to various articles and the consideration of a predominantly IP environment where applications, AI, cybersecurity, and virtual reality dominate technology discussions, suggest a poorly written law with objectives contrary to user benefits.
This reform, combined with energy and judicial reforms, creates a double-edged sword that could either benefit or harm depending on who becomes president. It’s unfortunate, as Mexico deserves far better.
