Introduction to the Transition from IFT to CRT
The transition from the extinction of the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT) to the new Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT) presents significant challenges. However, this should not imply that the new regulatory body can afford to be complacent. Upon reviewing the CRT’s website, it is evident that the site is nearly empty, with only information about the newly appointed commissioners and commissioner who will serve as president of the new regulatory body, according to the new Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law (LMTR).
Temporary Suspension of Procedures
Article 20 of the Decree that issued the new law states that once the CRT’s full board is established, “all and each of the procedures and processes derived from the provisions of this Decree and other applicable norms… will be suspended for a period of fifteen business days.” This implies that in approximately three weeks, the countdown for completing various procedures now under CRT’s jurisdiction will resume. However, there is limited time for the CRT to demonstrate full exercise of its regulatory and supervisory powers. The telecommunications and broadcasting sectors are capital-intensive, and Mexico cannot afford delays or reduced pace in decision-making.
The Importance of Regulatory Oversight
Regulatory authorities in telecommunications sectors worldwide emerged to ensure a competitive market function. Market failures still exist, and entities like the CRT play a crucial role in preventing dominant market players from reinstating practices that previously harmed competitors. Neglecting this responsibility would condemn Mexico to a less developed telecommunications sector. The CRT’s agenda should extend beyond audience rights and orbital resource protection, as the challenges are more extensive.
As an administrative body under the Digital Transformation and Telecommunications Agency (ATDT), with technical, operational, and managerial independence, the CRT’s board may still face occasional influence from the ATDT head. This is a human nature aspect, not a criticism of the current leader, but a consideration for any future leaders.
The crucial difference between the now-defunct IFT and CRT lies in their natures. The IFT had a quasi-legislative nature, recognized by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, allowing it to issue necessary regulations when legislators did not address specific issues. The CRT, as part of the federal executive structure without constitutional autonomy, lacks this deference.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What is the significance of the transition from IFT to CRT?
A: The transition presents challenges, but the new CRT must quickly establish a forward-looking regulatory agenda beyond audience rights and orbital resource protection, addressing broader industry challenges.
- Q: What does the temporary suspension of procedures imply for CRT?
A: The CRT has limited time to demonstrate its regulatory and supervisory capabilities, as various procedures resume in approximately three weeks.
- Q: How does the CRT’s nature differ from that of the IFT?
A: The IFT had quasi-legislative powers, recognized by the Supreme Court, allowing it to issue necessary regulations when legislators did not address specific issues. The CRT, as part of the federal executive structure without constitutional autonomy, lacks this deference.
