The matrix shows what's easy to do, not what actually fixes the problem. Option 1 only speeds up permits. It builds faster, but it doesn't promise people better internet.
Our problem was slow speeds and high prices. Option 5 is the only one that hits both directly. So we picked the option that helps the actual user, not the one that's easiest to pass.
You're right, it doesn't build anything. That's on purpose. The Konektadong Pinoy Act already handles building.
Our policy fixes a different problem: providers sell you a speed and don't deliver it, and nothing happens to them. Once they owe you an automatic rebate for failing, it's cheaper to just give you the speed. That pushes speed up and forces prices to match what you actually get.
Maybe a little, and we said that honestly. But the cost is small and mostly one-time: reporting tools and a hotline. Failing over and over and paying rebates costs them more.
And once people can compare real speeds, providers have to compete on quality instead of ads. So you might pay slightly more, but you get more for your money. That's what matters.
Fair point. That's why the NTC doesn't measure everything itself. Providers report their own data, and the NTC just checks it with spot audits. They already collect this data, so most of the work is on them.
Yes, the NTC needs enough staff and budget. But that's a reason to fund them, not a reason to leave people unprotected.
No, because we don't measure one person's laptop at one moment. We measure the average speed and uptime over time, using the provider's own network data.
That's normal in the industry and easy to check. The NTC sets exactly how it's measured, so there's no guessing and no fight.
The NTC handles complaints, but there's no set minimum speed, no automatic refund, and no rule to publish real speeds. Right now you have to file, follow up, and prove they failed, so most people give up.
What's new is one word: automatic. You get the rebate without chasing it, and providers have to show their real numbers. That flips who does the work.
True, and we're not hiding it. Our policy protects people who already pay for internet. Connecting far areas is handled by the Konektadong Pinoy Act and options like Targeted Access Expansion.
Both have to happen together. Otherwise you connect a rural town to internet that doesn't work, which just moves the problem instead of fixing it.
Not really. The rules are minimums, not high bars. Any serious provider already plans to meet basic speed and uptime. We only punish the ones who promise what they can't deliver.
Showing real performance actually helps good newcomers. They can beat the big players on proof instead of ads. It filters out bad providers, not real competitors.
Yes, and we treat them as layers, not rivals. But the task asked for one pick. So we chose the one missing from the law.
Building and infrastructure sharing are already in RA 12234. Consumer protection isn't. We picked the missing piece.