Connectivity Without Credibility

We all want faster, cheaper internet. Parents struggling with online classes, farmers needing real-time weather data, entrepreneurs reaching markets beyond their barangay—connectivity is no longer a luxury. It is a lifeline.

The two-year grace period before compliance, buried in the fine print of cybersecurity certification, is not a safeguard but a Trojan Horse.

But let’s not confuse speed with substance, or slogans with solutions. The Konektadong Pinoy Act is being sold as the magic bullet for our digital divide.

The chorus is loud: open the gates, let new players in, sweep away “outdated” franchise requirements. Sign now, they say—or miss the chance of a lifetime.

It sounds attractive. It also sounds dangerously shallow.

Supporters tout that oversight will be “shared” among the NTC, DICT, and PCC. That isn’t reform—it’s regulatory overlap.

Three referees on the same court don’t ensure fair play; they breed confusion and finger-pointing when something goes wrong. If enforcement has always been the problem, why weaken the one agency already tasked to enforce?

Yes, the Act mentions cybersecurity certification. But buried in the fine print is a two-year grace period before compliance.

That is not a safeguard. It is a Trojan Horse. It allows operators—possibly under-resourced, possibly foreign-linked—to embed themselves in our networks long before serious vetting begins.

In an era of ransomware, scams, and cyber-espionage, two years is not a cushion.

It is an eternity. The bill romanticizes Agusan del Sur or Sultan Kudarat welcoming “fast-track” providers.

But rural communities should not be guinea pigs for untested players who may vanish as quickly as they arrive.

Connectivity without reliability is betrayal, not progress.

Proponents argue that removing franchise requirements will attract investment.

They forget investors crave stability and predictability. Constantly moving the regulatory goalposts tells global capital only one thing—this is a market where rules bend to politics and lobbying.

Look at the region. Vietnam streamlined permits. Indonesia incentivized infrastructure sharing. They attracted billions. Argentina, swinging between overregulation and forced obligations, scared investors away. Which path are we choosing?

Let’s be blunt. The loudest push for this bill doesn’t come from the provinces it claims to uplift, but from suppliers, vendors, and lobbies eager to cash in on procurement booms. What is sold as a people’s act may in truth be a lobbyists’ windfall.

Connectivity is urgent, yes. But there are proven, smarter paths: streamline permits at the LGU level to cut rollout delays.

Mandate infrastructure sharing among telcos to reduce duplication. Expand the Common Tower Policy with foreign partners who bring capital and expertise. Require cybersecurity vetting from Day One—no grace periods, no loopholes.

These measures build trust while sustaining competition.

The President faces a defining choice. Signing the bill may look popular. But popularity fades quickly when networks collapse, when consumer data is breached, when investor confidence evaporates.

True progress is not connectivity at any cost. It is connectivity with credibility. That means sending this bill back to Congress—not to reject reform, but to demand a stronger, smarter foundation.

Anything less would be reckless.