VoIP is Free! Or is it?

It has been reported (here and here) that the NTC will open up Voice-over-IP to ISPs and other value-added service providers.  This is a legal landmark because it’s the first time in Philippine history that voice services will be offered by entities who do not possess a Congressional franchise.  This is a win for consumers because VoIP calls will be far cheaper than ordinary circuit-switched long distance phone calls.  For the VAS industry, this is also a win because now they can go head to head against the telcos and can grow considerably larger than they are now.

However, I caution against breaking out the bubbly just yet. (more…)

NTC’s Crusade for the 6-Second Billing Scheme

The Inquirer reports that the NTC has asked the help of the Solicitor General to speed up the resolution of the case filed by the cellphone companies to stop the implementation of an NTC guideline that would have made life better for pre-paid subscribers. The case was filed in 2000 and it’s still pending at the trial court level. Actually, the delay was partly caused by the NTC when it brought the case to the higher courts only to have it remanded back to the QC trial court for further proceedings.  In the meantime, the benefits of the circular have not been felt by the public and given the lethargic pace of our court system, that won’t happen anytime soon.

This sad experience confirms my belief that in policy matters affecting technology, it is far better to reach some sort of accomodation between the industry regulated and government.  Issues like Wi-Fi or voice over IP must not be left for a judge to resolve.  It will take so long for the case to wind through the judiciary that by the time a final order is made, market forces and technological advancement would render any court order meaningless.  Cooperatve engagement of stakeholders would be a far better alternative than confrontation.

In the case of the NTC guidelines, I’m sure the cellphone companies would have acceded to some of the provisions in the guidelines.  The NTC could have eased those in and negotiated for the rest.  Instead, the NTC went ahead and forced the issue on the cellcos.  This strategy has led them to where they are today. 

It’s Just a Matter of Time for Me

I saw this news item on Philippine Star about a man arrested for posing as a lawyer.  It made me think:

(a)  When will people catch on that I’m no different from that guy?

(b)  Are there so few lawyers that even non-lawyers can get away with this thing?

(c)  Given the amount of flak we lawyers get from everyone, why would anyone want to pose as a lawyer?

(d)  If non-lawyers can get cases and collect fees, what’s my excuse?

National ID System and Information Privacy

All this talk about National IDs and invasion of privacy is a reflection of the people’s lack of trust in the government. What fuels this mistrust is the absence of any controls limiting the ability of government to access the aggregated data.

But the debate has confused (perhaps left to the back burner) the critical difference between the existence of centralized databases and access to the data. People just assume that centralized databases means unfettered access. This is not necessarily true. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Ople v. Torres (striking down the earlier national ID system) added fuel to this fire. Even though the majority recognizes that the violation of the right to privacy is potential, it still concluded that the Ramos administrative order violated the Constitution. Now, I’m not a Constitutional Law expert but it seems to me that if no right has been violated, then there is no opportunity for the Court to exercise its power. In legalease, there is no “justiciable controversy” — this means that the courts are not permitted to intervene unless there is an actual violation of a right. But in Ople v. Torres, there was no actual invasion of privacy. Here’s what the Court said:

“Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent will fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens.”

Noone’s record had been compromised. Noone’s right to privacy had been violated. Noone had been discriminated against, oppressed, harrassed, or otherwise molested by the system. The Court ruled on the basis of “WHAT IF.” (more…)

Cybercrime Bill

A small group of concerned IT professionals are discussing the proposed CyberCrime Bill (download the draft here). We’re still in the early stages. If you want to know more about CyberCrime, you may want to read this paper written by the UP Internet and Society Program on the topic. Feel free to post a comment below.

Has Oscar lost his luster?

This informative article from the folks at Wharton says “no.” I had no idea that Chris Rock was recruited to host the Oscars in order to attract a younger crowd. Myself, I preferred Billy Crystal or someone like Jerry Seinfeld whose humor isn’t too hard on people but on situations. Rock’s tirade about Jude Law was, I think, misplaced and mean (as was his remark about Oprah being so rich, she received a marriage proposal from John Kerry). I don’t know. Maybe I’m just growing old and I don’t get it anymore. Pikon.

Taking Responsibility for CICT Issuances

In a Computerworld article, Comm. Peña had this to say about the PH Domain Guidelines:
Taking a swipe at the DotPH head, Peña said Disini is barking up the wrong tree since he did not author the guidelines. The guidelines, he pointed out, were drafted by an advisory board that included representatives from the University of the Philippines, Philippine Electronics and Telecommunications Foundation (PETEF) and Philippine Internet Commerce Society (PICS).

“I just gave the directive to promulgate the guidelines,” Peña said. (emphasis supplied) At best, these statements are inaccurate; at worst, they’re patently misleading.

First, the language of the Guidelines are clear that the CICT is the body which promulgated them. It is significant that the Guidelines were signed only by Comm. Peña himself, to the exclusion of the other CICT commissioners. Note that the executive order creating the CICT designated two (2) ex-officio commissioners to the CICT. Their exclusion from the promulgation of the Guidelines perhaps indicates that the CICT is not a collegial body. Nevertheless, since the Guidelines contain only Mr. Peña’s signature, there can be no other conclusion but that he issued the same. (more…)

Amay Bisaya and Gate-Crashing

The Supreme Court just handed down a decision dismissing the case filed by Amay Bisaya against Hotel Nikko for asking him leave a hotel party which he gate crashed. 

Essentially, the legal doctrine here is this:  when gate-crashing a party, you’re still entitled to be treated respectfully while you’re being thrown out.  If Amay Bisaya’s version were to be believed (that the hotel staff shouted at him to leave the private party), then he would have been entitled to damages.

The question not answered by (or maybe not put before) the Court is: was Hotel Nikko entitled to claim damages from Amay Bisaya for gate-crashing the party?  If so, what are the determinative criteria in computing damages for gate-crashing?  The impropriety of attire, the party’s exclusivity, the extent of the host’s embarrassment, the social standing of the host in relation to the gate-crasher, etc.?  The last one is interesting because it implies that if a rich man crashes the party of a poor man, the latter isn’t entitled to as much damages if it were the other way around.

Anyway,  let’s just take the Court’s advice and be courteous even to gate-crashers who, after all, are still entitled to be treated with some measure of dignity (even though they’ve violated a social rule).

A Post-Oscar Burger and Fries

I got the following message and pictures in the mail today (Urban Legend with Pics?):
OK…..so I was hungry after working an Oscar night; and stopped at

Astro Burger in West Hollywood (for a Garden Burger, of course).

After I order….a commotion outside…..door opens……SHE arrives…….the Oscar, the dress, hubby with video camera and a small entourage in tow…..

I said to Chad (we’re on a first name basis now), “Didn’t they feed you at the Governor’s Ball?” He laughed….sort of.

Good thing I had the camera, ‘cuz no one would have believed it.
Ahhhhh Hollywood.

The disappearing CICT story on INQ7.Net

In an earlier post, I made reference to an INQ7.Net story entitled “CICT chief wonders why Disini is after him” which was posted on March 2, 2005 under the following URL: http://beta.inq7.net/infotech/index.php?index=1&story_id=29216.
If you follow the link now, it leads to a story about PLDT and VOIP.

What happened to the original story? Jangelo posted the following comment:

Sir,

Article is indeed “offline” acording to inq7.net. But a google cache is available, with the corresponding reference and retrieval dates (i.e., which implies that inq7.net did indeed publish the material).

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:t3022mqavvgJ:news.inq7.net/mobile/html_output/20050302-29217.xml.html&hl=en&lr=&strip=0…

Curious. A glitch? Or intentional?

Regards. =)

Angelo

I want to know, too.

Bombim’s $15 Promise

In PinoyBlog.Com, PHNET’s Bombim Cadiz had this to say to a challenged made to the AdBoard and CICT to prove that the PH Domain Guidelines will reduce the price of domain name registrations:
Should the PHccTLD be redelegated to PHNET, PHNET will offer a PHccTLD registration at USD15/year and not force anyone to register for 2 years if it becomes the PHccTLD Registry.
Looks good, Bombim.  I can’t help but wonder how PHNET plans to keep that promise.  After all, there are expenses to be recouped. (more…)

Wonder No More

On Wednesday, INQ7.net carried a story headlined “CICT chief wonders why Disini is after him” which strangely enough, I can’t find on INQ7.net today. I pasted a copy below for reference. Essentially, Mr. Pena is reacting to the 2 open letters (letter 1 and letter 2) which came out in the Philippine Star and this is what he had to say:
Asked to comment on the open letters, Peña declined to comment, except
to say, “the whole issue is in the hands of the technical working
group [created by the CICT]. But I just wonder why is the [open
letter] being pointed at me?” I’m amazed at Mr. Pena’s comment. Just because he’s handed over the redelegation process to a Technical Working Group (which he created), then dotPH shouldn’t address the issue to him anymore. “You’re barking up the wrong tree.” (more…)