Mexico. After weeks of discussion in talks and pressure from various sectors, the initiative of the new Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law was modified.
Articles that enabled prior censorship were eliminated, collaborations with security agencies were limited, and some rights were restored. However, the most worrying structural changes remain.
One of the most visible adjustments was the elimination of powers to block digital platforms (Article 109) and the modification of Article 210 on foreign advertising guidelines. Payments for social operators were also made more flexible and aspects of accessibility and language were corrected. But these adjustments seem more symbolic concessions than substantive solutions.
The real problem remains: the disappearance of the IFT, an autonomous and collegiate constitutional body, which guaranteed a technical, independent regulation with counterweights. In its place, the Agency for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications (ATDT) is created, dependent on the Executive. And although, after criticism, the figure of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT) was incorporated as a collegiate body, its members will be appointed directly by the Executive, which distorts its independence and strengthens the risk of political capture.
Of particular concern is Article 183, which obliges concessionaires to provide real-time geolocation and collaborate with authorities in the delivery of data. In a country where espionage has been documented, enabling these mechanisms without sufficient safeguards is a step backwards. Even more so if it is combined with the requirement to associate mobile lines with the user's CURP, closing the circle for a system of mass surveillance.
On the economic front, the cost of radio spectrum remains one of the highest in the world. Although a reduction of 17.5% in real terms is recognized, it is based on an inflated base. Without a profound reform of the collection model, aligned with connectivity objectives, investments will continue to be affected.
In addition, important omissions remain: the principles associated with net neutrality are not redefined, which prevents progress towards a more modern model that balances the role of those who operate the networks and the services that circulate through them. Nor are the rules of preponderance adjusted, despite the urgency of balancing conditions between actors and promoting real competition.
In short, the reform contains specific improvements, but maintains a structural design that does not guarantee a competitive or transparent ecosystem. With a weakened regulator, expensive spectrum and ambiguous rules on data and surveillance, the final balance is worrying.
Although this reform is based on the previous law, it leaves the feeling that something that was moderately good has broken down. Instead of advancing on what was gained, the effort ended up focused on not losing rights already conquered. What Mexico needed was an evolution to correct what was pending and take a leap forward. This law, on the contrary, forces us to defend the basics again.
Analysis written by Gonzalo Rojón of The Competitive Intelligence Unit, The CIU.
