Give the NBTC commissioners a chance at least

Here's mine: Why aren't we celebrating? In other words, isn't it good that the power to allocate and manage the valuable national resources called "frequencies" is shifting away from politicians, the men in uniform and the bureaucrats? Can someone please describe the lack of atmosphere after the NBTC selection by the Senate?

To try to be optimistic, after 14 years of wanting it to happen, we may simply be too tired. The excitement that followed the 1997 Constitution, which sought to end the political and military monopoly of broadcasting and telecom frequencies, has long gone. We may have grown up, learned a thing or two about the telecom industry, and stopped dreaming. In addition to that, we are still in a mourning period. The country has been disrupted by years of political turmoil, which culminated in last year's unprecedented violence. Is that the case?

It should be. This is an issue too big to sulk about, no matter how much some of us may want to after seeing the 11 names. The NBTC composition is far from perfect, and we've been hearing all kinds of discouraging stories, but the commission must at least be given a chance. And to those who think that 10 men and one woman shouldn't be allowed to hold the future of an industry worth hundreds of billions of baht in their hands, the Cabinet consists of only two dozen more people. Moreover, those three dozen people used to make decisions that more or less led to our political misery in the first place. 

The concept of the NBTC came about due to concern over unfair monopoly, state corruption and dictatorial use of frequencies that should have been treated as natural resources - meaning not exploited to empower or enrich any particular group. The 1997 charter sought to transfer control of the telecom and broadcasting sectors to the so-called National Telecom Commission and National Broadcasting Commission. Take it any way you like, but this constitutionally required reform coincided with the beginning of what would become our worst modern-day political crisis.

The constitutional groundwork for establishment of the NTC and NBC never stood a chance. The political shadow looming over the telecom industry was too strong to get rid of. In fact, there were good reasons to believe that some people entered politics with a foremost intent to protect their telecom interests from the danger of liberalisation. The military, meanwhile, frowned on political meddling with telecom affairs, but its own monopoly and massive interest in broadcasting was equally hard to uproot.

Writers of the much-maligned 2007 Constitution kept alive the will of their 1997 counterparts on "liberalisation" of the telecom and broadcasting industries. The NBTC was a constitutional merger of the NTC and NBC after it became clear that the two industries would only converge and blend together one day. The intention was good, but what we have done is practically combine two sets of problems - each highly complicated on its own, with unique and powerful players - hoping to come up with a nice solution.

Sceptics take one look at the military dominance on the NBTC - and another at who holds political power - and see no hope. Broadcasting and telecoms have been playgrounds for the rich and powerful for far too long, and the who's who on the NBTC has not convinced them that a lot will change. There are perhaps two names we can expect to fight for public interests and the virtue of liberalisation, but for them to stand firm against the flow will be a big ask.

So, the challenges awaiting the NBTC are obvious. The powers-that-be in these businesses will do everything to hold on and defeat the original concept of promoting freedom of expression through reduced monopoly and state control (broadcasting) and making competition fairer and consumers' utmost benefits the norm of the game (telecoms). The urge and pressure to protect the interests of big-name players will be enormous and the commissioners will be besieged every day with the "If you don't concede a little, we can't go anywhere" argument.

How will the commissioners do it? How can they balance fast development and fairness? How can they stand up against current stakeholders like the military and big telecom firms for ideals that may spawn controversies and cause frustrating delays? How can they bring the best of both worlds?

The good news is, all these questions will be answered in a far more transparent manner than before, with public input having more weight than it ever used to. Doubts we can have. As of now, though, let's give the 11 a try. It can't get any worse, or so it seems.