DIGITAL ACCESS should be a prime concern for regulator

There are several reasons why the rights to allocate broadcasting and telecom frequencies should be kept away from politicians, but the biggest one is that not only have they been unable to prove that they can do the job without thinking purely of public interest, they can also cause massive damage through their flawed action or motives. The 1997 Constitution, dubbed “the People's Charter”, initiated what then seemed like an unthinkinable change – the transfer of the frequency-allocating power from the powers-that-be to independent regulators following the last straw on the former’s accumulated abuses of authority.
It took years for the National Broadcasting and Telecom Commission to take shape. And it was against a very volatile backdrop. Ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's conflicts of interests – on the one hand he was the patriarch of the country’s biggest telecom empire and on the other hand he was a government leader responsible for protecting the Thai public’s best telecom interests – were a key cause of political turmoil that started in the early 2000s and still lasts until these days. Problems that seemed to originate from vested interest in the telecom and broadcasting business have now snowballed into the national and ideological strife threatening the whole country.
The NBTC has been found wanting. But what Thailand has been through for over a decade and a half should be enough to underline the need to keep the government, whether elected or non-elected, from being involved in the allocation of broadcasting and telecom frequencies. This is not to mention the pre-Thaksin times when security concerns were often cited to suppress content and liberalisation efforts.
The NBTC came into existence thanks to a charter drafted under an extraordinary process, otherwise the “liberation” wouldn’t have happened. Although the “People's Charter” was revoked following a coup against Thaksin, its will on how broadcasting and telecom frequencies should be handled has lived on.
 Critics of the existing charter draft, however, are now not sure that the constitutional will seeking to ensure that all Thais get maximum benefit from the telecom and broadcasting frequencies because they are “national assets” is not under threat. Their fear is based on some changes, including unclear wordings, in the draft which they think could help pave the way for the
powers-that-be to take back
the allocating authority.
It would be sad irony if that constitutional will is curtailed and replaced by an old system that brought so much frustration and pain. With telecom interests bigger than before and the free flow of information more important than before, politics is the last thing we need to get intertwined with this mammoth issue. Things are already very complicated the way they are, so a return to the bad old days would certainly create a nightmare.
As for the NBTC, the commissioners must keep reminding themselves that they are supposed to serve the public’s interest, not digital companies. And the term “public interest” doesn’t mean money in the state coffers. The panel has taken too much pride in incomes from biddings, but has not seemed to be concerned that Thais do not enjoy “equal” broadcasting and telecom access.
The will of the “People’s Charter” was clear. Such access is not an accessory issue – it is a deserved right of the Thai people. The NBTC’s task is not an easy one, given the high technology and size of investments required, but as long as the commission strives to enforce this noble constitutional will, nothing can harm the panel.