Unclean hands

The Philippine Internet Services Organization, (PISO) has accused the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) of numerous unfair business practices. PISO has filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission, which includes predatory pricing on the part of PLDT. Sources said PLDT has just finished studying the legal, technical and business merits of the complaint and is confident that it can defend its position with the NTC.

It seems that the complaint filed by Josie Yap, president of PISO, is slightly misleading. For example, PISO complains that PLDT charges the former’s members around P3,000 per line which they say is excessive and is killing their business. What they don’t say is that for every line PLDT gives them, Internet service providers get as much as 20, 30 or even 50 Internet subscribers per line! Assuming they charge each Internet subscriber P2,000 a month for unlimited use, then these ISPs are raking in as much as P100,000 per line that they get from PLDT.

PLDT’s recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirming that the total liabilities of a majority of the PISO members has reached over P100 million has raised a howl among PISO members. They are now demanding PLDT to release the list of PISO members who are delinquent to protect those that are diligent payers. PLDT will only release the list during the NTC hearing if asked by the NTC. However, it may interest PISO members to know that to date, one of their high-ranking officials who belongs to one of the biggest ISPs in the country has racked up an unpaid bill of over P50 million. The said official is disputing the amount claiming erroneous billing. That may be true, but it’s hard to believe that the whole P50 million the said official owes is erroneous. The end all and be all of the said official’s complaint is for PLDT to give them more lines, and more access to PLDT’s services such as DSL. Now if someone owed you P50 million, would you give more? Coming with unclean hands?

NAFTA denounced

A dozen independent Mexican farmers’ organizations are threatening to block the country’s ports and border crossings as they demand a suspension of tariff removal on agricultural goods under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The farmers said NAFTA had damaged the Mexican countryside and claimed the next phase of tariff elimination among member countries (the United States, Mexico and Canada) could spell disaster.

According to them, the damages to the Mexican farming sector are affecting at least 15 million people. Because of this, they have decided to protest and close ports and borders in the first days of December.

These farmers are denouncing the United States for increasing subsidies to its farming sector by over 300 percent since NAFTA took effect in 1994. This they said is unfair competition that reproduces a system of prices below the costs of production.

The Mexican government has criticized the increase in US farming subsidies under NAFTA, saying agricultural subsidies make the price of US goods artificially low, crippling the market for many Mexican products. Mexico’s agriculture secretary Javier Usabiaga has even announced plans to finance local producers and fight for subsidy elimination at the World Trade Organization (WTO), although to date no progress has been made.

If the next phase of NAFTA goes ahead and tariffs on agricultural products are removed, Mexican farmers warn of a "massive invasion of agricultural products from the United States at subsidized prices, which will crash internal production." And they warn that next year, poverty will grow and a wave of migration towards the US can be expected.

While in 1995 the Mexican countryside contributed 5.5 percent to Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP), now it represents only 4.4 percent.

Mexico depends on the US for about 43 percent of its food needs, but this is expected to increase to 80 percent in the next 10 years.

The Philippines can probably learn from Mexico’s experience and review its plan to reduce tariffs on agricultural products.

(For comments, e-mail at [email protected])