A New General Telecommunications Law, or Rather a Convergent Regulation Law (and a New Institutionalism)?

Estas últimas semanas distintos medios especializados han señalado que el subsecretario de Telecomunicaciones ha anunciado la presentación de un proyecto de ley general de telecomunicaciones para Chile (1)(2). 

Although the scope of the announcement is unclear, it is relevant to remember that the current law is over 40 years old and the challenges of the present-future exceed telecommunications and radio-television in the traditional sense. 

If this were to be the scenario, this is an opportunity to move toward a convergent regulation of communications, as many other countries in the region and internationally have done, with the resulting adjustment at an institutional level. 

This announcement is related to the debate occurred between 2011 and 2014 regarding a bill for a Superintendence of Telecommunications submitted in the first administration of Sebastián Piñera.

It was a proposal with a convergent understanding of telecommunications, yet insufficient for several reasons, including the fact that its main focus of interest was to separate the functions of the Telecommunications Undersecretariat (SUBTEL).

El mensaje presidencial que acompañó el envío de ese proyecto de ley decía: “No parece correcto que quien dicta las normas sea el mismo que las fiscaliza y sanciona”; y al mismo tiempo, buscaba reducir “el riesgo de ese fenómeno que se conoce como ‘captura del regulador’”, un concepto acuñado en los ‘70 por el Nobel de Economía George Stigler.

Ten years later, the debate on institutionalism has become more complex due to the development of technology convergence and the challenges it entails. For this reason, any changes to the legal framework of telecommunications cannot disregard this reality.

En nuestro proyecto de #regulacionconvergente estamos observando distintos ejemplos de articulación institucional que combinan de distinta manera la relación entre telecomunicaciones, radio, televisión y servicios digitales, tanto en el ámbito latinoamericano como anglosajón y europeo.

From the perspective of the regulated industries, a concept that binds together a significant portion of the debate is “regulatory asymmetry”. In general, it relates to the traditional audiovisual sector, considered to be overregulated and at a disadvantage regarding other industries such as streaming platforms.

However, our research suggests that although there is only one techno-media convergence, at least three sectors coexist within it (telecommunications, audiovisual and digital services in the communications sector), that they are all different, and that the main risk in terms of convergent regulation is that it will be general yet light for all and the logics of telecommunications will end up absorbing the specificity of the other industries.

Our approach is to rather develop an asymmetric yet fair regulation in the sense that it identifies the specificities for each technological medium, including obligations regarding the contents and the business model.

We think that a good regulation for the convergent scenario must be specific, tending to the characteristics of each sector while also understanding that they share common aspects because of the convergence. However, in no case does this entail requiring equal responsibilities.

Based on the research we are conducting as Fondecyt Project 1230748, we would like to raise other aspects of the discussion in the public space, related particularly to the autonomy and independence of the institutionalism in charge of enforcing the sector’s regulation.

1. A collegiate body in charge of enforcing regulation with multi-comprehensive selection and governance criteria. The importance of having good and diverse professional profiles not only limited to engineers and lawyers by means of combined recruitment and appointment systems. More effective autonomy of the body by means of a distribution of the selection power among several actors, not only the legislative and executive power as has been the trend so far in organizations like the CNTV or TVN. 
2. Interinstitutional coordination. Techno-media convergence is permanently leading to new regulatory challenges. This year, Chile passed the personal data law and the cybersecurity policy, which involve the creation of new autonomous bodies. These areas of public intervention overlap in some points with the regulatory institutionalism of communications. That is why formal coordination between them is important. 
3. Preventing corporate regulatory capture. En este punto se requieren medidas más estrictas para evitar la puerta giratoria entre instituciones reguladoras y empresas reguladas. Considerando periodos más extensos de prohibición para pasar de un sector a otro hasta un mejor apoyo desde el Estado a los funcionarios que dejan su función pública al cumplir sus periodos. A modo de comparación, en el caso del CNTV esta prohibición es de 6 meses, mientras que en el caso de ARCOM, el regulador convergente francés, la prohibición es de 3 años.
4. Binding citizen participation. Formal and effective institutional mechanisms are required that guarantee the presence and participation of non-profit civil society associations in the decisions made by the regulator. 

By Chiara Sáez, September 2024

Escucha esta editorial a continuación: