NBN: Back-off-the-envelop estimates?

If this DOTC presentation at the Senate hearing on the NBN-ZTE-BA-FG deal was meant to explain to and convince taxpayers that it is beneficial and aboveboard, it failed miserably. What we have here is a table which purports to compare simply specifications and costs of three proposals/proponents. Because the specifications are different, what DOTC assistant secretary Formoso did was to 'extrapolate' unit costs to estimate the equivalent total costs for both Amsterdam Holdings and Arescom using the specs offered by ZTE as the baseline. (How in hell did he do this in multiple dimensions?) Apparently, all three proposals were unsolicited. The following questions immediately arise:

1. If the project had been a priority since 2000 after the passage of the e-commerce law, why didn't government have any list of minimum requirements? Such a bill of specifications would allow us to appreciate the general and specific needs for a national broadband network, and led to a more transparent and publicized invitation for courtship?
   
2. If we grant that at some point the ZTE-PROC executive agreement/tied loan possibility became too beautiful to resist, why didn't the DOTC and NEDA-ICC give the other proponents a chance to modify their own proposals or offered costs?
3. Why did Malacanang (PGMA) and when did it "back off" from the initial desiderata (BOT without take-or-pay, no guarantees...) officially articulated by JdVIII's president?

I have an open mind about whether a fundamental service should be provided by government or the private sector, although in the past I had an ideological bias against the latter. It is a matter of incentives, after all. But what strikes me about the Formoso presentation is the lack of rigor and detail in regard to project benefits. His oral testimony referred to cost savings (and I will not get into that for lack of reliable data) but not to any valuation of benefits.

1. Why is it so important for government to have its own network? And what is the difference in value between using private and self provision? Can they quantify or monetize the value of enhanced (but still imperfect) security?
2. More importantly, do the DOTC and the NEDA have an estimate of the value of improved communication among and between government agencies at different levels?

Unfortunately, what the hearings yesterday unintentionally demonstrated was government (executive) instrumentalities was that even with low-tech methods, they don't communicate. They have no common appreciation of the relevant laws and not even prescribed executive procedures.

Information, Democracy, Communication

DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza adverted to his background in 'intelligence' and proceeded to contradict himself with his subsequent responses. Could he not be aware that under his watch that his very own agency is among the least communicative ( to the people) and the most corrupt?

If we have to prioritize the information and communication problems that should be addressed, there are many, unfortunately, and these don't really require much expense or commissions. It is a matter of culture. In many cases, such as in the communications and energy bureaucracy, there are debilitating turf wars. Why? Your guess is very good.

Okay, let's grant that the private providers have limitations. But these have not yet even been breached! I would have asked Formoso for evidence that a public servant from a 6th class municipality in Mindanao wrote to someone in the central government (maybe the president) to complain of inaction. I bet the bottleneck is not in the medium but in the message and the way it is formulated.

Mam, I am a lowly farmer wanting to use a plot for biofuels and I seek advise on how I may and can avail of govenrment help, if any.

Culture and communication

Just visit the websites maintained by government ( three levels) and you are very likely to agree that the problem is not hardware but software (including the processes in the brains of public servants). Government officials who have e-mail addresses don't even read much less answer electronic mail! Yes of course they have minions to do that. But these minions are not empowered and are just like the customer service staff of private providers and worse. They get paid anyway, regardless of how they deal with the public.


So why not e-mail?

Using currently available technology but under a much-improved culture of transparency and responsiveness, a lot can be accomplished to improve government services. And there would be an electronic trail, especially with commercial media. The problem with the NBN, even if it may have a few merits, is that it would only reinforce biases of a government so secretive but still so incompetent, it doesn't know how to talk to minions and other branches. But this can serve loyalists or minions, and a dictatorship and what it means is what we are all supposed to remember on Sunday.

If you ask me, the more pressing need is for government to communicate to you and me. The only reason they need a dedicated and secure network is because they want to screw us, secretly. Secretary Mendoza appeared before the Senate yesterday, but only to defend the FG. And, even if I had a colony of ants to bite his scrotum, I'm afraid they would rather go to Mars than wait for him to tell the truth.