The Erráketa Law Telecom 2025/05/11

The Communications Law generates strong controversy, as in other reforms when large companies in this strong industry are mobilized as state anti -state points. But this time it reveals the controversy that includes the siege on platforms, more than a mistake, ignorance of new facts in the digital community and the dangers of curbing or silencing them with the wrong organization.

The error can be attributed to the insistence of responding to the propaganda of a foreign government of clear interference dyes like that Trump. But away from relieving fears of censorship, this response appears to be naive if it is not the only one that other governments such as China or Korea gave him when political control is threatened.

So the president Shinbum He had to come out and request the elimination of that Article 109 of the law to dispel doubts about the dangers of freedom of expression.

However, the questions are still based on controlling the late damage when the opposition’s criticism and ink were deliberately running in the media as the “control law”. Yerro soon went up to the inadequacy of the proposal that reflects the current plan through another model of the 4T organization, which was established in plan C’s reforms last year.

Shinbum Once again, he had to stop the explicit approval that Congress wanted to do and open a general conversation to analyze it.

The most narrative thing in reform is not its content, although it reflects a new institutional arrangement derived from eliminating independent organs and the modern IFT relationship in the government.

The idea of ​​concentrating communications organizing in the new digital information agency and the AntonOpoolio Institute of Institute of Institute of Information raises fear for the bias of political control and the appreciated regulation that is bypassed by reality.

Anxiety exists even among legislators in Mouringa Javier CoralThey will not see badly a kind of group bodies instead of leaving the decisions only to the agency’s owner; To avoid excessive focus in the power that is reflected against the state, because it also deals with the digital government and all its databases.

Most of the grandmother is not the confrontation between the self -independence model and the confrontation of the modern state, but it occurs in a completely different world from the recent reform of the year 2013 for the increasing role of digital communication on the traditional media; Decentralized global network challenges as the Internet under the mastery of the wonderful United States, the indisputable explosion of artificial intelligence in communications, managing and spectrum spectrum, and of course, new threats to rights and freedoms.

The initiative is buried by the Mexico Agreement Model from the parties of the old majority in order to open competition in the closed communications market, without achieving history for all its goals.

But it does not lead to new legal structures to protect the rights to access information or personal data in the new digital world as there are many of its biggest risks.

To embody enough to see the debate about infringement and borders to sovereignty due to the transfer of propaganda paid from the US government on Mexican television with anti -immigrant messages; Then he posted it on YouTube, who hurried the law presentation to “Steam” and included very controversial articles, such as “siege” from platforms or prior permission to direct government points and foreign organizations.

Sovereignty threats on radio or internal competition are not the only challenges of citizens’ digital rights.

There is also a lack of transparency and manipulation that the media industry can bear, as the #Televisaleaks scandal that links the company in the “dirty war” operations on digital platforms show.

A public commodity can be given through dark companies, as it also pose threats to freedom of expression. In this regard, what does the law say? Can television only face problems where a lack of transparency is punished, such as the United States?

From all these things that the law will have to speak, and hears something in the conversations that Congress opened to analyze, although it may be a rhetorical exercise and the exhibition, without commitment to a binding.