It’s Unknown If the COMFER and CNC Controlled Cable TV Companies before the Media Law Passed
<p><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">Until 2009, the agencies had to explain to the IRS how they performed their budgets but, according to the Federal Watchdog, that information was not detailed and lacked supporting documentation. One certainty: in the audited period, the Commission didn’t inspect because it was not asked. Their databases differed by more than 1,400 licensees.</span></p> <div> </div>
The still existing struggle between supporters and opponents of the Law on Audiovisual Communication Services overshadows some issues that occurred before the enactment of the law, in October 2009, such as the work of the State in controlling companies that up to that point had been issued and were distributing cable television signals.
Late last year, the General Audit’s Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish) approved a report which analyzed the performance of the two agencies that applied the inherited by the military dictatorship the regulation of the old Federal Broadcasting Committee, also known as COMFER, which controlled cultural, legal, commercial, and administrative aspects of the signals, and the National Communications Commission (CNC, for its acronym in Spanish), responsible for providing technical services.
Among the most important observations, AGN’s research concludes that "it is not possible to determine the degree of compliance with budget targets in regard to the inspections on cable TV services."
What does this mean? Until October 2009, both agencies had to explain to the Treasury's Office how they executed their budgets in license control. These forms did not contain disaggregated information in the item "inspections". Nor could they obtain documentation supporting the statements, according to the COMFER between 2007 and 2008. In short, from the data obtained, it is impossible to know if cable companies were controlled or not before the new media law was passed.
The AGN adds that annual inspection plans of the Committee lacked quantifiable parameters to link its budgetary goals. For example, for 2007, the agency would consider doing monthly checks "without identifying stations or (a) license holders of cable, or the type of review." Since 2008 and 2009 there were changes: even plans were approved by "administrative acts that give them the necessary formality."
Moreover, after analyzing 109 records made by inspectors of COMFER the Audit identified "weaknesses" in the control of the service. Of the total number, there were 40 that originated from judicial offices, of which "19 were not implemented within the year in which they were arranged, lingering an average of 18.47 months," something that, to auditors, "affected the opportunity of management organization." On the remaining 69 documents, "the Committee focused on verifying the ordering of the grid of channels, as amended since May 2008." However, despite this concern, the report says that there wasn’t an "effective control over the degree of implementation by the licensees to offer better quality of services by incorporating digital technology."
Also, the AGN gave details about a "poor control" in terms of corporate documents of companies. The report says: "It is observed that was the licensee verbally informs is rarely validated by the acting inspector and, if documentation is required, the inspector is who provides a due date," and also adds that "this is a consequence of the lack of regulation of the procedures", a course of action that was expected since 2000. But, there's more: the report argues that although delays were detected in the management of cases, and there were actually verified defaults, no sanctions were applied to the companies.
No One Calls on the Commission
The report adds that the AGN "in the audited period of 2007 to March 2009, the National Communications Commission did not conduct technical inspections of cable TV services," and explains that this dependence, which currently operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Federal Planning, "adopted the idea of only reviewing companies if required by the COMFER" which, beyond the fact that it does not match the current regulations, there wasn’t a single control during the investigation.
Subtle Differences
According to the audit, although the agencies concerned, the COMFER and CNC controlled cable service together, they were not operating with the same database. Moreover, they handled very different information: at the time of the inquiry, the Committee accounted for a total of 1,531 licensees, but the Commission had recorded "66 active licenses, five expired, and one in bankruptcy."