LET’S BUILD A FASTER AND CHEAPER INTERNET—FROM THE BACKBONE OUT

LET’S BUILD A FASTER AND CHEAPER INTERNET—FROM THE BACKBONE OUT

Our electric power system may not be perfect, but at least we know how it works: there's production (like power plants), transmission (via the national grid), and distribution (done by Meralco or the electric coops). That structure—clear and layered—helps us manage power more efficiently.

Now, can we do something similar for the internet?

Today, the internet is arguably as essential as electricity. Yet it remains expensive, slow, and—ironically for the digital age—inequitable. The urban rich get fiber connections, while many in the provinces struggle with unreliable or nonexistent service. But the problem isn't just about infrastructure; it's also about structure.

---

Who Owns the Internet Highway?

Let’s use the power sector as a metaphor. If we think of telcos like Globe, PLDT, and Converge as the National Power Corporation of the internet world, they are doing more than just transmitting. They’re also controlling the last mile, the way Meralco controls your neighborhood’s electricity lines.

But here's the rub: in the old days, Value Added Networks (VANs)—the backbone providers—stayed out of the Value-Added Services (VAS) or “last mile” business. Smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs) used to serve the final leg, connecting homes and offices. That model was more inclusive and encouraged competition.

Now, the telcos are doing both: controlling the backbone and the last mile. And as they grow, smaller ISPs get squeezed out, unable to compete in a market where access to the core infrastructure is monopolized or too costly.

---

Why the Government Needs to Step In

So, here’s my big suggestion, Let the government build and own more of the internet backbone.

Think of it as building a public internet superhighway. The more lanes we build—meaning more bandwidth capacity—the faster and cheaper our internet becomes. And unlike roads, where land is finite, digital bandwidth is expandable. This isn’t theory. This is infrastructure that pays for itself in national productivity.

And why should government intervene? Because the private sector alone will never invest in the far-flung barangays, or in rural schools, or in mountainside cooperatives. It’s not profitable. But the state can—and should—step in where markets fail.

---

Let’s Rethink Public Access

Here’s another idea. Just as private bus companies can use our highways for free, why not let telcos use government-owned internet backbones freely, under certain conditions?

If they benefit from public infrastructure, they must also create space for smaller ISPs and cooperatives on the last mile. It’s not unreasonable. In fact, it’s a form of digital franchise fairness. If you want to run on public roads, open your doors to more passengers.

---

Cooperatives: A Missed Opportunity?

We already have electric cooperatives operating in areas where private distributors don’t bother to go. So, here’s a challenge: Why not empower these same coops to become ISPs?

With a bit of training, equipment, and incentives, these grassroots institutions could be transformed into last-mile digital heroes—bringing internet to schools, farmers, fisherfolk, and remote communities. This isn’t just about internet access. This is poverty alleviation through digital inclusion.

Cooperatives have boots on the ground. They have organizational structure. Most importantly, they have members who want better lives. What they don’t have—yet—is the digital backbone to plug into.

---

The Cost of Doing Nothing

If we continue with the status quo, we’ll stay stuck with:

• High internet prices, especially outside major cities
• Low speeds, especially in rural and underserved areas
• Digital inequality, where only urban centers benefit
• Missed opportunities for digital jobs, education, and innovation

And all this despite living in the “social media capital of the world.”

---

Time to Digitally Decentralize

Let’s not put all the power in the hands of a few big telcos. Let’s build a national backbone, managed or supported by the government, and open it up to more players—especially cooperatives and small ISPs.

Because just like electricity changed the 20th century, cheap and fast internet will define who thrives in the 21st.

Let’s give the people the tools to connect, compete, and create. Not someday—today.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-23-2025

WHAT REALLY MAKES A CITY SMART?

 WHAT REALLY MAKES A CITY SMART?

We love labels in this country. We have eco-tourism zones, heritage towns, digital hubs—even “Resilient Cities". But here’s a question that seems to hang unanswered in government offices: Which city in the Philippines can truly call itself a “smart city”?

Spoiler alert: none. Not even Manila. Not even those with towering BPOs or fancy LED traffic lights. Meanwhile, in Asia, Singapore, Beijing, and Songdo in South Korea have already earned the “smart city” badge. How did they do it, and more importantly, why haven’t we done it?

Let’s first settle one thing: a “smart city” is not just a city with free Wi-Fi in the plaza or one that livestreams council sessions on Facebook. It’s not just about mobile apps or CCTVs. At its core, a smart city is one that uses technology intelligently to deliver better public services, create safer communities, and raise the quality of life of its citizens. Tech is a means—not the end.

---

Start at the Nerve Center: The City Hall

Let’s not get too futuristic yet. The first hurdle for any city wanting to be “smart” is quite basic: automate city hall.

And I don’t mean just encoding business permits into Excel files. I’m talking about a full-fledged Management Information System (MIS) or better yet, an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) setup that can manage permits, taxes, payroll, assets, logistics, and services—all in one seamless platform.

How can we even talk about a “smart city” if the building at its core—the city hall—is still processing documents manually, with stacks of folders and hand-carried memos? A “smart campus” is where it should begin. If your city hall is “dumb,” your city has no business claiming to be “smart.”

---

Test Tech at the Source

Any tech to be deployed citywide should first prove itself in the “smart campus.” That’s the sandbox. That’s where we should first see data analytics, IoT devices, AI, building management systems, and even authentication tools like facial recognition, QR codes, biometrics, and so on.

Let’s be clear: a city is not “smart” because it has sensors. It is “smart” if it knows what to do with the data from those sensors—and if that data leads to better decisions.

---

A Smart City Must First Be a Safe, Clean, and Livable City

Here's a truth bomb: no amount of AI can mask dirty streets, dangerous roads, or broken transport systems.

So here’s my own checklist for “smartness”:

• Cleanliness – Trash-free streets and functioning sewerage. If your drainage floods during light rain, you’re not smart.
• Safety – Low crime. Responsive police. Public lighting that works.
• Transportation – Affordable, accessible, and reliable. If commuters are hanging off jeepneys in the rain, tech won’t fix that.
• Utilities – Cheap and consistent water, power, and internet. Not five bar signals in one barangay and none in the next.
• Jobs and Housing – Low joblessness, low homelessness. No amount of digitization will fix inequality unless it’s inclusive.

Simply put: if the basics aren’t working, smart tech will only expose the flaws faster.

---

Technology: Input, Not the Outcome

According to Microsoft Copilot (yes, even AI has its say), a smart city uses “advanced technologies and data analytics to enhance the quality of life, improve sustainability, and streamline city operations.”

That’s all true. But we must always remember that technology is just the tool. The real measure of a smart city is not how advanced its dashboard looks, but how efficiently and humanely it serves its people.

Songdo, South Korea didn’t become a smart city just because it installed smart traffic lights. It became one because urban planning, governance, and technology all worked together. Singapore didn’t just add gadgets—they applied discipline, policy coherence, and a vision of inclusive progress.

---

So, Who’s Up for the Challenge?

Mr. President, we’ve heard your calls for digitalization. The ball is now with the local governments. Which mayor will be brave enough to say: “We will be the first true smart city in the Philippines”?

But here's a challenge: before you declare it on social media, audit your own city hall. Is your payroll automated? Is your permit system online from start to finish? Can your citizens access basic services with just their phones? Do you even answer your official email?

If the answer is no, then let’s put the “smart” label aside. A good start would be to aim for “functional,” “responsive,” and “efficient.”

And when we get those right—then we can talk about being smart.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-22-2025

DISCONNECTED REPUBLIC: WHY IS IT SO HARD TO CONTACT THE GOVERNMENT?

DISCONNECTED REPUBLIC: WHY IS IT SO HARD TO CONTACT THE GOVERNMENT?

In this digital age—when we can video call relatives across the globe in seconds, buy groceries through apps, and get breaking news straight to our phones—why is it still nearly impossible to reach our own government?

I ask this not as a rhetorical flourish, but as someone who has tried—repeatedly, persistently, and often frustratingly—to contact various government agencies. And failed. Miserably.

Let me tell you how the average Filipino is greeted when trying to contact the government: a landline number no one answers, an email address that bounces back, and a Facebook page that proudly auto-replies, “We will get back to you shortly”—only to never reply again. It’s like shouting into a void and expecting a handshake.

---

Landline-Only Mentality in a Mobile-Only World

Here’s what baffles me: most agencies still only publish landline numbers. That would be fine—if it were still 1998. But it's not. Most people don’t even own landlines anymore. What they do have are mobile phones, powered by prepaid loads, where calling a landline costs a small fortune. And yet, brochures, posters, and even official websites act as if mobile and internet-based communication don’t exist.

Do they not want to be contacted? Sometimes I wonder. Because if they did, why make it so hard?

And even when you try the published landline numbers, you’ll either get a busy tone, endless ringing, or the ever-reliable government shrug: “Wrong person. Call again.” Or worse, “Just come to the office.”

If the goal is to discourage engagement, then mission accomplished.

---

The Messenger Generation: Wake Up Call for Public Servants

Let’s talk about how people communicate today.

Facebook Messenger (FBM) is free on mobile phones. So is Facebook itself. And so are Viber, WhatsApp, and Telegram. They allow instant chat, voice, and video communication without cost. These tools are used daily by ordinary citizens to reach friends, family, and businesses. In fact, many sari-sari stores now do deliveries via chat.

So, here’s the burning question: Why can’t our government agencies do the same?

Most government Facebook pages have FBM buttons—but they don’t bother to answer. Instead, you get the canned “Thank you, we’ll get back to you,” and then, radio silence. Even the Presidential social media accounts aren’t immune. I messaged the official presidential page a year ago. I’m still waiting.

To be fair, the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) deserves recognition. They reply to emails and forward concerns diligently. They’re proof that when the will exists, responsiveness is possible. But they’re the exception, not the rule.

---

Free Apps, Free Tools, No Excuse

We can argue that digitalization is expensive, and yes, some agencies struggle with budgets. But I’m not even talking about buying servers or writing code. I’m talking about basic communication tools that are free.

Why aren’t agencies publishing Viber or Telegram numbers? Why aren’t they manning their Facebook inboxes, like private businesses do every day?

You don’t need a massive IT budget to have a staff member answer inquiries via chat. You don’t need a full-blown call center to respond to a simple question like “Is your office open today?” or “Where do I submit this form?”

And yet, here we are—a texting capital of the world, but apparently unable to text our own government.

---

A Missed Opportunity in Digital Governance

Mr. President, you’ve been very vocal about digitalization—and rightly so. In fact, as a former Director General of the National Computer Center (NCC), I wholeheartedly support your vision. But digital transformation cannot happen if no one picks up the phone, answers an email, or replies to a message.

If the government wants trust and engagement, it must open the lines—literally and figuratively. Otherwise, people will continue to believe what some already suspect: that these agencies don’t really want to be reached. That accessibility is a slogan, not a standard.

Let’s fix that. Start by requiring every agency and LGU to publish mobile-accessible contact details—FBM, Viber, WhatsApp, Telegram—whichever they can manage. Then assign actual people to respond. If a corner bakery can reply to customers in real time, surely a government office can, too.

---

A Final Word

We’re not asking for miracles. We’re asking for responsiveness, basic courtesy, and a government that communicates in the same language and platform as its citizens. In the end, digital governance isn’t about apps or systems—it’s about being reachable.

Because when people can’t even message their government, the message they receive is loud and clear: You’re not responsive.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-21-2025

IS FLOOD CONTROL TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 IS FLOOD CONTROL TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

There’s a line I’ve heard too many times, almost like a tired refrain: “We can’t solve flooding in the Philippines. It’s just part of life here.” But let me say this clearly and without apology: I disagree.

That’s not just optimism speaking—it’s logic. If a problem has no solution, then, it’s not a problem. It’s just a reality to live with. But flooding? Flooding is a solvable problem. There are solutions. They’re not easy. They’re not cheap. But they’re proven.

No country has eliminated floods—and we don’t expect to either. What we need is control, not miracles. In fact, the government’s own budgets talk about “flood control,” not “flood eradication.” That’s an honest, realistic objective—and one we can achieve.

Filipinos aren’t demanding dry streets 24/7. We’ve learned to live with puddles and temporary flooding during heavy rains. What the public is asking for is reasonable management: water that drains quickly, streets that are passable within hours, homes that don’t fill like bathtubs, and a system that can withstand the rains without collapsing.

---

What the World Is Doing (That We’re Not)

Look abroad, and we’ll find four countries that have shown us how it’s done—without the drama, and without excuses.

Let’s start with The Netherlands, a country that is literally below sea level, and yet it’s rarely underwater. Why? Because they invested heavily in dikes, levees, and storm surge barriers, creating one of the most respected flood management systems in the world. No magic, just planning, engineering, and political will.

Then there’s Japan. Earthquakes are their main fear, but they don’t ignore flooding either. Their early warning systems, dams, reservoirs, and reinforced riverbanks are backed by cutting-edge meteorological technology. In short: they prepare. Not react.

Singapore, though tiny, has one of the most advanced urban flood management systems in Asia. Sensors, data analytics, drainage canals, pumping stations, stormwater ponds—you name it. And crucially, they maintain these systems. Technology helps them predict, plan, and act before the water gets too high.

South Korea also stands out for its green infrastructure and flood-resilient urban planning. They integrate nature with engineering, a strategy that’s both cost-effective and sustainable. Their reservoirs and flood control dams are often interlinked—an approach we can study and adopt.

---

Our Added Burden: Trash and Sewerage

Here's where it gets personal. Those countries I just mentioned. They don’t have to worry about garbage clogging their drains, or open canals serving as sewers. That’s where we lose the game even before the rain starts. Our flood control isn’t just an engineering problem—it’s also a waste management crisis.

Let’s face it: even the best drainage system won’t work if it’s choked with plastic wrappers, sachets, and household waste. And many of our cities still lack proper sewerage, causing overflows every time the sky turns gray. If we want to solve flooding, we must solve what’s floating in it.

---

What We Can—and Must—Do

Here’s the good news: we have the brains. Our Filipino engineers are some of the bests in the region. What we sometimes lack is the political will, the coordination, and yes, the honest implementation of plans.

Let’s be blunt. We don’t need to start from scratch. The models are there. We can send study teams to Japan, Korea, or Singapore. Better yet, bring in local experts who already understand the terrain, the topography, and the budget constraints.

Corruption? Yes, that’s the elephant in the floodwater. Infrastructure projects have long been prey for kickbacks and substandard execution. But if there’s strong oversight—perhaps under your direct supervision—we might just see results. Add citizen monitoring, drone surveillance, and transparent reporting dashboards online, and we might even start trusting the system again.

And if the government needs help with the technological side, we’ve got volunteer tech professionals who are willing to assist. Data analytics, predictive modeling, real-time flood mapping—all of that is within reach, and all of it can inform better decisions.

---

A Final Thought

Flood control is not impossible. What’s impossible is expecting floods to go away without action. The four countries I’ve cited weren’t flood-free at birth—they earned it through decades of smart governance, civic discipline, and sustained investment.

Can we do it too? Absolutely. But only if we believe that flooding is a solvable problem—and treat it like one.

Because the water will always rise. The only question is: Will we rise with it, or let it wash us away?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-20-2025

ERADICATING INVASIVE FISH SPECIES: CAN WE EAT THE PROBLEM AWAY?

ERADICATING INVASIVE FISH SPECIES: CAN WE EAT THE PROBLEM AWAY?

Some of the most destructive creatures in Philippine waters didn’t evolve here. They were introduced. And over time, they’ve quietly taken over, wiping out native species and upsetting aquatic ecosystems. The invaders? Not pirates. Not foreign fishing fleets. But fish.

Let’s name names: Clown Knifefish, Eastern Mosquitofish, Thai Catfish, African Catfish, Rice Paddy Eel, Janitor Fish, and all varieties of Tilapia. Yes, even Tilapia. Though it’s a household staple on many Filipino tables, every single Tilapia in this country is invasive. Not one is native—and yet, most Filipinos assume otherwise.

Meanwhile, our native Hito (Clarias macrocephalus) is quietly losing ground to the African and Thai cousins. Our native Dalag, Ayungin, and Biya are being outcompeted in their own home waters. How did we let this happen?

---

Understanding the Invasion

Let’s not overcomplicate it. Invasive species are simply outsiders that do damage. According to Copilot’s helpful summary, they harm ecosystems by preying on native species, competing for food and space, spreading diseases, and fundamentally altering aquatic habitats.

They’re like bullies in a school playground where the teacher never steps in. And worse, since they have no natural predators, they multiply unchecked, crowding out everything else. You’ll often hear the ecological term “biodiversity loss.” This is what it looks like.

---

So, What’s the Government Doing?

Apparently, we have something called the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP), led by the DENR’s Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). But what have they done lately?

Good question.

NISSAP’s stated goals are sound: identify invasive species, screen new ones, and implement management strategies. But from where I sit—and from what little is accessible online—the implementation seems vague and limited in scope, especially if it only covers lakes. What about rivers, estuaries, or even floodplains?

Our problems are not only floating in lakes—they’re swimming all over the country.

---

Between Economy and Ecology

Here’s the dilemma: Tilapia is invasive, yes—but it’s also a major livelihood source. Thousands of families depend on it for food and income. That said, its spread may be hurting Milkfish (Bangus) growers, who now face intense competition in local lakes.

Which one contributes more to the economy? Which one is more sustainable in the long run? Should we keep Tilapia in enclosed fishponds only and protect native habitats from further invasion?

This is not just a science issue—it’s also economic policy. We need a serious cost-benefit analysis—a proper econometric study that weighs the impact of eradicating versus regulating Tilapia and other invasive species. I strongly suggest a multi-agency think tank to handle this. Bring together DENR-BMB, BFAR, DOST, and even NEDA and DTI.

---

Can We Eat the Problem?

Interestingly, some invasive fish are edible. Take the Clown Knifefish. It’s aggressive, but tasty. Could we follow the logic of “if you can’t beat it, eat it”? Maybe. A national “Knifefish Fiesta,” perhaps? Joking aside, this is serious: if the public learns to consume these species, we can create a market-driven solution to a biological problem.

Unfortunately, not all invaders are that appetizing. Janitor Fish, for example, are notoriously unpalatable. But must they go to waste?

This is where innovation must enter. Why not ask DOST and DTI to develop alternative uses for Janitor Fish? Think: pet food, fish meal, organic fertilizers, or even bioplastics. Why stop there? Give LGUs and entrepreneurs incentives to harvest and convert these pests into profit.

---

Protecting What’s Ours

While we talk about fighting invasive fish, we must not forget the native species we’re trying to protect. Many of them are on the brink—once common, now rare. If other countries have succeeded in reviving endangered flora and fauna, why not us?But it’s not just about biology. It’s about heritage and food security. We need to remember that our waters once teemed with diversity—each fish species with a role, a purpose, a place. Our grandparents fished Dalag, Bia, Paitan, and Ayungin—not because they were gourmet, but because they were abundant and nutritious.

Let’s make sure our grandchildren get that same chance.

---

A Call to Action

This problem needs political will. We can’t leave it to researchers alone. We need policy, programs, and public engagement. From ational funding to barangay-level action, from academic research to local fisherfolk cooperatives.

The invasive species crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a test of governance. Are we managing our natural resources—or letting them be overrun?

We already know what the problem is. The next question is: do we act now, or wait until our last native fish disappears?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-19-2025

WATER HYACINTHS: FROM FLOOD HAZARD TO ECONOMIC RESOURCE

WATER HYACINTHS: FROM FLOOD HAZARD TO ECONOMIC RESOURCE

In the endless cycle of floods that plague our country, garbage often gets the blame. And yes, plastic waste clogging our canals and esteros is a major culprit. But if we’re being honest, there’s another silent but fast-growing contributor that barely makes the headlines: the water hyacinth—a floating plant that chokes rivers, blocks sunlight, and suffocates marine life.

For many of our rivers and lakes, these invasive plants are more than just an eyesore. They’re a slow-moving ecological disaster. In places like Laguna de Bay, they don’t just block boats and fish cages—they block development.

Let’s clarify first. Water hyacinths (Eichhornia crassipes) are not the same as pink water lilies (Nymphaea pubescens), though they’re often mistaken for each other. The lilies are slower-growing and not as destructive. It’s the water hyacinths that form dense mats across the surface of rivers and lakes, turning once-navigable waterways into green parking lots.

---

A Beauty with a Dark Side

Yes, ironically, water hyacinths are beautiful. Their lavender flowers are deceptively charming. But beneath the surface, they cause real harm. By blocking sunlight and consuming oxygen, they kill fish and other aquatic life, degrading the very ecosystems that thousands of fisherfolk depend on.

What’s worse? These plants thrive in polluted water. In fact, the dirtier the water, the faster they grow—making them both a symptom and a consequence of our water pollution crisis.

---

So, What Do We Do?

Let’s start with the obvious: harvesting them is necessary. We need local governments to be more aggressive in clearing these invasive species. But here’s the bigger question: what do we do with them after they’re pulled out of the water?

Many suggest turning them into animal feeds. But there’s a risk there. Since water hyacinths absorb heavy metals and pollutants, feeding them to livestock or poultry—especially when harvested from dirty waterways—could be dangerous. The same goes for consuming them as human food, even though technically they’re edible.

So that leaves us with non-edible uses—and this is where the opportunity lies.

---

From Waste to Wealth

Did you know that water hyacinths can be transformed into handicrafts, paper, and organic fertilizer? Even more impressive: they can be processed into fibers and fabrics.

Globally, there’s growing interest in sustainable textile materials. And in the Philippines, we already have a tradition of using plant-based fibers like abaca, pineapple, banana, and maguey. Water hyacinth fiber could easily become part of this eco-fabric revolution—if we support the right institutions.

---

Two Agencies, One Mission

I propose that President Marcos give a joint mandate to the Philippine Textile Research Institute (PTRI) under DOST and the Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority (PhilFIDA) under the DA.

PTRI specializes in textile R&D—experimenting with new blends, improving fabric quality, and developing eco-friendly materials. PhilFIDA, on the other hand, supports the entire fiber value chain—from farming to processing and trade regulation.

Some might say there’s overlap. I say there’s synergy waiting to happen. Imagine a coordinated program where water hyacinth fiber is studied, tested, and commercialized for both fashion and industrial uses. We could have communities along Pasig River or Laguna de Bay producing sustainable textile products instead of just clearing weeds.

---

Clean Water, Cleaner Profits

Here’s an important note: we can only unlock the full potential of water hyacinths after we clean our waters. As long as pollution levels remain high, their use in food and feed products will remain unsafe. But the moment we restore our rivers and lakes to health, these plants could become a source of protein, biomass, and even biofuel.

Cleaner waters also mean more fish, better aquaculture, and stronger livelihoods for the communities that rely on inland fishing.

---

Turning a Problem into Potential

Let’s not make the mistake of seeing water hyacinths as just another nuisance. They are a problem, yes—but also a resource. They are evidence of pollution—but also agents of recovery. With the right science, technology, and policy support, we can turn this invasive plant into income.

In the long term, we must match our flood control and clean-up campaigns with innovative circular economy thinking. The very things that cause us trouble today might be what save us tomorrow—if we act smartly and sustainably.

So I ask again: What do we do with water hyacinths?

Answer: We create livelihoods, we clean our waters, and we reclaim our rivers—one fiber at a time.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-18-2025