By Juan Larrosa, April 28, 2025
Historically, the relationship between politics and the broadcasting and telecommunications industries has been complicated in Mexico. Throughout the 20th century, we lived under a semi-authoritarian regime where companies like Televisa culturally and informatively dominated national life, first as a monopoly, and later, during the 1990s, as part of a duopoly.
The story in telecommunications is similar. Initially, Telmex operated as a state monopoly, controlling the entire fixed-line telephone infrastructure. It was later privatized and sold to Carlos Slim, becoming a private monopoly in telephone services and across other telecommunications sectors.
Achieving a reform to democratize these sectors took decades. Civil society and academia drove changes that, although imperfect and subject to criticism, culminated in the constitutional reform of 2013 and the new secondary law of 2014. Thanks to these efforts, while dominant companies like Televisa, Telmex, and TV Azteca still exist, they no longer operate as absolute monopolies. We have gradually witnessed a diversification and deconcentration of the market.
Recently, following an advertisement paid for by the United States government—in which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared on Mexican television warning that illegal migration from Mexico would not be tolerated—the government of Claudia Sheinbaum proposed a modification to the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law to restrict the purchase of airtime for foreign propaganda purposes. Up to this point, the intention seems legitimate and reasonable.
However, what followed reveals troubling dynamics. According to various media reports, the government had already prepared a broader reform proposal for the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, though it had not planned to present it yet. Taking advantage of the situation, the government decided to fast-track the process by sending the initiative to the Chamber of Deputies for swift approval.
Here arises a serious procedural issue worth analyzing. In a democracy, the Executive Branch can propose laws but not approve them directly. That responsibility belongs to the Legislative Branch, whose fundamental duty is to deliberate. Democratic deliberation is not a mere formality; it is essential to ensure that the interests and perspectives of a pluralistic society are heard, negotiated, and, where possible, incorporated into legislation.
When an initiative is fast-tracked, this deliberative process is canceled. This weakens the quality of the laws and, more importantly, impoverishes democracy itself. Deliberation also detects flaws, errors, or risks in legislation before it is enacted.
Beyond the specific intentions of this reform—which warrant a separate discussion—the truly concerning issue is that once again, significant changes were attempted to be passed without dialogue, public debate, and listening to the diverse voices of civil society, experts, affected industries, and citizens.
Ultimately, in response to criticism, the president withdrew the proposal temporarily and called for a broader discussion process. At first glance, this is a good sign. However, recent experience urges caution. Too often, such calls for “opening spaces for dialogue” are reduced to mere symbolic gestures.
As citizens, we must demand that this time be different. The new telecommunications and broadcasting legislation should result not from unilateral imposition but from genuine debate and collective construction.
We must not forget that the advances made in this sector—the right to information, the fight against monopolies, the opening of public and community media—resulted from decades of civil society struggle. Legislators and the president have a democratic duty to honor and respect that history.
This text was originally read on the NTR Radio newscast on April 28, 2025, hosted by journalist Sergio René de Dios Corona.