OPTAs Draft Decision Market Review Mobile Termination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 10
About This Presentation
Title:

OPTAs Draft Decision Market Review Mobile Termination

Description:

Tiscali. Versatel. Timing, Relevant Market, Competition Problems. Timing: ... Should we conclude that this is a deliberate delay to accommodate the timeframe ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:25
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 11
Provided by: feyosic
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: OPTAs Draft Decision Market Review Mobile Termination


1
OPTAs Draft Decision Market Review Mobile
Termination
  • OPTA Oral Hearing
  • The Hague
  • April 7, 2005

2
Response of behalf of
  • bbned
  • BT
  • COLT
  • Enertel
  • MCI
  • Priority Telecom
  • Tiscali
  • Versatel

3
Timing, Relevant Market, Competition Problems
  • Timing
  • ACT glad to see action is finally taken
  • However, (draft) decision could have been taken
    much earlier there is nothing included that we
    did not know one year ago already.
  • Should we conclude that this is a deliberate
    delay to accommodate the timeframe of Dec-03
    deal between MNOs, OPTA and NMa.
  • Through this delay MNOs abusively earn another
    150-300M/year that FNOs end users must pay
    for.

4
Relevant Market Market Dominance
  • Indeed, every MNO is dominant for termination of
    traffic on its network, but that is something
    that we already know for years

5
Competition problems
  • OPTA to address the issue that FNOs are squeezed
    through Mobile VPNs (where retail F2M is offered
    for a fraction of the wholesale mobile
    termination price).
  • The adverse effects of excessive mobile
    termination rates for FNOs (again) should be
    taken into account. gt long term end user
    benefits through sustainable competition
  • Mobile call origination excessive originating
    fees for 0800 numbers

6
Remedies
  • Access obligation to meet reasonable requests
    for direct interconnection is without any meaning
    as long as OPTA does not add that the terms and
    conditions must be fair and reasonable. In
    addition OPTA must also specify what fair and
    reasonable means in practice. All access
    obligations of art 6a.6 Tw should be imposed.

7
Transparency
  • ACT agrees that the terms and conditions and
    tariffs for direct interconnection and
    termination must be published by MNOs. But in
    addition we need an obligation for MNOs to
    publish a Reference Offer that needs OPTA
    approval. Another transparency requirement is
    that MNOs must publish tariffs and tariff
    changes taking into account an appropriate notice
    period.

8
Non discrimination
  • OPTA must specify the precise meaning of the
    obligation that MNOs must provide MT under the
    same conditions to others as to themselves or
    their subsidiaries.
  • ACT is shocked by OPTAs oral reply that the
    non-discrimination obligation looks nice on paper
    but is worthless in practice. An additional
    obligation of accounting separation is crucial to
    be able to monitor non-discriminatory pricing.
  • Non-discrimination to be imposed in detail as set
    out in OPTA retail remedies retail document of 24
    March 2005
  • MNOs should be prevented from favouring on-net
    calls

9
Cost orientation
  • ACT agrees with OPTA that MT tariffs must be at
    the level where they would be in a competitive
    environment, but OPTAs approach means that the
    rates will continue to stay far above that level
    for many years to come.
  • OPTAs arguments for a transitory regime and
    gliding scale are insufficient. OPTA should
    impose cost oriented tariffs ASAP. No need to
    wait until July 2006. In addition the first step
    of the reductions should be much steeper (as in
    UK).
  • As long as the LRIC cost-model is not completed
    the European benchmark (best practice) as a
    temporary measure can be used to determine the
    reductions.
  • Enertel supports OPTAs gliding scale for MTA
    tariffs
  • COLT tariff reductions will only lead to
    improved competition if imposed in combination
    with PST and non-discrimination to avoid margin
    squeeze

10
Price Squeeze Test
  • the imposition of non-discrimination and cost
    orientation obligations is not sufficient to
    prevent anti-competitive price squeeze behaviour.
    Without knowing the arguments OPTA neglects the
    concrete proposals for such a test.
  • Price squeeze detection and prevention is of
    utmost importance for sustainable competition
  • PST to be applied as precondition to approval of
    wholesale tariffs (no double dominance required)
  • PST is to take into account the cost of an
    efficient new entrants costs (interconnect,
    switching, economies of scale)
  • ---//---
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com