The scenario described by the ANATEL is clear urgency of the adoption of mechanisms to encourage competition in Telecom in most of the country, especially when addressed the issue of control of infrastructure - although it is clear that companies still have many differences on the measures be implemented.
According to a diagnosis made by the adviser John Rao, rapporteur of the General Plan Competition (PGMC), a reasonable market competition in wholesale networks, for example, is restricted to 24 cities in the country when considering the type of EILD local - would be 913 municipalities in the case of long distance EILD.
And even a generous review of the agency, considering that there is competition in broadband where three companies have at least 10% of each market, effective competition would be restricted to 1200 of 5600 municipalities in the country. Or in the case of fixed interconnection market, there is simply no contest - which did not prevent the director of the OI Company, Paulo Mattos, stating that, in Brazil, "there is a [company] monopoly."
Still, there are many differences on what will eventually become the PGMC. Rao, who participated on Tuesday, 7 / 6, the 26th Meeting Telesíntese, emphasized the general principles of the report is ready, but still goes a long way, be the first vote on the Board, then to a public consultation and until finally it can be voted again by the agency.
The main point of the document, at least currently, is that the agency will determine where the markets are not competitive in the country and, within them, act on those companies that, also by definition of the regulator, maintaining Significant Market Power - based on a series of assumptions ranging from market share to access the funding, through control of infrastructure.
From this, measures would be adopted, for example, the determination that those companies make public offerings of SMP services, wholesale, as EILD, interconnect or passive infrastructure (ducts, etc.). And so far, will avenge the idea that it is analyzed and operated by a managing entity of the offers made by companies - with a mandatory participation in such entity for SMPs.
This is a point where companies show many differences. While Hi maintains that it is a viable environment for these negotiations as wide - on the grounds it would give competitors the power, in practice, define investment - TIM believes that this instance requires at least a phase of transition, a mediation before the verifiable lack of understanding between the companies over, especially, offers infrastructure.
"It's very expensive to duplicate infrastructure. What we need is transparency in the market so that there is dispersion, no wastage of investment. Today, the groups that control the infrastructure is difficult to transact using this infrastructure to then fight in the end, the final consumer, "Rao maintained.
He even pointed out, however, that there are still many open issues in PGMC, such as setting a minimum percentage of shareable infrastructure with minimal or index to a backhaul to be made available to third parties. Also under discussion is the expansion - and what would it be - of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).
Moreover, there are some signs that companies do not scare utilities, such as withdrawal, the markets understand that the FCC already competitive, existing asymmetries. Moreover, according to the counselor Rapporteur, there is the idea, although that is a point at which there should be adjustments that the new networks will not be any kind of sharing.
Source: http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=26557&sid=11#.TfJMQOdyugM;twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment