Mordojovich
CEO Alberto Magenta and RedVoiss
Again we had to appeal to the Court of Defense of Free Competition (Competition Tribunal). Apparently, the dominant telecommunications company in Chile, Telefonica CTC, no trepidation in ourselves all the obstacles to it, both licit and illicit to avoid or postpone realizing our vision of business in our own country. This is simply an application is telephony over the Internet. This blog was created for those who want to follow and comment on the development of this new trial, can do freely. The following briefly summarizes our position and why we should embark on this "legal enterprise" unintentionally. We are the first to recognize that not for us to make public policy, but to the failure and neglect of the authorities on the subject of broadband, we are forced to look after our interests and those of our customers for the only effective means of success we have: the courts.
A plan of Telefonica CTC, the dominant company in mobile and broadband services in Chile, 300 Kbps alone costs $ 24,490. However, CTC requires this type of customer to pay the fixed charge additional phone line in a tied selling, which amounts to $ 9,253 in Santiago. Therefore, the total cost amounts to $ 33,743, ie $ 65 per month. However, an identical capacity plan, but purchased together with 350 phone minutes in the same company cost $ 25,490, including fixed charge. That is, the consumer pays $ 8,253 less if you purchase broadband and telephony as joint you would if the broadband contract independently.
Do you have any economic logic this pricing? Can two services sold together cost less than one sold individually? Are they appropriate these prices to the consumer? Are we facing a competitive market or in front of a monopoly? Is there price regulation in telephony? Is there price regulation in broadband?
If there is competition in both services do not exist is illogical price distortion, since the price of each would reflect the direct costs of providing it. Of course there would be economies bundling the two services, but in any case they would come so far as to provide two services cheaper than one, either.
Therefore, we are witnessing a market failure exploitation by the dominant company. This pricing policy has virtually eliminated all independent provider of Internet access, since they can not give away the phone. It also prevents the development of Internet telephony companies, since they need broadband access to their customers, but these should they accept the offer of subsidized phones and even more money over the whole plan. Therefore, these exclusive offers packaging eliminate competition and should have been punished a long time and by the Government.
would think that CTC gives generously phone minutes, but where the consumer loses? Where's the catch? The answer lies in the price of broadband, which has been artificially inflated to protect traditional revenue monopoly. The CTC's market power is exercised in this market now, because the phone is much more competitive, but not broadband. Indeed, if the Banda Ancha cost $ 10,000 or $ 20 a month, as indeed happens in markets where competition exists in this service through of unbundling - curiously ruled in Chile by Subtel - Internet telephony then be imposed on consumer preferences, since their cost is much lower than traditional telephony and possibly even free, such as e-mail. Consumers end up paying half or less "attractive", but deceptive, package price for both services.
costs omissions of the Government in this important matter it must support those who, being able to bridge the digital divide, still can not do because the price of Internet access is unfair. This market does not operate in competition and transparency, a situation that should compensate the state for consideration consumers, through the promotion of effective competition or price regulation for effective consumer protection.
