last week opened a common front against various Telcel dealer known as "Tucotel" said the Senate will review the issue of interconnection and the Federal Communications Commission issued its response to comments received by the Cofemer about the Guidelines to develop cost models used the CFT to resolve interconnection disputes. While the interconnection agreements and disagreements are presented CFT beyond tariffs, the fact is that the most controversial and most important for operators is that of tariffs. There is no perfect solution, nor even to determine what are reasonable rates. In Mexico this is no different than other countries, in all the definition of tariffs is the biggest challenge for regulatory bodies that impacts or encouraging competition and consumers.
"The end markets are a two-way access situation in which it is assumed that both operators interconnected benefit of the agreement, but as these operators also compete with each other for subscribers, termination rates can have important strategic and competitive implications ... The high termination rates generally lead to higher retail prices for originating calls and consequently lower utilization rates, which reduces consumer welfare "(European Union).
cost models are debatable, there are countless models depending on the methodology, the variables considered, and so on. However, the cost to have a priori models that dealers know based on what will determine the interconnection charge, favors transparency. Otherwise, continue to resolving disagreements CFT but for sure you know what were the criteria used. Moreover, the current CFT in terms of the resolutions of disagreements interconnection has favored the opacity to transparency, and has filed its resolutions as reserved, considering that in 2006 the resolutions, removing confidential or personal data, they climbed to the website at the same time (see Resolution P/100106/1) despite that promote lawsuits against him. But contrary to the obscurantism of the resolutions, CFT seeks transparency regarding the cost models, which is laudable. What it does is that CFT will advance in the crossfire in the media and in court for the cost models that once issued. Let's look at this article and the next week the criteria that will cost models.
costs Methodology economic approach. The cost of interconnection is based on a hypothetical efficient network, given a competitive market and without incorporating the costs of inputs are outdated. This decision is in line with the decision in 2009 by the European Union after it acknowledged that its member states was a plurality of tools to estimate costs, which produce distortions in the telecommunications market.
cost allocation methods. We chose the Incremental Cost Long Term Total (CITLP) which seeks the dealer offering interconnection to recover costs of providing the service and a return to capital, while the recipient of the services can compete with a fee fair. The CITLP considers the cost of interconnection service, the shared network elements and a range of common costs. The EU differs in the sense noted that only costs which would not incur the operator does not provide for interconnection should be included in the price, excluding costs that extent common.
In this vein, should " include the cost of using the frequencies of the spectrum or not? The positions are divided. The frequencies involved in providing end-user services (eg., Voice, data, video) and intermediate (eg., Interconnection), but even if they do not lend themselves to third parties under the auction scheme used in Mexico, the payment of spectrum usage rights would be the same. If we followed the EU, then it would not be included.
In our next collaboration will continue with the analysis of cost models, the tender offer and the front Tucotel Telcel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment