Now that Televisa will acquire 50% of Iusacell must reflect on the efficiency of radio spectrum, the legal and public policy. Iusacell is the incumbent or incumbent's mobile services, ie, was the first company to provide such services in our country. What happened on the way to reducing its market led to severe financial situations? Part of the weakness of the Mexican State to enforce the law (maybe it also has benefited in the past), bad business decisions and certainly the presence of Telcel, which was acquired by leaps and bounds market. When international mobile operators Verizon and Vodafone decided to leave the Mexican market by selling their stakes in Iusacell, Grupo Salinas clearly had in mind an excellent investment. But the objective of this investment, was to provide mobile services and become the first provider of these services? No, the strategy of Grupo Iusacell-Unefon Salinas never seemed to have opted to compete for clients, contrary to the evidence that the target time was the accumulation of spectrum for resale.
Iusacell has deployed a quality network in Mexico, which is an attractive market and 4% (according to Niño de Rivera) that is absolutely not an incentive to purchase. Where is the value of Iusacell? In the spectrum that has concession. Reference and comparing the amount of spectrum that is similar to Iusacell Telcel However, Telcel serves more than 70% of mobile users and only 4% of Iusacell. Telcel is understood that require more spectrum, despite the accumulation of spectrum limits set by the Federal Communications Commission, but, what if you want more spectrum Iusacell with whom he had not managed to have more customers?
Who is to blame? The direct fault of Grupo Salinas is not, even with its endless challenges to the bid, but the flawed legal framework to ensure efficient use of spectrum. The fault is not the Federal Judiciary at every auction has received a host of protections each of the concessionaires Operator Iusacell and Unefon. The fault is not the Federal Competition Commission whose opinion is essential to participate in tenders of frequencies, but that is not who gives a certificate of participation. The fault in this case is not the Ministry of Communications and Transport because she does not decide who participate in the tender.
All indications are that for whatever reason Cofetel has failed to meet the objective of the Federal Telecommunications Act is to make efficient use of radio spectrum, because if I wanted to do, never have given the record of participation Iusacell in the last tender the mere fact of having enough and not be linking frequencies using or being underutilized. In other words, it's like Iusacell was a landowner and work only a tiny plot as there is great need for land planted to overcome the shortage of food production.
By default, also the House of Representatives and the Senate of the present and past legislatures could be identified as responsible. In other countries, legally established a secondary market for spectrum in Australia and Guatemala, to reduce the buildup of speculative effects spectrum, all it does is to leave idle and underutilized spectrum. Televisa
is acquiring a network operating with sufficient spectrum, which is no small thing. The signals of how society par excellence major competitors can agree easily on business, you should not be surprised. In a strict sense there may be no basis for denying Cofeco this concentration, but what awaits the future scenario of telecommunications in Mexico? "TV and telecom duopoly vs. Dominant telecom? Can these big rival groups also agree on a future in telecommunications? What is missing in Mexico is no more market, but the state.
0 comments:
Post a Comment