In the coming days the Supreme Court Nation resolve a contradiction of thesis on interconnection, which will set a criterion of great importance for the sector and mandatory for everyone. Interconnection is undoubtedly of public interest, for what seems like the answer to whether or not to grant the stay of an act related to interconnection claimed an injunction would be obvious: you should never be granted the suspension. However, talking of "interconnection" means talking about a myriad of topics.
You mean the decision of the Federal Communications Commission over a disagreement of interconnection between telecommunication licensees? What aspects of this resolution be fighting? Will the rate co-location, the delivery of blogs? Or does the act in question has to do with an order Cofetel interconnection interconnection's refusal of a licensee to another? Or is the act called for a penalty imposed interconnection by the Ministry of Communications for Transport? Or is the act complained of an office of responsibility of the Federal Competition Commission in which the relative monopolistic practice is in the interconnection market?
The obvious answer that the Court ought to rule in favor of denying the suspension provided the protections of interconnection is its nuances. The challenge of the Court is not lower because the existence, survival and permanence of the competition (not to mention healthy, but any competition) depends heavily on the facilities (at large). This includes physical and logical interconnection (interconnection in the strict sense), the interconnection rate (remember that there are different types of interconnection to local transit, intercity transport, call termination, etc.), the delivery of bonds, collocation , penalties and guarantees of the interconnection, among others. Consider 2 cases of interconnection in relation to the suspension of amparo.
Lack of interconnection. In 2006, Telcel, Movistar, Iusacell and Unefon refused to interconnect with Nextel to study or SMS text messages. Cofetel ruled that it was a refusal to interconnect cellular operators and to be interconnected to allow users of all networks would communicate via SMS. This case has no turning back, is contrary to public interest to grant the suspension in the shelter because it involves depriving the citizens of the SMS service based on who the service provider. However, at the time, at least one district court granted the suspension to a cellular operator, arguing that to deny the suspension, citizens get used to having this service telecommunications and if the plaintiff won the under then would have to suspend interconnection. This case was worthy of the international experience of what should never happen. In all other cases it is clear that the public interest is communication through telecommunications and the interconnection of Cofetel order to remedy the denial of interconnection must be placed under suspension.
interconnection rate. The biggest disputes are for the interconnection charge and also those most difficult to resolve by Cofetel. The difference of a tenth of a cent at a rate interconnection may involve many billions of pesos. Is public interest Cofetel resolution of an interconnection rate? Should we deny the suspension by a drop in rates? Who is injured beyond repair if the suspension is not granted? If the reduction of tariffs that oblige it to apply proportionately reduced user fees, then surely one should deny the suspension. But the reality is that users do not necessarily receive, or at least not immediately benefit from the reduction of interconnection rates, then are we in the presence of a commercial item which could be given under suspension?
The Federal Judiciary has again the last word in defining the substantive aspects of the telecommunications sector and in the coming days we will add other questions concerning convergence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment