Competition in Colombian Telecommunications

J. Sidak
{"title":"Competition in Colombian Telecommunications","authors":"J. Sidak","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3178352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In November of 2015, the Colombian think tank Fedesarrollo published its report “Update on the Study of Competition in the Mobile Telephony Market in Colombia,” which purports to reveal a lack of competition in Colombian telecommunications. Fedesarrollo’s report also offers policy recommendations to remedy the supposed problems with competition in Colombian telecommunications that it identifies. However, Fedesarrollo’s simplistic empirical analysis is fundamentally flawed and uninformative. Moreover, the policy recommendations that the report’s sponsors — telecommunications operators Telefónica and Tigo — offer in the report and elsewhere would harm Colombian consumers. In this article, I evaluate the market for mobile voice services in Colombia, analyze Telefónica’s and Tigo’s policy recommendations, and critique Fedesarrollo’s empirical analysis. I conclude that there is no evidence of consumer-welfare loss in Colombian mobile markets. On the contrary, my empirical analysis of mobile voice services in Colombia using benchmark prices reveals consumer-welfare gains. Moreover, the policies that Telefónica and Tigo recommend — increased asymmetric regulations and restrictions on the offerings of their primary competitor, Claro Colombia — would harm consumers and competition in the markets for mobile voice and data services in Colombia, with a disproportionate share of that harm falling on Colombia’s poorest consumers. Those policies would shield Telefónica and Tigo from competition, which would increase prices in the short run and discourage investment and long-run growth. Telefónica’s and Tigo’s recommendation to delay new spectrum auctions could cost Colombian consumers billions of pesos in lost consumer surplus. Instead, Colombia should promote infrastructure-based competition, implement a symmetric regulatory regime, and hold open spectrum auctions without restriction or delay to encourage dynamic competition without any offsetting harm to static competition. Those policy initiatives will ensure that the markets for mobile services in Colombia remain competitive in both the short run and the long run.","PeriodicalId":412044,"journal":{"name":"Telecommunications & Regulated Industries eJournal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telecommunications & Regulated Industries eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3178352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In November of 2015, the Colombian think tank Fedesarrollo published its report “Update on the Study of Competition in the Mobile Telephony Market in Colombia,” which purports to reveal a lack of competition in Colombian telecommunications. Fedesarrollo’s report also offers policy recommendations to remedy the supposed problems with competition in Colombian telecommunications that it identifies. However, Fedesarrollo’s simplistic empirical analysis is fundamentally flawed and uninformative. Moreover, the policy recommendations that the report’s sponsors — telecommunications operators Telefónica and Tigo — offer in the report and elsewhere would harm Colombian consumers. In this article, I evaluate the market for mobile voice services in Colombia, analyze Telefónica’s and Tigo’s policy recommendations, and critique Fedesarrollo’s empirical analysis. I conclude that there is no evidence of consumer-welfare loss in Colombian mobile markets. On the contrary, my empirical analysis of mobile voice services in Colombia using benchmark prices reveals consumer-welfare gains. Moreover, the policies that Telefónica and Tigo recommend — increased asymmetric regulations and restrictions on the offerings of their primary competitor, Claro Colombia — would harm consumers and competition in the markets for mobile voice and data services in Colombia, with a disproportionate share of that harm falling on Colombia’s poorest consumers. Those policies would shield Telefónica and Tigo from competition, which would increase prices in the short run and discourage investment and long-run growth. Telefónica’s and Tigo’s recommendation to delay new spectrum auctions could cost Colombian consumers billions of pesos in lost consumer surplus. Instead, Colombia should promote infrastructure-based competition, implement a symmetric regulatory regime, and hold open spectrum auctions without restriction or delay to encourage dynamic competition without any offsetting harm to static competition. Those policy initiatives will ensure that the markets for mobile services in Colombia remain competitive in both the short run and the long run.
哥伦比亚电信业的竞争
2015年11月,哥伦比亚智库Fedesarrollo发布了一份名为《哥伦比亚移动电话市场竞争研究最新进展》的报告,该报告意在揭示哥伦比亚电信业缺乏竞争。Fedesarrollo的报告还提出了一些政策建议,以纠正哥伦比亚电信竞争中可能存在的问题。然而,Fedesarrollo的简单的实证分析从根本上是有缺陷和缺乏信息的。此外,报告发起者——电信运营商Telefónica和Tigo——在报告和其他地方提出的政策建议将损害哥伦比亚消费者的利益。在本文中,我评估了哥伦比亚的移动语音服务市场,分析了Telefónica和Tigo的政策建议,并批评了Fedesarrollo的实证分析。我的结论是,没有证据表明哥伦比亚移动市场存在消费者福利损失。相反,我使用基准价格对哥伦比亚移动语音服务进行的实证分析揭示了消费者福利的增长。此外,Telefónica和Tigo所建议的政策——增加对其主要竞争对手Claro Colombia提供的服务的不对称监管和限制——将损害哥伦比亚移动语音和数据服务市场的消费者和竞争,而哥伦比亚最贫穷的消费者所受损害的比例不成比例。这些政策将保护Telefónica和Tigo免受竞争,这将在短期内提高价格,抑制投资和长期增长。Telefónica和Tigo建议推迟新的频谱拍卖,可能会使哥伦比亚消费者损失数十亿比索的消费者剩余。相反,哥伦比亚应该促进基于基础设施的竞争,实施对称的监管制度,不受限制或延迟地举行公开频谱拍卖,以鼓励动态竞争,同时不损害静态竞争。这些政策举措将确保哥伦比亚的移动服务市场在短期和长期内都保持竞争力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信