Sunday , November 29 2020

What is it to compete with Entel, Movistar and Claro? The different vision of Virtual Mobile Executives after the strict ruling of the Supreme




The fact that there were three Mobile Networking Operators (OMV) was clear in the afternoon yesterday. The Supreme Court, in a ruling of three votes against two, decided to reject the claim filed by Netline, OPS and TelecoMax in an old battle against the three largest mobile operators in the country: Movistar, Claro and Entel.

In the process, the MVNO accused the latter of creating barriers of access that caused an extraordinary adventure, ensuring that large companies would not comply with the 2011 Free Competition Defense Court award, which enforced them to provide more facilities. These are companies that have to lease a spectrum and buy minutes for their operation and that every time they have a lower market share due to the high concentration of the telecommunications market.

The companies were excused that they had access to wholesale plans that allowed them to offer competitive prices to consumers, who rejected the majority vote.

But who is behind the MVNOs that aimed to challenge the big three?

OPS company, a company established in 2003 by three engineers: José Luis Zumaeta, Paulo Muñoz and Gastón Lizana. They operate with 80 people. They have a presence in Santiago and are currently concentrating on business sizes of different sizes. They can not provide more services, as they wish, they say.

"The business will never work under these conditions at present. We are exempt from this market. We have special and business-friendly, but we are not a figure in this site that the authority is doing. Ultimately, OMV contracts have clauses, but they are not referred to MVNO as we have a network and we have our ability to change ourselves, "he said. The Third PM, José Luis Zumaeta, partner PAHO.

In his view, Telecommunications Subscription (Sub-Similar) should have a more active role in promoting free competition between major operators and MVNOs.

In the process before the Supreme Court, the OPS was represented by the attorney José Miguel Gana. Although TelcoMax was associated with the business and former Entel executive, Konrad Burchard was represented by the lawyers of Mario Bravo and Cristián Reyes. Meanwhile, Netline, managed by Joel Bendersky, has been protected by lawyer Ximena Rojas.

For Oscar Cabello, a consultant TelcoMax in the case "the TDLC or the Supreme Court did not understand that MVNOs were viable, it is necessary that the wholesale proposals of the large operators do not cause illegality. In other words, they did not understand that wholesale prices have to be lower than retail prices, in any part of the market. "

In his opinion many years ago there is a project that Subtel holds in which it aims to improve the competence of the MVNO sector that dates from 2017. "It included expressions of good intentions only and not concrete measures to avoid unlawful margins ".

Chile currently has a mobile mobile market, 5 mobile networks operated by OMR (two in OMV VTR, Wom) and Netline, OPS, TelecoMax, Telestar, Virgin Mobile. This number of actors presents few markets.

According to former Telecommunications Under Secretary, Rodrigo Ramírez "Sub-subway must create a favorable regulatory environment, in order to promote a strategy that favors investment in the network while at the same time guaranteeing wholesale access to networks by mobile operators who do not have a radio spectrum and / or infrastructure, ensuring adequate conditions to encourage competition in the markets. "

Competitive market

Oliver Flögel, chairman of the board and simple Shareholder is a very different vision. Former general manager of Microsoft Chile said "I do not see this as an ineligible market." "The evolution of the edges of the industry in recent years is a clear indication that there is a competition. The fact that four more operators fight for leadership has made it harder for smaller operators to capitalize on competing," he added.

"The lower margins are as a result of more competition and a sharp drop in unit prices. Wholesale prices do not always go down the same speed as an obvious challenge, though I believe it is a more commercial or legal issue, "he added.

However, the number of simple subscribers has been declining in the last three years. In light of this, that executive added "The competitive context has been complicated but today we have a very organized operation and we're hoping to resume the growth route in Chile in 2019. We've taken more time than we would like to launch our 4G services, and we will do it in March. "

On its behalf, Manuel Araya, Entel's Regulatory and Corporate Affairs Manager, said: "The mobile phone market in Chile has always been very competitive, with an effective removable system, where year and year of year chooses to change almost 20 % of the industry base, and the largest number of network operators and MVNOs in the region.

In terms of MVNOs, he added that "we are the country in Latin America with the largest number of actors, who have been able to grow and are already part of the Mobility Committee directory. Currently they have 2% of & Market. "

However, OMV was recently ordered. In fact, the market published sale of Falabella, adds a Virgin Mobile sale announcement.

Although different luck have kept VTR. Liberty Global's subsidiary has grown considerably in recent years through its signature "VTR Móvil". The company led by Voz Móvil Manager at VTR, Verónica Peña a Lillo Fuentes, has raised its figures. The executive was part of Entel for nine years, according to its LinkedIn.

VTR has a market share that could reach at least 1% by the end of this year, surpassing Virgin and its growth has been consistent in customers since 2013. This is considered in September, which arrived 0.9988% of market share per 30 day subscriber, according to the latest Subtel report.

This is a minor problem considering that market leadership is maintained by Entel (31.60%), Movistar (28.14%), Claro (24.56%) and Wom (13.74%).

Sub-Subel rejected comments on this article, although the entity goes beyond the OMV situation and assesses the failure. In so much VTR, he did not respond to those consulted through this method, claiming that he was not part of the award.


Source link