Telefónica challenged the Cablevisión – Telecom merger to generate "inequities in the sector"

The company argues that the resolution pbaded in late June "does not promote competition and favors a dominant operator."

On 29 June, the national government approved the merger between the cable operator Cablevisión, almost entirely in the hands of Grupo Clarín, and the telephone company Telecom, on the decision of the National Commission for the Defense of Competition ( CDNC). The company Telefonica rejected the measure Monday, considering that it "reaffirms discriminatory treatment for the rest of the operators, poses serious obstacles to the development of effective competition in the telecommunications market and favors a dominant operator in the area". 19659003] "On 29 June 2018, the Secretariat of Commerce (SdC) of the Argentine Republic issued a resolution approving the merger of Telecom with Cablevisión, an operation involving the country's largest pay-TV provider. 39, it will concentrate nearly 60% of fixed broadband market nationwide and up to 90% in some cities, "Telefonica said in a statement

. the transmission of audiovisual content and data to mobile and fixed telephony. In this regard, Telefónica baderts that the resolution "reaffirms discriminatory treatment for the rest of the operators, poses serious obstacles to the development of effective competition in the telecommunications market and favors a dominant operator in the sector".

After approval, the merged companies will have the obligation to divest themselves in certain sectors to maintain competition. Telecom will have to make 80 Mhz of radio spectrum, so as not to have the closest thing to a monopoly in the mobile phone sector. In addition, the company must dispose of its badets in 28 localities

. However, Telefónica considers that this resolution "endangers the investments required by the sector and will have very serious consequences for the future of telecommunications in Argentina." This would not encourage competition and would harm Argentineans who will Serious difficulties in many parts of the country to freely choose the type of connectivity they want and the price to pay for it, "the statement said.

"The critical points of the resolution", among which they mention:

1. The measures envisaged in the resolution will not limit the anti-competitive impact of the merger, since the merged company will for a long time be the only company able to offer integrated packages in Argentina, while its competitors will continue to face limitations to make competitive offers.
2. The resolution does not require effective measures to allow competitors to access the fixed networks of the merged company in the interior of the country. While in the retail market, the merged entity offers bandwidths greater than 20 MB over its cable network, the wholesale product that Telecom is committed to making available to its competitors will benefit from its Maximum bandwidth of 6 MB
3. The resolution establishes no condition preventing Telecom from having preferential access to content relevant to competition in the Argentine territory, nor rules for its commercialization without discrimination for all competitors.
4. Finally, the resolution does not solve the clear competitive advantage that Telecom has in the spectrum to provide mobile services (80 MHz more than its competitors), but simply recommends ENACOM to prevent the # 39, merged entity to use said spectrum until its execution. return.

Finally, from the company, they claim that the level of concentration that resolution allows, "has not been recedentes in any OECD country (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) ". "The decisions adopted by the Argentine authorities are in profound contradiction with the country's goal of joining the OECD in order to adopt public policies aligned with international best practices", argue they.

In the press release, Telefónica also expresses that it has taken legal action against the resolution. "Telefónica has already initiated the corresponding judicial actions in national jurisdictions to challenge a decision that it considers unfair and discriminatory and badyzes all the international tools at its disposal for the defense of its rights," he concludes. (Profile)