Summary

Facts

CANTV offers different prices for fixed-to-mobile calls originated from the Communication Centres (payphone centres) of CANTV. The price of a call to a Movilnet mobile phone (a related company of CANTV) from these centres is cheaper than a call to a Digitel mobile phone. Digitel argues that with this price discrimination practice CANTV is using its dominant position to improve the position of Movilnet in the mobile market. According to Digitel this would hinder and impede its permanence in the mobile market by diminishing the incoming traffic to its network.

Various operators offer services from communication centres (called restricted access centres). Each of these centres applies a price-discrimination practice in favour of the mobile related company.

Decision

Because CANTV did not have a dominant position, the antitrust authority concluded that CANTV did not carry out a restrictive practice of competition. Furthermore, in the case of conduct to impede the entry or permanence of Digitel in the mobile market, the antitrust authority did not find any proof of such conduct.

Reasoning

The competition authority defined the relevant market as the calls originated in the fixed local network, from a “Restricted Access Centre” (a communication centre) to a mobile phone in the national territory. From the analysis of effective competition in the relevant market the competition authority determined that CANTV did not have a dominant position.

According to the antitrust law of Venezuela, agents that are not granted protection by law are not permitted to impede or hinder the entry or permanence of a company in part or all of the market. To prove such conduct two conditions must be considered: (1) the company must have the capacity to currently or potentially affect the market, and (2) the unlawful conduct must be proved.