| Date: | February 26, 2004 |
| Reference: | ESP 2004 CMT 1 ES (ICTDEC) |
| Database: | CMT decisions (Spain) |
| ICT Decision Making Body: | Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (Spain) |
| Theme(s): | Mobile Termination |
| Language(s): | Spanish |
| Other Formats: |
In May 2003 AMENA and AUNA launched a joint commercial offering, which inter alia, offered a special price for fixed-to-mobile calls originated in AUNA´s network to some telephone numbers of AMENA.
Based on the principle of non-discrimination, UNI2, Comunitel and Jazztel requested CMT to investigate the real mobile termination charges applied by AMENA to AUNA and, if they found them to be lower than those of UNI2, Comunitel and Jazztel, to mandate the increase of those charges. According to UNI2, Comunitel and Jazztel, with the actual termination charges of AMENA they could not match de commercial offer of AMENA and AUNA.
CMT rejected the request of UNI2, Comunitel and Jazztel to mandate Retevision Móvil (AMENA) to apply the same mobile termination charges it was applying to AUNA.
The commercial offering included a special price for certain fixed-to-mobile calls between AUNA and AMENA. For residential clients, this special price applied only to calls to three mobile numbers of AMENA. For business clients, this special price applied only to calls to mobile phones of the same client. Other fixed-to-mobile calls to AMENA phones received a 10% discount.
Based on CMT´s calculations, the margins between revenues and interconnection costs resulting from the application of the price promotion were not negative and did not generate losses to AUNA. Even if the users only placed fixed-to-mobile calls to AMENA´s numbers that benefited from the promotion, current termination charges would allow other fixed operators to obtain positive margins when offering a similar price promotion.
According to market figures, the real impact of that commercial offering on the fixed-to-mobile market was not significant and did not distort the level of effective competition in the market.
CMT did not find that AMENA was applying different (higher) termination charges to either of the complainants. Therefore, it could not conclude that AMENA had discriminated against other fixed operators in favour of AUNA.