It is striking, and not in good shape, that the IFT is evaluating the possible approval of América Móvil’s entry into the pay TV market, in contravention of the express double prohibition that it has as its preponderant economic agent in telecommunications (AEP-T ), as well as in the concession title of its subsidiary Telmex.
From the same telecommunications regulatory body, they have detailed that they are defining the route to follow to grant authorization for Claro TV, a member company of América Móvil, to provide pay TV service and thus, transition to a convergent offer. In this regard, they have referred to having carried out economic competition and legal legitimacy studies to evaluate the convenience and origin of the request made by Claro TV in 2018.
At the moment, studies that take an act of faith character for all those who do not participate in this internal gestation of the IFT.
In addition, they have pointed out that the route would be defined and published before the end of this year, and the decision would be that the Claro TV company, although it is part of América Móvil, would not have any legal padlock to be able to offer the TV service of pays in Mexico, as it is not directly from Telmex.
Attempt of Flagrant Violation of the Constitution and the LFTR. In the constitution of the company Claro TV, it is established that it is a subsidiary of Sercotel, which in turn is a subsidiary of América Móvil, so that both Claro TV and Telmex are subsidiaries and affiliates of the AEP-T. Therefore, the attempt to move to the single concession model and thus provide the pay TV service does not actually evade the obligations and prohibitions to which the entire economic group is subject.
In accordance with the Constitution and the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law (LFTR), compliance with the asymmetric regulatory measures by the AEP-T must be verified, as well as no adverse effects on competition are observed, in order to proceed with authorize the provision of additional services, such as pay TV.
Thus, the simple attempt to evade this regulation, which comes from any subsidiary company and / or affiliate of the AEP-T, would be a flagrant attempt to violate the law.
Neither Telmex nor Claro TV on Pay TV. Therefore, it would be a legal contradiction for a Telmex affiliate company to be granted permission to enter the pay TV market, when, by forming part of the AEP-T, it would be expressly prevented from providing this service in the country.
This, as the previously mentioned legal assumptions were not verified. Neither of the two companies (Telmex or Claro TV) would meet the legal conditions for the single concession model and its consequent convergent offer to be a reality for América Móvil.
It is not about being against technological convergence, understood as the possibility of providing a multiplicity of services through the same network or channel, but rather that the regulatory obligations to which the preponderant is subject are effectively complied with. its exceeded market weight, which reaches almost two-thirds in users and income, is reduced.
There is no world or historical benchmark in which a measure of this type has been legally or economically approved, as is intended here for this agent with excessive market share, América Móvil.
Failure to reach the competitive goal and, at the same time, open this new business avenue for AMX, would perpetuate its preponderant character in the country.
@ernestopiedras
Director General de The Competitive Intelligence Unit
Competitive intelligence
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx