It is not in the mandate of CCP to certify auction processes; however, we are watchful of the provisions that may have competition concern in such matters. It is for this reason that CCP, based upon the review of various jurisdictions, briefed the Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommunications in the meeting held on 19th April, 2012 regarding the key factors that have yielded new entry as well as sustained number of facilities based mobile carriers in the country. With reference to the reports published in some of the newspapers dated 20-04-2012, the facts relating to CCP have not been stated correctly. The agenda circulated less than two days prior to the meeting without accompanying any documentation required CCP to brief the Committee ‘whether 3G auction went through competitive process.’ CCP, therefore, at the out set clarified that it is not in its mandate to certify such auction processes and with the permission of the chair, briefed the Committee with respect to recommended practices/provisions that do not create barriers to entry. Since, CCP was not invited to the previous meeting held on 23-02-2012; it was only during this meeting CCP learnt that the Committee required its view relating to the issue whether the restriction in the auction on the new entrant to begin operations till March 2013 is anticompetitive? In this regard, on behalf of CCP it was stated that: “prima facie, the provision seems to place the foreign entrant (if any) at a disadvantage by giving competitive edge to the incumbent through earlier operations or if infrastructure sharing is not forthcoming. However, it is relevant to take into account the actual time line for the auction as well as the time line for the roll out, as delay may neutralize and/or other relevant factors, may have mitigating effect.” Since, the above questions are pertinent to be advised by PTA, CCP categorically stated that “unless PTA advises CCP on these facts and aspects, it is difficult to ascertain whether in effect such a provision is anticompetitive.” It was also stated that: “the objective is not merely to satisfy the Committee but to assist in the light of the relevant facts in accordance with law.” The Committee recognizing that PTA was the principal authority regulating the subject matter directed it to provide required document and any further information required by CCP for the purposes of providing assistance to the Committee on the above referred aspect.
It is not in the mandate of CCP to certify auction processes; however, we are watchful of the provisions that may have competition concern in such matters. It is for this reason that CCP, based upon the review of various jurisdictions, briefed the Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommunications in the meeting held on 19th April, 2012 regarding the key factors that have yielded new entry as well as sustained number of facilities based mobile carriers in the country.
With reference to the reports published in some of the newspapers dated 20-04-2012, the facts relating to CCP have not been stated correctly. The agenda circulated less than two days prior to the meeting without accompanying any documentation required CCP to brief the Committee ‘whether 3G auction went through competitive process.’ CCP, therefore, at the out set clarified that it is not in its mandate to certify such auction processes and with the permission of the chair, briefed the Committee with respect to recommended practices/provisions that do not create barriers to entry.
Since, CCP was not invited to the previous meeting held on 23-02-2012; it was only during this meeting CCP learnt that the Committee required its view relating to the issue whether the restriction in the auction on the new entrant to begin operations till March 2013 is anticompetitive? In this regard, on behalf of CCP it was stated that: “prima facie, the provision seems to place the foreign entrant (if any) at a disadvantage by giving competitive edge to the incumbent through earlier operations or if infrastructure sharing is not forthcoming. However, it is relevant to take into account the actual time line for the auction as well as the time line for the roll out, as delay may neutralize and/or other relevant factors, may have mitigating effect.”
Since, the above questions are pertinent to be advised by PTA, CCP categorically stated that “unless PTA advises CCP on these facts and aspects, it is difficult to ascertain whether in effect such a provision is anticompetitive.” It was also stated that: “the objective is not merely to satisfy the Committee but to assist in the light of the relevant facts in accordance with law.” The Committee recognizing that PTA was the principal authority regulating the subject matter directed it to provide required document and any further information required by CCP for the purposes of providing assistance to the Committee on the above referred aspect.
© CCP 2024, Competition Commission of Pakistan ©All rights reserved
