|
|
Rumblings
in the telecom sector
The
Economic Times, January 18, 2007
The
emerging scenario in the telecom sector requires both policy
as well as regulatory actions. The government on its part
should revisit some of the pending issues, and Trai should
be geared to keep a constant vigil on the behaviour of the
big players, say
Pradeep
S. Mehta
|
Large
restructuring changes in the corporate world
resound in the stock exchanges and government
corridors, while ordinary consumers and
competitors worry about the outcome of the
changes. Our telecom sector is one such area,
which is currently witnessing billion dollar
conversations, with the news that UK’s Vodaphone
will take over Li Ka Shing’s 67% stake in
Hutchison-Essar for around $14 billion, or more.
Close
on its heels, Anil Ambani’s Reliance Infocom is
mounting a bid for Shing’s share. Ambani is also
following Vodaphone’s Arun Sarin in a hectic round
of meetings with ministers. Essar, the one-third
partner is also in the race. Hindujas are the
latest entrants.
According to the current M&A guidelines of DoT, an
operator cannot acquire more than a 10% stake in a
competing company in the same circle; total market
share of the combined entity cannot exceed 67% in
any circle; the combined entity cannot hold
spectrum of more than 15 Mhz in metro and A
category circles and 12.4 Mhz in B and C class
circles, and any combination should not reduce the
number of operators to less than three.
If
Reliance Communication takes over Hutch it will
have over 36% market share in the mobile segment
at the national level, and emerge as the largest
mobile operator with around 52 million
subscribers. In such a scenario, DoT will need to
do a circle wise study to assess if Reliance’s
takeover would violate the M&A guidelines.
Secondly, with a market share exceeding 30%,
Reliance would come under the category of an
operator with ‘significant market power’, and
governed by additional rules and regulations set
by Trai. If Vodafone or Essar or Hindujas take
over the stake in Hutch, these issues will not
arise.
Who
takes over Hutch is subject to several legal and
price hurdles. Hutchison and Essar hold different
interpretations of the right of first refusal
clause. Bharti is contemplating invoking the
non-compete clause with Vodafone (it currently
owns 10% stake in Bharti Airtel) that prohibits
the UK-based company from acquiring stake in a
competitor for a period of one year after it
exits. For Reliance, the challenge lies in that it
must buy all or none of Hutchison-Essar.
Irrespective of who finally wins the bid, Reliance
and Vodafone have both shown they are serious
players for the Indian telecom market. The same
cannot be said about Ruias, who have in the past
been in talks with Reliance to sell their
remaining share in Hutch.
If
Reliance takes over Hutch, the number of large
players would be reduced to three: Reliance, BSNL/MTNL
and Bharti. On the other hand, if Vodafone takes
over Hutch, this would imply emergence of four big
serious players in the Indian telecom sector. What
does this imply for the sector?
Increased concentration could increase the
likelihood of collusive practices. In the past,
telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran had alleged
cartelisation in NLD/ILD sectors, involving
private operators: Reliance, Bharti and VSNL. By
drastically reducing the entry fees for NLD/ILD
licence, the minister attacked the cartel and
facilitated entry of more players to enhance
competition.
Consequently, the numbers of NLD/ILD operators
have increased. Alas, you and I have not
benefited, as our long-distance calls continue to
be routed through the same state access provider.
The real competition in the long-distance segment
would come when the long pending issue of Carrier
Access Code is implemented.
Emergence of big players with pan-India operations
defeats the logic of continuing with circle-wise
restrictions. This leads to unnecessary costs for
the operators and consumers. Thus, if every mobile
operator is permitted to offer services anywhere
in the country, like in the UK, Pakistan, Egypt,
etc, there would be no national roaming charges.
It would promote market integration and lower
costs to consumers.
Trai
has hinted that operators could be forming a
cartel in keeping the domestic roaming tariffs at
the same level for the past few years, and by one
policy decision, the telecom minister can once
again rein in an alleged cartel. The government
has been pitching for a single internal market,
and the minister has moved forward by promoting
the one-India call. It is time to take this a step
ahead.
Surprisingly, in the debate surrounding this
acquisition, the role of Competition Commission of
India has not found any mention. True, the CCI is
presently in a limbo and is of little consequence
for the impending takeover. But such cases would
set a precedent for future.
The
takeover does cross the thresholds provided in the
Competition Act and CCI should be involved in its
analysis. Other than M&As, anti-competitive
practices have been observed and will happen in
future as well. So such cases require using the
expertise of both the competition regulator and
sector regulator.
The
emerging scenario in the telecom sector requires
both policy as well as regulatory actions. The
government on its part should revisit some of the
pending issues, and Trai should be geared to keep
a constant vigil on the behaviour of the big
players.
This
article can also be viewed at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
Archives |