On Traps and Athletics in Telecommunications
Economic activities in the country and private initiatives are free, as long as they stay within the bounds of the common good…
With this idea, the marathon towards the full opening of telecommunications in Costa Rica began, under Law No. 8642, initiated by the much-demonized Free Trade Agreement. One of the many concerns at the beginning of this process was the issue of prices and the guarantee of universal access.
Free competition has allowed Costa Ricans to have better services, be treated as worthy customers, and access better technologies than many of their counterparts in Latin America. It has been a win/win for the user and for the multitude of operators and providers that found a niche to thrive in.
Despite this, there is a globally employed thesis by operators about a hypothetical collapse of telecommunications networks due to the disproportionate use of the internet. In this regard, they have proposed charging based on download volume or speed, under a model of “flexible and segmented rates” suitable for the consumption profile of each subscriber, as opposed to the current unlimited service for all in postpaid tariffs.
Although I don’t completely agree with this thesis, it is true that since 2013, there has been a download-based tariff applied to users of mobile internet services (all of them in prepaid mode). So, the operators’ proposal to the Telecommunications Superintendent (Sutel) would be to establish an additional mode of mobile internet access that would affect the postpaid mode.
Some thought that Sutel would excessively intervene, hindering competition and acting as a guarantor of user rights by excessively intervening in the market. However, on several occasions, beyond informing, it has sought to convince users that Internet by download is the most convenient option and that it is not the providers’ responsibility to meet the growing demand for the service with their own investment. The most questionable aspect is that this campaign has been funded with public funds.
This debate is not new. We constantly hear comments about the inadequate preparation of telecommunications networks to withstand such intense data traffic. If that were the case, operators should consider long-term solutions, such as developing greater capacity in their networks, and in any case, Sutel should compel them to do so instead of sponsoring them to convince users that it is good to pay more by implementing download or speed-based internet—when postpaid systems already have unlimited plans.
The Telecommunications Law created Sutel to allow the development of free competition under a protective state intervention for the weakest part of the market: the user. It was not created to protect the pockets of public and private operators.
There are demonstrated conditions of effective competition in the sector that, as a consequence, make it necessary for Sutel to consider stepping aside and letting users decide to acquire services they find suitable without state manipulation.
