No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2022
Despite gains from liberalisation and deregulation in the 1990s, the Philippines telecommunications industry continues to be hampered by poor quality of service, high prices, with high barriers to entry and lack of meaningful alternatives for citizens. This article argues that liberalisation of the telecommunications industry is insufficient in facilitating economic growth and improving consumer welfare. Competition is a necessary precondition for this to occur, and to this end, an environment that will allow competition to flourish is indispensable. Hence, telecommunications regulation must be infused with competition law principles to ensure a robust, competitive sector that improves consumer welfare.
Lawyer (Philippines); Director, Mergers and Acquisitions Office, Philippine Competition Commission. This article was part of the author's thesis for the LLM Innovation and Technology Law at the University of Edinburgh, which was funded by the Philippine Competition Commission. This article reflects the author's own views and not those of the Philippine Competition Commission. The author would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. The author declares that there are no competing interests.
1 Quimba, Francis Mark A, Roselleon, Maureen Ane D & Calizo, Sylwyn C Jr, ‘Digital Divide and the Platform Economy’, in Park, Cyn-Young, Villafuerte, James, & Yap, Josef T (eds), Managing the Development of Digital Marketplaces in Asia (Asian Development Bank 2021) 191Google Scholar.
2 World Bank, ‘World Development Report 2021 Data for Better Lives’ (2021) 159 <https://wdr2021.worldbank.org/> accessed 15 Feb 2022.
3 ibid.
4 Villafuerte, James, Narayanan, Badri & Abell, Thomas, ‘Digital Platforms, Technology and Their Macroeconomic Impact’, in Park, Cyn-Young, Villafuerte, James & , Josef T Yap (eds), Managing the Development of Digital Marketplaces in Asia (Asian Development Bank 2021) 87Google Scholar.
5 ibid.
6 Raul Katz & Fernando Callorda, ‘The economic contribution of broadband, digitization and ICT regulation’ (International Telecommunications Union, 2018) 44 <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/pref/D-PREF-EF.BDR-2018-PDF-E.pdf> accessed 18 Feb 2022.
7 ibid 37.
8 Soumitra Dutta & Bruno Lanvin (eds), ‘The Network Readiness Index 2021’ (Portulans Institute, 2021) 49 <https://networkreadinessindex.org/> accessed 18 Feb 2022.
9 ibid 32.
10 ibid 33.
11 ibid.
12 ibid 34.
13 ibid 36.
14 ibid 43.
15 Dune, Niamh, Competition Law and Economic Regulation: Making and Managing Markets (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2015) 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Posner, Richard A, ‘The Effects of Deregulation on Competition: The Experience of the United States’ (1999) 23 Fordham International Law Journal S7Google Scholar; Semeraro, Steven, ‘Speta on Antitrust and Local Competition under the Telecommunications Act: A Comment Respecting the Accommodation of Antitrust and Telecom Regulation’ (2003) 71 Antitrust Law Journal 147Google Scholar; Dabbah, Maher M, ‘The Relationship between Competition Authorities and Sector Regulators’ (2011) 70 Cambridge Law Journal 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Temple Lang, ‘European Competition Policy and Regulation: Differences, Overlaps and Constraints’, in Francois Leveque & Howard Shelanski (eds), Antitrust and Regulation in the EU and US (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2009) 20; Marghareta Colangelo, ‘The Interface between Competition Rules and Sector-Specific Regulation in the Telecommunications Sector: Evidence from Recent EU Margin Squeeze Cases’ (2013) 14 Competition and Regulation in Network Industries 214.
16 Shelanski, Howard, ‘Adjusting Regulation to Competition: Toward a New Model for U.S. Telecommunications Policy’ (2007) 24 Yale Journal on Regulation 55Google Scholar; Francois Leveque & Howard Shelanski, ‘Introduction: Balancing Antitrust and Regulation’, in Francois Leveque & Howard Shelanski (eds), Antitrust and Regulation in the EU and US (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2009) vii; Dune (n 15).
17 International Telecommunications Union, ‘Measuring the Information Society Report’ (2018) <https://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-ICTOI-2018> accessed 1 Jul 2021; Department of Information and Communications Technology, National Broadband Plan (2017) <https://dict.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.08.09-National-Broadband-Plan.pdf> accessed 1 Jul 2021.
18 Rodine-Hardy, Kirsten, Global Markets and Government Regulation in Telecommunications (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2013) 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Sharkey, William W, The Theory of Natural Monopoly (Cambridge University Press 1982) 12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 ibid 4.
21 European Commission, ‘Summary Report concerning the Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment’ COM (87) 290 final.
22 ibid 7 and 9.
23 ibid.
24 Geradin, Damien & Kerf, Michel, Controlling Market Power in Telecommunications (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 7Google Scholar.
25 ibid; Salazar, Lorraine Carlos, Getting a Dial Tone Telecommunications Liberalization in Malaysia and the Philippines (1st edn, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2007) 113Google Scholar.
26 Walden, Ian, ‘Access and Interconnection’, in Walden, Ian (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hank Intven, Jeremy Oliver & Edgardo Sepulveda, Telecommunications Regulations Handbook (10th anniversary edition, ITU 2011) 5–1.
27 ibid.
28 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 8.
29 ibid.
30 Whish, Richard & Bailey, David, Competition Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Helen Cabalu et al, ‘A Policy Framework for Competition Policy in the Philippines’ (Institute for Research into International Competitiveness, Mar 1999) 5.
32 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Regulatory Reform as a Tool for Bridging the Digital Divide’ (2004) <https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/34487084.pdf> accessed 30 Jun 2021.
33 Olivier Boylaud & Giuseppe Nicoletti, ‘Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications’ (OECD Economic Studies No 32, 2001) < https://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/2736298.pdf> accessed 1 Jul 2021.
34 Ian Walden, ‘Telecommunications Law and Regulation: An Introduction’, in Ian Walden (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 12; European Commission, Green Paper (n 21) 3 and 5.
35 Rodine-Hardy (n 18) 7.
36 ibid 22–27.
37 ibid xxi.
38 ibid 10, Appendix A.
39 Intven, Oliver & Sepulveda (n 26) 5–7.
40 Andrej Savin, EU Telecommunications Law (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2018) 23.
41 Lisa Correa, ‘The Economics of Telecommunications Regulation’, in Ian Walden (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 30–34.
42 Rodine-Hardy (n 18) 3–4.
43 Correa (n 41) 30.
44 ibid.
45 ibid 31.
46 Savin (n 40) 22.
47 ibid 21.
48 Correa (n 41) 32.
49 ibid 28.
50 Herbert Hovenkamp, Principles of Antitrust (1st edn, West Academic Publishing 2017).
51 Rodine-Hardy (n 18) 15.
52 ibid.
53 ibid xxi.
54 Savin (n 40) 10–11.
55 Intven, Oliver & Sepulveda (n 26) 5–2; Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Promoting Competition in Telecommunications’ (Centro de Estudios Economicos de la Regulacion, Working Paper no 2, Mar 1999) <https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uadewp/1999_002.html> accessed 2 Jul 2021.
56 Dune (n 15) 173.
57 ibid 176.
58 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 9.
59 International Chamber of Commerce, ‘Telecoms liberalization’ (ICC Tools for E-Business, 2004) <https://iccwbo.org/publication/telecoms-liberalization-guide-second-edition/> accessed 30 Apr 2021; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Competition in Telecommunications’ (Policy Roundtables, 1995) 7 <https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sectors/1920287.pdf> accessed 20 Apr 2021; Pierre A Buigues, ‘The competition policy approach’, in Pierre Buigues & Patrick Rey (eds), The Economics of Antitrust and Regulation in Telecommunications: Perspectives for the New European Regulatory Framework (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2004) 9; Martin Cave, ‘Economic aspects of the new regulatory regime for electronic communications services’, in Pierre Buigues & Patrick Rey (eds), The Economics of Antitrust and Regulation in Telecommunications: Perspectives for the New European Regulatory Framework (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2004) 27; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Enhancing Competition in telecommunications: protecting and empowering consumers’ (Jun 2008) <https://www.oecd.org/sti/consumer/40679279.pdf> accessed 10 Jun 2021.
60 Dabbah (n 15).
61 Salazar (n 25) 121–122.
62 Rafaelita M Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (World Bank Institute Singapore, May 2000) 6. See also Edna A Espos, ‘Institutions, Regulation and Performance: The Case of Philippine Telecommunications’ (MSc thesis, City University London 2003) <https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Regulation_PhilTelcoms_Edna_Espos.pdf> accessed 1 Jul 2021; Romeo Agan Salac & Yun Seon Kim, ‘A Study on The Internet Connectivity in the Philippines’ (2016) 1 Asia Pacific Journal of Business Review 67.
63 European Commission, ‘Towards a new framework for Electronic Communications infrastructure and associated services (The 1999 Communications Review)’ COM (1999) 539 final, 22.
64 GATS: General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 Apr 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 UNTS 183, 33 ILM 1167 (1994), Annex on Telecommunications.
65 Executive Order No 59 [1993] (hereinafter ‘EO 59’), s 2.
66 EU Commission Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 Mar 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities OJ L108/7, art 12 (hereinafter ‘Access Directive’).
67 Levi-Faur, David, ‘The Governance of International Telecommunications Competition: Cross-International Study of International Policy Regimes’ (1999) 4 Competition & Change 93, 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 9.
69 Intven, Oliver & Sepulveda (n 26) 5-14–5-32.
70 James B Speta, ‘Rewriting U.S. Telecommunications Law with an Eye on Europe’, in Brigitte Preissl & Jurgen Muller (eds), Governance of Communication Networks: Connecting Societies and Markets with IT (Physica-Verlag HD 2006) 15.
71 Correa (n 41) 63.
72 ibid 64.
73 ibid.
74 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (n 62) 22.
75 Republic Act No 7925 [1995].
76 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (n 62), Executive Summary.
77 ibid; Rafaelita M Aldaba, ‘PLDT-Sun acquisition: good or bad?’ (Philippine Institute for Development Studies Policy Note No 2011-08) <https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidspn1108.pdf> accessed 10 May 2021; PLDT v NTC and Express Telecommunications Co, Inc, GR No 88404, 18 Oct 1990.
78 Department of Transportation and Communication, Department Circular No 87-1888 (1987).
79 Erwin A Alampay, ‘ICT Sector Performance Review for Philippines’ (Sep 2011) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2006072> accessed 1 Apr 2020.
80 Epictecus Patalinghug & Gilbert Llanto, ‘Competition Policy and Regulation in Power and Telecommunications’ (Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No 2005-18) 5 <https://ideas.repec.org/p/phd/dpaper/dp_2005-18.html> accessed 21 May 2021.
81 EO 59, s 2.
82 Executive Order No 109 [1993].
83 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (n 62) 6.
84 Republic Act No 7925 [1995], s 4(f).
85 ibid, s 16.
86 ibid.
87 ibid.
88 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (n 62) 10; Patalinghug & Llanto (n 80) 15.
89 RA 7925, s 17.
90 Patalinghug & Llanto (n 80) 27 (Table 6).
91 ibid.
92 For local telephone service, and domestic and international telephone service.
93 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications Industry to Competition’ (n 62) 24.
94 ibid 25.
95 Inquirer Research, ‘What went before: SMC deal with PLDT, Globe Telecom’ (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 24 Oct 2017) <https://business.inquirer.net/239131/went-smc-deal-pldt-globe-telecom> accessed 26 Jul 2021.
96 ‘2019 Annual Report’ (National Telecommunications Commission, 2019) 17 <https://ntc.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/2019-ANNUAL-REPORT.pdf> accessed 20 Jul 2021.
97 ibid 18.
98 ibid 19.
99 Department of Information and Communications Technology, ‘National Broadband Plan’ (n 17) 11.
100 ibid 12; Ver Marcelo, ‘PH among lowest ranked countries in internet speed, availability’ (CNN Philippines, 3 Nov 2017) <https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/11/03/philippines-lowest-rank-internet-speed-availability.html> accessed 14 Jun 2021; Delon Porcalla, ‘Philippines internet ‘second slowest’ in Asean, ranks 110th worldwide’ (Philippine Star, 28 Dec 2020) <www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/12/28/2066612/philippines-internet-second-slowest-asean-ranks-110th-worldwide> accessed 15 Jun 2021; Department Of Information And Communications Technology, ‘State Of The Internet Report’ (17 Oct 2017) <https://dict.gov.ph/ictstatistics/state-of-the-internet-repor/> accessed 10 Jul 2021.
101 Department of Information and Communications Technology, ‘National Broadband Plan’ (n 17); Silja Baller, Soumitra Dutta & Bruna Lanvin (eds), ‘The Global Information Technology Report 2016’ (World Economic Forum, 2016) <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf> accessed 26 Jul 2021.
102 Department of Information and Communications Technology, ‘National Broadband Plan,’ Executive Summary (n 17). The target is now 2% of monthly gross national income per capita. See ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, ‘State of Broadband: Broadband as a Foundation for Sustainable Development’ (International Telecommunication Union & United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Sep 2019) <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.20-2019-PDF-E.pdf> accessed 27 Jul 2021.
103 Based on the price of 500MB worth of mobile-broadband, both prepaid and handset-based. ‘Measuring the Information Society Report 2018’ (vol 1, International Telecommunications Union, 2018) 114, Table 4.3.
104 ibid.
105 The price of fixed-broadband basket. See ibid 134, Table 4.6.
106 ibid.
107 Department of Information and Communications Technology, ‘The State of PH Telecoms Service’ (4 Mar 2017) <https://dict.gov.ph/the-state-of-ph-telecoms-service/> accessed 26 Jul 2021.
108 See Facebook profiles of Globe (Facebook, ‘Globe Telecom’ <https://www.facebook.com/globeph> accessed 18 Aug 2022) and Smart (Facebook, ‘Smart Communications, Inc’ <https://www.facebook.com/SmartCommunications> accessed 18 Aug 2022).
109 Bella Perez-Rubio, ‘Senator hits telcos for “constant poor internet service” in Philippines’ (Philippine Star, 5 Mar 2021) <https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/03/05/2082174/senator-hits-telcos-constant-poor-internet-service-philippines> accessed 13 Jun 2021.
110 Vittoria Elliott & Andrew Deck, ‘Duterte, Dito, and the Duopoly,’ (Rest of World, 2 Nov 2020) <https://restofworld.org/2020/duterte-dito-and-the-duopoly/> accessed 10 Jun 2021; Cliff Venzon, ‘Duterte rocks Philippine telcos with threat to seize assets,’ (Nikkei Asia, 28 Jul 2020) <https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Telecommunication/Duterte-rocks-Philippine-telcos-with-threat-to-seize-assets> accessed 13 Jun 2021.
111 Department of Information and Communications Technology (n 107); Department of Information and Communications Technology, ‘PH Telecoms Summit Day 2 – DICT Leads Discussion on Competition in Telecoms Industry, Possibility of Third Player Entry’ (17 Mar 2017) <https://dict.gov.ph/ph-telecoms-summit-day-2-dict-leads-discussion-on-competition-in-telecoms-industry-possibility-of-third-player-entry/> accessed 26 Jul 2021.
112 ibid.
113 Philippine Competition Commission, ‘PCC Statement on PLDT's Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition’ (12 Jul 2016) <https://www.phcc.gov.ph/press-statements/pcc-statement-pldts-petition-certiorari-prohibition/> accessed 31 Jul 2021; Tetch Torres-Tupas, ‘CA orders PCC to answer PLDT motion to issue gag order’ (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 20 Oct 2016) <https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/828127/ca-orders-pcc-to-answer-pldt-motion-to-issue-gag-order> accessed 1 Aug 2021; Miguel R Camus ‘PLDT, Globe hit antitrust agency for violating gag order on Vega acquisition’ (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 Jun 2017) <https://business.inquirer.net/230621/pldt-globe-hit-antitrust-agency-for-violating-gag-order-on-vega-acquisition> accessed 1 Aug 2021.
114 However, GDP per capita figures show Malaysia with significantly higher than Philippines. See ASEAN Secretariat, ‘ASEAN Key Figures 2019’ (Oct 2019) <https://www.aseanstats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ASEAN_Key_Figures_2019.pdf> accessed 30 Jul 2021.
115 Pierre Larouche, ‘Contrasting legal solutions and the comparability of EU and US experiences’, in Francois Leveque & Howard Shelanski (eds), Antitrust and Regulation in the EU and US (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2009) 85.
116 ITU, ‘Digital Development Dashboard’ <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Dashboards/Pages/Digital-Development.aspx> accessed 20 Jun 2021.
117 ibid.
118 ibid.
119 ibid.
120 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 66.
121 ibid.
122 ibid 67.
123 Ibid.
124 Lee, Karen & Prime, Jamison, ‘US Telecommunications Law’, in Walden, Ian (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 198Google Scholar.
125 ibid 199; Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 66.
126 Lee & Prime (n 124) 199.
127 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 68.
128 47 USC § 254(c)(7)(k); Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 69.
129 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 69.
130 ibid 70, citing S Rep No 104-230, 1 (1996).
131 ibid 71–72.
132 Speta (n 70) 15; 47 USC § 253.
133 Lee & Prime (n 124) 234.
134 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 71.
135 47 USC § 251.
136 47 USC § 251(c)(3); Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 87–88, citing In re implementation for the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC Docket No 99-238.
137 Ginsburg, Douglas, ‘Synthetic Competition’, in Leveque, Francois & Shelanski, Howard (eds), Antitrust and Regulation in the EU and US (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2009) 8Google Scholar.
138 47 USC § 251(c)(2)(B).
139 47 USC § 251(c)(4)(a).
140 47 USC § 251(a)(1).
141 47 USC § 251(b)(1).
142 47 USC § 251(b)(2) and (3).
143 47 USC § 251(b)(4).
144 Ginsburg (n 137) 8; Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 89, 99. Interconnection and unbundled network elements charges were set using the incumbent's Total Element Long-Run Incremental Cost. Prices for resale of the incumbent's retail services is a retail-minus method. See Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 99.
145 Shelanski (n 17) 70–75.
146 ‘Regulatory Reform in the United States’ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1999) <https://www.oecd.org/regreform/2506672.pdf> accessed 3 Aug 2021.
147 Larouche (n 115) 79.
148 EU Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets [1996] OJ L74/13, Whereas (2) (Directive 96/19/EC); Walden, Ian, ‘European Communications Law’, in Ian Walden (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
149 Directive 96/19/EC.
150 ibid art 1(2).
151 ibid Recital 6.
152 ibid Recital 7.
153 ibid art 1(6).
154 ibid.
155 EU Commission Directive 97/33/EC of 30 Jun 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) [1997] OJ L199/32 (hereinafter, ‘Interconnection Directive’).
156 ibid art 4.
157 Consolidated Version of the Treaty establishing the European Community [2002] OJ C325, art 82; Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 Mar 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services [2002] OJ L108/33, art 14 (hereinafter, ‘Framework Directive’). See EU Commission, ‘Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services’ [2018] OJ C159/1.
158 Interconnection Directive, art 6 (a).
159 ibid art 6.
160 ibid art 7.
161 ibid.
162 ibid Annex IV (provides a list of examples of elements for further elaboration of interconnection charges, tariff structures and tariff elements).
163 ibid art 8.
164 Access Directive (n 66).
165 ibid arts 9–11.
166 Buigues (n 59) 10; The 1999 Communications Review (n 63) v.
167 EU Commission Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 Mar 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services, OJ L108/21, art 3 (hereinafter ‘Authorisation Directive’); Flannagan, Anne, ‘Authorization and Licensing’, in Ian Walden (ed), Telecommunications Law and Regulation (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018) 311Google Scholar.
168 Walden, ‘European Union Communications Law’ (n 148) 174.
169 Access Directive, Recital 6.
170 ibid art 11.
171 ibid art 13.
172 Framework Directive as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [2009] OJ L337/37.
173 Authorisation Directive as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [2009] OJ L337/37.
174 Access Directive as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [2009] OJ L337/37.
175 EU Parliament and Council Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code [2018] OJ L321/36.
176 Cave (n 59) 28.
177 Monti, Mario, ‘Introduction’, in Pierre Buigues & Patrick Rey (eds), The Economics of Antitrust and Regulation in Telecommunications: Perspectives for the New European Regulatory Framework (1st edn, Edward Elgar 2004) 16Google Scholar.
178 Framework Directive, Recitals 20–21.
179 EU Commission, ‘Commission Recommendation of 11 Feb 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex-ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services’ [2003] OJ L114/45. This Recommendation identified 18 markets susceptible for ex-ante regulation including fixed and mobile call termination markets, wholesale broadband access markets. The list of markets progressively got smaller to only two wholesale markets in the most recent 2020 Recommendation. See EU Commission, ‘Commission Recommendation of 18.12.2020 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex-ante regulation in accordance with Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 Dec 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications’ [2020] OJ L439/23.
180 Buigues (n 59) 20.
181 EU Commission, ‘Progress Report on the Single European Electronic Communications Market 2007 (13th Report)’ [2008] COM (2008) 153.
182 Cassey Lee, ‘Telecommunications Reforms in Malaysia’ (2002) 73 Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 521.
183 Azhar Kazmi, ‘State of Competition in Malaysian Mobile Telecommunications Industry’ (2006) 4 Competition Forum American Society for Competitiveness 86.
184 Ministry of Telecommunications, Energy and Multimedia, ‘National Telecommunications Policy 1994–2000’ <https://www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/Dasar/28THE_NATIONAL_TELECOMMUNICATION_POLICY_(1994_-_2020).pdf> accessed 21 Jun 2021.
185 Kazmi (n 184).
186 Lee (n 183) 532.
187 ibid.
188 ibid.
189 CMA, ss 135–136.
190 ibid s 139.
191 Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, ‘Guideline on Substantial Lessening of Competition’ (11 Jul 2014) <https://www.mcmc.gov.my/skmmgovmy/files/attachments/slc.pdf> accessed 21 Jun 2021.
192 Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, ‘Guideline on Dominant Position’ (24 Sep 2014) <https://www.mcmc.gov.my/en/resources/guidelines/guidelines/guideline-on-dominant-position-in-a-communications> accessed 21 Jun 2021.
193 CMA, s 149.
194 ibid s 148.
195 Liew Sue Yin & Joel Prashant, ‘Malaysia’, in Emma Wright & Kemp Little LLP (eds), International Comparative Legal Guides, Telecoms Media & Internet (14th edn, Global Legal Group 2021) <https://iclg.com/practice-areas/telecoms-media-and-internet-laws-and-regulations/malaysia> accessed 21 Jun 2021 (hereinafter ‘ICLG’); Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ‘Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access Pricing, Determination No 1 of 2017 (20 Dec 2017) <https://www.skmm.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/MS-Access-Pricing.pdf> accessed 21 Jun 2021 (hereinafter ‘MCMC Mandatory Access Pricing Standard’).
196 Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, ‘Commission Determination on the Mandatory Standard on Access, Determination No 3 of 2016’ (8 Dec 2016) <https://www.mcmc.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/No-3-2016.pdf> accessed 21 Jun 2021.
197 ICLG (n 196) 162.
198 NTP (n 185) 15.3.
199 Lee (n 183) 15; Salazar (n 25) 162–163, 185.
200 Salazar (n 25) 249.
201 RA 7925, s 5.
202 Salazar (n 25) 247, 249, citing Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill no 14028 and Senate Bill no 11, 20 Feb 1995; Records of the Senate, 18 Jan 1995.
203 Aldaba, ‘PLDT-Sun acquisition: good or bad?’ (n 77) 2.
204 Flannagan (n 167) 294.
205 Espos (n 62).
206 Flannagan (n 167) 296.
207 Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, ‘Regulation and Competition – a literature review’ (Report 0218, Mar 2017) 14 <https://tillvaxtverket.se/download/18.7b586e5115b13ff864b24615/1490965697446/Regulation+and+Competition+-+170331_hela.pdf> accessed 4 Aug 2021.
208 World Bank, ‘Philippines Economic Update Braving the New Normal’ (Report No 104611-PH, Jun 2020) 50 <https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ru/845151468185031838/pdf/104611-WP-P149001-PUBLIC-Philippine-Economic-Update-PEU-April-2016-edition-final-for-release.pdf> accessed 27 Jul 2021.
209 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 71.
210 Authorisation Directive, art 3; Flannagan (n 167) 311.
211 Walden, ‘Access and Interconnection’ (n 26) 436.
212 ibid 436–437.
213 Salazar (n 25) 109, 121–123; PLDT v NTC and Express Telecommunications Co, Inc (n 77); PLDT v Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc and NTC, GR No 94374, 27 Aug 1992.
214 EO 59, ‘Whereas’ clause.
215 RA 7925, s 5(c).
216 Patalinghug & Llanto (n 80) 11–12; Salazar (n 25) 109, 121–123.
217 ibid 12, citing Kim Dong-Yeob, ‘The Political Economy of Telecommunications Service Market Liberalization: A Comparative Study of South Korea and the Philippines’ (PhD Dissertation, University of the Philippines 2003).
218 GMA News, ‘PLDT, Globe interconnection problems worsen’ (GMA, 27 Feb 2013) <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296976/economy/companies/pldt-globe-interconnection-problems-worsen> accessed 2 Jul 2021.
219 PLDT v NTC and Express Telecommunications Co, Inc (n 77).
220 Salazar (n 25) 122; Alvin Capino, ‘Globe's Interconnection Woes’ (Manila Standard, 22 Feb 2013) <http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/02/22/globes-interconnection-woes/> accessed 2 Jul 2021.
221 Salazar (n 25) 122.
222 James Barton, ‘Dito accuses Globe and Smart of abusing dominance around interconnection’ (Developing Telecoms, 9 Aug 2022) <https://developingtelecoms.com/telecom-business/operator-news/13856-dito-accuses-globe-and-smart-of-abusing-dominance-around-interconnection.html> accessed 18 Aug 2022; ‘Globe to NTC: Require DITO to pay P622 million interconnection penalties’ (CNN Philippines, 9 Aug 2022) <https://www.cnnphilippines.com/business/2022/8/9/Globe-asks-NTC-to-require-DITO-to-pay-interconnection-penalties.html> accessed 18 Aug 2022.
223 National Telecommunications Commission, Memorandum Circular No 14-07-2000 (2000), s 10 (hereinafter ‘NTC Rules for Interconnection’).
224 Memorandum Circular No 10-7-2007 (2007), s 3.2.
225 ibid.
226 ibid, Explanatory Note.
227 ibid, ‘Whereas’ clause.
228 ABS-CBN News, ‘NTC can't compel telcos to reveal interconnection terms,’ (ABS-CBN, 20 Jan 2010) <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/01/20/10/ntc-cant-compel-telcos-reveal-interconnection-terms > accessed 21 Jul 2021.
229 Elsie C Gutierrez, ‘Q & A Promoting Competition in Philippine Markets’ (Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department Policy Brief No 2013-05) 19 <https://cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/images/PDF%20Attachments/CPBRD%20Policy%20Brief/PB2013-05%20QA%20Final%20colored.pdf> accessed 10 May 2021.
230 ibid.
231 Espos (n 62).
232 Edgardo V Cabarrios, ‘Competition in the Philippine Telecommunications Sector’ <https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/vcri/aki/_conferences/manilaConference/competitioninthePhilippintTelecommunicationsSector.pdf> accessed 10 May 2021; Emie V Abadilla, ‘Local telecom interconnection rates highest in the Asia-Pacific region’ (Manila Bulletin, 13 Jul 2011) <http://mb.com.ph/node/326560/local-telecom-interconnection-rate> accessed 10 May 2021; Alampay (n 79) 36–37; National Telecommunications Commission, Memorandum Circular No 05-07-2018 (19 Jul 2018).
233 RA 7925, s 17.
234 Aldaba, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications’ (n 62) 10.
235 NTC Rules for Interconnection, s 15.
236 ibid s 43.
237 ibid s 45.
238 ALDABA, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications’ (n 62) 24–25.
239 ibid 24.
240 ibid.
241 Smart v National Telecommunications Commission and Philippine Telecommunications Companies, Inc, CA-GR SP No 129894 (12 Dec 2014).
242 ibid citing NTC Decision dated 19 Dec 2011.
243 National Telecommunications Commission, Memorandum Circular No 02-10-2011 (24 Oct 2011).
244 National Telecommunications Commission, Memorandum Circular No 09-11-2016 (24 Nov 2016).
245 National Telecommunications Commission, Memorandum Circular No 05-07-2018 (n 234).
246 ALDABA, ‘Opening up the Philippine Telecommunications’ (n 62) 24.
247 ibid.
248 ibid 23.
249 47 USC § 252(d).
250 See MCMC Mandatory Access Pricing Standard (n 196).
251 Access Directive, art 13.
252 ibid Recital 20.
253 ibid Recitals 16–17.
254 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 86–88.
255 Access Directive, art 12.
256 ibid art 10.
257 Geradin & Kerf (n 24) 25–44.
258 ibid 34.
259 Cave (n 59) 29.
260 Gigo Alampay, ‘Reforming Philippine Telecommunications Law for Convergence and Competition’ (30 Apr 2015) <https://www.coursehero.com/file/16099019/ICT-LAW-REPORT-April-30-2015/> accessed on 11 Aug 2021.
261 Stiglitz (n 55).
262 Shelanski (n 16) 101.