BEREC REPORT ON IMPACT OF FIXED-MOBILE ... - berec - Europa

BoR (11) 54
was the only product considered in the previous market analysis; (ii) was the product in
which obligations were imposed and (iii) was the product with the higher volume of
leased lines installed, ANACOM defined this product as the focal product. In
consequence, verifying that traditional leased lines were substituted by Ethernet leased
lines, ANACOM concluded that both products should be included in the same market.
On the other hand, if there is no substitution from the focal product to the alternative
product(s) – and only substitution from the alternative product(s) to the focal product –
the alternative product(s) should not be included in the market.
Practice A – non inclusion in the same market
In the Commission decision of 16 July 2003 (Case COMP/38.233 − Wanadoo
Interactive) the product under investigation (the focal product) was high-speed
internet access and, even though the Commission admits that low-speed and high-
speed internet access present some degree of substitutability, it concludes that the
substitutability is extremely asymmetrical i.e. the migrations of customers from offers of
high-speed to low-speed access are negligible compared with migrations in the reverse
direction. Consequently, the Commission “considers that the relevant service market to
be used in analysing Wanadoo Interactive's conduct is the market for high-speed
internet access for residential customers”.
Practice B
In this case the NRA does not include the focal product and the alternative product(s)
in the same market regardless of the direction(s) of the substitution between the
products. The NRA considers that the alternative product(s) belong to a distinct
adjacent product market exercising competitive constraints on the focal product market.
In this case NRAs take into account the competitive constraints (if they exist) caused
by the alternative product(s) when analysing whether the three criteria test for imposing
ex ante regulation is met. It would also be possible to consider the effects of
asymmetric substitution during the competition assessment and when defining the
appropriate obligations to impose in the market.
Practice B – asymmetric substitution prevents inclusion of focal and alternative
products in the same market
In Finland, “FICORA assessed, separately for the residential and for the business
segment, the substitution between fixed access and mobile access for voice services.
In summary, the regulator found that retail fixed access for voice services was fully
substitutable with mobile access services, but not the other way around. That is, there
14