Termination Rate Debate in Africa Dr. Christoph Stork Termination - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

termination rate
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Termination Rate Debate in Africa Dr. Christoph Stork Termination - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Termination Rate Debate in Africa Dr. Christoph Stork Termination = Monopoly Monopolies require price regulation Termination rates at cost of efficient operator Provide incentive to invest in new technologies to reduce costs Promote


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Termination Rate Debate in Africa

  • Dr. Christoph Stork
slide-2
SLIDE 2

Termination = Monopoly

Monopolies require price regulation Termination rates at cost of efficient

  • perator

Provide incentive to invest in new technologies to reduce costs Promote competition and economic efficiency Promote universal service through low retail prices

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Dominant operators will argue that if MTRs are lowered

Retail prices will increase There will be less subscribers Operators will invest less However, the opposite is the case - Increased competition leads to:

lower retail prices more subscribers and

  • perators have to invest more to stay competitive
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Waterbed Effects

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Readers

Newspap er

Advertis ers

Two sided market

Interdependent prices No cost causation Newspapers: lower price per newspaper/higher value niche markets

= more readers = higher advertising revenue per page

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Two-sided market would predict

MT R

OFF- Net

Fixe d

Up

On- net

Up Up

Less Subscribers

Down

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Argument 1 Wholesale Price: contractually fixed Retail Prices: Many prices varying product by product and change frequently

MT R

On-Net Peak On-Net Off Peak On-Net

Off Off Peak

OFF- Net Peak OFF-Net Off Peak OFF-Net

Off Off Peak

Fixed Peak Fixed Off Peak Fixed Off Off

Peak

On-Net SMS OFF-Net SMS

Product 2

Product 1

Introduction of new cheaper products do not lead to MTR increases

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Argument 2 Termination rates are mostly symmetrical ... contradicts the two-sided market argument

If asymmetry then smaller operator has higher MTR MTR cannot be increased because

  • f higher market

share (newspaper example)

Operator 1

Operat

  • r 2
slide-9
SLIDE 9

p=x+a Off-Net Price

Operator 1

Revenue=p* q

MTR x

q=f(p) subject to price elasticity of subscribers of

  • perator 2

Quantity of call terminated

Argument 3 Operators can only set their own retail prices but not those of other operators... Cannot control q and p

Operator 2

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Two-sided market & Waterbed Effect

Fail to predict market outcomes correctly Cannot be empirically observed following termination rate cuts Retail and wholesale prices are not interdependent

slide-11
SLIDE 11

OECD countries (TMG2010)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

OECD countries (TMG2010)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Pro Waterbed Effects

Waterbed effect is masked by other developments such as increased competition and decreasing unit costs Questionable evidence from panel data studies:

1) Constructing data sets with enough data points is impossible 2) Omitted variables may render models invalid 3) Retail prices used for modelling only prices of dominant operators

slide-14
SLIDE 14

No of

  • perators

sequence of market entry lock-ins and club effects business models used by

  • perators

Mobile penetration rates and mobile retail prices in a country depend on many factors

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Cheapest operator

Dominant operator

Most expensive operator

Cheapest Prepaid product in country in US$

Feb 2010

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Alternative 1: Panel data model based on operators not countries

Incorporate all operators of a country Increase the data available by a factor of 3 or 4 allows to include significant explanatory variables such as market share and year of market entry The waterbed effect is a hypothesis about the pricing strategies of operators and as such need to be tested at the operator level

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Alternative 2: Case Studies

A less econometrically sophisticated but more plausible: Did Vodafone UK increase its retail prices after any MTR reduction in the UK? And how did the smaller operators or the net-interconnect-payers react?

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Case Study Kenya

slide-19
SLIDE 19

MTR US cents

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Retail Prices

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Safaricom’s key performance indicators for financial years ending in March

2007 2008 2009 2010

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Termination rate reduction in Kenya

9.5% more subscribers in last quarter or 2010 quarter Retail prices dropped by 60% Opposite effect to the waterbed effect!

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Case Study Namibia

slide-24
SLIDE 24

In 2009 MTC stated that if termination rates are reduced to cost it’s:

EBITDA margin would drop to 36.8% Would invest less and not be able to fund WACS Pay less dividends to Government

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Termination Rates

US cents

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Retail Prices of MTC in US$ for OECD (2006) baskets

slide-27
SLIDE 27

MTC key performance indicators

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Case Study

MTN

Nigeria, South Africa, Botswana

slide-29
SLIDE 29
slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31

High User OECD usage baskets in US$

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Conclusion

No Waterbed Effect in Namibia, Kenya, Botswana, South Africa or Nigeria Two-sided market argument can clearly be rejected Retail prices decrease after termination rate cuts Operators pursue different pricing strategies Cost based termination rates lead to more competition:

more subscribers more traffic more investment bigger pie of revenues to share among operators