Telecom changes on hold
Though the country's international long-distance calling market has been fully liberalised for two months, it still has a long way to go before reaching a truly level playing field where other operators can compete against dominant player TPSA.
In January, TPSA lost its monopoly on international long-distance calling services, the final formal step in the country's decade-long liberalisation process, and a requirement for the country's European Union accession in 2004. Yet the France Telecom-controlled near monopolist has been permitted to maintain networks that do not enable most users to access more than one line operator for international long-distance calls. While 3.5 million TPSA customers are able to use international calling services offered by other operators, around 7.3 million, or 70%, cannot, according to the URTiP, the country's telecom regulatory authority. Moreover, TPSA's schedule envisages the last 1.2 million subscribers who are still using analogue exchanges for international long-distance calls remaining under the monopoly until "no longer than the end of 2005," or three years after the EU's deadline for a fully liberalised telecoms market.
Furthermore, TPSA's stranglehold on international calls has kept tariffs high for consumers. A new EU report on telecoms in accession countries said that international long-distance calls in Poland were three times more expensive than in member states, and eight times more expensive when making a call to the US. Liberalisation in Belgium cut the cost of a call to Warsaw by six times, but nothing changed the other way around.
Last year, the government worked on additional regulations to close up loopholes in the existing telecom law, which took effect in January 2001. But when the regulations were not ready last autumn as planned, the URTiP and the ministry of infrastructure blamed each other for the delay, while at the same time accusing TPSA of not being technically ready to adopt the changes. On the other hand, TPSA said it could not comply with regulations that it did not know about. Parliament is now working on an entirely new telecoms law to replace the current one, incorporating the updated EU telecom legislation.
Some critics, however, say that the URTiP has failed to take a strong enough line on TPSA. As an example, they point to the URTiP's statement in January when the regulatory office said that it "hoped" that TPSA would update its technology at a quicker pace.
Others, however, point out that the lack of additional regulations in the existing telecom legislation has hindered the URTiP from enforcing the law effectively.
"The key problem is that the specific regulations that should make it possible for the regulator to enforce the law are not in place," said Wojciech Mądalski, president of Netia, the country's largest alternative telecom operator. Therefore, the URTiP has limited power when it comes to collecting fines it imposes on TPSA for unfair market practices or monopolistic behaviour, he said, also noting the lengthy appeals process for companies that are subject to fines.
"It may look as though TPSA is being penalised all the time, but it's not the URTiP most of the time," said Jacek Strzałkowski, the URTiP's spokesman. "It's the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection which has imposed a lot of penalties. But TPSA appeals every time, and I don't know if they have paid anything. I don't think so."
Since last April, the regulator has issued just one fine to TPSA, for €239,000 (zł. 1 million) for failing to allow Netia's Internet service subscribers in Lublin to access their service through the network which TPSA controls. The fine has remained unpaid.
An analyst at one of the largest banks, who declined to be named, said: "The things which should have happened didn't happen. Why? That's what you should ask the regulator. TPSA is doing what it can to torpedo the process."
On claims that the regulator's office - with 642 workers - is staffed to a large extent by former TPSA employees, Strzałkowski declined to disclose exact figures, saying it would be illegal under the privacy laws. Formally, such information is available only to the head of the office and his deputies, who are publicly known to have formerly worked for TPSA.
In January, TPSA lost its monopoly on international long-distance calling services, the final formal step in the country's decade-long liberalisation process, and a requirement for the country's European Union accession in 2004. Yet the France Telecom-controlled near monopolist has been permitted to maintain networks that do not enable most users to access more than one line operator for international long-distance calls. While 3.5 million TPSA customers are able to use international calling services offered by other operators, around 7.3 million, or 70%, cannot, according to the URTiP, the country's telecom regulatory authority. Moreover, TPSA's schedule envisages the last 1.2 million subscribers who are still using analogue exchanges for international long-distance calls remaining under the monopoly until "no longer than the end of 2005," or three years after the EU's deadline for a fully liberalised telecoms market.
Furthermore, TPSA's stranglehold on international calls has kept tariffs high for consumers. A new EU report on telecoms in accession countries said that international long-distance calls in Poland were three times more expensive than in member states, and eight times more expensive when making a call to the US. Liberalisation in Belgium cut the cost of a call to Warsaw by six times, but nothing changed the other way around.
Last year, the government worked on additional regulations to close up loopholes in the existing telecom law, which took effect in January 2001. But when the regulations were not ready last autumn as planned, the URTiP and the ministry of infrastructure blamed each other for the delay, while at the same time accusing TPSA of not being technically ready to adopt the changes. On the other hand, TPSA said it could not comply with regulations that it did not know about. Parliament is now working on an entirely new telecoms law to replace the current one, incorporating the updated EU telecom legislation.
Some critics, however, say that the URTiP has failed to take a strong enough line on TPSA. As an example, they point to the URTiP's statement in January when the regulatory office said that it "hoped" that TPSA would update its technology at a quicker pace.
Others, however, point out that the lack of additional regulations in the existing telecom legislation has hindered the URTiP from enforcing the law effectively.
"The key problem is that the specific regulations that should make it possible for the regulator to enforce the law are not in place," said Wojciech Mądalski, president of Netia, the country's largest alternative telecom operator. Therefore, the URTiP has limited power when it comes to collecting fines it imposes on TPSA for unfair market practices or monopolistic behaviour, he said, also noting the lengthy appeals process for companies that are subject to fines.
"It may look as though TPSA is being penalised all the time, but it's not the URTiP most of the time," said Jacek Strzałkowski, the URTiP's spokesman. "It's the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection which has imposed a lot of penalties. But TPSA appeals every time, and I don't know if they have paid anything. I don't think so."
Since last April, the regulator has issued just one fine to TPSA, for €239,000 (zł. 1 million) for failing to allow Netia's Internet service subscribers in Lublin to access their service through the network which TPSA controls. The fine has remained unpaid.
An analyst at one of the largest banks, who declined to be named, said: "The things which should have happened didn't happen. Why? That's what you should ask the regulator. TPSA is doing what it can to torpedo the process."
On claims that the regulator's office - with 642 workers - is staffed to a large extent by former TPSA employees, Strzałkowski declined to disclose exact figures, saying it would be illegal under the privacy laws. Formally, such information is available only to the head of the office and his deputies, who are publicly known to have formerly worked for TPSA.
