The Free Competition Court (TDLC) dismissed the request for reconsideration filed by Entel against the consultation brought by the local unit of Telefónica, in which the subsidiary of the Spanish company requests that the body decide on the legality of the resolution of the Subsecretariat of Telecommunications ( Subtel), through which it determined the partial thawing of the 3.5 GHz band.
"Both the fact that the request does not seek to assign responsibility to an economic agent and the fact that there is scope to provide the necessary measures, the qualification made by Entel that the requested measures would be a penalty has no basis," says the judicial resolution .
It also indicates that "as noted, the purpose is to determine whether it is necessary to amend Resolution 584 or grant new concessions prior to the execution of the resolutions issued by Subtel and to determine the conditions under which their enforcement would not seriously affect competition in the mobile communications sector. "
It therefore states that "although the setting of such conditions may affect several players in that industry, this is an appropriate effect of taking measures within a
process of consultation, and does not comply with the sanctioning logic characteristic of an infraction judgment. "Entel asked the TDLC to declare the investigation inadmissible.
In the consultation, Telefónica asks that the field be leveled so that all players in the sector have the same conditions to have space in that spectrum and can develop the 5G service.
"The advanced implementation of infrastructure compatible with the 5G network by the winners of the 3.5 GHz band, including not only Entel and Claro, but also Movistar and other operators (VTR and Telsur) could create an unlawful anticompetitive exclusivity, in particular, those who have 3.5 GHz band spectrum allocations at national level, as they would have an obvious and irreplaceable advantage of starting the 5G service before the other competitors, as set out in the Supplementary Resolution ", is indicated in the document signed by the lawyers of Contreras Velozo.