I refer to the news item European Commission Monitoring Costs Of Mobile Calls In Malta (August 31).

Firstly, we would like to address the arguments related to mobile termination rates (MTRs).

The item states that “according to May’s report one of the reasons why Maltese mobile call prices were the highest in the EU in 2008 was the level of MTR – the wholesale charges operators make to connect calls to each others’ network – set by the MCA. These charges are much higher than the EU average and are finally paid by consumers”.

The authority must reiterate statements that it has already made in a clarification following an article on the same subject. The EU’s legal framework for the regulation of electronic communications does not, in practice, support the regulation of mobile retail tariffs, so much so that these tariffs are not directly regulated in any EU member state.

Evidence clearly indicates that a reduction in wholesale mobile termination rates (annual reductions in MTRs have been imposed by the authority for many years now) does not automatically result in a similar reduction in retail prices. Such reductions are predominantly brought about by increasing competitive pressures, hence the Commission’s comment on the “strengthened price competition following the entry into the market of a subsidiary of the cable operator”.

The table above should serve to dispel any notion that mobile retail tariffs in Malta are high because of the level of mobile termination rates. As is clearly indicated in the table, in 2008 (the most recent year for which relevant data is available), there were six countries in the EU which had higher termination rates than Malta, all of which had significantly lower retail rates.

The item also states that the comments made by the Commission were a “clear dig to the Malta Communications Authority”. The authority does not presume to be able to make inferences from the statements made by the European Commission. However, in its statement, the Commission could well be making a positive reference vis-à-vis the authority.

Readers should be aware that the authority used the only powers available to it, in practice, under the EU framework in relation to the mobile market, when it obliged Go and Vodafone to open their networks to alternative service providers.

This facilitated the entry into the market of new service providers. The MCA subsequently further facilitated competition in the market when it assigned the necessary radio frequencies to Melita Mobile for the operation of its network. These regulatory actions contributed significantly to “the strengthened price competition” as quoted by the Commission, the results of which are being enjoyed by local consumers today.

Furthermore, with respect to mobile termination rates, the item also states that “although the Commission had advised the MCA to lower these rates, the MCA had decided differently”. This is incorrect because the MCA had launched a consultation paper in May 2010 and, in its decision notice published in August, decided that mobile termination rates in Malta shall go down by nearly 30 per cent as from September 1.

It is deeply regretted that the Malta Communications Authority’s views are not sought when reporting on issues that are directly related to the said authority.