- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Why are regulators silent?
From Chua Soo Kiat
04:46 AM Jun 21, 2012
VOICES, TODAY
I see many similarities between SingTel's move to reduce its data bundle from 12 gigabytes to 2 GB and ComfortDelGro's move last year to increase cab fares.
First, both companies tried to present their new price/fare structure as fair. In Comfort's case, it said that its fare structure would better match demand and supply. The result was a fare increase for most taxi passengers.
In SingTel's case, it assured customers that they will enjoy faster download speeds as a result of the cap.
However, without a corresponding reduction in pricing, it would mean that each GB comes at a higher price than before.
It is the data, not the speed, that determines how much a consumer pays.
Second, their respective competitors exhibited similar behaviour.
Most of the taxi operators followed Comfort's fare structure, while StarHub announced that it will follow SingTel, too. This is not unexpected, as SingTel and Comfort are dominant players in their respective fields, which is another similarity.
Incidentally, both companies are also Temasek-linked entities.
The authorities, too, responded in similar fashion: With silence, despite the complaints in the media.
The Land Transport Authority did not comment on the fare increase, especially on whether it was fair.
The InfoComm Development Authority has so far remained silent, too.
What about the Competition Commission of Singapore then?
By way of background, even if there is no collusion, dominant players in a market may infringe Section 47 of the Competition Act, which prohibits abuse of dominance, when they behave in ways unrelated to competitive merit that hurt consumers and businesses.
The fact that Comfort's and SingTel's competitors had followed, or announced that they will follow, the market leader are important factors that CCS should assess. But given its silence on taxi fares, we may likely see another non-response.
In contrast, at the time when the public were crying foul over unfair pricing of Design, Build and Sell Scheme flats, the National Development Minister suspended land sales under the scheme.
The heads of other regulators should be more responsive, too.
Fortunately, the Consumers Association of Singapore is following up after receiving three complaints, as reported in "CASE receives complaints on telcos' move to cut data plans" (June 14, online).
Singaporean consumers, who are largely reasonable, need the regulators' views the most, though, as to what they think of the new data pricing structure and whether it is fair.
From Chua Soo Kiat
04:46 AM Jun 21, 2012
VOICES, TODAY
I see many similarities between SingTel's move to reduce its data bundle from 12 gigabytes to 2 GB and ComfortDelGro's move last year to increase cab fares.
First, both companies tried to present their new price/fare structure as fair. In Comfort's case, it said that its fare structure would better match demand and supply. The result was a fare increase for most taxi passengers.
In SingTel's case, it assured customers that they will enjoy faster download speeds as a result of the cap.
However, without a corresponding reduction in pricing, it would mean that each GB comes at a higher price than before.
It is the data, not the speed, that determines how much a consumer pays.
Second, their respective competitors exhibited similar behaviour.
Most of the taxi operators followed Comfort's fare structure, while StarHub announced that it will follow SingTel, too. This is not unexpected, as SingTel and Comfort are dominant players in their respective fields, which is another similarity.
Incidentally, both companies are also Temasek-linked entities.
The authorities, too, responded in similar fashion: With silence, despite the complaints in the media.
The Land Transport Authority did not comment on the fare increase, especially on whether it was fair.
The InfoComm Development Authority has so far remained silent, too.
What about the Competition Commission of Singapore then?
By way of background, even if there is no collusion, dominant players in a market may infringe Section 47 of the Competition Act, which prohibits abuse of dominance, when they behave in ways unrelated to competitive merit that hurt consumers and businesses.
The fact that Comfort's and SingTel's competitors had followed, or announced that they will follow, the market leader are important factors that CCS should assess. But given its silence on taxi fares, we may likely see another non-response.
In contrast, at the time when the public were crying foul over unfair pricing of Design, Build and Sell Scheme flats, the National Development Minister suspended land sales under the scheme.
The heads of other regulators should be more responsive, too.
Fortunately, the Consumers Association of Singapore is following up after receiving three complaints, as reported in "CASE receives complaints on telcos' move to cut data plans" (June 14, online).
Singaporean consumers, who are largely reasonable, need the regulators' views the most, though, as to what they think of the new data pricing structure and whether it is fair.
