ITS EUROPE 2011 SUTHERLAND NATIONAL ROAMING
13
incentive to use their market power to affect competitive conditions. Kilpailuvirasto
closed the case after Telia concluded an NR agreement with Radiolinja in 2000, which
enabled the former to offer nationwide coverage.
56
Nonetheless, Telia appealed to the
Competition Council against the decision of the Kilpailuvirasto, since it continued to
seek access to the more extensive network of Sonera.
The Competition Council confirmed the opinion of the Kilpailuvirasto that Sonera did
not hold, either alone or jointly with Radiolinja, a dominant position on the market.
57
However, it rejected Kilpailuvirasto’s opinion that the operator was engaged in an
abuse of dominance, but accepted that its pricing practices had harmed competition.
The case was sent back to the Kilpailuvirasto to clarify whether the prices for national
roaming were slowing the entry of competitors.
In March 2002, the merger was announced of Sonera and Telia. Following the failure
of the Telia-Telenor merger.
58
At that time Sonera was the largest and dominant
provider of mobile telecommunications in Finland, with more than half the market
and with very substantial coverage of the population. Telia was the third largest
network with limited coverage, but extended by NR contracts with both Radiolinja
and Suomen 2G (Finnet Group), respectively the second and fourth operators. In the
view of the European Commission the proposed merger raised “serious doubts as to
its compatibility with the common market in relation to the provision of mobile
communications services”.
In July 2002, the EC approved the merger.
59
TeliaSonera had undertaken to divest the
Telia network in Finland and to be non-discriminatory in its provision of wholesale
mobile network services in Sweden and Finland. The merger resulted in savings for
TeliaSonera in NR charges.
60
The Telia Finland network was acquired by Song in
2001, then in 2004 Song was acquired by TDC of Denmark. In 2006 TDC became an
MVNO on Finnet’s DNA network (900, 1800 and 2100 MHz), in parallel with MVNO
deals in Norway and Sweden.
61,
62
Elisa (previously Radiolinja) bought Saunalahti in mid-2005, with the Kilpailuvirasto
requiring commitments only on the fixed market.
63
While this decreased competition
in mobile services it was held not to lead to the creation of a dominant position.
Following the adoption of the new regulatory framework, Ficora, the Finnish NRA,
undertook an analysis of the MACO market.
64
TeliaSonera had 45 per cent, Elisa just
under 30 per cent and DNA under 15 per cent, the remaining 10 per cent being held
by independent service providers. Ficora, supported by the other operators,
considered TeliaSonera to be dominant, but the EC disagreed, arguing that the
56
TeliaSonera Annual Report 2000, page 9.
57
Finland (2001) Annual report on competition policy developments in Finland. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/9/2489023.pdf
58
Stefan Schmid & Andrea Daniel (2009) “Telia - a Swedish-Finnish marriage after a failed Norwegian
courtship” Thunderbird International Business Review 51 (3) pp 297-310.
59
DG Competition Case No COMP/M.2803 – Telia/Sonera.
60
TeliaSonera Annual Report 2003.
61
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö (2005) MVNO pricing structures in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of
Transport and Communications.
http://www.mintc.fi/fileserver/mvno%20pricing%20structures%20in%20finland.pdf
62
Annukka Kiiski, Heikki Hämmäinen (2004) Mobile virtual network operator strategies: Case Finland. ITS
15th Biennial conference. Berlin, Germany.
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/lead/leaddocs/KiiskiHammainen_MVNO.pdf
63
http://www.kilpailuvirasto.fi/cgi-bin/english.cgi?luku=publications&sivu=oecdreport2005
64
http://www.ficora.fi/