Netline has filed a complaint before the Chilean Tribunal for the Defence of Free Competition (TDLC) against market competitors Entel, Movistar and Claro, Diario Financiero reports. Netline claims that the three operators have not complied with the Supreme Court ruling of 2011 that fined mobile operators Movistar, Entel and Claro USD 2.7 million each for limiting access to MVNOs. Netline urges Chile's antitrust court to ban Entel, Movistar and Claro from charging discriminating service rates and force them to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In its December 2011 ruling, Chile's Supreme Court required Entel, Movistar and Claro to make a wholesale price offer for MVNOs. In its complaint, Netline says the offer made by the three operators "does not meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court: to be general, uniform, objective and non-discriminatory." This is because there is not a clear resale and facilities offering; "there is neither a resale offer containing retail plans offered to MVNOs, with an economically reasonable margin, nor prices that would not exceed the rates offered by dominant operators to their loyal customers", Netline adds in its complaint.
To enter the MVNO market, Netline signed a contract with Movistar. However, Netline says that this agreement "impedes, restricts and hinders" its ability to compete on the mobile telephony market. Netline reports it has repeatedly requested rate discounts, urging Movistar to improve the terms of their agreement, and that Movistar only agreed to remove the requirement of minimum billing for the second year. Netline further alleges that on 10 December it requested a facilities offer for 4G access from Movistar, and it has received no answer from Movistar.
Netline also urges the TDLC to force Movistar to extend the lowest rate offered to third party operators, as well as extend the handset subsidies offered to retail customers.
Netline further argues that it has also requested a price and facilities offer from Claro, but that "from merely looking over the offer, it’s obvious that it is not exactly a resale offer", neither does it indicate the facilities offered.
