Bills every 28 days, Vodafone breaks the front of Tlc operators and retraces his steps. «In April 2016 we reduced the billing cycle – declared the CEO Aldo Bisio to Corriere della Sera in a recent interview – and actually increased the prices. It was a legitimate operation in a liberalized market system, where prices are among the most competitive in Europe. In the light of the attention paid by the Government and the Authorities, we realized that we have underestimated an important element that binds us to customers, transparency. We have therefore decided that we will revert to the previous billing cycle. These are huge investments, we have started the works, and we will do it quickly ».
It is not yet clear how Vodafone Italia will bring back the payment methods - whether with retroactive effect or only on new contracts, whether for fixed telephony only or also for mobile and Internet - and when it will do so, given that the top manager has no yet provided accurate directions. The need to update the system will certainly affect the times, but much will depend on what the government and Agcom decide, in particular as regards retroactivity. However, it is clear that Vodafone was the first to understand the boomerang effect of a move that made many customers feel "betrayed" given that the decision to move billing from 30 to 28 days, even if it provided for the possibility of withdrawing from the contract, in fact, it put anyone who wanted to do it in serious difficulty: in fact, the contracts are often combined with the purchase of expensive mobile phones – such as the iPhone and the Galaxy or the latest Huawei models – with an installment system linked to the bills. Furthermore, the fixed-mobile-Internet combination, chosen by many consumers to simplify family management, further complicated things.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TODAY, WATER AND ENERGY TOMORROW?
So welcome the "active repentance" of Vodafone Italia confirming itself at the forefront compared to competitors such as Tim and Wind-3, Fastweb and Sky, not only in terms of innovation but also in terms of transparency. On the other hand, the action of the Antitrust, that of Agcom and the government's decision to take the field with the Minister of Development Calenda who promised a legislative intervention linked to the 2018 financial package pushed in this direction to permanently remove the 28-day billing. Actually, what worries the executive is not so much - or not only - the issue of telephone bills but rather the possibility that this type of pricing could one day extend to water and energy as well: two much more sensitive sectors for Italian families. In energy then, full liberalization will kick off from 1 July 2019 and operators are already positioning themselves to capture new customers on the free market.
TRANSPARENCY AND WITHDRAWAL
In the relationship with the consumer, the question of transparency and the possibility of withdrawal is central. The Antitrust - and in particular the general directorate for consumer protection led by Giovanni Calabrò - with 5 different investigations had fined at the time with over 2,5 million euros by Wind (twice), Tim and Vodafon itselfand since, precisely because of the offers combined with installments on the purchase of mobile phones, customers were not guaranteed the right of withdrawal when billing was moved from 30 to 28 days. Or because the right of withdrawal was always limited in offers with minimum duration constraints.
On the matter of the bills, however, she took the field Agcom which, one year after the introduction of 28-day bills, asked the operators – Tim, Wind Tre, Vodafone, Fastweb and Sky – to retrace their steps, giving them 90 days to restore traditional billing; 90 days during which nothing has changed. And since changing the unit of measurement involves an increase in costs (bills in fact go from 12 to 13 with an implicit increase of 8,5%) Agcom is back in the field threatening sanctions. But the advance of Agcom ended up stopping the Antitrust: the Communications Authority, in fact, advocating the issue of bills to itself, has left the market guarantors only the competitive profile (for example, whether or not there was a collusive intent between the operators in modifying the billing procedures all together).
UNFAIR PRACTICES: 50 MILLION FINES
Since 2007, the Antitrust has acquired among its competences also that of unfair or aggressive commercial practices. This activity resulted in approx 50 million fines imposed in 2017 while on the competition front in the strict sense, 22 proceedings were brought forward this year which gave rise to 350 million fines. An important activity as a whole and in particular with regard to the control of the transparency of commercial practices.
THE OPERATORS SURGER THE EUROPEAN COURT
Now, however, commercial practices risk changing owners. Indeed, on 22 September 2016, the Council of State has referred the decision on the legitimacy of the maxi fines imposed by the Antitrust on Telecom Italia, Wind Telecomunicazioni and Acotel to the European Court of Justice for unfair commercial practices in premium services used via the Internet from a mobile terminal. In dispute are the provisions with which in January 2015 the Antitrust fined Telecom Italia with 1,75 million euros, Wind Telecomunicazioni with 800 thousand euros and Acotel with 100 thousand euros. Sanctions against which the operators had turned to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court.
In practice, the dispute concerns the fact that the Antitrust had ruled on the question of unfair commercial practices which, according to the operators concerned, should instead have fallen under the competence of the Communications Regulatory Authority (Agcom). The effect of the appeals, which have added up over time, has been to lead the Council of State to suspend its decision "pending the decision of the European Court". It will therefore be the European Court of Justice that will have to establish whether or not the Antitrust is competent for the unfair practices of the operators or whether Agcom or the sector authority will have to take an interest in them.
The difference is not marginal: Agcom was born as an independent authority but also strongly anchored in politics, based on its founding law. And it cannot be said that it has shone in consumer protection. The position of the Antitrust is completely different, which over time has built a barrier against often aggressive commercial practices. An important role in a free market regime and which will become fundamental in view of the full liberalization of the energy sector. Unless the EU Court decides otherwise.
