Even we can say more, because the broadcasting and television system includes CCTV outside, there is no interest conflict in many businesses such as Internet operation with telecommunication enterprises Chongqing part-time girls home service, and they belong to different interest groups. So whether the reporting method of CCTV is just not rigorous, or even if there is a public report for private benefits, taking this as an excuse to fan the wind and stir up trouble, like what People's Posts and Telecommunications said called misleading public opinion, confusing black and white. I think this is indeed worth doubting. Because first of all, you are related to the interests, and a lot of words are added by you yourself to make waves.
From this perspective, it is like what was said earlier, telecommunications and Unicom are monopolies, but should they be blamed? I feel they are not better. Your telecom employees including management personnel also hope to serve the people most poorly, for our officials, but our system does not allow them to do so. Therefore, ultimately, it still comes down to how to further deepen the reform of our national system. It is worth noting that as recently pointed out by Wu Jinglian, the reform of our country's system has already clearly shown signs of regression, not just signs of stagnation, but obvious development.
Some friends have some opinions, which is equivalent to fighting corruption and catching corrupt officials. In fact, now there are unprecedented numbers of corrupt officials in Chongqing sister services, but why do some corrupt officials get caught while others continue to act recklessly? Because these corrupt officials all have backers. Only when the backers behind these corrupt officials have conflicts or belong to different interest groups, then someone gets hit from above, and I catch your corrupt official underlings, and you turn around and catch my corrupt official underlings. In reality, the higher-level corrupt officials are used as scapegoats, and the root conflict is at the top.
Secondly, do they exclude competitors and then seek monopoly? This behavior and result are obviously present. Remember more than a year ago, China Telecom (Weibo) carried out a clean-up action on Tie Tong's traffic. As mentioned earlier, telecom and Unicom occupy a monopoly position in the north and south respectively on the Internet backbone network. On one hand, telecom and Unicom themselves develop their end users, including large enterprises and institutions, as well as residential users, while simultaneously acting as the Internet backbone network operator, forcing some medium and small Internet access service providers to rent their backbone network capacity from telecom and Unicom, otherwise they cannot connect.
First point: in our country, every industry, especially the large state-owned enterprises directly led by SASAC, are all monopolies. Oil, railways, electricity, finance, etc., are all monopolized, and even more clearly stated, the backstage of these large state-owned monopolistic enterprises is SASAC.
Host: There is another issue, besides discussing whether telecom and Unicom are in a monopolistic position, there is also the question of why the National Development and Reform Commission investigates monopolistic issues, but CCTV exposes it. Does it have the qualifications to do so? For example, during the investigation process of the NDRC, are there any confidentiality obligations according to the Anti-Monopoly Law? But now, after no investigation results have been released, CCTV has already adopted the form of exposure. Do you think this is legitimate?
So on both sides, on the one hand, consumers' interests in our country have indeed been severely harmed in recent years. Not to mention those forced demolitions, which force homeowners to self-immolate, such events are not uncommon worldwide. Consumers, the general public, have a belly full of resentment, but the media is not allowed to report it. These aspects combined are important reasons.
Kan Kaili: Thank you host, thank you netizens, we will continue to exchange views anytime in the future.
The practice of refunding money to consumers is very simple. For example, if it traces back two years, within the past two years, since consumers have been exploited by it, now as consumers, you need to return how much money to you. This money can be recorded on the operator's account, using this to pay the fees you start to pay now, until this part of the money is used up, and then you start paying again. Internationally, it is done this way.
Kan Kaili: And the prospect of integration is getting closer.
Note here, I am not denying the fact of telecom and Unicom's monopoly, nor the fact that reforms have not been fully implemented, even harming consumer interests. These facts must be completely proven. But on the other hand, why focus on this side? For example, like oil and electricity, especially railways, there was a minor incident in July, and soon, even a large number of newspapers and media continuously revised their reports, especially analytical reports, without competing to publish them, this naturally makes telecom a target of public dissatisfaction.
Host: Mr. Kan, there has been talk about telecom and Unicom being criticized for monopolization, then CCTV exposed it, and People's Posts and Telecommunications retaliated. Employees of China Telecom and China Unicom complained on Weibo, and even CCTV’s Old Xiao Ning of the People's Republic of China Broadcasting and Television Association talked about this matter. How do you view this event?
Other industries, except for interest rates which are continuously decreasing, the cost of our savings is decreasing, all other prices are rapidly rising. Even railways are still a combination of government and enterprise, so how can there be talk of anti-monopoly? So I feel why did the NDRC specifically target telecom this time? This is thought-provoking.
First, the monopoly of telecom and Unicom in broadband internet is undeniable. Because determining monopoly involves two factors: whether they hold a dominant market position, there is no doubt about this. At the end of 2008, the NDRC started a major telecom restructuring, and clearly placed telecom and Unicom in this position. Mobile relatively speaking is more sufficient, all three cover the entire nation, while fixed-line mobile competition is somewhat worse.
All over the world, telecommunications and broadcasting are uniformly regulated by specialized committees under Congress or international communications commissions. Only in China, one belongs to the State Council, the other to the Central Propaganda Department, naturally forming two separate interest groups, leading to irreconcilable contradictions.
Kan Kaili: The only solution is to deepen institutional reforms and promote deepening reforms. Wu Jinglian recently mentioned signs of regression in our country's institutional reforms, and now it is not just signs but already very severe. Our country should earnestly summarize the lessons learned from the reform and opening up since 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, for more than 30 years. Also quoting Wu Jinglian's words last year, at a meeting, it is now time to look up and see the road ahead.
Host: For example, institutional reform, if one industry faces many challenges, the challenges faced by political institutional reform will be even greater. Under limited conditions, what should we do?
Kan Kaili: It should be said that the fundamental reason lies in the insufficient reform of the telecommunications system, or more broadly speaking, the insufficient reform of our country's economic system. But on the other hand, due to various reasons, in the media, many industries are set as off-limits, for example, the railway industry, although recently several major incidents occurred, but when the media tried to analyze deeply through these incidents, they were immediately stopped. Why? To avoid affecting stability, so they stopped abruptly. For example, the power industry, coal industry, oil industry, all to a certain extent, once they can delve into some essential contradictions, they are immediately stopped. In other words, the propaganda department has already set off-limits areas.
Kan Kaili: I think the only solution is to deepen institutional reforms and promote deeper reforms. Wu Jinglian recently mentioned signs of regression in our country's institutional reforms, and now it is not just signs but already very severe. Our country should earnestly summarize the lessons learned from the reform and opening up since 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, for more than 30 years. Also quoting Wu Jinglian's words last year, at a meeting, it is now time to look up and see the road ahead.
International observers often say that China's SASAC is the largest monopolistic capital group in the world. So there is this problem: the NDRC raises the banner of anti-monopoly, not targeting tigers but only flies. Implicitly, after more than ten years of stormy reforms in the telecommunications industry, on the one hand, monopolies have not been eliminated, this monopolistic phenomenon continues to exist, but on the other hand, compared to industries like railways, oil, and finance, the degree of monopoly is much lighter, and the exploitation of consumers is also much less. I believe the entire population has ample feeling and personal experience. No matter how you look at it, at least over the past decade, telecommunications fees have been decreasing annually at a rate of more than 10%.
Kan Kaili: I think refunds should certainly be given to consumers. This principle is very simple, just like when the police catch a big thief, the stolen goods should certainly be returned to the victims. You cannot let the police keep the stolen goods in their pockets, otherwise, the police would become the biggest bandits. So this time, since the NDRC says it will investigate the monopolistic behavior of telecom and Unicom and impose fines, then after the fine, refunds should be given to consumers. Internationally, this is the standard practice.
Third, strengthen tariff supervision. On one hand, we let competition take place and allow market pricing, on the other hand, we must supervise to ensure wholesale prices do not exceed retail prices. As mentioned earlier, telecom and Unicom give very high retail prices to Tie Tong or urban broadband, while giving very low retail prices to their own users, with differences of several times. Such practices must be strictly prohibited.
Host: What do you think should be done next?
Previously, in the 80s and 90s, it was the withdrawal of state-owned enterprises and the advancement of private enterprises, but now it has subtly turned into the advancement of state-owned enterprises and the retreat of private enterprises, which is an undeniable fact in our country. And this fact precisely explains that our entire institutional reform is regressing.
But in the backbone network of broadband internet, we only have two operators, one is telecom, the other is Unicom, with telecom mainly in the southern 21 provinces Chongqing beauty service information, and Unicom mainly in the northern 10 provinces. Naturally, this places them in a monopolistic position, so having a dominant market position is undeniable.
This situation clearly shows that telecom and Unicom form a monopoly in internet bandwidth handover points, not only holding a monopoly position but also engaging in monopolistic behavior, seriously harming consumer interests. Therefore, this point is indisputable.
The following is the interview record:
In other words, the monopolistic state of our country is caused by some basic institutional reforms not being fully implemented. First, no country in the world has a SASAC like China's, and the purpose of SASAC is to preserve and increase the value of these super-large state-owned enterprises, in other words, to exploit the people, and manage these enterprises from top to bottom, strictly examining both upper-level employees. In other words, if you exploit the people and do it well, you will not be held accountable. This practice fundamentally stems from SASAC, and the establishment of SASAC in our country, so the government system protects this monopolistic system.
This time, for unknown specific reasons, the NDRC decided to target the telecommunications industry, but netizens have many different reactions. Of course, they all have expectations, hoping to break the monopoly and reduce fees. But on the other hand, many officials say, "Why are you playing God?" Because such matters always end with a great show of force followed by a soft landing, failing to solve any real problems and leaving everything unresolved. This causes many people in our country to lose hope and trust in such anti-monopoly actions. I feel this indicates a significant drop in government credibility. In contrast to the 80s and even the 90s, when the people firmly believed in and were full of confidence about reform and opening up, I feel this is also a very strict test for the NDRC's anti-monopoly efforts this time. Are you going to prove your actions this time? Or will it be like usual, a great show of force followed by a soft landing? This is a test for the NDRC.
Sina Technology News November 13 evening news, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Professor Kan Kaili visited Sina Technology in the afternoon, analyzing "NDRC investigates telecom and Unicom broadband monopoly case," and proposed increasing the number of national internet backbone operators, interconnection among operators, reducing broadband retail prices through market competition, strengthening telecom tariff supervision, and returning fines to consumers.
At the same time, I saw in "News Midday 30 Minutes" that some statements were made by NDRC officials, and many others were made by TV announcers. For instance, he said that NDRC officials cited the Anti-Monopoly Law, and if verified, could impose fines ranging from 1% to 10% of turnover. This is his citation of the "Anti-Monopoly Law," contingent upon verification. However, the preceding statements were made by CCTV itself, saying the fine amount could reach hundreds of millions to billions. Thus, CCTV's statement can be considered extremely irresponsible.
First, increase the number of internet backbone network operators. Currently, there is only one northern telecom and southern Unicom, seemingly two operators but practically just one each in the north and south. This needs to increase, for example, adding China Mobile (Weibo) and broadcasting, where their existing national optical fiber backbone networks are ready. Just issuing them operating licenses and allowing them to establish their own domestic gateway bureaus, since the internet is international, immediately upstream operators would increase to four, and the secondary retail market including Tie Tong, urban broadband, Gehua, would immediately become active. Naturally, one could choose the most cost-effective among the four as the backbone network bandwidth supplier, with prices significantly lower. These companies' profits would greatly decrease due to competition, naturally offsetting price increases for consumers. Generally estimated, if this step is taken, especially in large inland cities like Beijing, monthly rents could decrease by a third or even more. This is the first and most important measure. Breaking monopolies through competition and lowering prices, naturally, the invisible hand of the market surpasses the visible hand.
Fourth, this time the NDRC loudly proclaimed fines, very good. Then who should the fines go to?
Share to: >； Related Special Topic: NDRC Investigates China Telecom and Unicom Monopoly Case Special Topic >； Related Reports: Behind the Anti-Monopoly Investigation of Telecom and Unicom: Broadband Access Interest Chain Experts: Broadband Market Needs Deep-Level Reform Rather Than Anti-Monopoly Investigation Telecom and Unicom Encounter Anti-Monopoly Investigation, Broadband Access Reform Debate Rises Again Broadband Anti-Monopoly: Experts Suggest Deep Understanding of Consumer Demands NDRC: China Telecom and Unicom Suspected of Monopoly People's Posts and Telecommunications: Refuting CCTV's Report on Telecom and Unicom's Alleged Price Monopoly
Weibo Recommendation | Sina Technology Official Weibo
At the same time, I noticed that in "News 30 Minutes at Noon", some statements were made by NDRC officials, and many others were made by TV announcers. For example, he said that NDRC officials cited the Anti-Monopoly Law, and if verified, could impose fines ranging from 1% to 10% of turnover. This is his citation of the "Anti-Monopoly Law," contingent upon verification. However, the preceding statements were made by CCTV itself, saying the fine amount could reach hundreds of millions to billions. Thus, CCTV's statement can be considered extremely irresponsible.
First, increase the number of internet backbone network operators. Currently, there is only one northern telecom and southern Unicom, seemingly two operators but practically just one each in the north and south. This needs to increase, for example, adding China Mobile (Weibo) and broadcasting, where their existing national optical fiber backbone networks are ready. Just issuing them operating licenses and allowing them to establish their own domestic gateway bureaus, since the internet is international, immediately upstream operators would increase to four, and the secondary retail market including Tie Tong, urban broadband, Gehua, would immediately become active. Naturally, one could choose the most cost-effective among the four as the backbone network bandwidth supplier, with prices significantly lower. These companies' profits would greatly decrease due to competition, naturally offsetting price increases for consumers. Generally estimated, if this step is taken, especially in large inland cities like Beijing, monthly rents could decrease by a third or even more. This is the first and most important measure. Breaking monopolies through competition and lowering prices, naturally, the invisible hand of the market surpasses the visible hand.
Kan Kaili: Specifically regarding the broadband internet issue, there are roughly four suggestions:
First, increase the number of internet backbone network operators. Currently, there is only one northern telecom and southern Unicom, seemingly two operators but practically just one each in the north and south. This needs to increase, for example, adding China Mobile (Weibo) and broadcasting, where their existing national optical fiber backbone networks are ready. Just issuing them operating licenses and allowing them to establish their own domestic gateway bureaus, since the internet is international, immediately upstream operators would increase to four, and the secondary retail market including Tie Tong, urban broadband, Gehua, would immediately become active. Naturally, one could choose the most cost-effective among the four as the backbone network bandwidth supplier, with prices significantly lower. These companies' profits would greatly decrease due to competition, naturally offsetting price increases for consumers. Generally estimated, if this step is taken, especially in large inland cities like Beijing, monthly rents could decrease by a third or even more. This is the first and most important measure. Breaking monopolies through competition and lowering prices, naturally, the invisible hand of the market surpasses the visible hand.
Kan Kaili: Personally, I believe under current conditions, it is a paradoxical equation. Because internationally, the concept of triple network convergence has been discussed for at least 20 years. In reality, with the digitization and fiber-opticization of telecommunications technology, regardless of voice, images, or data, they have all become identical bits and data packets, so naturally they converge. This is equivalent to some scholars predicting that tomorrow night the moon will rise in the west, something never seen anywhere in the world. Only in China would there be policies to promote or even enforce triple network convergence, the reason being quite simple? Because broadcasting and telecommunications belong to two different interest groups, and these two interest groups have conflicting interests, especially during the process of convergence, which exacerbates the contradictions. However, the telecommunications industry as an industry is managed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology under the State Council, while broadcasting, as the Party's mouthpiece or propaganda department, is managed by the Central Propaganda Department.
Therefore, if we want to solve this problem, as long as China remains a central government that must be led by the State Council on one hand, and on the other hand still has the Central Propaganda Department, as long as this situation persists, I believe the problem of triple network convergence is unsolvable.
Host: You think the next move is already here, how should we proceed?
Telecommunications and Unicom have very high prices for these medium and small internet access service providers, for example, per gigabit per month costs 1 million yuan or more. On the other hand, (telecom and Unicom) give their own users, especially large users, such as large banks or enterprises and institutions, the same bandwidth, costing only 200,000 to 300,000 yuan per month or even less. This means the wholesale price is several times higher than the retail price, which is abnormal in any industry.
This phenomenon clearly shows that telecom and Unicom form a monopoly in internet bandwidth handover points, not only holding a monopoly position but also engaging in monopolistic behavior, seriously harming consumer interests. Therefore, this point is indisputable.
Together with these four suggestions, it is also a test of the fine issue. If you really want to solve the problem, I strongly suggest adopting these four suggestions. This way, the problem can be fundamentally resolved.
CCTV occupies a monopolistic position, though we do not challenge it, because under the current system in our country, CCTV and the broadcasting system serve as public opinion leaders or even controllers, we do not challenge your monopolistic position. But is your monopolistic position serving your own hidden purposes or serving whom or for what purpose? I suggest CCTV reflect on this itself.
Because Tietong, urban broadband, Gehua, and other companies compete with telecom and Unicom in the retail market, they are constrained in terms of necessary upstream backbone network bandwidth resources. This is clearly excluding competition to maintain their market dominance and achieving monopolistic goals in the monopolized market.
Kan Kaili: Specifically regarding the broadband internet issue, there are roughly four suggestions:
First, increase the number of internet backbone network operators. Currently, there is only one northern telecom and southern Unicom, seemingly two operators but practically just one each in the north and south. This needs to increase, for example, adding China Mobile (Weibo) and