It was concluded from the investigation into the costs of the DTT service for 2010, 2011 and 2012 - vide Annex 1 - that the information presented by MEO is in general duly substantiated, having CAS results for those years been already audited. As such, it is on costing data for the 2010 to 2012 period that the in-depth investigation focuses.
Costs for 20131 are practically similar to those of 2012, an increase by 1.6% having been found compared to 2012, reaching [BCI] [ECI] Euros2. It is noted that an in-depth investigation to 2013 data has not been performed. Nevertheless, given that they are in some way compatible with 2012 data and that they are more recent, these costs have been used to assess whether charged prices are excessive.
Another relevant aspect concerns the accurate identification of revenues of the DTT service, taking into account that from 2010 to 2012 the simulcast period took place and that it is important, in a perspective of assessment of prices of the DTT service, bearing in mind its costs, to take only into consideration revenues arising from this service - see detail in Annex 2.
The information request sent to MEO by fax dated 28 March 2014 on DTT revenues and prices aimed also, among other aspects, to clarify the relation between the price per channel and the price per Mbps, this latter price having been estimated taking into account that all the MUX A capacity was being used (or reserved) by television operators.
In a perspective of cost-orientation of prices, and analysing only data resulting from the CAS for 20133 (that is, even where negative margins of previous years were not considered), it is concluded that MEO’s DTT service presents a negative margin amounting to [BCI] [ECI] Euros, that is, [BCI] [ECI] of costs.
However, an accurate analysis of the situation shows that not all MUX A capacity is occupied, and consequently spare capacity exists, the cost allocation of which (to television operators and/or MEO) must be duly weighted. This means that the price per channel should not be assessed on the basis only of MEO’s CAS cost, without taking also into account the total (occupied and spare) capacity.
On the basis of the cost of the DTT service in 2013 it is possible to estimate an annual value per Mbps, taking into account assumptions for calculating this price made by MEO in its proposal for the public tender for allocation of a RUF of a national scope for the provision of the DTT service. As such, by means of a ratio between that cost and the total average4 capacity (occupied by 100%) of MUX A transmitters, an annual value of [BCI] [ECI] Euro is obtained per Mbps. As such, and also in a perspective of an annual analysis of costs, the price of 885,100 Euro per Mbps, determined in MEO’s proposal (variant scenario), is not excessive compared to costs.
Having been obtained the cost per Mbps, it must be examined, in the first place, what spare and occupied capacity exists in MUX A, and in the second place, how should the spare capacity be allocated (that is, to whom and which are the distribution criteria), so as to evaluate whether the price charged by MEO per channel is excessive.
1 Also already audited.
2 Values incorrectly allocated to the analogue terrestrial television (ATT) service have already been corrected in the value for 2012, and costs for 2013 take into account a higher number of installed DTT transmitters and the absence of synergies with the ATT service.
3 And taking into account a correct allocation of revenues to the respective year of service provision, according to Table 39.
4 Average capacity per transmitter of 20.129 Mbps, resulting from the 227 transmitters in the Mainland with 19.91 Mbps of maximum capacity and 25 transmitters in the Autonomous Region of the Azores and Madeira with 22.12 Mbps of maximum capacity.
- 3.1. Allocation of capacity https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?categoryId=384911
- 3.2. Estimated costs per television operator/channel https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?categoryId=384912
- 3.3. Conclusion https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?categoryId=384913
