It may be concluded from the analysis carried out that:
(a) At present, according to available information, excessive prices are not being charged - an assumption which could lead ANACOM to conclude that obvious signs of a violation of competition law or of any other legal provision exist, as a result of which contracts concluded would be non-existent or invalid - nor public interest grounds exist which would justify ANACOM’s intervention in the scope of the review of contracts concluded between ANACOM and television operators, an intervention via article 43, paragraph 3, of ECL, not being as such deemed to be justified;
(b) The price currently charged by MEO to television operators is compatible with the principle of cost-orientation of prices, taking into account the estimated costs for 2013 and the allocation of costs of spare capacity in MUX A to MEO and television operators/channels in the proportion of 2/3 to supply and 1/3 to demand, and without taking into account negative margins incurred in between 2010 and 2012;
(c) The price currently charged by MEO to television operators is compatible with the annual price of 885,100€ per Mbps specified in the (variant) proposal presented by MEO in the scope of the public tender for allocation of a right of use for frequencies of a national scope for the provision of the DTT service (there is a difference by around 1%, which is not sufficient for the clear conclusion to be drawn that the price is excessive, taking into account assumptions made and that reference), bearing in mind the allocation of costs of spare capacity in MUX A pursuant to the preceding paragraph;
(d) Prices charged to television operators may require a cut, in a perspective of cost-orientation of prices, as spare capacity of MUX A is occupied or costs decrease, in the light of margins incurred in between 2010 and 2012, bearing in mind that the principle of cost-orientation of prices may only be imposed further to a market analysis.
