Abstract
Telecommunication advancement has become a central part of human life brought tight competition among cellular operators. On June 2016, there was a case of business competition between Telkomsel and Indosat (the big Three Cellular operators in Indonesia) that conduct monopoly practice and predatory pricing. In Indonesia, there are two Institutions that maintain business telecommunication and business competition namely Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) has mandated by Law number 36 of 1999 and Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) by Law Number 5 of 1999. The research aims to know how the government regulates on competition of cellular operator in Indonesia and to know the role of Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) and Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) to settle the cases on competition of cellular operator (Telkomsel and Indosat cases). The study is normative legal research with statute and case approach, by using juridical qualitative approach. The results of this research are, firstly the analysis of regulation regarding on competition of cellular operator. Secondly the analysis of the role of Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) and Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) to settle the cases on competition of cellular operator (Telkomsel and Indosat cases) that conduct monopoly practice and predatory pricing, regarding with Law Number 36 of 1999 on Telecommunication and Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practice and Unfair Business Competition.
Highlights
Strategic industry, and it was important in opening the isolation, improving the quality of education, economic development, social development, environmental conservation, and fulfils the needs of modern lifestyles
This study explores the literature10 regarding the regulation on competition of cellular operator and factors that cause on unfair business competition of cellular operator case (Telkomsel and Indosat) and the role of KPPU and BRTI to settle unfair business competition of cellular operator case which is in Conformity with Law Number 05 of 1999 on the prohibition of monopoly practices and Law Number 36 of 1999 on Telecommunication
Based on Article 17 Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practice and Unfair Business Competition, Entrepreneurs can be suspected or considered as controlling production and/or marketing or goods and/or services as referred to under Paragraph (1) of this article if: The said goods and/or services do not have substitutions at that time; or (2) It causes other entrepreneurs to not be able to enter business competition for the same type of goods and/or services; or (3)One entrepreneur or one group of entrepreneurs controls more than 50% of the marketing share of one type of certain goods or services. 2.2 Legal Analysis of the Violation of Law
Summary
The telecommunication industry is engaged in the service industry and is currently the most developed in the last 10 years in Indonesia. Indosat assumes that Telkomsel has violated Article 17 and 19b of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition.. Telkomsel assume violate the regulation on the prohibition monopolistic practice and unfair business competition, but Indosat assumes violate this regulation with conducting a negative campaign and Predatory pricing. If this action can be proven by KPPU, so Indosat will be punished based on Law No 5 of 1999. According to the Associated General the sanctions that will be given for the company is in the form of a warning because Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body (BRTI) sees that this case of negative campaigning does not require severe sanctions, so BRTI only gives remain letter to Indosat
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
