Por Gabriel Sosa Plata
Columna "Telecom y Medios", publicada en El Universal, Finanzas, 11 de diciembre 2007
Caricatura: Revista Zócalo, 2003Es el estilo, la marca de Ricardo Salinas Pliego. Iusacell, empresa de telefonía celular propiedad de este empresario, estaba obligada, al igual que otras compañías de telefonía celular (como Telefónica y Telcel), a interconectarse con Nextel, un operador de trunking, para avanzar en la interconexión e interoperabilidad de redes de telecomunicaciones.
Las negociaciones iban bien, pero la semana pasada, justo cuando Nextel estaba a punto de denunciar el incumplimiento de interconexión de la telefónica, Iusacell se adelantó e hizo una sobrada petición a la Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones (Cofetel): revocar la concesión de la empresa de trunking.
Iusacell argumenta que Nextel, a través de la empresa Opcom, pretende mediante los acuerdos de interconexión llevar el tráfico de los operadores de telefonía celular a los usuarios de trunking, lo cual viola la legislación y los servicios establecidos en el título de concesión de Nextel.
De esta manera, Iusacell se erige como autoridad, en una actitud similar a la de Telmex con Telefónica GTM porque esta última, a su parecer, incumple la ley al rebasar los límites de inversión extranjera directa, por lo que no está dispuesta a interconectar su red con la de la empresa de capital español.
Con el procedimiento iniciado por Iusacell, Nextel tendrá que esperar algunos meses en lo que se resuelve la situación para interconectar su red con la de la telefónica, con su empresa hermana Unefón y para desarrollar sus negocios proconvergentes, pese a que la Cofetel ya había ordenado la interconexión entre dichos operadores.
El empresario Ricardo Salinas Pliego se debe sentir satisfecho, orgulloso de sus abogados en Nextel, porque sus acciones siguen el estilo de la casa. En la defensa de los intereses de sus empresas todo se vale: la toma por la fuerza de instalaciones (como ocurrió con el Canal 40), el chantaje y la presión mediática a través de sus redes nacionales de televisión abierta para intimidar al Congreso de la Unión por reformas como la electoral, la de medios y la del mercado de labores, así como a empresarios que piden abrir a la competencia el sector de la televisión abierta (como sucedió con Isaac Saba y sus socios extranjeros).
Con Nextel, ahora lo hacen asumiendo un papel que no les corresponde, el de “garante de la legalidad”, y rompiendo pláticas en plena etapa de negociaciones para afectar al competidor.
3 mil millones de pesos
Además de las perlas anteriores, es importante recordar un hecho que no ha tenido gran cobertura en la prensa mexicana y que tiene preocupado al gobierno de Felipe Calderón: el procedimiento mediante el cual la ya mencionada empresa Unefón demandó a la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) el pago, imagínese usted, de 3 mil 57 millones de pesos ¡por devolución de intereses! (algo así como el 9 por ciento del presupuesto de esta dependencia).
La controvertida historia se puede resumir de la siguiente manera. En 1997 y 1998, Unefón licitó y obtuvo concesiones por bandas de frecuencias para la prestación de servicios de acceso inalámbrico fijo o móvil. La empresa debió pagar en los meses siguientes una contraprestación, pero solicitó una prórroga en la que manifestó que pagaría los intereses generados.
Fuera de toda norma, portándose condescendiente, el gobierno autorizó la prórroga y cobró a Unefón poco más de 596 millones de pesos en intereses. Gran error. En 1999 y 2000, Unefón impugnó la prórroga y demandó la nulidad por el pago de intereses ante el Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa. Cuatro años después, en 2004, Unefón obtuvo fallo favorable, pero la autoridad no ordenó devolver cantidad alguna. La empresa se amparó.
Sorpresivamente, el entonces subsecretario de Comunicaciones y Transportes, Jorge Álvarez Hoth, hizo las gestiones para la devolución de 550 millones de pesos “por el pago indebido de los intereses” que le fueron establecidos a Unefón. Eficiente, el funcionario arregló todo el trámite en un tiempo récord porque el sexenio se le acababa. El último día de la administración foxista el dinero pasó a manos de la empresa de Salinas Pliego, sin mediar requerimiento ni, más dudoso aún, finiquito alguno.
La falta de finiquito permitió a Unefón hacer un nuevo reclamo en diciembre de 2006: el remanente de principal, la actualización y los recargos por el cobro indebido de los intereses. Todo esto suma, según sus cálculos, 3,057’094,421.81 pesos.
En enero de 2007, la Primera Sala Regional Metropolitana del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa había dado por concluido el proceso de amparo, pero en agosto de este mismo año Unefón demandó la nulidad de la resolución en la que se declara improcedente el pago exigido.
Y ahí seguimos. Salinas Pliego quiere a como dé lugar sus 3 mil millones de pesos a costa de una concesión que ante la falta de pago la SCT debió haber revocado desde 1998. Aunque el tema está en manos de la Secretaría de la Función Pública, resulta aleccionadora la manera en cómo algunos empresarios hacen negocios en México, incluso a costa del gobierno y de algunos de sus más eficientes funcionarios.
Denuncias
A este como a otros columnistas han llegado algunos correos electrónicos para denunciar que en la Cofetel hay prolongadas ausencias y constantes faltas de los mandos medios de alto nivel, de gente cercana a Héctor Osuna. “Con que revisen esas listas o manden a personal de la Contraloría un viernes o un lunes podrían comenzar a fincar responsabilidades”, dicen los trabajadores molestos en carta enviada al titular de la SCT, Luis Téllez. También hablan de anomalías en el nombramiento de diversos funcionarios de ese organismo “que no saben nada de telecomunicaciones”.
Profesor e investigador invitado de la UAM-Cuajimalpa
Blog: http://radiomexicana.blogspot.com
NOTA:
Aunque este lunes hubo un arreglo entre Iusacell y Nextel, el objetivo del texto continúa siendo el mismo: destacar el estilo empresarial de Ricardo Salinas Pliego y sus empresas y dar a conocer más detalles sobre el caso Unefón-SCT.
2 comentarios:
Saludos todos.....
(i)Un comentario en torno a periodicos, y versiones Web de periodicos impresos, basado en datos de rotativos en EEUU, ya que es casi imposible conseguir datos fehacientes de periodicos Mexicanos.
En general, un lector a un periodico necesita 75 lectores digitales (osea, que lea el periodico version Intenet), para equivalar el valor (medido en publicidad) de un lector del mimso periodico, version papel. He visto esta cifra en varias diapositivos en presentaciones hechas por CFOs de rotativos de EEUU.
Porque?
Porque, antes del Internet, los rotativos tentian un monopolio. Por eso mismo, Buffet le encantaba el negocio, y se hizo gran accionista del Washington Post. Dijo que era muy dificil que otro periodico pueda lograr los margenes (25%+) que un periodico como el Washington Post gozaba en DC. La publicidad la cobraban carisima. Por ejemplo, los margenes para anuncios de ocasion llegaban al 80%.
Luego paso el Internet, y la migracion de la publicidad a otros medios. Tambien, la Direccion se dio cuenta que un anuncio en la version Web del Washington Post no puede ser facturado al mismo margen que el mismo anuncio en el periodico impreso. La Casa Editorial simplemente no tiene capaciadad (poder de mercado) para cobrar lo que tendria que cobrar en el Internet para asegurar el mismo margen.
El Washington Post reconoce esto, y, hace unos anos, intento regalar el periodico impreso a profesionales jovenes (en EEUU, casi nadie menor de 40 anos lee periodicos impresos, un secreto a voces, despues les regalo una grafica que muestra que, cada ano, el mercado de periodicos impresos en EEUU se muere). Convocaron a un grupo de enfoque a profesionales jovenes, y les preguntaron si aceptarian un ano gratis del Washington Post, entregado a sus casas.
Todos dijeron que ni regalado, ya que se sentirian culpables por el dano al medioambiente, y que tambien tendrian que amontonarlo en sus casas, antes de tirarlo. Tambien dijeron que prefieren ir a la version Internet, pero no aceptarian pagar por el privilegio.
C'est le probleme.
Entonces, que pasara? Yo digo que todos los periodicos (version Web) seran gratis. De hecho, Rupert Murdoch ya ha dicho que pronto tambien liberara el Wall Street Journal, ya que ve que el New York Times esta logrando registrar cientos de millones de dolares en publicidad (15M de lectores cada mes), y piensa que el Wall Street Journal le conviene dejar los ingresos de suscripcion (US$ 60M cada ano), y mejor reemplazarlos con dolares de publicidad.
En mi opinion, asi veo el futuro de rotativos en EEUU. No creo que jamas lleguen a sus margenes de flujo de caja de 25%, pero los grandes rotativos, como el New York Times, si podran lograr un steady-state margen de EBITDA de 18%, minimo.
Periodicos pequenos, si sobreviran, pero creo que tendran que desocupar a, minimo, 50% de su fuerza laboral.
(ii) Hablando de publicidad, les dejo esta nota, acerca de previsiones del mercado de publicidad.
En mi opinion, siempre es importante cuantificar todo, y, como "Radio, Televisión y Telecomunicaciones" no podian existir sin publicidad, les dejo los datos.
------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/business/media/04adco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
December 4, 2007
Advertising
Forecasters Say Madison Avenue Will Escape a Recession, Just Barely
By STUART ELLIOTT
GROWTH in advertising spending in the United States is slowing considerably, according to several forecasters whose predictions are closely followed. But they believe the continuing strength of ad spending online — as well as the stimulative effects of the elections and the Summer Olympics — should keep the industry from suffering a recession in 2008.
In other words, although you may want to fasten your seat belt for a bumpy flight, you will probably be able to leave the motion-sickness bag in the pocket of the seat in front of you.
“The U.S. ad climate is tiptoeing toward the edge of recession, but staying slightly positive,” said Lee Westerfield, a senior analyst at BMO Capital Markets.
“An advertising recession has already been under way for the likes of newspapers, radio and magazines,” Mr. Westerfield said, listing three traditional media that have been hit hard by the rise of online advertising.
“Internet media spending remains the bright spot in the midst of a cyclical downturn,” he added, along with advertising next year for the presidential, Congressional and gubernatorial elections, which could reach as much as $3 billion.
Mr. Westerfield is predicting that ad spending in this country will show 2.6 percent growth in 2007 over 2006, rather than 3.4 percent as he had previously forecast. For 2008, he is estimating a gain of 3.6 percent from this year, compared with the 4.3 percent he had formerly predicted.
•
Two other well-regarded forecasters reduced their estimates for American ad spending growth yesterday at the opening session of the 35th annual global media and communications conference sponsored by UBS.
Robert J. Coen, senior vice president and director for forecasting at Universal McCann, reduced for a third time his prediction for ad spending growth this year, compared with 2006.
Mr. Coen, whose agency is owned by the Interpublic Group of Companies, is now calling for a slim gain in 2007 of 0.7 percent, to $283.9 billion, compared with previous predictions for gains of 3.1 percent, made last June; 4.8 percent, made in December 2006; and 5.8 percent, made in June 2006.
The standout medium by far, in Mr. Coen’s forecast, is the Internet, where ad spending this year will rise 20 percent from 2006. By comparison, he estimated there would be declines this year in ad spending for media like local newspapers, down 8 percent; national syndicated television, down 8 percent; and local radio, down 6 percent.
An increase this year of 0.7 percent in total American ad spending would represent the smallest yearly gain since the industry recovered from its 2001 recession. Those increases have ranged from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 7.4 percent in 2004; the increase in 2006 from 2005 was 3.9 percent.
An increase of 0.7 percent would also mean that ad spending as a percentage of American gross domestic product would decline in 2007 to a weak 2.05 percent, from 2.14 percent in 2006.
Still, “we don’t think there will be a recession” for Madison Avenue, Mr. Coen said in his presentation. “But advertising is being crunched down.”
He is also crunching his forecast for next year. Last June, Mr. Coen predicted American ad spending in 2008 would be 5 percent higher than in 2007. Yesterday, he revised his estimate downward to an increase of 3.7 percent, to $294.4 billion, which would represent an anemic 2.04 percent of the gross domestic product expected for next year.
Again, the standout medium for ad growth will be the Internet, Mr. Coen predicted, up 16.5 percent from 2007. In contrast, national newspapers will fall 1 percent, he estimated, and local radio will be flat with this year.
“We don’t see a great deal of improvement immediately ahead,” Mr. Coen said, which “doesn’t make me very optimistic about 2008.”
“On the other hand,” he added, “there are the elections and the Olympics.”
The Summer Games will stimulate demand for advertising space and time not only in the United States but in scores of other countries as well.
“People are underestimating the potential” gains for ad spending that will result from the Olympics, said David F. Poltrack, chief research officer at the CBS Corporation, who also made a presentation at the conference yesterday.
(It should be noted that Mr. Poltrack is upbeat even though it is NBC, rather than his network, that owns the rights to present the Summer Games to American viewers.)
The Olympics benefit the medium of television not only by “generating incremental dollars,” Mr. Poltrack said, but also by “taking inventory out of the market,” thus tightening the supply of commercial time across the medium.
The decision to hold the Olympics for the first time in China — where ad spending growth rates are among the most robust of any nation — is expected to amplify demand further, as marketers based in Europe and North America seek to familiarize the Chinese with their brands and the marketers based in China play to a global audience.
Steve King, worldwide chief executive at ZenithOptimedia, a media agency that is part of the Publicis Groupe, referred in his presentation to the boost from the Games — along with the robust American political spending in a year in which a president is elected — as “the quadrennial effect.”
The Olympics will pump an additional $3 billion into the world’s advertising economy next year, Mr. King forecast, compared with an additional $1 billion in ad spending he expects from a popular European soccer tournament, called Euro 2008.
“Take out the quadrennial effect,” Mr. King said, “and ’08 growth would be close to ’07.”
For 2008, Mr. King is predicting an increase in worldwide ad spending of 6.7 percent from 2007, bigger than the 5.3 percent gain he is forecasting for this year compared with 2006.
•
In the United States, the growth in ad spending next year will lag behind the rest of the world, Mr. King said, increasing 4.1 percent from 2007. (That estimate includes $2 billion in spending for political ads.)
Mr. King, like Mr. Coen and Mr. Westerfield, trimmed his prediction for American growth in 2007 compared with his previous estimates. Mr. King is now calling for a gain of 2.5 percent from 2006; his previous forecasts were for increases of 3.7 percent, made last summer, and 4.2 percent, made last fall.
“It’s quite a strong markdown from our forecast a year ago,” Mr. King said, adding. “The housing downturn and the credit squeeze are definitely having an impact in the short term.”
Again, the Internet is the bright spot for American media performance in Mr. King’s data as well as Mr. Coen’s. Mr. King said he expected online ad revenue to climb 29 percent in 2007 from 2006, and an additional 19 percent in 2008 from 2007.
Mr. Coen acknowledged the quadrennial effect in his forecasts for ad spending overseas, which are more bullish than his predictions for the domestic market.
“There is a better outlook in other parts of the world than we see in the United States,” Mr. Coen said, particularly in countries like Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Poland and Russia.
For 2007, ad spending outside the United States is expected to grow 5.7 percent from 2006, to $341.4 billion, Mr. Coen said. For 2008, ad spending overseas will increase 5.3 percent from 2007, he added, to $359.5 billion.
Mr. Coen’s totals for worldwide ad spending for 2007 are $625.3 billion, up 3.4 percent from 2006, and $653.9 billion for 2008, up 4.6 percent from 2007.
--------------------------
(iii) Una pregunta. Ya se ha pronunciado la CFC en torno a la venta del Canal 5. Osea, la CFC ya ha condicionado la incursion de Televisa a la industria de TV por cable, a la venta de la frequencia ocupado por el Canal 5.
Just wondering.
(iv) Tambien les dejo una columna sobre impuestos. Que lastima que tengamos tantos pseduo-economistas en Televisa y Azteca que esten enganando a la Clase Media todos los dias, convenciendelos que recortes tributarios SupplySide funcionan. Que lastima que estos pseudo columnisas, en la radio y la TV, no sepan casi nada sobre la Economia.
Les aconsejo que lean un libro de Soros, Buffet o Rubin, a ver si dejan de ser UltraDerechistas, y se inclinen mas a las postura fiscal de Ebrard y Clinton.
-----------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/business/09view.html
Economic View
Reshaping the Debate on Raising Taxes
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: December 9, 2007
POWERFUL anti-tax rhetoric has made legislators at every level of government afraid to talk publicly about a need to raise taxes. The constituents of the few who dare speak are typically bombarded with attack ads that go something like this: “It’s your money, but your esteemed senator thinks the bureaucrats in Washington know how to spend it more wisely than you do.”
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
David G. Klein
Because of our inability to talk sensibly about taxes, the United States has been sliding toward second-class status in the world economy. Our national debt, for example, has increased by more than $3 trillion since 2002. Once the world’s largest creditor nation, we are now its largest debtor. We are currently borrowing more than $800 billion a year from the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans and others — loans that will have to be repaid in full with interest. These imbalances have sent the dollar plummeting.
The situation is set to become worse. On the current trajectory, the national debt will rise an additional $5 trillion over the next decade. The retirement of baby boomers will require additional revenue to cover growing deficits in the Social Security and Medicare programs.
And though an emerging consensus in favor of universal health coverage may mean better care for more people for less money over all, such coverage will also require higher taxes. Additional revenue is also needed to make up for the deferred maintenance that has placed many of our roads and bridges in dangerous disrepair.
Anti-tax crusaders say that these problems can be solved by just cutting wasteful spending. To be sure, Congress could help keep spending in check by adopting a strict pay-as-you-go standard for all new legislation. But most existing government programs have powerful constituencies, and programs that lack such strong defenders are not always the most suitable candidates for cuts. Salient examples from recent experience include scientific research, infrastructure maintenance and security investments like cargo-container inspection and lockdown of loosely guarded nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.
In short, realistic proposals for solving our budget problems must include higher revenue. But unless political leaders can develop strategies for dealing with the powerful anti-tax rhetoric that has sunk similar proposals in the past, the impasse will continue.
One strategy would be to inform voters that the “it’s your money” argument is incoherent. Taken to its logical conclusion, it implies that it is illegitimate for the government to collect taxes. But if that were true, there could be no government and no army, in which case, the United States would have long ago been conquered by another country. Then we’d be paying compulsory taxes to that country’s government.
In the real world, governments not only maintain armies, they also provide a variety of public goods and services that would be impractical for private citizens to provide for themselves. Every government, including our own, has always levied taxes of some sort to pay for these goods and services.
So it’s strongly in our interest to talk about what services the government should provide and how to raise the revenue to pay for them. Politicians need to explain this clearly to their constituents. The argument is simple and would fit easily into a 30-second campaign spot.
Anti-tax crusaders sometimes brand proposals to make the tax structure more progressive as class warfare based on envy. This tactic has also been rhetorically effective, but, like the “it’s your money” slogan, it stifles an important conversation to everyone’s detriment.
Progressive taxation is not about envy. Top earners have captured the big share of all income and wealth gains during the last three decades. They’re where the money is. If we’re to pay for public services they and others want, they must carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
Anti-tax crusaders often bristle at taxes whose aim is not just to raise revenue but also to alter behavior. They label such efforts “social engineering.” But as even Adam Smith recognized, behaviors that are attractive to individuals are often harmful to society as a whole.
Activities that give off greenhouse gases, for example, are misleadingly attractive to individuals because their costs fall largely on others. Carbon taxes are the remedy of choice. When individual and social incentives diverge sharply, tax remedies of this sort are the least intrusive way to restore balance.
Nowhere have the carefully constructed slogans of anti-tax crusaders been more been powerful than in the case of the estate tax, which they like to call the “death tax.” Although voters in the bottom fifth of the income distribution are more likely to be struck by lightning than to leave an estate large enough to set off this tax, two-thirds of them support its repeal. This is bamboozlement of the highest order.
FORTUNATELY, there is clear evidence that reframing the discussion often has a big impact on the way voters think about tax policy. In the spring of 2005, for example, I asked the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University to conduct two telephone surveys to investigate public attitudes about the Bush administration’s proposal to eliminate the estate tax.
In the first survey, respondents were simply asked whether they favored the proposal. Almost 75 percent said they did. In the second, respondents were first told that lost revenue from eliminating the estate tax would necessitate some combination of raising other taxes, borrowing more money from abroad and further cutbacks in government services. This time, almost 80 percent of respondents favored keeping the estate tax.
Given the effectiveness of anti-tax rhetoric, presidential candidates are understandably reluctant to tell voters what must be done to put the fiscal house in order. But voters are smarter than many cynics think, and they may be especially receptive to fresh points of view at this stage in the political cycle. The anti-tax rhetoric of recent decades is at the root of many of our current problems. Candidates with the courage to confront it head on may not only contribute to our economic recovery, but may also win additional votes.
Robert H. Frank is an economist at the Johnson School of Management at
Cornell University. E-mail: rhfrank@nytimes.com.
Patricia
I was able to find good advice from your blog posts.
Here is my weblog: http://77.244.246.86/
Publicar un comentario