Introduction
In today’s digital era, where video consumption and content creation for social media are prevalent, along with virtual meetings via Zoom and AI-driven applications, symmetrical internet in data plans by telecommunications operators is not considered an innovation.
Controversy Over Data Plan Adjustments
A fixed telecommunications operator’s decision to adjust its “fair use” policy by charging 110 pesos for every additional 100 GB consumed sparked criticism. The Federal Consumer Prosecutor’s Office (Profeco) reminded operators that they cannot modify contractual conditions originally agreed upon.
Megacable’s General Adjunct Director criticized competitors, like Telmex, for freezing prices and promoting streaming subscriptions, suggesting that other operators are forced to offer differentiated internet speeds to remain competitive, despite user dissatisfaction.
Regulatory Asymmetry: The Real Problem
The real issue is not competition or commercial strategies, but regulatory asymmetry and predominance that have distorted the market instead of correcting it.
Symmetrical internet is a direct consequence of asymmetrical regulation designed against Telmex, leaving it without growth incentives, tariff freedom, and the ability to attract new customers due to predominance entrapment. Competitors, however, can raise prices and offer packages with varying speeds.
Predominance has forced Telmex to retain its customer base without gaining significant market share, while true tariff freedom and package design lies with competitors.
Background: Pre-Reform Telecommunications Market
In 2013, America Movil was declared the predominant economic agent in telecommunications with the aim of balancing the market. The intention was to allow competitors room for growth by imposing stricter obligations, such as regulated interconnection, tariff restrictions, infrastructure sharing, and even functional separation.
However, predominance froze Telmex in a defensive scheme without tariff freedom or growth incentives, while competitors increased their TV paid package costs and now seek to apply symmetrical internet—a model charging extra for excessive consumption—to compensate for their margins.
Impact of Asymmetrical Regulation
In the past decade following the 2013 constitutional reform, Telmex’s fixed broadband participation dropped from 73% to 40% by the end of 2024. Competitors gained 11 million accesses out of a total 27.8 million lines, despite Telmex’s losses and resource transfer to competitors.
Asymmetrical regulation persists despite these losses. Competitors use symmetrical internet as an excuse for extra charges based on excessive data usage, claiming it affects network saturation.
In a genuinely competitive market, network capacity should scale with demand growth, not limit itself to additional charges. They use symmetrical internet as a market segmentation strategy, offering theoretically “unlimited” plans with hidden caps that translate into extra charges.
Their true intent is to position their plans as “premium,” including symmetrical speed but with strict limits and surcharges to maximize revenue from heavy users. Symmetry stops being a genuine quality benefit and turns into a hidden monetization tool.
This practice contradicts the spirit of the telecommunications reform, which aimed for more competition, better prices, and quality. Instead of investing in infrastructure to offer superior services, competitors monetize their network limitations due to predominance.
Addressing the Issue
The symmetrical internet charging directly conflicts with these goals, making the service more expensive under the guise of improved quality while actually being a mechanism to offset the inability to compete on basic tariffs and packages.
The solution lies in eliminating predominance, allowing Telmex to regain tariff freedom and network expansion capacity into underserved markets by competitors.
Reviewing and making asymmetrical regulation truly flexible, adapting it to a market with multiple competitors reaching 27.8 million accesses, is essential.
Of this fixed internet total, 51% corresponds to optical fiber, indicating growth opportunities. By the end of 2024, 18 million accesses (49%) were between 10 and 100 Mbps, compared to only 875,000 users with this quality in 2013. All operators increased service speed without resorting to strategies like symmetrical internet.
Promoting True Competition and Consumer Choice
Full convergence of fixed, mobile, data, voice, and video services—along with future satellite Direct to Device services—should be encouraged so consumers can choose from genuinely differentiated offers without extra charges for exceeding fair use.
In Spain, operators offer multiplay packages with substantial discounts. In Mexico, due to regulatory restrictions, Telmex cannot compete in paid TV, and limited TV operators lack incentives to enhance their internet services.
Symmetrical internet charging is another perverse consequence of predominance. Instead of stimulating investment and innovation, this environment fosters commercial practices that increase service costs, limit digital inclusion, and postpone true technological convergence in Mexico.
Only by restoring unrestricted user freedom to choose telecommunications and digital service providers without coercion can true network expansion and universal digitization in Mexico be achieved.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is symmetrical internet? Symmetrical internet refers to equal upload and download speeds in data plans. It has become a strategy for charging extra for excessive data usage.
- Why is symmetrical internet a controversial topic? It’s seen as a way for competitors to monetize network limitations and contradicts the original goals of the 2013 telecommunications reform, which aimed for more competition, better prices, and quality.
- How has predominance affected the Mexican telecommunications market? Predominance has limited Telmex’s growth and tariff freedom, while competitors have increased prices and service speeds. This regulatory asymmetry has resulted in a distorted market.
- What should be done to address the issue? Eliminating predominance and making regulation truly flexible would allow Telmex to regain tariff freedom and network expansion capacity, fostering genuine competition and consumer choice.
