Dispute Settlement between Telkomsel and Indosat: An Analysis on Com-petition of Cellular Operator

Mukti Fajar ND, Diana Setiawati, Yati Nurhayati

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.


Keywords


Unfair Business Competition, Cellular Operator, Dispute settlement, KPPU, BRTI.

Full Text:

PDF

References


REFERENCES

Books

Prayoga, Ayuda. 1999. Persaingan Usaha dan Hukum yang Mengaturnya di Indonesia. Jakarta: Elips.

Siswanto, Arie. 2002. Hukum Persaingan Usaha. Jakarta Selatan: Ghalia Indonesia.

Sitompul, Asril. 1999. Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Tidak Sehat. Bandung: Citra Ad-itya Bhakti.

Sugiono, Bambang. 2015. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Grafindo Persada.

Blinder, et al. 2001. Monopoly Principle and policy. Chicago: Thomson South-Western.

Lubis, et al. 2009. Hukum Persaingan Usaha Teks dan Konteks. Jakarta: ROV Creative Media.

Fajar, Mukti and Yulianto Achmad. 2007. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Hukum UMY.

Friedman, Milton. 1999. VII: Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and La-bor. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Fuady, Munir. 1999. Hukum Anti Monopoli. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhakti.

Fuady, Munir. 1999. Menyongsong era Per-saingan Sehat. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhak-ti.

Yusuf, Muri. 2014. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan Gabungan. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

Muhadjir, Noeng. 2011. MetodePenelitian. Yogyakarta: Rake Sarasin.

Khemani, R. Syam. 1999. The Objective of Competition policy, Competition Law Policy. Chicago: South-Western Publishing Compa-ny.

Usman, Rachmadi. 2004. Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia-Pustaka.

Sukanto, Soerjono. 1986. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Universitas Indo-nesia Press.

Mergono, Suyud. 2009. Hukum Anti Monop-oli. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Journal

Dini Turipanam Alamanda, Tamara Fatwa, Grisna Anggadwita, Hani Gita Hayuningtyas. 2017. “Business Game that won the Larges Telecommunication Provider in Indonesia” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Universitas Telkom. 2304-1269. 6 (1).

World Wide Web

Amal Nur, N (2016) Teori Ini Jelaskan Tud-ingan Indosat Soal Monopoli Telkomsel, [Online] Available at: http://www.viva.-co.id/haji/read/792352-teori-ini-jelaskan-tudingan-indosat-soal-monopoli-telkomsel, [retrieved: December 5, 2016].

Andi, (2016) Indosat Ganti Nama Jadi Indosat Oredoo. [Online] Available at: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20151119102759-213-92642/indosat-ganti-nama-jadi-indosat-oredoo/, [retrieved: Sep-tember 20, 2016]

Didik, P, [2016] Menkominfo Komentari Antara Telkomsel dan Indosat. [Online] Available at: www.Tekno.kompas.com//menkominfo-komentari-antara-Telkomsel–Indosat/,

[retrieved: September 20, 2016].

Fahmy, R. [2016] Monopoli Telkomsel Benarkah. [Online] http://koran.bisnis.com/read/20160711/251/564737/monopoli-Telkomsel-benarkah/ [re-trieved: September 22, 2016]

Hani, N. (2016) Tarif Mahal TelkomseldiserangIndosatapa kata Menkominfo. [Online] Available at: https://www.cnn-indonesia.com/teknologi/20160617161436-213-139004/tarif-mahal-telkomsel-diserang-indosat-apa-kata-menkominfo/ (retrieved: September 20,2016).

Herning, B. [2016] Tanggapan Pakar Tentang Tudingan Monopoli Telkomsel, [Online] Available at: http://swa.co.id-/swa/trends/tanggapan-pakar-soal-tudingan-monopoli-Telkomsel/

[retrieved: September 22, 2016].

Kemas, I. [2016] Kisruh Tarif Rp1/ detik. [Online] Available at: http://techno.-okezone.com/read/2016/06/25/207/1425061-/kisruh-tarif-rp1-detik/ [retrieved: December 9, 2016].

M.Iqbal. [2016] Dipanggil BRTI Indosat Oredoo soal Dominasi Telkomsel. [Online] Available at: http://selular.id/fokus/2016/06/dipanggil-brti-indosat-ooredoo-soal-dominasi-telkomsel/ [retrieved: December 9, 2016].

Priyanto, S. [2016] Tarif Rp 1 /detik Murah atau Predatory Pricing. [Online] Available at: http://www.kompasiana.com/psukandar/tarif-rp-1-detik-murah-atau-predatory-pricing_576b669164afbdfb04d8f892/

[retrieved: October 14, 2016]

Rusli, [2015] Indosat Profit Plunges 52.5 pct. [Online] Available at: http://selular.id/kolom/2015/09/data-dan-fakta-industri-selular-kemegahan-vs-kerapuhan/ [retrieved: September 20, 2016].

Susetyo, D, [2016] Sudah Bukan Zaman nya Lagi Operator Lakukan Kampanye Negatif. [Online] Available at: http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20160621155253-213-139834/sudah-bukan-zamannya-lagi-operator-lakukan-kampanye-negatif/ [retrieved: December 8, 2016]

Siti, S, [2016] Pengamat Endus Predatory Pricing di Kampanye Rp 1/ s Indosat. [Online] Available at: http://www.viva.co.id/haji/read/789920-pengamat-endus-predatory-pricing-di-kampanye-rp1-indosat/

[retrieved: December 8, 2016].

Syakur, U, [2016] Bantah Monopoli ini Alasan Telkomsel Mendominasi di Luar Jawa. [Online] Available at: https://www.merdeka.com/teknologi/bantah-monopoli-ini-alasan-telkomsel-mendominasi-di-luar-jawa.html/

[retrieved: December 6, 2016].

Uday, R, [2016] Data dan Fakta Industri Seluler, Kemgahan Vs Kerapuhan. [Online] Available at: http://selular.id/kolom/2015/09/data-dan-fakta-industri-selular-kemegahan-vs-kerapuhan/ [retrieved: September 20, 2016].

Laws

The 1999 Law No. 05 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.

The 1999 Law No. 36 on Telecommunica-tion.

The 2000 No. 52 on Government Regulation Telecommunication.

The Communication and Information Minis-ter Regulation (Menkominfo) Num-ber1/PER/M.KOMINFO/01/2010 on the date 25 January 2010 on Telecommunication Pro-vider.

The Decision from Minister of Transportation Number KM.21/2001 on Telecommunication Provider which already changed to the Regulation of the Minister of Information and Informatics Number 31/PER/M.-KOMINFO/09/2008 on the Third Changes of the Decisions of Minister of Transporta-tion Number KM.21/2001 on Telecommuni-cation Provider.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 1 of 2006 Con-cerning the Guidelines to settle the case in KPPU.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 01 of 2010 Concerning Dispute Settlement Procedure.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 06 of 2010 Concerning the Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of Article 25 on Abuse of Dominant Position.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 03 of 2011 Concerning the Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of Article 19D on Discrimination Prac-tice.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 04 of 2011 Concerning the Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of Article 5 on price fixing.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 06 of 2011 Concerning the Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of Article 20 on Predatory pricing.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 11 of 2011 Concerning the Guidelines for the Implemen-tation of Article 17 on Monopolistic practice.

Business Competition Supervisory Commis-sion Decree (KPPU) Number 1 of 2006 Con-cerning the Guidelines to settle the case in KPPU.

The Decision of the Minister of Transporta-tion Number KM. 33/2004 Concerning Su-pervision of Healthy Competition in the fixed Network and the Basic Telephone Services Provider.

The Decision of the Minister of Transporta-tion NumberKM.4/2001 on the date 16 Janu-ary 2001 on Determining of the Basic Plant in National Technical of 2000 development of National Telecommunication which al-ready changed to the Regulation of the Min-ister of Information and Informatics Number 09/PER/M.KOMINFO/06/2010 on the dated 9 June 2010 on the six changes of the Deci-sions from Minister of Transportation Num-ber KM.4/2001 on Determining of the Basic Plant in National Technical of 2000 Devel-opment of National Technical.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol3.Iss1.155.pp86-98

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License

Sriwijaya Law Review (SLRev) ISSN: 2541-5298 | e-ISSN: 2541-6464 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




SLRev has been indexed by:
   
       
 
SLRev Member of :
  
 
 
Plagiarism Detection by: