Grameenphone (GP), Bangladesh’s leading telecom operator, is facing heightened accusations of unfair market practices, including anti-competitive deals and predatory pricing aimed at weakening its competitors.
Smaller operators like Robi Axiata and Banglalink have claimed that GP is exploiting its market dominance by subsidising customer acquisition costs, selling SIM cards at prices below their overall cost, and effectively limiting opportunities for competitors to compete.
Earlier this year, Robi and Banglalink filed complaints regarding the issues with the Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC).
During a hearing on Wednesday, GP contested the commission’s jurisdiction, arguing that its activities fall under the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC).
However, the BCC is likely to reject this argument, as the matter is covered by the 2012 Competition Act, which grants the commission the authority to address such issues.
Robi’s Chief Corporate and Regulatory Officer Shahed Alam told TIMES of Bangladesh, “We have filed a complaint against GP with the Competition Commission based on clear evidence.”
“We believe that the Commission will take appropriate action following a proper investigation in accordance with the Competition Act 2012.”
In its defence, GP categorically denied all allegations. “Grameenphone has been conducting its business activities in compliance with Bangladesh’s prevailing competition laws,” it told TIMES.
It further emphasised that the telecommunications sector is regulated by the BTRC, which oversees market entry, pricing, and competition. GP reiterated that it is operating lawfully as a Significant Market Power (SMP) operator and dismissed the allegations as “baseless” and driven by “negative competitive intentions.”
Complaints against GP
Robi’s complaint accuses GP of violating Sections 15 and 16 of the Competition Act, which prohibit anti-competitive deals and predatory pricing.
Robi points out that the market remains concentrated, with GP holding 44.8% of the subscriber market share as of November 2024, compared to Robi’s 30.3% and Banglalink’s 21.5%.
Moreover, Robi highlights GP’s dominance in the sector’s financials. GP captured nearly 49% of the industry’s revenue in 2023 and over 90% of its profits. GP’s net profit for the year reached Tk3,300 crore, while Robi’s stood at Tk321 crore.
Robi also referenced the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which measures market concentration. Mobile operators’ subscriber market share HHI was 3,375, and the profit market share HHI was even higher at 3,727, both of which indicate a monopolistic market structure. An HHI above 2,500 signals high concentration, underscoring GP’s overwhelming market power.
Despite being classified as an SMP operator by the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) since 2019, GP continues to engage in practices that Robi claims are anti-competitive.
One example is GP’s aggressive pricing strategy, particularly in SIM card sales. Following a VAT increase on SIM cards to Tk300 in July 2024, GP reportedly sold SIM cards as low as Tk47 or even Tk30 in some areas, while Robi sold them at Tk110.
Robi argues that this pricing strategy distorts the market by forcing competitors to lower their prices unsustainably.
In addition to subsidising SIM cards, GP reportedly provides additional talk time and data on its SIM cards, raising the total subsidy to between Tk470 and Tk531.
This undercuts smaller competitors, according to Robi, while GP also raised its retailer commissions to Tk122, compared to Robi’s Tk89.
GP’s aggressive pricing and promotional strategies have reportedly led to a 1.2% increase in its subscriber market share from June to November of the previous year.
In response to the allegations, GP told Times, “GP SIMs are priced at Tk350. However, as part of business strategy, companies have to offer more benefits to customers and retailers in a competitive market, and it is an industry practice.”
Meanwhile, Banglalink, summoned to the Competition Commission hearing on Wednesday, requested additional time to attend at a later date in order to be fully prepared with their complaints against GP.
As the dispute escalates, all parties await the Competition Commission’s decision, as the jurisdiction dispute may be resolved next week.
Complainants argue that the Competition Act empowers the commission to investigate, issue warnings, order corrective actions, and impose penalties.
“GP has challenged the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission to take action in this regard. We would like to firmly state that the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission in this regard is clear in the law,” said Robi’s Shahed Alam.
