电信管制的困惑及其思考

“竞争”和“管制”是一对孪生兄弟。但由于我国电信业引入竞争的时间不长,对于我国绝大多数人来说,电信管制仍是一个非常新鲜的话题。特别是,如何面对电信管制理论和实践中的困惑或冲突?伴随电信业竞争的不断发展,电信管制在由垄断走向竞争的过渡中究竟应承担哪些任务?等等,都应是我国电信业所要把握的。     

加快电信管制改革 实现电信健康发展

通过对我国电信业市场结构、市场行为及市场绩效进行分析，阐明了在我国进行电信管制的必要性。通过管制，以实现电信企业的有效竞争，使我国电信业得到健康发展。     

加强电信管制 实现有效竞争

世界电信业经过成功与失败的实践，越来越多的人开始对电信竞争与管制有了理性的认识，有效竞争而不是自由竞争、重构管制而不是取消管制也为越来越多的人所认同。本文从理论方面和现实要求方面分析了我国实行电信管制的必要性，介绍了电信管制的主要内容和电信管制架构。     

加强电信管制实现有效竞争

世界电信业经过成功与失败的实践，越来越多的人开始对电信竞争与管制有了理性的认识，有效竞争而不是自由竞争、重构管制而不是取消管制也为越来越多的人所认同。本文从理论方面和现实要求方面分析了我国实行电信管制的必要性，介绍了电信管制的主要内容和电信管制架构。     

对我国电信超前消费现象的探讨

由于电信生产与电信消费同时进行的特点,电信业的超前发展往往容易引起电信超前消费。我国也存在电信超前消费的现象,并会对电信业的普遍服务、管制与决策乃至产业的持续发展产生一定的不利影响,这就要求采取适当的对策,克服不利影响,同时发挥电信超前发展对拉动电信业发展的积极作用。     

菲律宾通信管制及对我们的启示

我国经过一系列的电信发改革后,在通信行业初步形成了竞争格局。竞争格局的形成,对通信业的行业管理提出了新的更高的要求。在行营工作中,了解国外这方面的一些做法,对我们更好地做好管理工作有一定益处。这里介绍一下菲律宾电信业管制和电信发展现状的情况,希望对我们的电信体制改革与电信业重组能有一些借鉴作用。     

《电子信息产品污染控制管理办法》与欧盟ROHS指令之比较

纵观我国电信业改革和电信不对称管制发展的历史，可以看出我国电信业不对称管制手段在实践中不断发展壮大。最初的不对称管制仅仅体现在资费方面，随着电信业的发展和改革的深化．不对称管制逐步向业务市场准入、互联互通、普遍服务这些方面发展．几乎涵盖了电信管制政策的主要方面。然而，无论在哪个时期．资费均是不对称管制实施的重要手段。     

淡出非对称管制把握管制新思路

1　　前言随着新一轮改革重组的完成,我国电信业进入了建立公平有效的市场竞争机制和促进电信运营商做优做强的新发展阶段。我国电信管制也随之进行了不断的深化改革,使管制体制及政策有了很大的改善,但仍存在一些实践难题亟待解决,其中,最值得关注的就是非对称管制政策。管制方式的对称与非对称问题一开始就颇有争议,而如今更面临着是否该退出历史舞台的讨论。非对称管制目前该不该退、何时退、如何退,这些问题都值得我们探讨。2　　　我国电信业的非对称管制2.1　采取非对称管制的依据采取非对称管制的依据是不对称竞争,即市场中存在支配…     

我国电信资费管制体系的缺陷与完善目标

资费管理是电信行业管理的一项重要内容,由于特有的国情,长期以来,我国的资费管制体制都是以政府管制为主,这样的体制保证了我国电信业的快速发展。但在电信竞争的新时期,目前的电信资费管理体制不能适应新形势,应该进行相应的改革了。     

基于网络外部性的电信市场竞争分析

文章对电信业的网络外部性进行了研究,对网络外部性下的电信市场竞争作了分析,提出政府应如何针对电信企业的网络外部性出台相应的管制政策,以促进我国电信市场的有效竞争。     

我国采取电信非对称管制可行措施探讨

 本文参考国际电信业非对称管制案例和经验，结合我国法律环境和电信市场竞争实际情况，分析了非对称管制对于电信市场竞争和发展的特殊作用，并提出了当前在我国可能采取非对称管制的可行措施。     

Analysis on Implementation of Asymmetric Regulation in China Telecommunications Sector

Reference to the international cases and experiences of asymmetric regulation in telecommunications industry,based on China's legal environment and telecommunications competition in the market,give analysis to the role of asymmetric regulation for the development of china telecommunications market,put forward feasible measures to asymmetric regulation in China.     

Hong Kong and Singapore: Two models of telecommunications regulations?

This article examines how telecommunications regulation in Hong Kong and Singapore has evolved since 1970s and in particular, how the boundaries between the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors have been increasingly blurred as the two cities have responded to technological convergence. By analysing the telecommunications regulation development in Hong Kong and Singapore, this article argues that technological convergence has not necessarily led to identical models of telecommunications regulation. Rather, the authors demonstrate the differences existing in the areas of sector-specific regulation, multiple regulators and competition law, in spite of the fact that in recent years, the government role has become increasingly similar in these two Asian cities.     

Du droit des télécommunications au droit des communications électroniques: quel changement de modèle?

The sector-based model stemming from the regulatory framework for telecommunications, was extended to electronic communications, a term which takes into account the convergence of the telecommunications, broadcasting andIt sectors. At the same time, this model tends to dissolve in the general competition rules which are supposed to replace the sectoral regulation. Already, this regulation applies exclusively to operators having a significant market power on the relevant markets. But this competition model itself is subordinated to general interest objectives, as universal service or cultural diversity. Thus, a new evolution is initiated, where the objectives of contents regulation could help to redefine some aspects of network regulation.     

欧洲（EU）电信自由化和民营化的动向

欧盟的电信市场自１９９８年１月１日起完全放开，新制定的法律和内部竞争原则均是为了保证和推动电信自由化进程，其中，网间互联政策（包括互联规定、互联资费，管制原则以及号码携带问题）又是欧盟电信政策的核心。本文还介绍了欧洲各国电信民营化情况。     

Why regulate? Lessons from New Zealand

The United States Congress is likely to revisit the Communications Act several times over the next few years. A number of critics have suggested that the FCC should simply be abolished in the course of these legislative changes that it is no longer necessary to regulate telecommunications at all. In Europe, an analogous debate manifests itself in a more nuanced fashion. It is widely anticipated that telecommunications regulation will gradually become unnecessary, and be replaced by competition law. This is largely viewed as a migration from overarching ex-ante (before the fact) prohibitions to more isolated ex-post (after the fact) responses to specific instances of anticompetitive conduct. It is timely to ask: Why do we regulate telecommunications? What might happen in the absence of regulation? Few realize that this experiment has already been attempted, and the verdict is in: outright elimination of telecommunications regulation is a bad idea. Reformist New Zealand attempted to operate with a bare minimum of sector-specific regulation for telecommunications and other network industries; by 2001 they had given it up, and instead implemented sector-specific regulation. What exactly were the consequences in New Zealand? What broke, and why? What lessons can other countries draw from this experience?.     

Moving to competition: New Zealand's innovative regulatory modelfor the telecommunications marketplace

In previous years, the manner in which countries around the world regulate telecommunications services has undergone rapid change. In many countries, liberalization of telecommunications regulation has occurred, and formerly government-owned PTTs have been privatized. Competition and entry into telecommunications markets has been the goal of these policies with a focus on encouraging more investment and modernization of telecommunications infrastructures. New Zealand was one of the countries which in the late 1980s decided to liberalize its policies and privatize its PTT. Its unique approach to this process is examined, including its decision not to create a regulatory agency to oversee telecommunications markets and its reliance on competition policy to protect consumers     

Changes and deregulation in the Japanese telecommunications market

The Japanese telecommunications market has experienced drastic changes since the privatization of NTT and the introduction of competition in 1985. Rate reduction in long distance services has been remarkable, and NTT's revenue share in the long distance market has declined sharply. The growth in mobile services and Internet services are epoch-making, and POTS is showing signs of decline. Behind the scenes is the progress of deregulation in remedying the distortion in the market structure. The establishment of new interconnection rules and the reorganization of NTT into one long distance company and two regional companies are the most important outcomes. With this deregulation the Japanese telecommunications industry is expected to develop from managed competition to full competition. However, new challenges for telecommunications regulation are emerging with the progress of competition and new multimedia services. One of them is the universal service. Cooperation among regulators, operators, users, and scholars is required to accommodate the change     

电信竞争三部曲

随着国内电信产业竞争日益加剧，电信运营企业的竞争方式正在潜移默化地发生着并且将要发生本质上的变化。电信市场的竞争方式从价格竞争开端，演变为质量竞争，最终将升级为全新的价值竞争阶段，从而形成了电信竞争的三部曲，本通过对电信市场竞争，用户满意和两种价值链的分析，阐述了电信竞争由价格竞争，质量竞争过渡到价值竞争的内在必然性，同时也对电信运营企业在新形势下成功地开展价值竞争提出了新的思路和建议。     

Implementation of a marketplace approach to broadcast regulation

Deregulation is a frequently used term within the telecommunications industry in the United States. Advocated by Chairman Mark Fowler of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the emphasis of deregulation is to let the marketplace dictate the economic and technological forces in the telecommunications environment. Through reduced governmental burdens, a marketplace approach could promote a social Darwinism philosophy in weeding out the weak competition and thereby establishing economic prices at the most competitive level in the telecommunications field. This article first addresses the marketplace approach to broadcast regulation in terms of Congressional and FCC actions. Then, factors outside the FCC that shape the telecommunications industry will be discussed. Last, marketplace “unregulation” in the 1980's will be explained.