Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other Network Industries

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 1 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

PrintPublicationDate: Sep2010 Subject: BusinessandManagement,GovernmentandLaw,BusinessPolicyandStrategy

OnlinePublicationDate: Sep2010

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560219.003.0020

RegulationandCompetitionLawinTelecommunicationsandOtherNetworkIndustries PeterAlexiadisandMartinCaveTheOxfordHandbookofRegulationEditedbyRobertBaldwin,MartinCave,andMartinLodge

OxfordHandbooksOnline

AbstractandKeywords

Thisarticleexamineshowregulationandcompetitionlawhavebeendeployedtocontrolthefirmsoperatinginthetelecommunicationssector,andhow,inparticular,regulationhasbeendesigned,particularlyintheEuropeanUnion,insuchawaythatitcanbewithdrawninfavourofthemorewidespreadapplicationofcompetitionlaw.Examplesareelectricitygeneration,sewagetreatment,longdistancetelecommunicationsservices,andretailing.Thequestionarisesastowhentraditionalpriceregulationcangivewaytorelianceoncompetitionlaw.Thetrendinmanycountries,andespeciallyintelecommunicationsinEurope,hasbeentomovetoderegulateinthisway.Thisarticleexamineshowsuchdecisionsaremadeandhowwellcompetitionlawworksinsuchcontexts.Keywords:regulation,competitionlaw,telecommunicationssector,EuropeanUnion,priceregulation

20.1IntroductionAlmostalleconomicactivityissubjecttotheapplicationofcompetitionrulesbutcertainsectorsaresingledoutfortheapplicationofspecificregulatoryregimes.Insomecases,forexamplefinancialservices,themotiveforregulationmaybeconsumerprotectionorthemaintenanceofmacroeconomicstability.Inthecaseofanothergroup,sometimesreferredtoasutilitiesornetworkindustries,themotivesarethecontrolofmarketpowerandtheequitybasedgoalofensuringthatallhouseholdsreceiveabasiclevelofaservicewhichisconsideredessentialtoexistence.(p.501)

Theregulationofnetworkindustriesthusinvolvesthepursuitofbotheconomicandsocialobjectives.Insectorssuchascommunications(postsandtelecommunications),energy,transport,andwater,itofteninvolvestheimpositionofpricecontrolobligationsandobligationstosupply.Wheretherelevantactivity,forexample,anenergylocaldistributionnetwork,isclearlyamonopoly,suchspecificregulationisprobablyunavoidable.However,networkindustriestypicallyhaveelementsintheirvaluechainwherecompetitionisquitefeasibleincludingbothretailingtoendusers,whichbasicallycomprisesmarketingandbilling,andothermorecapitalintensiveupstreamactivities,suchaselectricitygenerationorcollectingandsortingpost.Thismeansthatinmanysectors,whichstartedasacrosstheboardstatutorymonopolies,thecompetitiveelementsgaingroundovertime,therebyreducingtheneedforregulationwhichtypicallyoperatesexante,imposingspecificrestrictionsonfirms'conductinadvance,andrelyingincreasinglyoncompetitionlaw,whichtypicallyoperatesexpost,penalisinginfractionswhentheyhaveoccurred.

Thisraisestheissueofhowstrategicallytomanagethisprocessofderegulation.Inthecourseofsuchderegulation,itmaybeappropriatetoapplyregulationandcompetitionlawintandem,regulatingmonopolyelementsanddealingwiththegrowingcompetitiveelementsundercompetitionlaw.Thisimmediatelyraisesthe

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 2 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

issuesofscope,complementarity,andtheextentofoverlapofthetwoapproaches.

Theseissuesareparticularlyacuteinthetelecommunicationssector,wherethelimitstocompetitionareparticularlyuncertainduetotheimpactoftechnology.Accordingly,thischapterexamineshowregulationandcompetitionlawhavebeendeployedtocontrolthefirmsoperatinginthesector,andhow,inparticular,regulationhasbeendesigned,particularlyintheEuropeanUnion,insuchawaythatitcanbewithdrawninfavourofthemorewidespreadapplicationofcompetitionlaw.

Section20.2describesthefeaturesofthetelecommunicationssectoranditstraditionalmeansofregulation.Section20.3illustratestheapplicationofaderegulatorystrategy,usedintheEuropeanUnion.Section20.4showshowcompetitionlawcanbeusedinparallelwithorinsuccessiontoregulation;Section20.5noteshowsimilarissuesariseinothernetworkindustries,andSection20.6summarisesthelessonsoftheseexperiences.

20.2TraditionalTelecommunicationsRegulation

20.2.1Whyregulate?Untilthe1980s,therewasoftenunthinkingacceptancethattelecommunicationsservicesrequiredregulationbecausetheywerebasedonanaturalmonopoly(p.502) infrastructure.Thismeantthattherewasroomforonenetworkonly.TheNorthAmericanmodelfordealingwiththissupposedattribute(aswithsimilarmoreconvincinglyidentifiedproblemsinenergy,transport,andwater)wasviaregulationofinvestorownedenterprises,usuallyonacostplus(rateofreturn)basis(Brock,2002).TheEuropeanmodel,widelyfollowedelsewhere,resteduponpublicownership,withservicesdeliveredthroughagovernmentdepartmentoracompanywhollyownedbythegovernmentinquestion.ItisalsopossiblesubsequentlytodetectarecentAsianmodel,restingonthoroughgoinggovernmentintervention(Ure,2008).

Intheabsenceofcompetition,arangeofregulatoryobjectivescouldbedeliveredrelatingtotheavailabilityofservicesandtothetermsandconditionsoftheirsupply.Therewasalsonodifficultyinprincipleinensuringthattheindustrycovereditscosts:themonopolyfirmcouldsimplyraisepricestodoso.TheUSmodelofrateofreturnorcostplusregulationsettingpricestoensurecostrecoveryhadpreciselythisobjectiveandeffect.

However,theintroductionofcompetitionintomanypartsoftheindustry,accompaniedbytheprivatisationprocessinEurope,compelledtheneedforamorerigorousanalysisofpotentialmarketfailuresandledtoaregulatoryresponsewhichhasbeenbasedonaclearerarticulationoftheobjectivesandinstrumentsofregulation,whichcanbeseenasaddressingtwotypesofproblems:

1.Marketfailure,associatedwithhighlevelsofmonopolisationderivingfrom: economiesofscale(unitcostsfallingasoutputincreases);economiesofdensity(associatedparticularlywiththelocalcopperaccessnetwork,whichconnectscustomers'premisestotheexchange);economiesofscope(whentwoservices,suchasvoicecallsandbroadband,ortelecommunicationsandbroadcasting,areprovidedmorecheaplyoverasinglenetwork);demandsidenetworkexternalities(wherecustomersderivegreaterbenefitsfrombelongingtoanetworkwithmore,ratherthanfewermembers).2.Noneconomicobjectives,notablyuniversalservice,ensuringthatserviceisavailableeverywhereatauniformprice,redistributiveobjectives,designedtoprotect,forexample,lowincomehouseholdsorpeoplewithdisabilities,andpoliticalinclusion.Thealternativetotheseoutcomesinthedigitalageisoftencapturedbythephrasethedigitaldivide.

Turningfirsttomarketfailuresduetomonopolisation,ithasproveddifficulttoreplicatethefixedaccessnetwork,exceptinareaswheretherearecableTVnetworkswhichcanbeupgradedalsotoprovidevoiceandbroadbandservices.Clearly,thedevelopmentofwirelessnetworks,whichnowhavemanymoresubscribersthanfixednetworks,isthemostimportantfeatureofthelasttwentyyears,butcallsonmobilenetworksarenotconsideredtocompetedirectlywith(fallwithinthesameproductmarketas)callsonfixednetworks.

However,otherformsoftelecommunicationsactivitiesarecapableofbeingreplicated.Experiencesuggeststhatretailing,orresellingtheincumbent'sproducts,(p.503) iseffectivelycompetitive;activitiessuchasbackhaulfromlocaltomainexchanges,andthehighcapacitytransportamongsuchmainexchanges(makingupthecore

1

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 3 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

network)areallwidelyreplicated.

Itfollowsfromthisthat,ascompetitiondevelops,entrantsmayprogressivelyinstallsomecapacity,butwillrelyonthefixedincumbenttosupplytherest.Thus,theymaystartfromretailing,thatis,resellingthefixedincumbent'sservices,progressviatheinstallationofacorenetworkconnectingasmallnumberoftrunkswitches,andlaterextendintobackhaulandthereplicationoftheincumbent'slocalexchangeassets.Asimilarprogressionmayoccurinthesupplyoffixedbroadbandservices:acompetitormaymovethroughseveralintermediatesteps,fromactingasareselleroftheincumbent'sproduct,torelyingontheincumbentonlytoleasetheconnectionfromthelocalexchangetothecustomer'spremises(knownasanunbundledlocalloop).Thisprogressionisknownastheladderofinvestment,andmanyregulatorshaveencouragedcompetitorstomoveupthatladder(Cave,2006a).

Inthesecircumstances,thetermsuponwhichcompetitors'accesstotheincumbent'sfacilitiesarebasedbecomethekeyinstrumentsofregulation,replacingthecontrolofretailpricesasthemajorregulatoryintervention.Infixednetworks,thissocalledonewayaccessisasymmetric:competitorsneedaccesstotheincumbent'sfacilities,butnotviceversa.Thiscanbedistinguishedfromthekindoftwowayaccessobservedinroughlysymmetricmobilenetworks,whereeachoperatorusestheotheroperator'sterminationfacilities,butremainsotherwiseindependent.

Economiesofscopeplayanincreasingroleintelecommunicationsasaresultoftechnologicaldevelopments,especiallydigitisationorthetransportofinformationindigitalform.Whereasbroadcasting,voicetelecommunications,andcomputerbaseddatanetworksusedtoexistinseparateservicesilos,theyhavenowconvergedtechnologicallysothattherelevantinformationorbitsunderlyingeachserviceiscarriedindistinguishably.Thus,moderncablenetworksofferthetripleplayofvoice,broadband,andbroadcastservices.Existingcopperbasedtelecommunicationsnetworksnowprovidethesameservicerange,providedtheyhavebeenupgradedtohavethecapacitytoconveyvideoservices.Thisisthesameforfibrebasednextgenerationnetworksdescribedbelow.Increasingly,wirelessnetworks,whethertheybestatic,mobile,ornomadic,canoffersimilarcombinationsofservice.Asaresult,marketsarebeingbroadened,creatingthescopebothfornewcompetitiveopportunitiesandfornewpracticessuchasthebundlingofservicesbydominantoperatorsinwayswhichmaylimitordistortcompetition.

Thefinalpossiblesourceofmarketfailurenotedabovearisesfromthedemandsidenetworkeffectsassociatedwithelectroniccommunicationsnetworks.Thenumberofpotentialinterchangesbetweennetworkmembersgrowswiththesquareoftheirnumber. Clearly,withouttheinterconnectionofnetworks,therewouldbeatendencyeitherforcustomerstomultihome,namely,tosubscribeto(p.504)manynetworks(whichwouldbeexpensive)orforonenetwork(thelargest)todriveallothersout.However,thisdangercanbeaverted,andthebenefitsofanytoanyconnectivitycanbegained,bymandatinginterconnection.

Thenoneconomicobjectivesofregulationnotedaboverequireadifferentapproach(Wellenius,2008). Inessence,policymakershaveimposedonregulatorsthepursuitofpolicyobjectiveswhichgobeyondtheavoidanceofmarketfailureandthereplication,throughregulation,oftheoutcomeofacompetitivemarketprocess.Whentelecommunicationswasamonopoly,noneconomicobjectivescouldbepursuedbycrosssubsidy,forexample,bychargingthesamepricesinlow-costandhigh-costareas.However,whencompetitionispresent,nooperatorwillwanttoservehighcostcustomersiftheyareonlypermittedtochargeanaverageprice.Alloperatorswillseektocherrypicklow-costareas.Theresultingstressescreated,andthewaystoovercomethem,arediscussedbelow.

20.2.2ThesequenceofregulatoryreformsChronologically,threestagesofmarketstructurecanbedistinguished,characterisedasmonopoly,transition,andnormalisation(seeTable20.1).Thefirstisselfexplanatory.Thelastisastagewheremostmarkets,apartfromalimitednumberofbottlenecks,havebeensuccessfullyopeneduptocompetition.Transitionistheratherelasticperiodbetweenmonopolyandnormalisation.Astheaccountwhichfollowsmakesclear,thethirdstagehasprovedelusivetodate,butitremainsausefultargetforthedesignoftransitionalregulation.

Thefirstkeystructuralbreakoccurswhenentryintofixednetworksandservicesisliberalised.Thishastakenplaceatvariousdatesoverthepast2030yearsinmostcountries. Itshouldbepointedoutthatapparent

2

3

4

5

6

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 4 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

liberalisationofentrycanbedeceptive,especiallyifthegovernmentorregulatoryauthorityisseekingtomaintainbarrierstoentrybyimposingunnecessarilyonerouslicensingobligations.

Asfarasbehaviouralregulationisconcerned,threeinstrumentsareusuallyrequiredinthetransitionalstage,asshowninTable20.1:

1.Controlofretailpricesisnecessarywherethedominantfirmexercisesmarketpowerattheretaillevel,sinceintheabsenceofretailpricecontrol,customerswillbesignificantlydisadvantaged.However,ascompetitiondevelopsattheretaillevel,possiblyfromfirmsrelyinglargelyoninfrastructurebelongingtotheincumbent,thenecessityforretailpricecontrolsineffectivelycompetitivemarketsmaydisappear,althoughaccesspricecontrolmaystillbenecessary.2.Inordertomaintainanytoanyconnectivityinthepresenceofcompetitivenetworks,operatorsrequireinterconnectiontooneanother'snetworksinordertocompletetheircustomers'calls.Thisrequirestheoperationofasystemofinteroperatorwholesaleornetworkaccesspricesnotedabove.Especiallyintheearlystagesofcompetition,entrantswillrequiresignificantaccesstothe(p.505) dominantincumbent'snetwork,andthisrelationshipwillalmostinevitablynecessitateregulatoryintervention.However,asinfrastructureisduplicated,theneedfordirectpriceregulationofcertainnetworkassetsdiminishes.Table20.1Stagesofregulation

Monopoly Transition Normalisation

Retailpricecontrol

Pricecontrolsonallservices

Relaxationofcontrols Nocontrols

Accesspricing

Notrelevant,orarbitrarypricingofsmallrangeofservices

Introductionofcostbasedpricesfordisaggregatedservices;otherpricesderegulated

Controlslimitedtosomelocalaccessandcalltermination

Universalserviceobligations

Bornebyincumbent Costedandshared(orignoredifnotmaterial)

Asintransition,withthepossibilityofacontesttobetheuniversalsupplier

3.Governmentshavetypicallyimposedauniversalserviceobligation(USO)onthehistorictelecommunicationsoperator,basedupontworequirements:anobligationtoprovideservicetoallpartsofthecountry,andtoprovideatauniformprice,despitethepresenceofsignificantcostdifferences.Entrantscomingintothemarketwithoutsuchanobligationhaveastrongincentivetofocusuponlowcost,profitablecustomers,therebyputtingtheUSOoperatoratadisadvantage.Pressuremaythereforebuilduptoequalisethesituation,perhapsbycalculatingthenetcostoftheUSObornebythedominantoperatorinservinglossmakingcustomersandthensharingthecostamongalloperators.Therehasbeenconcern,firstthatsuchanarrangementwouldbeusedasapretextfordelayingcompetition,andsecondthathighUSOcontributionsimposedonentrantswouldchokeoffcompetitors.Inpractice,mostregulatorsindevelopedcountrieshavemaintainedtheUSOasanobligationonthefixedincumbent,withoutintroducingcostsharingobligations.Manydevelopingcountrieshaveestablishedfunds,whichareoftenunderutilisedormisspent.

AstrategyformovingtowardsnormalisationisdiscussedinSection20.3below.

20.2.3TechnicaldevelopmentsCopperhasformedthebasisofthelocaldistributionnetworkforfixedtelecommunicationsformanydecades.Overthepastdecadeorso,technologicaldevelopmentshaverendereditcapableofprovidingcurrentgenerationbroadbandspeeds,(p.506) ofupto20megabitspersecond.However,copperhasitslimits,andincreasinglyoperatorsarelookingtoreplaceitwithnewsocalledNextGenerationAccessnetworks(NGAs),whichtakefibrerightupto,ormuchclosertocustomers'premises,andarecapableofachievingspeedsofanorderofmagnitude

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 5 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

higherthancoppernetworksareabletoachieve.

Thecostsofinstallationarehuge.ItisestimatedthatthereplacementbyfibreoftheexistingubiquitouscoppernetworksineithertheUSortheEUwouldcostseveralhundredbilliondollars.Suchexpendituremayrequiregovernmentsubsidy,andinmanyjurisdictionspublicfundingfrombothlocalandnationalgovernmentsiscofundingfibredevelopments.

Fromaregulatorystandpoint,NGAspresentmanychallenges.Unlikecoppernetworks,theircostshavenotasyetbeensunk.Hence,absentcontractualobligationsresultingfromgovernmentfunding,investorownedoperatorshavetheoptionofdelayindeployingthem;bycontrast,inreturnfordeployingthem,theywillseekconcessionsfromtheregulator,certainlyintheformofsomekindofregulatorycertaintyandprobablyintheformofsomerelaxationoftheobligationstoprovideaccesstocompetitorswhichtheymaybesubjectinrespectoftheircoppernetworks(Lewin,Williamson,andCave,2009).

Itisimportanttonotethatveryhighspeedservicescanbeprovidedbynetworksotherthanthefibresuccessortoacoppertelecommunicationsnetwork.Upgradedcablesystemscanprovidebroadlythesamecapabilities.NewwirelesstechnologiesmayalsoposeacompetitiveconstraintontheservicesofNGAs.Customersofwirelessbroadbandserviceshavegrownverysharplyinrecentyears,andwirelesstechnologies3G,itslikelysuccessors,andWiMaxofferincreasinglyhighspeeds.Accordingly,oneregulatorystrategy,adoptedintheUnitedStates,istorelyoncompetitionbetweenoperatorswithNGAs(say,thecablecompanyComcastandthetelecommunicationsfirmVerizon),augmentedbyconstraintsofferedbywirelessnetworks,toprotectendusersfromabusesandcreateincentivesforfastdiffusion.InEurope,suchregulatoryforbearanceisunlikelytobeadopted,butlessintrusiveregulationmaybeemployedinordertoenhanceinvestmentincentives(see,forexample,Ofcom,2009).

20.3ImplementingaStrategyforHeavierRelianceonCompetitionLawTelecommunicationsregulators,facedwiththeopportunitiesforincreasingcompetitiondescribedabove,haveconvergedonastrategyforderegulationwhichseekstolimitregulationtocaseswherethereisasignificantriskofabuseofmarketpower.The(p.507)mostcomprehensiveoftheseistheoneadoptedintheEuropeanUnion,whichwenowdescribe.Othercountries,includingAustralia,Canada,NewZealand,andtheUnitedStates,adoptoraspiretoadoptbroadlythesameapproach,inthesensethatregulationisreducedovertimebymakingitsapplicationtoanyservicedependentinsomewayonademonstrationthatmarketpowerordominancewould,absentregulation,createcompetitionproblemsormarketfailures.

Afteratortuousandprolongedlegislativeprocess,thenewEuropeanregulatoryframeworkcameintoeffectinJuly2003,anditsfundamentalbasisemergedunchangedfromrevisedlegislationin2009.ItisbasedonfourDirectivesandanarrayofothersupportingdocumentationintheformofsoftlawlegalinstruments,whichlendthemselvestomodificationandrevisionrelativelyquicklyinresponsetotechnologicalandcommercialinnovation(Directives,2002).Atonelevel,thenewregimeisamajorstepdownthetransitionpathbetweenthestagesofmonopolyandnormalcompetition,tobegovernedalmostentirelybygenericcompetitionlaw.Itsprovisionsareappliedacrosstherangeofelectroniccommunicationsservices,ignoringpreconvergencedistinctions.ItrepresentsaningeniousattempttocorraltheregulatorsintheEU,thenationalregulatoryagenciesorNRAs,downthepathofnormalisationallowingthem,however,toproceedattheirownspeed(butwithintheuniformframeworknecessaryfortheEU'scommonorinternalmarket).Sincetheendstateissupposedtobeonethatisgovernedbycompetitionrules,theregimeisdesignedtoshifttowardssomethingthatisconsistentwiththoserules.Theserulesaretobeapplied(incertainmarkets)notinaresponsiveexpostfashion,butinapreemptiveexanteform.However,ascreeningmechanismisusedtolimitrecoursetosuchexanteregulation,insofarasitshouldonlybeappliedwhenthesocalledthreecriteriatesthasbeenfulfilledforanyparticularformofmarketbasedintervention.Thesecriteriaare:

(1)thepresenceofnontransientbarrierstoentry;(2)theabsenceofatendencytowardseffectivecompetitionbehindtheentrybarriers;(3)theinsufficiencyofcompetitionrulestobeabletoaddresstheidentifiedmarketfailuresarisingfromthemarketreviewprocess.

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 6 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

Thenewregimethereforereliesonaspecialimplementationofthestandardcompetitiontriumvirateof:

(a)marketdefinition;(b)identifyingdominance;(c)formulatingappropriateremedies.

Accordingtotheunderlyinglogicofthisregime,alistofmarketswhereexanteregulationispermissibleisfirstestablished,themarketsbeingdefinedaccordingtostandardcompetitionlawprinciples.Thesemarketsareanalysedwiththeaimofidentifyingdominance(onaforwardlookingbasis,andknownasSignificantMarketPower).Wherenodominance(expressedasthelackofeffective(p.508) competition)isfoundtoexist,noremedycanbeapplied.Wheredominanceisfound,thechoiceofanappropriateremedycanbemadefromaspecifiedlistofprimaryandsecondaryremedieswhichisderivedfrombestpractices. Thepracticaleffectofthisistocreateaseriesofmarketbymarketsunsetclausesasthescopeofeffectivecompetitionexpands.

20.3.1MarketdefinitionIn2007,theCommissionissuedarevisedRecommendationlistingsevenrelevantproductmarketsforwhichNRAsmustconductamarketanalysis(EuropeanCommission,2007).Thiscutfrom18thenumberlistedinthe2003version,areductionwhichsupportstheclaimofderegulatorysuccess.Thelistnowcomprises:oneretailmarket(accesstoafixedline);theterminationofcallsonindividualmobileandfixednetworks;wholesaleaccesstophysicalinfrastructure,includingcopperloops,fibre,andducts;abroadbandaccesswholesaleproduct;andlocalsectionsofleasedlines.NRAscanalsoaddorsubtractrelevantmarkets,usingspecified(andquitecomplex)procedures.

EuropeanNRAs,aswellastheEuropeanCommissionandthecourts,haveundertakenmanymarketdefinitionexercisesalready,oftenusingthenowconventionalcompetitionpolicyapproach.Thisofteninvolvesapplying,ataconceptuallevel,thesocalledHypotheticalMonopolistTest,underwhichtheanalystsseektoidentifythesmallestsetofgoodsorserviceswiththecharacteristicthat,ifamonopolistgainedcontroloverthem,itwouldbeprofitabletoraisepricesby5to10percentoveraperiod,normallytakentobeaboutayear(O'DonoghueandPadilla,2006:6990).Themonopolist'sabilitytoforcethroughapriceincreaseobviouslydependsupontheextenttowhichconsumerscanswitchawayfromthegoodorserviceinquestion(demandsubstitution)andtheextenttowhichfirmscanquicklyadapttheirexistingproductivecapacitytoenhancesupply(supplysubstitution).Aconsequenceoftherelianceoftheproposednewregimeonexanteorpreemptiveregulationisthatitisnecessarytoadoptaforwardlookingperspective.

Amorecontroversialaspectofmarketdefinitionistheidentificationofthegeographicdimensionofarelevantwholesaleproductmarket(namely,thoseproductmarketsinrelationtowhichvariousformsofexanteaccessremedyareprescribed).Theconventionalwisdomhasbeenforallgeographicmarketsinthetelecommunicationssectortobeidentifiedasbeingnationalinscope,butfundamentalchangesovertimeinthecompetitiveconditionsfacedbyfixedincumbentoperatorsincertainregionsintheprovisionofbroadbandserviceshavemeantthatthecompetitiveenvironmentisnolongerthesameacrossthewholecountry.TheresponseofsomeNRAshasbeentodefinesubnationalgeographicmarkets,insomeofwhichregulationcanberemoved.OtherNRAs(p.509) haveoptedtoachievethesamenetresultbyadifferentmeansnamely,bycontinuingtodefineawholesalemarketasbeingnationalinscopewhileatthesametimetargetingremediesonlyatthosegeographicregionswhicharenotfacedwithanymeaningfulcompetition.Althoughbothapproachesaredesignedtoachievethesameresult(thatis,theliftingofexanteregulationinresponsetothecreationofeffectivecompetition),theformeristhemorepuristapproach,insofarasitismorecompatiblewiththeEuropeangoalofachievingamoreharmonisedanalyticalapproachtoregulation,asopposedtomerelyachievingasimilarendresult.

20.3.2DominanceTheCommissionproposed,andEuropeanlegislatorsacceptedtheclassicaldefinitionofdominance(definedastheabilityofafirmtobehavetoanappreciableeffectindependentlyofitscustomersandcompetitors)asathresholdtestforexanteintervention,usingthetermsignificantmarketpowerorSMPtoreflectitsparticularapplicationinanexanteenvironment.Thedominancecanbeexercisedeitherindividuallyorcollectivelybyoperators,orleveragedintoaverticallyrelatedmarket.

7

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 7 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

Althoughsinglefirmdominancehascometobewellunderstood,jointdominance(ortacitcollusion)hasbeenoneofthemoreelusiveconceptsinEuropeancompetitionlaw.However,whatismorenoteworthyistherelativelackofcandidatesforjointdominanceinfixedtelecommunicationsmarkets.ThisarisesbecausefixedmarketsinEuropearesometimeseffectivelycompetitiveandsometimesdominated(singly)bythehistoricmonopolist.Jointdominancehas,however,beenattributedtomobilemarketsinsomecountries,whereasmallnumberofoperatorsshelterbehindbarrierstoentrycreatedbyspectrumassignmentprocedures.

Theregulatoryframeworkalsomakesprovisionforthosesituationsinwhichaverticallyintegratedfirmfindsitadvantageoustodistortcompetitiondownstreamasameansofbolsteringitsupstreammarketpower.Thisisachievedbyavarietyofmeansinvolvingtheinteractionofparticularfeaturesofeachmarket.Forexample,inonemarket(say,fordeliveryplatformssuchascableorsatellite),theremaybeconsumerswitchingcosts,becauseconsumersneedtomakesignificantinvestmentsinequipment.Thesecondmarketmayexhibitservicedifferentiation.Insuchcircumstances,makingthecontentexclusivetothedeliveryplatformmaystrengthenconsumerlockinandprovidethefirmwiththeabilitytodistortcompetition.Totakeanotherexample,adominantfirmintheprovisionofnetworkservicesforbroadbandmayseektoexploitthatmarketpowertoextenditsdominanceintotheretailbroadbandmarket,forexample,byobstructingcompetitorsintheireffortstouseunbundledlocalloopsrentedfromthefixedincumbenttoprovideanadequateservicetotheirownretailcustomers(seethediscussionofthefunctionalseparationremedybelow).Theexistenceofthe(p.510)leverageddominanceoptionhas,atleasttodate,notbeenutilisedbyNRAsinpractice.Instead,theyhavereliedonatraditionalanalysisofdominanceandhavetailoredtheensuingremediesaccordingly.Inothercases,instancesofleverageddominancehavebeenaddressedbycompetitionrules,whichacceptthenotionthatmarketpowercanbeabusedinamarketbeyondthespecificmarketinwhichthedominancehasbeenidentified.

20.3.3RemediesUndertheDirectives,NRAshavethepowertoimposeobligationsonfirmsfoundtoenjoySignificantMarketPowerinarelevantmarket.TheNRAsactwithinaframeworkofdutiessetoutinArticle8oftheFrameworkDirective.Themeasurestheytakeshallbeproportionatetothepolicyobjectivesidentified.Thiscanbeconstruedasmeaningthatinterventionisappropriatenomorethanatalevelthanisnecessary,and,byimplication,satisfiesacostbenefittest,inthesensethattheexpectedbenefitsfromtheinterventionexceedtheexpectedcosts.Policyobjectivesarealsospecified,includingpromotingcompetition,eliminatingdistortionsorrestrictionstocompetition,encouragingefficientinvestmentandinfrastructureandprotectingconsumers.

Themajorapprovedremediesaredescribedbelow:

Obligationofnondiscrimination.Thisrequirestheoperatortoprovideequivalentconditionsinequivalentcircumstancestootherundertakingsprovidingsimilarservices,andtoprovideservicesforitsownservices,orthoseofitssubsidiariesorpartners.Theformsofdiscriminationwhichareprohibitedhaveclosesimilaritieswiththosewhichareidentifiedundercompetitionrules.Obligationtomeetreasonablerequestsforaccessto,anduseofspecificnetworkfacilities.AnNRAmayimposeobligationsonoperatorstograntaccesstospecificfacilitiesorservices,includinginsituationswhenthedenialofaccesswouldhindertheemergenceofacompetitiveretailmarket,orwouldnotbeintheenduser'sinterests.Thisrepresentsanobligationtobeimplementedincircumstancessimilarto,butsignificantlybroaderthan,thoseinwhichtheessentialfacilitiesdoctrineisappliedundercompetitionrules.Theextensiontothetestliesinthereplacementofthepreconditionundercompetitionrulesformandatingaccess,thattheassetisessentialandcannotbereplicated,bythemuchbroaderconditionnotedabove.Theobligationissilentaboutthepricingofsuchaccess,excepttotheextentthatitprohibitsunreasonabletermsandconditionshavingasimilareffecttoanoutrightdenialofaccess.Therangeofpricingprinciplesmaythereforedepartfromsimplecostbasedpricestoincludeotherapproaches,suchasretailminuspricing.Pricecontrolandcostaccountingobligations.Thisimpliestheimpositionofacostorientedprice,whichislikelytobeappropriatewhendealingwithan(p.511) operatorwithSMPthatisbothpersistentandincapableofbeingdealtwithbyotherremedies,includingparticularlystructuralremedies.Proposedremedyinvolvingfunctionalseparation.Thistakeseffectfrom2010.ItpermitsanNRAtoimposeanobligationonanoperatordominantinseveralmarketstoplaceitsactivitiesrelatingtotheprovisionoflocal

8

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 8 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

accesstocompetitorsinabusinessunitoperatingindependentlywithinthegroup.Thisisdesignedtopreventsystematicnonpricediscriminationbytheoperatorinfavourofitsaffiliatedunitsoperatingincompetitivemarkets.Itsapplicationwillbesubjecttocertainsafeguards.Thisremedyisproposedaspartoftelecommunicationsregulation.Butthisremedy,likeothers,bearsarelationshiptoactionwhichcanbeundertakenundercompetitionrules.Inalimitednumberofjurisdictions,thecompetitionauthoritycanrequirethedivestitureofsomeofadominantfirm'sassets,oritcanacceptundertakingsofferedbythatfirminlieuofseekingfulldivestiture.BT,thehistoricmonopolistintheUK,in2005offeredfunctionalseparationasanundertakingtoremedyapossibleadversecompetitionlawfindingunderthatcountry'sEnterpriseAct2002.Retailpriceregulation.UntilanNRAdeterminesthataretailmarketisnoteffectivelycompetitiveandthatothermeasureswillnotsufficetosolvetheproblem,itcanensurethatundertakingswithsignificantmarketpowerinthatmarketorienttheirtariffstowardscosts,avoidingexcessivepricing,predatorypricing,unduepreferencetospecificusers,ortheunreasonablebundlingofservices.Thismaybeachievedbytheuseofanappropriateretailpricecap.

Whathasbeenpresentedinthissectionisastrategyformovingasectorfromheavyrelianceonsectorspecificregulationtoreliancepredominantlyoncompetitionlaw.AfullappraisaloftheEuropeanprojectdescribedabovewillnotbepossibleforseveralyears.Earlysignsarepromising,buttheregimemustalsoovercomethechallengesassociatedwithNextGenerationNetworksdescribedintheprevioussection.

Thestrategywillonlysucceedifcompetitionrules,appliedinnetworkindustriessuchastelecommunications,caninfactservethelongterminterestofendusers.Wenowturntoconsiderthisissue.

20.4TheRoleofCompetitionRulesBywayofcomplementingsectorspecificregulation,horizontalcompetitionrulesalsoapplywithequalforcetoregulatednetworksectors.WithintheEuropeanUnion,itisnotaquestionofdecidingwhethertheexanteortheexpostregimewillapply,butmoreaquestionofdeterminingwhichregimeprovidesthemore(p.512)appropriateformoflegalredressinthecircumstances(intermsofspeed,breadthofremedy,natureofmarketfailuresaddressed)orwhetherbothtypesofregimecanapplyintandem(e.g.anexantetransparencyorcostingremedycanbeusedtoexposetheexistenceofamarginsqueezeorpredatorypricing,whereastheinfringementcanbeprosecutedexpost).

IntheEuropeanUnion,thekeyprovisionintheexpostregulationofmarketpower(andofteninrelationtoanexstatutorymonopolist)isArticle82oftheECTreaty.Article82ECdoesnotprohibittheexistenceofadominantposition.Rather,itaddressestheabuseofmarketpower.ThefollowingthreecumulativeelementsarerequiredtobeestablishedinordertofindthattherehasbeenaviolationofArticle82:

Theexistenceofadominantpositioninarelevantproductandgeographicmarket.Anabuseofthatdominantpositionintherelevantmarketorthroughtheleveragingofmarketpowerintoarelatedmarket.ResultinginaneffectontradebetweenMemberStates(inordertodetermineCommunity,asopposedtonational,jurisdiction).

Article82doesnotitselfprovideadefinitionofwhatconstitutesanabuse.Anabusehasbeendefinedastheuseofunjustifiedornoncommercial(inthesenseofnotbeingobjectivelyjustifiable)meanstopreventorinhibitcompetitioninthemarket.Somecommentatorstaketheviewthattheprohibitionshouldonlyapplytobehaviourthatreducesconsumerwelfare,whileothersviewitasprotectingtheprocessofcompetition.Article82itselflistsonlyfourspecificcategoriesofabuse,namely:

Directlyorindirectlyimposingunfairpurchaseorsellingpricesorotherunfairtradingconditions.Limitingproduction,marketsortechnicaldevelopmenttotheprejudiceofconsumers.Applyingdissimilarconditionstoequivalenttransactionswithothertradingparties,therebyplacingthematacompetitivedisadvantage.Makingtheconclusionofcontractssubjecttoacceptancebytheotherpartiesofsupplementaryobligations

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 9 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

which,bytheirnatureoraccordingtocommercialusage,havenoconnectionwiththesubjectofsuchcontracts,i.e.tyingarrangements.

However,otherconductdesignedtostrengthenormaintainmarketpowermayalsoinfringeArticle82EC,particularlywhenonetakesintoaccountthataclearlydominantoperatorhasaspecialresponsibilitytothemarketintermsoftheacceptabilityofitscommercialactions,solelybyreasonoftheexistenceofitsmarketpower.Commentatorsoftencategoriseabusesasbeingeitherexclusionary(i.e.practicesthatseektoharmthecompetitivepositionofcompetitorsortodrive(p.513) themfromthemarket)orexploitative(i.e.directlyharmingcustomers,forexamplebyexcessiveprices).

Exclusionaryabusesincluderefusalstodeal,pricingpractices,crosssubsidisation,andstructuralabuses.Thesearethesortsofabuseswhichexanteregulationismostconcernedtoaddress.Abusesmustbeobjectivelyidentifiable,andmustbedistinguishedfromcompetitiononthemerits(whichis,orcourse,procompetitive).Exclusionaryabusesmusthavetheeffectofhinderingthemaintenanceofthedegreeofcompetitionexistinginamarket,orthegrowthofthatcompetition.

IntherecentappealinvolvingDeutscheTelekom, theCourtofFirstInstance(theCFI)madeitclearthatexpostcompetitionruleswillcontinuetoapplydespitetheexistenceofexanteregulation,unlessthesystemofsectorspecificregulationconfersuponthedominantfirmnomarginoffreedominwhichtopursueanindependentpricingpolicy.ThispositiondiffersquitemateriallyfromthattakenbytheUSSupremeCourtinTrinko, wheretheSupremeCourtruledthatsectorspecificregulationtrumpsantitrustrules,andallowslittleornoscopeforantitrustclaimswherethatregulationcoversthefield.TheCFI'sapproacharguablyreflectstheinstitutionalandpolicybalancesthathavebeenstrucksincetheintroductionofliberalisationmeasuresatEuropeanlevelintheearly1990s.NotonlydoesEUlevelregulationnotpurporttocoverthefield, butitisalsoadoptedinamannerthatenvisagestheexistenceofasymbioticrelationshipbetweenthetwodisciplines.InstrikingtheappropriatebalanceundertheCommunitylegalorder,itisinevitablethatcompetitionruleswillhavearesidualroletoplay,whichwillgrowastheroleofsectorspecificregulationdeclines.

Bycontrast,antitrustandregulatorypolicymakingintheUShavedevelopedalonglargelyindependentpaths.Thereisnooverallcoordinationbetweenthepolicygoalssoughttobeachievedundereitherdiscipline.ItthereforecomesaslessofasurpriseifaUScourtoflawanalysesanantitrustactiononitsowntermswithoutrecoursetothepolicygoalsofanotherinstitutionofthegovernment,whoseinterventionswillmorelikelythannotbeseentobemarketdistorting.SuchanapproachliesattheheartoftheTrinkodoctrinethatthereislittleornoroleforantitrustwheresectoralregulationeffectivelycoversthefieldinitsregulationofcommercialinteractionsbetweencompetitors.

TherecentLinkLine JudgmentoftheUSSupremeCourttakesthatthinkingonestepfurtherbyclarifyingthatanobligationtodeal,ifimposedbyaninstrumentotherthananantitrustorder,rulesouttheroleofanantitrustactionasregardsthatelementoftheoffence.Bythesametoken,theexistenceofregulationofsomesortatthewholesaleleveldoesnotmeanthatantitrusthasnoroletoplayasregardsapredationclaimattheretaillevel;indeed,thepredatorypricingclaimisstillbeingpursuedindependentlyoutsidethecaseheardbeforetheSupremeCourt.ManyUScommentatorsfeelthattheneteffectoftheLinkLineCasewillbetodrivemarginsqueezeactionsintothehandsoftheFCC(FederalCommunicationsCommittee),thefederalregulatoryagencyresponsiblefortelecommunications(p.514)matters(seeAlexiadis,2008andAlexiadisandShortall,2009).Otherthanthroughtheuseofthenondiscriminationremedyonanexantebasis,thatoptionisdifficulttoimplementintheEU,wherethelogicoftheregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunicationssuggeststhatexpostinterventionisthemostappropriateformofinterventionwheremorethanonefunctionallevelofcompetitionisaffected(i.e.wholesaleandretaillevels).

20.5ExperienceFromOtherNetworkIndustry/UtilitySectorsTheflexiblebalancebetweenexanteandexpostinterventionachievedinthetelecommunicationssectorhasnotbeenreplicatedinothernetworksectors,eventhoughitisseenasaparadigmofhowsectorspecificregulationshouldinteractwithcompetitionrules.

Partofthereasonstemsfromthefactthatothersectorsarelesspronetofundamentaldisruptionthroughthe

9

10

11

12

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 10 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

forcesofinnovation,andhencelesslikelytobecapableofadaptationtomarketconditions.Inaddition,somesectorsrequirethatagreateremphasisbeplacedontheprovisionofuniversalserviceorthesecurityofsupply.Mostfundamentally,theeconomicsofothernetworksectorspermitaclearerandmorepermanentdistinctionbetweennaturalmonopolycomponents,suchasagasdistributionnetworkortraintracks,whichitisnaturaltodealwiththroughexanteregulation,andpotentiallycompetitiveactivitiessuchasretailing,inrelationtowhichexpostinterventionviacompetitionlawshouldbeadequate.Inwhatfollowsitisassumedthatnaturalmonopolyelementsareregulatedinthisway,andabriefoverviewisgivenofhowexpostdisciplinesareapplied.

Itisworthpointingoutthathowwellorbadlycompetitionlawandregulationinteractdependsonakeyinstitutionalfeatureofthearrangementswhetherthesameagencyisapplyingboth.Insomejurisdictions,thereareseparatecompetitionandregulatoryauthorities.Inothers,asinglebodywieldsbothpowers.Intheformercase,theremayberivalryandcoordinationfailures.Inthelatter,competitorsandendusershaverecoursetoonlyoneagencytoseekredressfortheircomplaints.

20.5.1EnergyEnergyiscurrentlythenetworksectorreceivingthemostattentionfromtheEuropeanCommission'scompetitionservices,withemphasisbeingplacedontheenforcementofArticle82infringementactionsandtheimplementationof(p.515) regulatorypoliciesthroughthemediumofmergerreviewundertheMergerRegulation. Thecompetitivedynamicintheenergysectorisheavilyinfluencedbytwocompetingpublicpolicygoals,namely,theneedtomakedifferentenergyproductsavailabletothepopulationatthecheapestpossibleprice,whileatthesametimebeingmindfuloftheimportanceofconservingenergy(i.e.restrictingproduction)andpromotingecologicallyfriendlyenergyproducts.Thecombinationofthesepolicydriversmeansthateconomiesofscalearecritical,asistheabilitytosecuresupplyoveralongperiodoftimeandwithrespecttoavariednumberofenergysources.Moreover,italsomeansthattheinternationalimpetusforcooperationamongNRAsisincreased,asenergyproductsareoftensourcedextraterritorially(therebyincreasingtheimportanceofcrossborderinterconnectionrelationships).

TheCommissionhasadoptedaseriesofliberalisationpackagesintendedtoopenupthegasandelectricitymarketsamongMemberStates.Thefirstliberalisationpackageentailedtheadoptionofdirectivesonpricetransparency.Thesecondliberalisationpackageencouragedinvestmentinordertobuildelectricityandgaslines,theunbundlingofdistributionoperations,andtheintroductionofaccesstotransmissionnetworks.Thethirdpackageprovidesfortheunbundlingofenergyinfrastructure(albeitprovidinganumberofalternativesincludingapproachesfallingshortoffullownershipunbundling),andlimitstheabilityofnonEuropeanentitiestoacquiretransmissionnetworks(asdistinctfromproducers).

Inparallelwiththeseregulatorymeasures,theCommissionwillusecompetitionrulestohelpachievethreeprincipalpolicygoals,namely:

(1)theintroductionandmaintenanceofasupplystructurefavourabletocompetition;(2)theintroductionofaneffective,transparent,andnondiscriminatoryaccessregimetotransmissionnetworks(allowingcustomerstobereachedbyalternativesuppliers);and(3)ensuringthatcustomersarenotpreventedfromswitchingsuppliers(throughlockinorlongtermexclusivesupplycontractswithincumbentsuppliers).

TheparallelapplicationoftheCommunitycompetitionrulesalongsidesectorspecificmeasurescanbeseenintheCommission'sinvestigationsofEdF,E.ON,RWEandanumberofothersectorparticipantsoverthecourseof2007and2008.

20.5.2TransportThereexistsafundamentallydifferentregulatorymodelforeachparticularmodeoftransport.ThisreflectsthehistoricalrolewhicheachmodeoftransporthasplayedinthehistoryofeachMemberState.

Forexample,aviationwasformanyyearsregulatedbilaterallybysovereignstatesinrelationtointernationalroutes,anddomesticrouteswereessentiallyclosedand(p.516) amatterofdomesticregulation.Maritimetransport,bycontrast,wasleftvirtuallyunregulatedforinternationalroutes,wasprogressivelyregulatedas

13

14

15

16

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 11 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

regardsintraCommunityroutesandwassubjecttodomesticregulationasregardsdomesticferryservices.Inturn,commercialbarges,giventheirverylowratesofreturn,weresubjecttothetaxicabrule(i.e.nocompetitionforservicesbeyondacustomertakingthefirstbargethatarrives).Railwayregulationwashistoricallynational,wasimposedonanationalmonopolist,andwasdrivenprimarilybyconcernsaboutsecurityandtechnicalconsiderations.Roadtransportwas,inturn,regulatedbyreferencetohealthandsafetyconcernsonanationalbasis,withrightsoftransitprovidedforvehiclesfromothercountries.Thegrowthininternationaltradebymeansofstandardsizedcontainershasassistedinalleviatingatleastsomeofthedifferenttechnicalconsiderationsthatusedtodrivefundamentaltechnicaldifferencesinregulationacrossdifferentmeansoftransport,therebyallowinggreaterinteroperability(expressedpracticallyintheconceptofintermodaltransport).Beyondthispoint,however,therehasbeenwidespreadconflictbetweentheapplicationofcompetitionrulesandtheoperationofsectorspecificrules,asnationalMinistriesofTransportingeneralhavesoughttopreservetheirrightstoregulatealongnationallinesallaspectsofanindustryfallingwithinthescopeoftransport.

TheliberalisationofmarketshaseitheroccurredthroughtheadoptionofspecificEUDirectivesinsectorssuchasrail,whilerecoursetotheessentialfacilitiesdoctrinehasbeenusedastheinitialbasisuponwhichtheairportsandseaportshavebeenopeneduptocompetition. Inthisway,fundamentalquestionsofaccesshavebeengovernedbyArticle82oftheECTreaty,includingthechargingofexcessiveordiscriminatorypricesforaccessaswellastheactualorconstructivedenialofaccess.Unlikeothersectors,whicharecharacterisedpredominantlybymarketpowerissues,thetransportsectorseemstogeneratemoreformsofcartelisedbehaviour.Thisisbecausethemanagementofcapacity,theschedulingofpassage,theseasonalnatureofcertaintypesoftravelandhaulage,andthebilateral/multilateralnatureofmanyrelationshipsinthesesectors,resultincoordinatedbehaviourasregardspricing,timing,andavailabilitywhichisinpartnecessitatedbytheverynatureofthecooperationrequiredratherthanadesiretoengageinhardcoreinfringementscontrarytoArticle81oftheECTreaty(whichprohibitsmultilateralanticompetitivebehaviour).Accordingly,asignificantamountofleewayhasbeengrantedtooperatorsinthesesectorsonanArticle81analysis,andevenspecialProceduralRegulationshavebeenadoptedbytheEuropeanCounciltoensurethatsuchcompetitionclaimsareevaluatedintheirproperindustrycontext.

Inaddition,specificBlockExemptionshavebeenadoptedwhichgrantimmunityunderthecompetitionrulestocertaintypesofpracticesinthemaritimesector.Overtime,thefullforceofthecompetitionruleshasprogressivelyencroachedintothemaritimesector,tothepointwheretheBlockExemptions(p.517) previouslyadoptedhavebeenrepealed,tobereplacedbyCommissionGuidelinesin2008whichpurporttoimplementthecompetitionprinciplesoftheECTreaty.

Asregardsairtransport,aseriesofliberalisationpackageswereintroducedasearlyas1987andhavebeenintroducedatregularintervalssincethen,encroachingprogressivelyintomostsensitiveaspectsoftheaccessandtariffaspectsofairtransport.Duringthatperiod,anumberofimportantinfringementactionshavebeentakenunderArticle82againstvariousairlinesfordiscriminatorypricingandforfidelityrebates, aswellasaseriesofactionsagainstthemisuseofcomputerreservationsystemsandtheabuseofgroundhandlingmonopolies.Mostimportantly,theCommissionhasbeenveryactiveindevelopingregulatorypolicydefactothroughthemediumofmergerreviewundertheMergerRegulation,especiallygiventhelargenumberofacquisitionsandstrategicalliancesthathavetakenplaceinthesectoroverthepastfewyears.Inaddition,theCommissionhasbeenparticularlyactiveinensuringthatStateaidspackagestostrugglingnationalcarriersandtoregionalairportsarenotdistortiveofcompetition.Althoughmostnewentrantsofferpointtopointservices,therelativeimportanceofthehubandspokeaspectofcompetitioninthesectormeansthattheimplicationsoftheOpenSkiesAgreementwiththeEU'smajortradingpartnersstillneedtobeexploredintermsoftheirimpactonbroadercompetitiverelationships.

20.5.3PostalservicesThefundamentaldilemmafacingregulatorsentrustedwiththeliberalisationofthepostalsectorhasbeentheneedtostrikethecorrectbalancebetweenmaintaininganappropriatelevelofuniversalservicetocustomersandpromotinganeffectivelevelofcompetition.Thishasbeenachievedthroughtheprogressiveliberalisationofthesectorsince1991withtheopeningupofcourierservicesfirst,theprogressiveliberalisationofthereservedsectorbasedintheweightoflettersandparcels,theliberalisationofallcrossbordermailand,undercompetitionrules,theprohibitionofthecrosssubsidisationofcompetitiveservicesfromuniversalservicesreservedservices.

17

18

19

20

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 12 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

Inthecontextofpostalservices,thiskindofcrosssubsidisationcouldleadtogreatercompetitiveproblemssuchaspredatorypricingandloyaltyrebates.

Theapplicationofcompetitionruleshastakenaccountofthespecialtasksofgeneralinterestinthesector,particularlywithregardtoArticle86(2)oftheECTreaty. Accordingly,asidefromtheprohibitionagainstcrosssubsidisation,emphasisisplacedontheimportanceofnotdiscriminatingbetweenlargecustomersandsmallusers.Bycontrast,thereisnothingtopreventthemfromchargingpostalrateswhicharenecessaryforthemtobeabletoprovidetheuniversalpostalserviceundereconomicallyviableconditions.(p.518)

Marketdefinitionincompetitioncasesdistinguishesbetweentheuniversal(orbasic)postalserviceontheonehand,andtheexpresspostalservicemarket:thislattercategoryincludesspecificservicessuchashomepackagecollection;personaldelivery;guaranteeddeliverytimes;packagetrackingservices,andsoforth.Despitetherelativeimportanceoftheuniversalpostalserviceobligation,theenforcementofcompetitionruleshasbeenparticularlyaggressiveovertheyears,withtheCommissionhavingbroughtanumberofArticle82actionsagainstdominantpostaloperatorsbecauseoftheirvariouspricingpractices,includingpredatorypricingandvariousbundlingpractices. Inaddition,MemberStateshavealsobeenprohibitedfromextendingtheincumbentpostaloperator'smonopolyinthereservedareaintoareasopentocompetition.

Bycontrast,theCommissionhasbeenkeentopromotethemarketintegrationgoal,bygrantingclearancetoanumberofjointventuresfortheprovisionofinternationalcourierservicesortheacquisitionofminorityshareholdingsinprivateexpresscourierservices.Inaddition,theCommissionhasgreateraseriesofexemptionsunderArticle81oftheECTreatytotheseriesofREIMSAgreementsenteredintobetweenmanynationalpostaloperatorsinconnectionwiththeirsystemofterminaldues(i.e.thefeespaidbypostaloperatorstooneanotherforthedeliveryofcrossbordermailinthecountryofdestination).Onbalance,thelossofcompetitioninfreedomtosetpricesforincomingcrossbordermailisconsideredtobemorethanoffsetbythecontributionstothequalityandspeedofdeliveryofcrossbordermaildeliveriesbytheadoptedterminalduesarrangements.

20.6RegulationandCompetitionLawinNetworkIndustriesNetworkindustriesfaceacuteproblemsofmarketfailure,andalsoprovideservicesofparticularsocialsignificance.Asaresult,theyaresubjecttohighlevelsofbotheconomicandsocialregulation.Economicregulationcanbeaccomplishedeitherthroughsectorspecificexanteinterventionorthroughapplicationofgenericexpostcompetitionlaw.Thetwoapproachescanbecombinedinseveralways.IntheUnitedStates,theSupremeCourtTrinkoJudgmentconcludedthattherewasnoroomforantitrustremedieswhensectorspecificregulationwasinplace.IntheEU,ontheotherhand,competitionlawoperatessidebysidewithregulation.

Whennetworkindustriesareliberalised,thedevelopmentofcompetitionoccursoveraperiod,inthecourseofwhichregulationofaccessbycompetitorstotheincumbent'snetworkislikelytoberequired.However,potentiallycompetitiveactivitiessuchasretailingcanbeturnedovertocompetitionlawquitesoon,and(p.519) intelecommunicationsinparticular,competitioncanpenetratefurtherandfurtherintothenetwork,allowingtheboundariesofregulationtoshrink.Manyregulatorsthusrequireamarkettoexhibitahighlevelofmarketpowerbeforeinterveningexante.ThemostelaborateregimeofthiskindfortransitioningfromregulationtorelianceoncompetitionlawisfoundintheEuropeanUnion,andisdescribedabove.

Inothernetworkindustriessuchasenergyandtransport,asimilarwithdrawalfromregulationishardertoaccomplish,althoughtherangeofprocompetitiveconcessionsofferedbyoperatorsinthoserespectivesectorsunderthemicroscopeofmergerreviewhasprovidedaveryfertilebasisfortheintroductionofgreatercompetition.Asaresult,themigrationfromexanteregulationtoexpostinterventionisbecomingincreasinglypossibleinothernetworksectorsbeyondtelecommunications. Themannerinwhichthatmigrationisoccurringismorecomplexthaninthecaseoftelecommunications,whichissufficientlyinnovativesoastojustifyuseofafullyfledgedmarketbasedapproachtoassesstheroleofexanteregulation.Othernetworksectors,forexampleenergy,haveoptedforsimplerapproaches,usuallyassociatedwiththemandatingaccessexantetoastablesetofnetworkcomponents.Insuchcasescompetitionrulestendtobecomefocusedparticularlyonexclusionarybehaviourwitharetaildimension,suchaspredationormarginsqueezes.

21

22

2324

25

26

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 13 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

ReferencesALEXIADIS,P.(2008).InformativeandInteresting:TheCFIRulesinDeutscheTelekomv.EuropeanCommission,GlobalCompetitionPolicy,May2008.

&SHORTALL,A.(2009).DivergingbutIncreasinglyConverging:TheU.S.SupremeCourtinLinkLine:AEuropeanPerspective,GlobalCompetitionPolicy,April2009.

BROCK,G.W.(2002).HistoricOverviewinM.Cave,S.Majumdar,andI.Vogelsang(eds.),HandbookofTelecommunicationsEconomics,VolumeI:Structure,Regulation,andCompetition,Amsterdam:Elsevier.

CAVE,M.(2006a).EncouragingInfrastructureCompetitionViatheLadderofInvestment,TelecommunicationsPolicy,30:22337.

(2006b).SixDegreesofSeparation:OperationalSeparationasaRemedyinEuropeanTelecommunicationsRegulation,CommunicationsandStrategy,64:89104.

DIRECTIVESOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDTHECOUNCIL(2002):2002/21/EC(FrameworkDirective);2002/20/EC(AuthorisationDirective);2002/19/EC(AccessDirective);2002/22/EC(UniversalServiceDirective).

EUROPEANCOMMISSION(2007).CommissionRecommendationofDecember172007onrelevantproductandservicemarketswithintheelectroniccommunicationssectorsusceptibletoexanteregulation.Brussels:EuropeanCommission(2007/879/EC).

FAULL,J.&NIKPAY,A.(eds.)(2007).TheECLawofCompetition(2ndedn.),Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

FUSS,M.A.&WAVERMAN,L.(2002).EconometricCostFunctionsinM.Cave,S.Majumbar,andI.Vogelsang(eds.),HandbookofTelecommunicationsEconomics,Vol.1,Amsterdam:Elsevier.

LEWIN,D.,WILLIAMSON,B.,&CAVE,M.(2009).RegulatingNextGenerationAccesstoFixedTelecommunicationsServices,INFO,July.

O'DONOGHUE,R.&PADILLA,A.J.(2006).TheLawandEconomicsofArticle82EC,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

(p.522) OFFICEOFCOMMUNICATIONS(Ofcom)(2009).DeliveringSuperfastBroadbandintheUK:RegulatoryStatement.

SHARKEY,W.W.(2002).RepresentationofTechnologyandProduction,inM.Cave,S.Majumbar,andI.Vogelsang(eds.),HandbookofTelecommunicationsEconomics,Vol.1,Amsterdam:Elsevier.

URE,J.(ed.)(2008).TelecommunicationsDevelopmentinAsia,HongKong:HongKongUniversityPress.

WELLENIUS,B.(2008).TowardsUniversalService:Issues,GoodPracticeandChallenges,inJ.Ure(ed.),TelecommunicationsDevelopmentinAsia,HongKong:HongKongUniversityPress.

WHISH,R.(2008).CompetitionLaw(6thedn.),Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Notes:(1.)Forevidenceofthecostcharacteristicsoffixedtelecommunicationsnetworks,seeFussandWaverman(2002)andSharkey(2002).

(2.)SeeChapter19byHaugeandSappingtoninthisvolume.

(3.)Althoughthevalueofthoseinterchangesmaygrowmoreslowly,aswearelessinterestedintalkingtoperfectstrangersthantofriendsandrelations.

(4.)Thisconsequenceappliesnotonlytovoiceservices,butalsoto,forexample,instantmessagingandthesharingofcontentonnetworks,viacompaniessuchasMySpace.Thenetworkeffectsproblemhassurfacedin

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 14 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

anotherforminmobilenetworks.Mobileoperatorstypicallyoffertheircustomerslowerpricesforonnetcalls(toamobilesubscriberonthesamenetwork)thanforoffnetcalls(toanothermobilenetwork).Thiscanenhancetheattractivenessofbelongingtothelargestnetworks,ortoonechosenbyone'speergroup.Therehasbeendebateaboutwhethersuchpricesarediscriminatoryoranticompetitive,butnoadverseregulatorydecisionaboutsuchsocalledtariffmediatednetworkexternalitieshassofarbeentaken.

(5.)Universalservicemay,ofcourse,haveeconomicaswellassocialobjectives,asthespreadofcommunicationsservicescanspilloverintotheeconomymorebroadly.

(6.)Entryintomobileservicesorwirelessservicesmoregenerallyhasbeenlimitedbytheavailabilityofspectrum.Mostlargermarketshavehadenoughlicencescreatedtoachievesomethingapproximatingworkablecompetition,althoughtheexistenceofbarrierstoentrydoesencouragetacitlycollusivepractices.

(7.)Becausetheprocessisforwardlooking,thereisnoneedtoprovethatabusivepracticesaretakingplace,althoughevidencethatsuchpracticeshaveoccurredinthepastprovidessupportfortheviewthatexanteregulatoryinterventionisnecessary.

(8.)SeethediscussiononaccesspricinginChapter19byHaugeandSappingtoninthisvolume.

(9.)DeutscheTelekomAGv.Commission(NYR)(JudgmentofCFIofApril10,2008).

(10.)VerizonCommunicationsInc.v.LawOfficesofCurtisv.Trinko,LLP,540U.S.398(13January2004).

(11.)Communitylawusuallyseekstocreateharmonisedregulatoryconditionsinnewlyliberalisedmarketsthroughtheadoptionofdirectives,whichleaveadegreeofdiscretioninthehandsoftheimplementingMemberStatesaboutthelevelofdetailandtheformwhichtheimplementinglawsandregulationswilltake.

(12.)PacificBellTelephoneCo.DBAAT&TCaliforniav.LinkLineCommunicationsInc.,28S.Ct.1109(25February2009).

(13.)TheUK'sOfcomandGreece'sEETT,forexample,arecapableofexercisingbothregulatoryandcompetitionpowersinthetelecommunicationssector.Thegreatmajorityofsectorspecificregulators,however,donotexercisecompetitionpowers.

(14.)Ontheregulationofaccesstoenergynetworks,seeChapter19inthisvolumebyHaugeandSappington.

(15.)ReviewundertheMergerRegulationhasbeenparticularlyhelpfulintheCommissionachievingitsmarketintegrationgoalbyallowingtheindustrytoachievepanEuropeanscale,whileatthesametimeobtainingconcessionsfromindustryasregardsaccesstonetworksbycompetitors.

(16.)Forexample,CommissionconfirmssendingStatementofObjectionstoEdFonFrenchelectricitymarket,29December2008,(MEMO/08/809);E.OnEnergieAGCaseCOMP/B1/39.326(30/01/2008);CommissionopensGermangasmarkettocompetitionbyacceptingcommitmentsfromRWEtodivesttransmissionnetwork,18March2009,(IP/09/410).

(17.)Forexample,refertoSeaContainers/StenaSealink,1994OJL15/8;cf.PortofRodby,1994OJL55/52.RefertoareviewoftheadministrativepracticeoftheCommissionandthejurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourts,seeWhish(2008),chapter17.

(18.)RefertoCommissionRegulation(EC)No800/2008of6August2008declaringcertaincategoriesofaidcompatiblewiththecommonmarketinapplicationofArticles87and88oftheTreaty(GeneralblockexemptionRegulation)andreferalsotochapter12onTransportinTheECLawofCompetition(FaullandNikpay,2007).

(19.)SeerespectivelyBrusselsNationalAirport,1995OJL216/8,andVirginAirlines/BritishAirways,2000OJL30/1(confirmedonappeal).

(20.)TheOpenSkiescasein2002againsteightMemberStateswasthefirststepoftheEC'sexternalaviationpolicy.ThesecasesledtotheconclusionofbilateralagreementswiththeUS,Canada,Australia,andNewZealand.ThebilateralagreementwiththeUSallows,forthefirsttime,Europeanairlinestoflywithoutrestrictionsfromany

Regulation and Competition Law in Telecommunications and Other NetworkIndustries

Page 15 of 15

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015

pointwithintheEUtoanypointwithintheUS.TheUSisalsorequiredtorecogniseallEuropeanairlinesasCommunityaircarriersandtoprovidetherightforEUinvestorstoown,investin,orcontrolUSairlines.ThesecondstageofnegotiationsbetweentheUSandtheEUregardinginternationalaviationendedinMay2008.TheendgoalofOpenSkiesobjectivesistocreateasingleairtransportmarketbetweentheUSandtheEUwithnorestrictionsandthefreeflowinvestment.Sincethen,theCommissionhastakenanumberofstepstointroduceacohesiveSingleEuropeanSkyprogramme.

(21.)RefertoGermanPost,2002OJL247/27.

(22.)Servicesofgeneraleconomicinterestarethoseserviceswhereanundertakingisentrustedwiththeperformanceofspecifictasksbyalegislativeeconomicmeasure.Thiswouldincludetheserviceofbasicutilities.RefertodiscussioninWhish(2008),atpp.2339.

(23.)RefertoGermanPost,op.cit;,cf.BelgianPost,OJL61/32.

(24.)Forexample,seeDutchPTT,1990OJL10/47.

(25.)SeeREIMSI,1996OJC42/7;cf.REIMSII,1999OJL275/17(subsequentlyrenewed).

(26.)TheEuropeanCommission'spowerstoextractbehaviouralconcessionsorundertakingsfrommergingfirmsrelatingtoaccess,forexample,ismatchedbythesimilarpowersofaninstitutionsuchastheDepartmentofJusticeintheUStonegotiateaConsentDecreewiththepartiestoamerger.

PeterAlexiadisPeterAlexiadisisaPartnerintheBrusselsofficeofGibson,Dunn&CrutcheraswellasaLectureratKing'sCollegeLondon.MartinCaveMartinCaveisVisitingProfessoratImperialCollegeBusinessSchool.HewasamemberoftheU.K.CompetitionCommissionfrom1996-2002.Hehasauthorednumerousworksoneconomicregulation,andhasveryextensiveexperienceofadvisingregulatoryagencies,internationalinstitutions,andgovernments.