Upload
diego-alonso-collantes
View
218
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Regulación y Competencia en Telecomunicaciones y otras redes
Citation preview
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.