Vvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppp Core Papter

8/10/2019 Vvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppp Core Papter

1/15

A study of MVNO diffusion and market structurein the EU, US, Hong Kong, and Singapore

Dong Hee Shin *, Michael Bartolacci

Penn State University, Information Science and Technology, Tulpehocken Road, PO Box 7009, Reading, PA 19610, United States

Received 22 July 2005; received in revised form 14 November 2005; accepted 25 November 2005

Abstract

Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are emerging as alternative channels for network operators to increasemarket share and drive traffic over their networks. MVNOs have gained popularity recently in Europe, but have a dismaltrack record in Asia. In comparing the two regions, this study analyzes how the MVNO market has changed and whatopportunities and/or threats network operators and potential MVNO entrants are likely to face. The essential questionin next generation MVNOs is how the roles of mobile network operators, service providers and content producers willchange current and future value chains. This study conducts an economic assessment of market structure and environmentfor different countries MVNO diffusion. The data on market structure is analyzed by means of factor analysis techniquesin order to group countries according to their market environments. Then, structural equation modeling is used to inves-

tigate the relations of MVNO diffusion and independent variables. The results show that the MVNO diffusion significantlyrelates to market and industry structure. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: MVNO; Market structure; Comparative study

1. Introduction

When SK Telecom, Koreas biggest mobile operator with over 18 million subscribers, established a jointventure in 2004 with Earthlink (ISP provider in the US) to provide the MVNO service (broadband wireless

service) in US, several questions were raised. One might wonder why SK Telecom sought MVNO businessin the US and not in Asia. This particular question is very compelling because Korea has a well-establishedinfrastructure and dynamics that support ICT development. In addition Korea has a rapid diffusion rate and ahigh service penetration rate. The simple answer for this question relates recent failures of MVNOs in Asiancountries, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. In Asia, the MVNO market development is not asvisible as in Europe. SK Telecom appears to be well aware of the failures of other network operators andis instead seeking greener pastures in North America where many MVNOs have been successful. This

0736-5853/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tele.2005.11.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 6103966135; fax: +1 6103962932.E-mail addresses: [email protected],[email protected](D.H. Shin).

Telematics and Informatics 24 (2007) 86100

www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

example clearly brings forth the scope of this analysis: the determination of where emerging MVNOs will playthe biggest role and be the most profitable.

In a similar vein, when Virgin mobile retreated from its Singapore operations in early 2003, the companycited weak economic and market conditions in the country as the reason behind the failure of the business(Communications Today, 2002). The failure left some questions as to what market conditions MVNOs would

be able to succeed. A cross-national study could shed light on the question as to whether the observable dif-ferences are the outcome of a specific set of factors. This research investigates the set of factors influencingMVNO diffusion in order to answer following questions:

Under what market condition do MVNOs succeed or fail? What are the factors affecting the diffusion of MVNOs in the world markets? What are the future MVNO business models in next generation networks?

In this research, we analyze four cases for the purposes of answering these questions: two cases for the West(European Union and the US) and two for the East (Hong Kong and Singapore). After collecting data onmarket and industry, cluster and factor analysis are used to summarize patterns of market structure in thetelecommunications industry for these cases. Each factor is characterized by a set of coefficients (factor load-

ings) expressing its correlations with the observed variables. The variables are assigned to the factor in whichthey are most loaded. As a result, the market structure indicators are split into disjoint sets with each indicatorassociated with a single factor. The estimated factor loadings applied to the country-specific market structureindicators make it possible to score countries according to each of the factors, so that rankings of countriescan be obtained in terms of factor-specific scores. It is standard practice to retain a number of the factorswhich cumulatively explain a substantial part of the overall covariance. A multivariate regression model isdeveloped to evaluate the effects of market variables on MVNO diffusion.

The findings of this study reveals that the MVNO diffusion significantly relates to market maturity andindustry structure (horizontal or vertical integration). In Asia, mobile operators have predominantly main-tained high vertical market integration strategies where they control or own the spectrum, base stations, con-necting networks, systems infrastructure, customer service operations, pricing, packaging, billing, branding

and points of sale. In contrast, European and US, mobile service is becoming a commodity and network oper-ators are more open to outsourcing parts of the value chain. Operators in these regions increasingly viewMVNOs as efficient indirect sales channels that can decrease the focus on price because of fierce brand loyalty,lower subscriber acquisition costs by tapping existing customer bases and increase average revenue per user viadifferentiated content and services.

This paper is organized as follows: the definition of an MVNO is first briefly introduced followed by adescription of how one evolves. The next section reviews previous research on MVNOs. MVNO and theirposition in the value chain model is discussed in Section 4. Section5details the model and data employedin the paper, Section6explains the main findings from the regression model and the factor analyses. Verti-cal/horizontal market structures and implications for MVNOs are discussed in Section 7. The final sectiondetails prospects for MVNOs with respect to networks of the future.

2. Definition and evolution of MVNOs

Since its origination in 2000 in Europe, the concept of an MVNO has varied. Regulatory bodies around theworld have adopted various definitions and different forms of regulatory intervention depending on the extentto which an MVNO relies on the facilities of a mobile network operator.

TheITU (2001)defined an MVNO as a carrier providing users with mobile services without its own gov-ernment-issued license for bandwidth. UKsOfcom (2004)defined it as an organization providing customerswith mobile phone services without owning any airtime. Specifically,OVUM (2000)defined an MVNO as acarrier with the following characteristics: provides customers with a mobile service, has an independent mobilenetwork code (business registration number recorded on the SIM card), issues independent SIM cards, directlyoperates a mobile communications switch including a home location register and does not own its own

bandwidth.

D.H. Shin, M. Bartolacci / Telematics and Informatics 24 (2007) 86100 87


3/15

In summation, the term MVNO refers to an organization that does not have an assignment of 3G spec-trum, but is capable of providing public cellular services to end users by accessing radio networks of oneor more 3G spectrum holders. This broad definition reflects the dynamics of the MVNO market which pro-vides flexibility to potential MVNOs to establish business models according to their financial capability. Thisin turn increases the level of competition which results in lower prices and innovative service offerings that

benefit mobile users.MVNOs are entering into US market based on their success in the European market. While obstacles awaitthem, the US MVNO market seems to be exploding with network operators being inundated with calls frominterested companies. However, MVNOs should be wary to avoid the pitfalls that led to failures in other mar-kets such as Virgin in the Asia-Pacific region. Its strategy backfired when its activities in Singapore folded inJuly 2002 after just nine months. While Virgin has succeeded in Australia, there are now other MVNO oper-ations in question in New Zealand, Japan, and the Philippines. For this research, Singapore and Hong Kongwere selected as the Asian cases where MVNOs have not been successful. For the Western cases, we selectedfive EU countries and the US where MVNOs are currently operating. In the EU, there are four types ofMVNO adoption policies generally represented: full adoption (Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,and UK), partial adoption (Germany, Spain, Swiss), partial prohibition (Belgium, Portugal, France), and fullprohibition (Italy). We selected the five countries of EU who have a full adoption policy in order to offer a fair

comparison with the other global areas.

3. Studies of MVNO diffusion

A relatively small but growing number of theoretical and empirical studies of MVNOs is available. Ulset(2002) develops a transaction cost analysis of conditions for achieving net benefits from opening the valuechain in mobile communications by introducing MVNOs. His conclusion is that MVNOs offering complexbundles of innovative, value-added services will not be competitively sustainable as separate firms, only asmore tightly integrated partners of network operators.

There are several studies investigating access charges as well as interconnection and pricing issues forMVNOs.Hwang and Oh (2004)conduct a techno-economic evaluation for US MVNOs using a real-option

approach. Kim and Park (2004) also study the optimal access charge for an MVNO system. Kanervisto(2005)conducts a pricing structure analysis for an MVNO in Finland. Several studies also examine the char-acteristics of MVNO diffusion.Sarraf (2002)surveys MVNOs in Europe and finds two types of MVNO play-ers in the market: operator-centric and enterprise-centric. The operator-centric players have telecom as theircore business with a corresponding telecom corporate culture, while the enterprise-centric players are comingfrom disparate type of core business and therefore have very different corporate cultures. The former playersare filling the network with traffic, but only earning money on mobile services. The latter players seek theirprofit in another business and use the MVNO as an extra sales channel to promote their brands andproducts.

Several studies examine vertical and horizontal market integrations with respect to mobile data services,although MVNOs are not specifically mentioned. Looking at European MVNOs, Kiiski (2003)finds thatthere are two main industry structures in mobile data service industry: a horizontally integrated, market-dri-ven structure with modular product architecture, and a vertically integrated structure with an integratedproduct architecture. Kisski also shows that European markets tend to be horizontally integrated whileAsian countries are primarily vertically integrated markets. Jang (2003) also investigates vertical structureand competition in Korean telecommunications services market. Although all of these analyses are worth-while, they do not clearly specify the factors of vertical or horizontal market structure, especially with respectto MVNOs.

OECD (organizations for economic co-operation and development) researchers, Boylaud and Nicoletti(2003)show a significant relation between regulation, market structure and telecom performance. They empir-ically investigate the linkages between regulatory regimes, market environments and performance in three ser-vices supplied by the telecommunications industry. These three services are domestic long distance,international long distance and mobile telecommunications. Based on the comparative experience of a large

set of OECD countries over the 1990s, it provides empirical evidence that liberalization of entry and the devel-

88 D.H. Shin, M. Bartolacci / Telematics and Informatics 24 (2007) 86100


4/15

opment of effective competition in telecommunications services generally lead to higher productivity, lowerprices, and better quality.

Although there have been many studies conducted, few studies have attempted to look at the MVNO effectsand market structure from a comparative perspective. Most of empirical studies on MVNOs are limited tosingle countrys case. The focus on a single country was partly related to the lack of internationally compa-

rable data on market structures. A study byBoylaud and Nicoletti (2003)provides an example of how differ-ent market structures can be compared across countries. In addition, many previous studies ( Noam, 2003;Kiiski, 2003; Jang, 2003; Lehr, 2001) help to conceptualize notion of market structure and link it to MVNOs.

4. MVNO in the telecommunications value chain: vertical disintegration

The MVNO is a new player in the telecom value chain which used to be comprised of operators, serviceproviders, application providers, and content providers. With competition and deregulation, virtual networkoperators squeeze between operators and customers. In the past, telecommunications network operators usedto oversee many functions themselves including strict control over physical networks, and a good deal of con-trol over services, content, marketing and billing. This walled garden approach resulted in a limited numberof services and content offerings. The vertical integration of operators began to disintegrate because of the

telecommunication markets downturn, the burden of high infrastructure costs such as UMTS (universalmobile telecommunications system) licenses and 3G (3rd generation wireless network) implementations result-ing in a lower average revenue per unit (ARPU), and increasing churn in saturated markets. The telecommu-nications market has changed considerably recently with less vertical integration, a greater degree ofoutsourcing, and the abolition of monopolies with easier entry of new players into the field (this is a signof open access networks). Such vertical disintegration has encompassed not only new telecommunicationsoperators, but also content, service and application providers as well as new equipment providers from theinformation technology field (Lehr, 2001).

Traditionally, asDuchesneau (1975)finds in the energy industry, the treatment of vertical integration haspresented substantial problems at both the industrial and governmental policy-making levels. Both the energyand telecommunications industries are key national infrastructures vital to a given country. Just as in the

energy industry, where vertical integration seems to discourage competitive markets, telecommunications fol-lows suit (Economides, 1996). With the emergence of MVNOs, a question arises as to why certain marketscontinue to integrate while others start to disintegrate.

The MVNO model is a catalyst to such vertical disintegration process in telecommunications industry. Thiscreates the situation where many major players separate from the mobile network operators seeking to accessthe value chain at all levels. Unlike other simple resellers of telecommunications services such as long distance,local exchange, and mobile network services, MVNOs add value such as brand appeal, distribution channels,and other affinities to the resale of mobile services. In addition, unlike simple resellers, who often have littlerelationships with others, MVNOs typically have close and tight relationships with other actors in the valuechain. Effective MVNOs have sufficient agreements with existing operators to provide a good service coveragearea; and some well-diversified MVNOs can offer a product mix that incumbent mobile operators cannotmatch.

MVNOs create a role in emerging value chains for application aggregators who can better understand con-ditions, structures and relationships in the operators environment and who have close ties with the applica-tion community and content providers. Mobile virtual network enablers (MVNEs) are an example of createdrole by MVNO. An MVNE does not have a relationship with end-user customers. Instead, an MVNE pro-vides infrastructure and services to enable MVNOs to offer services and have a relationship with end-user cus-tomers. In particular, for any non-telecommunications company, MVNEs help them to become an MVNO.For example, MTV (music television) became an MVNO with the help of an MVNE. An MVNE offers infra-structure and related services ranging from network element provisioning, administration, operation supportsystems, and business support systems. MVNEs often provide the intermediation between MVNOs that donot want to have any control over network elements and those that want complete control. MVNEs providethe middle-ground in the sense that they can provide options to MVNOs for what they bring in-house versus

what they purchase from the host carrier. A network owner would not be interested in hosting small MVNOs



5/15

as the setup of any new MVNO requires many resources and may not generate enough traffic on its network tobe profitable. An another example of an MVNE function could be as a specialist in the outsourcing of certainbilling functions. Thus an MVNE could specialize in reducing the costs of introducing several smallerMVNOs to a network operator.

An MVNE handles all of the operations for the MVNO while the MVNO brands and markets the service.

Exactly how much behind-the-scenes work is offloaded to the MVNE depends upon the MVNOs businessstrategy. For example, seven 11 outsources all aspects of its MVNO business to Ztar mobile. However, Virginmobile eschews the MVNE model and instead handles all its own back-office, customer care and distributionfunctions.

MVNOs and MVNEs together play a pivotal role in adding value by screening, filtering and testingapplications and building relationships between the operators and outsiders. This aggregator model enablesoperators to increase revenue by outsourcing content provision to third parties. The content aggregator playsa key role in organizing the relationships between the operators and various content providers. The aggre-gators make the operators, the aggregator and the handset manufacturers work closely together. By workingwith handset manufacturers, the operator is able to influence the development of intelligent handsets and tohelp specify certain applications that reside on the handset. Ericsson has extensive relationships with oper-ators throughout the world and sees its role here as an intermediary between the operators and developers

while at the same time fostering partnership relationships by giving advice and offering investment assistanceto a range of application developers (Moriana, 2002). This aggregator role benefits traditional mobile oper-ators cooperating with MVNOs to broaden the customer base at a zero cost of acquisition. To mobile oper-ators, embracing the use of an MVNO results in revenue to offset the high cost of implementing 3Gnetworks.

The existence of MVNOs and MVNEs can be indicators of degree of vertical disintegration and openaccess markets. MVNEs rarely flourish in a market where vertically integration is prominent. The followingsection examines six indicators of market structure.

5. Summarizing market structure for empirical analysis

5.1. The choice of indicators

For the purpose of evaluating the correlations of market structure and MVNO diffusion, it is useful to focuson a limited set of indicators that capture the main relationship between MVNOs and market structure. Ingeneral, we adopt the indicators of market structure identified by theOECD Annual Report (2004); the degreeof vertical integration, the degree of liberalization, the degree of concentration, the degree of dependency, andthe degree of segmentation. This study adds ARPU (average revenue per unit) as a market performance mea-sure since the FCC commonly uses the ARPU measure when assessing mobile market performance (2005).

In addition to these indicators, of course, the features of the pricing scheme, the governance mechanisms,and regulatory institutions can have important effects on performance. However, price regulation, governanceand institutional change are all qualitative in nature and are difficult to convert to into quantitative variables.In addition, such data are not sufficiently available over long enough time periods and across countries to beuseful. The current regulatory environment associated with mobile telecommunications could be included, butit is characterized by a relatively low cross-country similarity of both price regulation and regulatory institu-tions that can be used in an empirical analysis. These dimensions of regulation and governance were thereforeignored in the analysis.

The focus thus became two main issues: market structure and its performance. FCC (2005)uses four vari-ables when assessing mobile telecommunication markets (1) market structure; (2) carrier conduct; (3) con-sumer behavior; and (4) market performance. Because of difficulty in collecting and turning the qualitativedata on carrier conduct and consumer behavior into useful quantitative data, these variables are excluded.The following indicators of the market environment were chosen:

The degree of liberalization (the liberalization index of OECD), as measured by ranking the legal limita-

tions on the number of competitors allowed in each market.



6/15

The degree of competition in the mobile telecommunications industry, as represented by the share of newentrants or the number of competitors (OECD Annual Report, 2002).1

The degree of concentration in the wireless telecommunications industry, as measured by HHI (HerfindahlHirschman Index)

HHI 10; 000 XS12

h i 10; 000Si2

S22

S32

Sn2

f= number of firms participating in an industry

iSi= each firms market sharei= firm in a given industry.

This formula also can be displayed as follows without the scalar:

HHIXf

i1

S2i

The degree of mobile market performance as measured by average ARPU. ARPU is calculated bydividing billable services-derived revenues for a given period by the average number of billable sub-scribers for that period. Despite much criticism on its flaws, ARPU is widely used to measure marketperformance.

The degree of vertical integration in the telecommunications industry, as measured by the percentage value-added providers in the market which is widely used to be the most suitable indicator (Haller, 1997, p. 319).If a market were completely integrated, producing the entire product, the ratio would be one. At the otherextreme, if a market were vertically disintegrated, producing most of the input from different suppliers, thisratio moves towards zero (Levinstein, 2000).

The degree of market segmentation as measured by the market segmentation index (Lang Research Inc.,2001). The market segmentation index is computed by dividing the incidence of each market segment ina particular segment by the incidence of each market segment in the total market. A score of 1.0 means

that market segment is the same as the total market in a market sample. Index values above 1.0 indicatethat the market segment is over-represented in a given sample of the overall market while index valuesbelow 1.0 indicate that the market segment is under-represented relative to the overall market in that sam-ple. An index value of 1.2 means that market segment is 20% more likely to be found within the particularsample than in the general population.

We can derive from these variables the structural equations in a reduced form to explain MVNO diffusionas follows:

Q=f(concentration, competition, vertical integration, liberalization, performance, and segmentation)

We used a multivariate regression method to estimate model parameters. Factor analysis and cluster anal-ysis methods were used in mapping the structure of the observations and relations between possible measuresfor the independent variables. Based on the theoretical model above, we formulated the following empiricalmodel:

MVNOD CONSb1COMPb2LIBb3ARPUb4SEGb5COMP

b6VERb7DPOLe8

1 Office of communications UK provides effective competition review guidelines that sets out four broad groups of the indicators of

effective competition: market structure; supplier behavior; consumer behavior; and consumer outcomes.



7/15

with

MVNOD: MVNO diffusion, CONS: intercept (constant), CONP: concentration (HHI), LIB: liberalization, ARPU: average revenue per unit, market performance, SEG: segmentation, COMP: competition,

VER: vertical integration, DPOL: dummy reflecting policy, regulation, carrier conduct, consumer behavior and external environ-mental regimes,

e: random error term.

The dependent variable (MVNO) was defined as the total MVNO market share in a country as percentageof the total wireless market.

Data was collected (Table 1) on a period between 2002 and 2003. It should be noted that the Singapore(Virgin mobile) case and the Hong Kong case (Shell mobile) both terminated operations in 2002 after beingin business less than a year.

5.2. Cluster analysis and factor analysis

Based on the data above, a cluster analysis was used to categorize and group mobile markets according tomarket structure and environment. Cluster analysis is used to investigate the similarity of the countries basedon the country scores on each of the estimated factors. Starting from the values taken by the scores in eachcountry, this technique progressively groups countries in clusters of increasing size based on (multi-dimen-sional) pair-wise comparisons. At each step in the clustering process, an index of inter-group similarity mea-suring the distance between the clusters being joined is calculated. It is standard practice to stop the clusteringprocedure (i.e., select the relevant number of clusters) when the distance between clusters becomes sizeable.

Using cluster analysis, several groups of countries could be identified based on their experience withMVNOs over the period analyzed, the most vertical being Hong Kong and Singapore, and the most horizon-tal, layered or open being the UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and US. This finding is consis-

tent toKiiski (2003)s study on mobile industry structure.

Table 1Data collected

MVNO share (%) HHI VI Lib Segm. ARPU (%)

EU averagea 17 3948 0.23 0.86 0.93 49.91Singapore 1.0 2186 0.32 0.54 0.56 42.54Hong Kong 3.5 1936 0.60 0.25 0.81 33.0

US 12 3736 0.59 0.34 0.84 28.4

Mobile market

Number of license holders Share of largest operator Share of second largest operator

Denmark 8 39 19Finland 4 67 30Sweden 5 43 25UK 5 32 20USA 8 27 24Singapore 3 54 19Hong Kong 3 34 18

Sources: OECD Communications Outlook, ITU Database, World Mobile Market 19962010, OMSYC.a

EUs weighted average (i.e., HHI is weighted by the countries share of telecom revenue).



8/15

After the groupings of countries were created through cluster analysis, a factor analysis was carried out toevaluate the underlying commitment factors and to reduce number of variables in order to avoid multi-colin-earity (liner inter-correlation among variables:Table 2). Factor analysis is a statistical technique aimed at find-ing the minimum number of latent variables that explain the maximum amount of the overall covariance ofthe observed variables. The factors, which are linear combinations of the observed variables, can be inter-preted in economic terms such as market structure, openness, and dependency. Each factor is characterizedby a set of coefficients (factor loadings) expressing its correlation with the observed variables and the variablesare assigned to the factor in which they are most loaded (Table 3). As a result, the market structure indi-cators are split into disjoint sets, each of which is associated with one factor. The estimated factor loadingsapplied to the country-specific market structure indicators make it possible to score countries accordingto each of the factors, so that rankings of countries can be obtained in terms of factor-specific scores. It isstandard practice to retain a number of factors which cumulatively explain a substantial part of the overallcovariance.

6. Empirical model and analysis results

Overall, the empirical results allow the identification of important factors that influence the observable pat-tern of MVNO diffusion (Table 4). Four main factors are found to best describe the cross-country variance inthe set of indicators of MVNO and market structure.

Table estimation results summarize the estimated effects of market structure on MVNO diffusion for theselected model specifications (i.e., those that were not rejected by the tests). Overall, the market structure

Table 2Results of factor analysis rotated factor loadings

Variables/factors Performance Structure Ancillary regulation

Competition 0.628 0.052 .0083ARPU 0.721 0.188 0.114Segmentation 0.023 0.930 0.149Concentration 0.129 0.900 0.033Vertical integration 0.093 0.838 0.199Liberalization 0.003 0.254 0.349

Factor loadings measure the correlation between the individual indicators and the latent factors. Indicators are assigned to the factor towhich they are most correlated. The rotation of factor loadings is a transformation aimed at minimizing the number of indicators that arehighly correlated with more than one factor.

Table 3Correlation matrix (full model)

Concentration Competition Segmentation Liberalization ARPU Vertical integration

Concentration 1Competition 0.3923 1Segmentation 0.2128 0.7822 1Liberalization 0.2334 0.5933 0.4983 1ARPU 0.3069 0.5932 0.6923 0.5932 1Vertical integration 0.5560 0.4982 0.4013 0.7322 1

0.492

3

Market clusters

Vertical Horizontal or unbundledSingapore, Hong Kong Most of the EU and US



9/15

indicators performed quite well, significantly improving the fit of the regressions. By looking at the indicatorsmost closely associated with each of the factors, a straightforward economic interpretation can be made: thefirst factor (associated with vertical integration of the mobile market) shows that the degree of vertical inte-gration is significantly associated with MVNO diffusion; the vertically integrated mobile market reduces theMVNO diffusion. The second (associated with segmentation in telecom services) expresses the positive signif-

icant relationship with the MVNO diffusion; the third factor (associated with mobile market competition)shows the positive relation that higher competition is related to higher MVNO diffusion; and the fourth (asso-ciated with liberalization) factor accounts for the positive relation with the process of the MVNO diffusion(reword this too, I am not sure what you mean by encouraging effect). The concentration factor has the neg-ative relation with the MVNO diffusion, but the relation is not statistically significant. ARPU does not show asignificant result.

A principal components method with a varimax rotation of the six variables reveals five underlying factorswith eigenvalues of greater than one. These five factors explained 75.9% of the variability in the eleven vari-ables. Model 1 does not account for the vertical integration variable and model 2 does not include the com-petition variable. Model 3 has a better overall explanatory capacity, but the variables of competition andliberalization are not significant. Model 4 does not include the dependency variable, but is generally accept-able. Model 5 drops four variables and shows the lowest explanatory power. There are some recurrent obser-vations from these models. Vertical integration and segmentation are most statistically significant factors. Theeffect of these two variables is also relatively robust.

Dividing the sample into the two groups (vertical and horizontal) identified by cluster analysis showed moreinsights (Table 5). The statistical analysis shows that the liberalization factor present in the horizontal grouphad a positive and significant impact on MVNO diffusion. This can be explained by the EU Access Directive(2002) which helped to correct vertical integration in communications services and facilitated MVNOlaunches. TheEU Access Directive (2002)contains requirements that vertically integrated network operatorsmust impose accounting separation and initiate transfer pricing arrangements where they control access toessential input facilities that are used by their competitors in a retail market. The directive also requires thatservice providers be given access to these network elements if not doing so would be detrimental to a compet-itive market. In contrast, the liberalization factor for the vertical group was detrimental to MVNO diffusion,

although the effect also was not statistically significant.

Table 4Estimation results

Variables/factors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Concentration 0.0078 0.00688 0.01003 **0.03820.029 0.305 2.566 2.903

Competition 0.0823 0.0232 *0.1372 0.0034

1.349 2.301 1.212 2.393Segmentation **0.27442 ***0.2432 ***0.235 **0.1578

3.492 4.203 3.999 2.942

Liberalization 0.0302 0.234 0.034 *0.1340.624 0.992 1.932 2.321

ARPU *0.0899 0.0603 **0.00907 **0.01973.392 1.9323 3.2093 2.9332

Vertical integration *0.183 *0.192 0.0312.032 0.123 3.234

Constant 5.934 3.423 7.392 4.923 0.3231.170 1.153 1.923 0.132 3.293

Prob >F ***0.0071 **0.0162 ***0.0012 ***0.0052 **0.0129R2 0.5517 0.5711 0.5417 0.5291 0.323

Adj.R2

0.4136 0.4053 0.4793 0.4293 0.203Dependent variable MVNO market share in 20022003, t-statistic is italic.* Significant at 90% level.

** Significant at 95% level.*** Significant at 99% level.



10/15

Model runs at the level of country sub-groups show that the overall pattern is particularly visible in thehorizontal group of countries. In this group, competition is correlated negatively with MVNO diffusion (withno significance) and concentration does not exhibit a significant effect. Within the countries in the verticalgroup, competition has the opposite effect and is positively related to MVNO diffusion.

Concentration (measured by HHI) shows a positive effect, but not statistically significant on MVNO diffu-sion. This finding contradicts the widely held belief by several consulting firms reports. The HHI of the US ismore effective than Europe. The US HHI is 1377 compared to tha tof Europe (UK-2510, Finland-4297, Den-mark-3399, Sweden-3878, Norway-5656, and Netherlands-2700).2 Market concentration is low by interna-tional standards in the US and the MVNO diffusion therefore has been largely unaffected by marketconcentration.

Concentration also is not a significant factor in Asia. Hong Kongs HHI is low (1936), which is an effectiveHHI figure. The HHI figures of Hong Kong and Singapore contribute to the insignificant result of competi-tion and concentration. As the competition variable shows, Hong Kong and Singapore are two of the worldsmost competitive mobile markets.3 The implication is that Hong Kong and Singapore are both small scalemarkets, and therefore the incentive to innovate may be lower than in large markets. As shown in the EU

and US mobile markets, larger firms innovate more. The largest operators in Hong Kong and Singapore haverelatively small market shares. Hong Kong and Singapore are the two of the most fragmented world markets;and less fragmented markets, such as the EU and the US have much higher MVNO penetration. An expla-nation may be that fragmentized or segmented submarkets in smaller overall markets obviate inter-operator

2 US Mobile Subscribers by Operator, 2003 (Source: FCC Ninth Report). Verizon, 37,522 (24%), Cingular 24,027 (15%), AT&T, 21,980(14%), Sprint, 15,900 (10%), T-Mobil, 13,128 (8.6%), Nextel, 12,882 (8.5%), All Other (including MVNO), 25,983 (17%)

HHI 10; 0000:242 0:152 0:142 0:12 0:0862 0:00852 0:172 1377

In the same manner, EUs HHI can be calculated: UK-2500, Germany-3400, Italy-3800, France-3900, Spain-4000, and Netherlands-2700(Source mobile Communications 24 June 2004).3 Hong Kong has 11 networks spread between 9 mobile operators servicing a population of8.7 million with an existing penetration

rate of over 90%. Singapore has 9 networks spread between 11 mobile operators.

Table 5Estimation results, country groups

Variables/factors EU USA Hong Kong Singapore

Concentration 0.08752 0.01003 0.01281.979 0.9302 0.4923

Competition 0.19832 0.09333

2.392Segmentation *0.09832 *0.0832 *0.0920

3.232 2.942

Liberalization **0.2983 *0.0903 *1.56834.344 3.9434 4.233

Dependency 0.03621.212

ARPU *0.07385.1323

Vertical integration **0.1374 *0.0393 0.0434 *2.0344.999 3.2832 1.232 4.213

Constant **12.3049 0.3943 **3.432 0.9844.923 2.123 4.292 1.032

Prob >F ***

0.0071

**

0.0162

***

0.0012

***

0.0052R2 0.5517 0.5711 0.5417 0.5291Adj. R2 0.4136 0.4053 0.4793 0.4293

Dependent variable MVNO diffusion in 2002, t-statistic in italics.* Significant at 90% level.

** Significant at 95% level.*** Significant at 99% level.



11/15

collaboration on application development (Godfrey and Kam, 2004). As the ITU Annual Report (2004)shows, Hong Kong has a more fragmented market sector than any other country and no mobile operatorthere accounts for more than 30% of the market. This segmented market produces a low HHI in Hong Kong.As to the HHI variable itself, the HHI may not be a good measure in such a small market (Farrell and Shap-iro, 1990; Demsetz, 1974). A more appropriate one may be Gans new measurement of HHI when it applies

vertical structure, namely vertical HHI (Gans, 2005).The market segmentation variable shows different results across groups. The segmentations in EU and USshow significant correlation with the MVNO market share. This result reflects the current EUs MVNE pro-liferation. As of 2005, there are more than 36 MVNEs in the world and half of them are located in Europeancountries. MVNEs accelerate markets to be segmentized. There are already many different players providingmobile service operations in Europe: exclusive mobile retailers (EMR), independent mobile retailers (IMR),Exclusive Service Providers (ExSP), Independent Service Providers (IndSP), Indirect access providers (IAP)and finally MVNOs. These different players are indicators that overall markets are segmented and fragmen-tized in Europe.

Interestingly, this segmentation variable shows a significant correlation with vertical integration variable.This can be explained that the fact that European MVNEs provide the telecom operators with a relationshipto manage through a single, trusted interface for different MVNOs (Kristensson, 2001). In other words,

MVNEs provide a bundled platform (packaged platforms for MVNOs). These equate to turnkey type solu-tions that typically include automated interfaces to a carriers provisioning system, real-time or near-real-timeusage, gateways for SMS (short message service) and content, as well as the usual telco back-office systems andservices. MVNEs take such forms as application service providers (ASPs), billing companies, content provid-ers, hardware manufacturers, and Internet or media companies.

The highly segmented markets of Hong Kong and Singapore have both been not favorable to the MVNOmodel. The fact that the MVNO model has had difficulty establishing itself in such segmented market envi-ronment suggests that the intensity of the facilities-based competition creates limited opportunities for themto be economically viable, even with a differentiated strategy in the face of aggressive price competition. HongKongs MVNOs lease network services from facilities-based providers, and compete on the basis of retail ser-vice differentiation. Yet, because of the already fragmented sector in these markets, MVNOs have not been

effective in focusing on niche markets that can be served at lower cost with a focused marketing strategy. Theyhave also not focused on offering superior customer service or bundling the mobile services with other value-added services and features. MVNOs in Hong Kong have therefore become vertically integrated service pro-viders who contribute to and enhance the vertical market structure.

As pertaining to market performance, the ARPU variable shows no significant correlation although it doesshow a positive relation. The insignificance of ARPU implies that the main challenge prospective MVNOswill face is not necessarily a low ARPU, but other ones such as a niche market. Jost (2004) predicts thatan MVNO can potentially survive on $5 ARPU, but that the MVNO model in general must find a way tosurvive from the cost side of the business. The positive relation implies that MVNOs are active in marketswhere they deal with low margin subscribers. The undesirable role of MVNOs in this scenario winds up asprotecting the host carrier from absorbing undesirable financial costs such as those related to volatile prepaidchurn, high capital investment, and consumer fraud. All of these can accompany an MVNO that targets low-value subscribers. The positive correlation further suggests that MVNOs must find a niche among incumbentcarriers who are willing to lease capacity since most operators are unlikely to open their networks.

Overall, the empirical analysis does show key drivers of MVNO diffusion, but it also provides implicationsthat several constellations of factors may exist that can be conducive to MVNO diffusion. However, differenttools, such as panel regression, will need to be used to examine this further. In addition, since we set regula-tions and policy as dummy variables, these variables amy exhibit some significance across different models.Future studies may investigate regulatory issues in further detail.

7. Vertical and horizontal structure and the mobile telecoms industry

The data analyses show that market structure is a significant factor with respect to MVNO diffusion. A high

degree of vertical integration in Asia has prevented MVNOs there from successful active operation. Part of



12/15

the consequence of vertical integration is the high profile of significant market players with their dominantmultimedia services. The vertical integration of markets has been substantiated through strategic partnerships,alliances and joint ventures, enabling early market penetration. The absence of regulation has adverselyaffected MVNO emergence. In Asia, where regulation tends to be interventionist, there are no policies regard-ing MVNOs.

The European and US cases are going through a different phase of the business cycle. European MVNOsare already launching multiple operations across the continent while only a few US MVNEs are working withMVNOs. One common characteristic of both markets, though, is that MVNOs are in horizontal structureswhich will eventually make the market mature. Both the EU and US cases have evolved away from verticalintegration driven by the need to achieve economies of scale and specialization. Such horizontal relationshipsdo not seem to exist in Asia at the present time, but it suggests a way forward for the evolution of the telecomindustry in Asia.

Network industries of Asia in general are typically described as vertical industries. In Asia vertical integra-tion often results in increased the profitability due to the elimination of the so-called double marginalizationeffect (Hart and Tirole, 1991). In reality, the vertical structure in the Asian market has brought about eco-nomic efficiency through the minimization of production and transaction costs, and therefore, potential con-sumer benefits. Operators have been mostly involved in three levels of the industry; the base products, network

infrastructure and the interface with the end-users through the services and products ( Sarraf, 2002). Compa-nies deliver products for the infrastructure and the final customers, the end-users obtain the services and prod-ucts from companies situated downstream the in the value chain. Network operators offer services at differentlevels of the value chain. Vertical integration creates an incentive for integrated suppliers to raise wholesaleprices to competing retailers as a means to increase profits in downstream markets. Vertical integration alsolimits the supply of independent marketers available to potential arbitragers. With new technical platforms,this basic value chain, based on the vertical structure of a network industry becomes more complex.

Recently, Asian governments attempt to restructure the vertical market by opening up for new operators.In so doing, new operators can enter the market without owning a bandwidth license, the competitionincreases and the vertical integration will be reduced. With a decrease in vertical integration, an increasingnumber of MVNOs will enter the mobile telecom industry fulfilling one or several roles in the mobile telecom-

munications value chain. Despite regulatory change, however, the markets are still vertically integrated in nat-ure. Outlooks for MVNOs are not so bright given this high degree of vertical structure. One examplesupporting this statement is that in Asia there are more operator-centric MVNOs than enterprise-centricMVNOs (Sarraf, 2002).4 This can be contrasted to the variety of types of MVNO players that emerged inWestern Europe. Such different types of MVNOs date back to the EUs telecommunications privatizationand the entrance of GSM in 1990s both of which changed the industry structure of many European countries.Companies which were previously vertically integrated changed their operations to compete in a horizontally-layered, market driven business environment. Products became modular and standardized because the bestresults were believed to be achieved by defining open standards and letting the markets do the rest ( Sarraf,2002).

8. Conclusion: future convergence value era

The emergence of MVNOs has revealed two main industry structures in the mobile telecommunicationsindustry: a horizontally integrated, market-driven structure with a modular product architecture, and a ver-tically integrated, walled-garden structure with an integrated product architecture. As shown previously,MVNO services are much more successful in Europe than in Asian countries. One major reason for this dif-ference in success is the differences in the industry structures between the markets in both areas. Because of thecomplexity of MVNO services, a horizontal-layered structure seems to be more successful. This finding

4 The operator-centric players have telecom as their core business with telecom culture. They are more oriented towards filling thenetwork with traffic, and earning money on mobile services only. Since the Enterprise centric players are coming from another corebusiness, they have a different mindset. Normally they make their profits in another business and might use the MVNO as an extra sales

channel to promote their brands and products.



13/15

provides future carriers and potential MVNOs with a framework to determine if the MVNO model is rightfor their respective business. On the unprecedented success of Virgin mobile, and also the surge of multipleEuropean initiatives, both telecom and non-telecom companies in Asia (Korea, Japan and China) are nowexpressing their interest in this new arena. Such companies may use the success factors discussed in this workto address key considerations of MVNO adoption.

The Asian industrial framework (and regulatory environment to some extent) is optimized for traditionalmobile voice services. It does not allow MVNOs to develop their business models in ways that have turned tobe popular in Western Europe. In other words, MVNO services are more successful in markets where virtualoperators take intermediary and aggregating roles in order to offer a true end-to-end mobile service. Theincumbent Asian operators are not eager to change the market structure. It seems that MVNOs would havenothing but negative consequences from the consumers point of view if the market structure changed.

In his study on market structure, Economides (1996)leaves open question of whether the horizontal or avertical industry structure is the better for MVNOs. To be more specific, the open questions would be: Is itmore valuable to have a transparent, market-driven industry structure or a vertically integrated structureenabling provision of easy-to-use services? Would this more integrated structure provide a mobile telecommu-nications market with only one, monopoly-type player. This study partly answers such questions by showingthat a horizontally-layered market is better with respect to facilitating MVNO diffusion. It is clear, however,

that the old vertically integrated telecom business models are no longer viable in an environment where thedemand for a whole range of value-added services is strong. Under such a horizontal value chain, vertical inte-gration will be minimized or eventually disappear.

Under vertically integrated market, the owners of transport network have a real advantage by exertingeconomies of scale and scope, and the potential to exploit bottleneck control of major parts of value chain.The future of the value chain will see more and more of a separation between infrastructure and services.The MVNO is an example that independent from its underlying infrastructure. A variety and innovative ser-vices of MVNO shows an example of redistribution of control and intelligence from infrastructure to service.With such separation, the role of middleware services will be increasingly important while intermediatinginfrastructure and applications. The development of the horizontal value chain will make a proliferation ofMVNO (or enhanced service providers) operations inevitable, with many major players (apart from the

mobile network operators themselves) seeking to access the value chain at all levels.

9. Limitations and future studies

The main goal of this study was to examine cross-national data in order to highlight possible factors relatedto the observable patterns of MVNO penetration. For this purpose, a mobile market structure was analyzedthrough the analysis of important economic factors related to the diffusion of MVNOs. This study used anaggregation model and data was collected for several countries for the limited time of 20022003. Therefore, itwould be helpful for future studies to conduct cross-national studies at a less aggregated level, such as usingcross-sectional time-series analysis methods.

One question that remains uncertain for MVNOs in Asia and Europe alike is the long-term viability of theMVNO. This question relates to how the value chain will develop and where the bottlenecks will remain. Somepredict that future MVNOs will be different from the current voice-centric and operationally light discountservice providers of today. Some imply that the next-generation MVNOs will be distinct in their ability toleverage future technologies such as mobile broadband, IP-based multimedia, business vertical and convergentsolutions such as biometric and cellular applications. In particular, IP-based access technologies will open upnew wholesale options for MVNOs. Next-generation MVNOs will be more complex in their approach to themarket than their first-generation versions of today. They will enter the mobile market with unique opera-tional models, clearer differentiation, and a wider and more complex array of services; and they will leveragemore robust access platforms beyond GSM to deliver these services.

The current study intentionally simplifies and limits the variables in order to grasp the overall understand-ing of MVNO diffusion factors. The limited variables allowed us to set aside regulations, policy and carrierconduct and behavior as dummy variables. As Economides (2002) contends, the structural differences are

caused by the dissimilarities in the national regulations. The significant results of the dummy variable imply



14/15

that there is something more behind the MVNO diffusion and market structure. For example, despite the over-all similarities between US and EU, the lower MVNO in the US can be explained by the fact that the US oper-ators are carefully watching MVNO development as they believe that the transition period between 2.5G and3G will be the most fruitful period for MVNOs(Besen Group White Paper, 2003). This kind of carrier behav-ior will need to be investigated with respect to regulation and policy.

With regard to HHI, this study shows that HHI can give a misleading result when it is used in small sizemarkets. In the case of a highly fragmentized market, HHI produces an ideal index leading one to believe thatthe market has effective competition. While the ARPU measure can be a useful indicator in comparing mar-kets operating under similar business conditions and with similar products, it can also be significantly mislead-ing when applied to emerging markets. The reason for this is that historic ARPU development does not takeinto account the rapid reduction in equipment and operating costs or the dramatic change in industry realitieswhich are clear phenomenon with respect to MVNOs. Therefore, both HHI and ARPU (as many other stud-ies indicate) should be used to corroborate the results from other variables.

References

Bensen Group, 2004. Which MVNEs will be the most successful? Bensen Marketing Group White Paper, May 2004.Communications Today, 2002. Singapore Does not Work For Virgin Mobile, Brief Article Communications Today, July 11, 2002.Demsetz, H., 1974. Two systems of belief about monopoly. In: Goldschmid, H. et al. (Eds.), Industrial Concentration: The New Learning.

Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 164184.EU Access Directive 2002/19/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of,

electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Official Journal of the European Communities.Available from:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_108/l_10820020424en00070020.pdf.

Duchesneau, T., 1975. Competition in the US Energy Industry: A Report to the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation. FordFoundation Press.

Economides, N., 1996. The economics of networks. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 14 (2), 675699.Economides, N., 2002. US telecommunications today (October 2002). Stern School of Business Working Paper. Available from: http://

ssrn.com/abstract=378380(accessed in April 2005).Farrell, J., Shapiro, C., 1990. Horizontal mergers: an equilibrium analysis. Am. Econom. Rev. 80 (1), 107123.Federal Communications Commission, 2005. WTB Seeks Comment On CMRS Market Competition, WT Docket No. 05-71, DA 05-487,

Released: February 24, 2005. Available from: .Gans, J.S., 2005. Concentration-based merger tests and vertical market structure. J. Econom. Literature 43 (2), 238256.Godfrey, J., Kam, J., 2004. What it takes to kick start mobile data: the lessons from Japan and South Korea. ITU Asia 2004, Online News

Service.Hart, O., Tirole, J., 1991. Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure, NBER Reprints 1517, National Bureau of Economic Research,

Inc.Haller, L., 1997. An econometric analysis of the demand for RTE cereal: product definition and unilateral market power effects.

Marketing Policy Center Research Report No. 35, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Hwang, J., Oh, J., 2004. Techno-Economic Evaluation and Analysis for MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) Adoption and

Spectrum Policy and Regulation Using Real-Option Theory Modeling. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Electronic Commerce Research, Dallas,TX, USA, June 2004.

ITU, 2001. Mobile Virtual Network Operators, Geneva. International Telecommunications Union.ITU Annual Report, 2004. Survey of Asian telecom market. Available from: http://www.itu.no/filearchive/ITU_annual_report2004.pdf

(accessed in May 2005).Jang, B., 2003. Vertical structure and network competition in telecommunications services market. Inform. Soc. Res. (Korean edition)Fall, 81101.

Jost, J., 2004. Can MVNOs Succeed in Emerging Markets? Pyramid Research, 2004.Kanervisto, J., 2005. MVNO Pricing Structures in Finland, Ministry of Transport and Communications. Finland Government

Publication, Helsinki. Available from: , February2005.

Kiiski, A, 2003. Mobile Data Service Industry Structure: Walled Garden versus Horizontal Integration. Research Report of NetworkingLaboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.

Kim, B., Park, S., 2004. Determination of the optimal access charge for the mobile virtual network operator system. ETRI J. 26 (6), 239251.

Kristensson, S., 2001. Mobile Virtual Network Operators. Assessing MVNO Business Opportunities, School of Business, University ofStockholm, Master of Science Thesis, June 2001.

Lang Research Inc., 2001. Travel Activities and Motivation Survey, Touring Segmentation Report, October 2001, Canadian Tourism

Commission, ISBN: 0-7794-2270-8.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_108/l_10820020424en00070020.pdfhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=378380http://ssrn.com/abstract=378380http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-487A1.dochttp://www.itu.no/filearchive/ITU_annual_report2004.pdfhttp://www.mintc.fi/www/sivut/dokumentit/julkaisu/julkaisusarja/2005/2105.pdfhttp://www.mintc.fi/www/sivut/dokumentit/julkaisu/julkaisusarja/2005/2105.pdfhttp://www.itu.no/filearchive/ITU_annual_report2004.pdfhttp://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-487A1.dochttp://ssrn.com/abstract=378380http://ssrn.com/abstract=378380http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_108/l_10820020424en00070020.pdf


15/15

Lehr, W.H., 2001. Vertical integration, industry structure, and internet telephony. In: McKnight, Lehr, W., Clark (Eds.), InternetTelephony. The MIT Press.

Levinstein, M.C., 2000. Vertical Integration. In: Mokyr, J. (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, New York.Moriana Group, 2002. The new value chain in telecommunications: a threat or opportunity for telecom operators? The OSA/Parlay

Report.Noam, E., 2003. The Internet: Still Wide Open and Competitive? OII Internet Issue Brief No. 1, August 2003.OECD Annual Report, 2002. Outlook on the competition. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/35892523.pdf(accessed in

June 2005).OECD Annual Report, 2004. World IT and telecom market structure. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/15692529.pdf

(accessed in June 2005).OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 2001. OECD Economics Department in its series by Olivier Boylaud and Giuseppe

Nicoletti. Regulation, market structure and performance in telecommunications.Ofcom, 2004. The Communications Market 2004: Telecommunications, October 2004. Available from:.OVUM, 2000. Virtual Mobile Services: Strategies for Fixed and Mobile Operators, June 30, 2000. OVUM Research and Consultancy,

Market Research Report.Sarraf, M., 2002. MVNOs-The New Concept for Mobile Operators. Ericsson Report of Technology Trends. Available from:.Ulset, S., 2002. Mobile virtual network operators: a strategic transaction cost analysis of preliminary experiences. Telecommun. Policy 26,

537549.

Further readings

Besanko, D., Perry, M.K., 1994. Exclusive dealing in a spatial model of retail competition. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 12, 297329.Bolton, P., Whinston, M., 1993. Incomplete contracts, vertical integration, and supply assurance. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60, 121148.Caillaud, B., Jullien, B., Picard, P., 1995. Competing vertical structures: precommitment and renegotiation. Econometrica 63 (3), 621646.Cambini, C., 2000. Competition between vertically integrated networks. Inform. Econom. Policy 13 (2), 137165.Grant, R., 1995. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications, fourth ed. Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,

2002.Hart, O., Tirole, J., 1990. Vertical integration and market foreclosure. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 205285.Strand, J., 2004. Will discount plays kill mobile operators? In: Proc. of ITU Telecom Asia 2004, pp. 7889, September 711, 2004, Busan,

Korea.Telecoms Infotech Forum Briefing paper, October 1998, Hong Kongs 1998 Television policy review. Available from: .

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/35892523.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/15692529.pdfhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmpdf/telecoms.pdfhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmpdf/telecoms.pdfhttp://www.ordre-ing-bey.org.lb/symposium/proceedings/11E_SARRAF.PDFhttp://www.ordre-ing-bey.org.lb/symposium/proceedings/11E_SARRAF.PDFhttp://www.trp.hku.hk/tif/9810briefing.pdfhttp://www.trp.hku.hk/tif/9810briefing.pdfhttp://www.trp.hku.hk/tif/9810briefing.pdfhttp://www.trp.hku.hk/tif/9810briefing.pdfhttp://www.ordre-ing-bey.org.lb/symposium/proceedings/11E_SARRAF.PDFhttp://www.ordre-ing-bey.org.lb/symposium/proceedings/11E_SARRAF.PDFhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmpdf/telecoms.pdfhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/cmpdf/telecoms.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/15692529.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/6/35892523.pdf

Documents

Vvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiippppppppp Core Papter