Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that telecommunications liberalization in Europe has taken the European telecommunications and internet sectors a breathtaking leap forward. To counter the leveling off of growth and facing the smartphone revolution, new structural changes are now required.

The paper assesses in a concise manner the effect of telecommunications liberalization in Europe based on the 1987 green paper. It demonstrates the enormous dynamics created in the mobile and fixed network sectors and the key role of liberalization to make Europe internet‐ready during the 1990s. The paper then proceeds to the analysis of the leveling off of growth during the last few years and discusses required changes to restart dynamics.

The green paper of 1987 successfully defined a framework within which political and legal action in both regulatory and competition fields could develop, leading to full liberalization of telecommunications in the European Union by 1998. The subsequent decade saw an enormous expansion of both mobile and fixed services, which only abated by the end of the decade. Liberalization and coordination of licensing of mobile systems were the basis for the entry of the internet in Europe and the explosive growth of GSM mobile services. The paper finds that the deployment of broadband internet and fourth generation mobile now needs further change to relaunch dynamics. It welcomes the goals of the digital agenda for Europe in the context of the 2020 objectives of the European Union, but argues that deeper structural changes are needed to achieve these goals.

Liberalization of European telecommunications was guided by a strategic framework set out in the 1987 telecommunications green paper and developed subsequently further. Comprehensive frameworks of this nature will be needed if Europe wants to gain a leading role in the future smart phone and broadband internet markets.

This paper aims to examine the recent performance of European Union (EU) telecommunications policy in the context of the policy aims set out in the original green paper of 1987. It also aims to consider some problems encountered in applying the regulatory rules to interconnection, mobile roaming and broadband.

The paper draws on economic and institutional analysis undertaken in 2007, complemented with monitoring of the EU policy response and empirical evidence until 2012.

The paper finds that, despite the success of the regulatory reform of 2003, the EU has encountered problems in dealing with a few “big ticket” policy items via its market reviews. The difficulties stem from a mix of factors, including poor methodological design and an erroneous assumption that effective competition is feasible in all market segments. Three main avenues for improvement are suggested, whilst retaining the basic structure of the cycle of market reviews.

The paper draws on theory, as well as empirical and institutional evidence over two decades, to highlight some flaws in dealing with some key telecommunications policy issues in the EU. It is of value to policy makers, industry analysts and academics.

This paper seeks to make an assessment of the progress towards a fully fledged internal market for e‐communications in the European Union. The assessment is placed in the context of a quarter century of telecommunications reform in Europe.

A combination of qualitative and quantitative assessments is applied with a focus on fixed and mobile communications. The qualitative assessment includes interviews and a questionnaire. The quantitative assessment is based on econometric analysis of panel data.

Removing the remaining barriers in the internal market may in the long run provide benefits of €27‐55bn or the equivalent of 0.2‐0.4 percent of GDP at the European level. Major barriers identified are related to the degree of openness of national markets and the ability of telecom firms to exploit EU‐level economies of scale.

In the econometric benefit analysis no secondary effects are included. Further research is recommended to assess the effects, costs and benefits of enforcing a higher degree of harmonisation.

The paper provides insights and recommendations that are valuable for policy makers.

The paper places the research executed in support of a study for the European Commission in the historical context of the telecommunications reform.

Telecommunications comprises a vital component of information infrastructures and services, with a historically strong public interest dimension. For the best part of 30 years, the telecommunications sector in Europe has been the subject of a radical reorganisation in structural and operational terms along the lines of neo‐liberalism. This paper aims to analyse the significance of the neo‐liberal project in telecommunications in respect of the related dimensions of ideology and practice.

The paper presents a public policy critique of the manifestation of neo‐liberalism in the telecommunications sector in the European Union, employing desk‐based research on relevant primary and secondary source documentation.

The paper finds that proponents of neo‐liberalism have been able to secure the broad acceptance of neo‐liberalism as a “view of the world” for telecommunications. It shows that in practice, however, the neo‐liberal model in telecommunications provides evidence of a less than efficacious adoption process in three respects: neo‐liberalism requires an elaborately managed system the regulatory burden of which has been under‐emphasised; the normative success of neo‐liberalism has masked how difficult it has actually proven to be to create competition; the preoccupation with markets and competition has resulted in de‐emphasis of public interest issues in telecommunications.

This paper contributes up‐to‐date knowledge of the nature and effects of neo‐liberalism in the European telecommunication sector. It provides a challenge and counterweight to the “received wisdom” that neo‐liberalism has been an overwhelmingly successful approach to the re‐ordering of European telecommunications.

Many European-level networks and regulatory constellations in different sectors (e.g., energy, telecommunications) without clear anchorage into the European Union (EU) institutional landscape have been subject to increasing efforts by the EU institutions to tie them closer to the EU. They are serving increasingly as platforms for preparing EU policy or for implementing EU decisions, which may result in closer institutional bonds with the EU. This chapter aims at examining the differences and similarities between the process towards more EU-integration in two different domains (i.e., telecommunications and patents) and regulatory constellations (i.e., supranational and intergovernmental).

The chapter analyzes the evolution in the European telecommunication sector and the European Patent System and juxtaposes this analysis with the literature on institutionalization, Europeanization of regulatory network-organizations, and multilevel governance (MLG). It focuses on the role of the European Commission and the interaction with the national regulatory agencies (NRAs) and networks within the institutional framework.

Irrespective of the particular regime (intergovernmental/supranational) in a certain domain or sector, a common trend of closer coordination and integration prompted by the Commission is taking place, which triggers a certain resistance by the national bodies regulating that domain. As long as a specific competence is considered instrumental in the creation of the single market, the Commission has strong incentives to strengthen its influence in this field, even if those competences have been regulated through an independent intergovernmental regime.

The dynamic described in this chapter allows us to reflect upon the MLG conception as developed by Marks and Hooghe (2004), which distinguish between two types of MLG. Type I MLG refers to different levels of governments, more specifically to the spread of power along different governmental levels and the interactions between them. Type II MLG refers to jurisdictions that are both task-specific and based on membership that can intersect with each other. They respond to particular problems in specific policy fields (Marks & Hooghe, 2004). Our analysis shows that the increase in coordination and integration are the outcome of both MLG Type II processes (coordination between two issue-specific bodies) and of MLG Type I processes (tensions between two governmental levels). Furthermore, the negotiation dynamics regarding this increased coordination and integration reveal that the tensions typical of MLG Type I took place as a consequence of the increased coordination between Type II bodies. Put differently, multi-level coordination and integration mechanisms in the EU can be seen as both Type I and Type II processes. They combine features of both categories and reveal that their Type I and Type II features are interdependent.

The analysis in this chapter shows a need for further strengthening the MLG Type I and II conceptual framework by balancing the analytical distinction between the two types with developments about how Type I and Type II are often entangled and intertwined with each other rather than separated realities.

The chapter describes and compares the dynamics in the European telecommunications sector and the European patent system with interesting observations for NRAs and the European Commission with respect to coordination and integration.

The original nature of the current chapter relates to the two selected areas and the addition to the literature on MLG.

First, with respect to the areas investigated the dynamics of the European telecommunications sector have been analyzed also by other authors, but the European patent system is an area which is relatively unexplored in terms of governance research. The combination of the two sectors with a detailed analysis of similarities and differences is highly original and generates interesting lessons with respect to coordination and integration in supranational and intergovernmental regimes.

Second, Marks and Hooghe (2004) distinguish between the two types of MLG as if they are two different constructs that are not related to each other. Our cases and argument cover both types of MLG and show the interconnection between the dynamics taking place in the two types of MLG.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief introduction to the telecommunication reform process in Europe, its status, and upcoming policy issues. Furthermore, it also aims to provide an overview of the papers in this special issue.

The paper provides an introduction to the telecom reform process based on previous research and the papers in this issue of info.

The introduction argues that the European telecommunication reform process with the telecommunications green paper of 1987 as an important point of departure has been a success in many ways. It has, for example, facilitated the development of mobile, of the internet and its many applications, and considerably lowered prices. However, there are important areas where a single European market has not developed. Moreover, new challenges are rising in terms of upcoming reconfigurations of the whole information communications technology (ICT) area requiring new policy and regulatory answers.

The paper provides a brief introduction to the European telecommunication reform process, its achievements, present challenges, and the policy responses of the European Union. In addition, an overview of the papers of this issue of info is provided.

Briefly outlines the background to the 1999 Review. Attempts to explore some of the regulatory options for the future legal framework at EU level. Examines the regulatory goals, instruments and scope of applicability of the future sector. Pinpoints some of the specific regulatory issues to be addressed with regard to mobile communications.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This paper aims to develop a greater understanding of international telecommunications policy diffusion through preliminary, qualitative analysis of an expected utility model. The model is tested through analyses of diffusion of spectrum license allocation policies within and between regions.

A qualitative comparative case method is used. Cases are developed from secondary data from the European Union and South America, and analyzed at the national and regional levels.

The results suggest: the expected utility model can be used for in‐depth qualitative analyses to compare effects of various diffusion mechanisms; diffusion of spectrum license allocation policies at the regional level was more strongly driven by a policy's likely effectiveness, as compared to potential payoffs for policymakers; and conversely, at the national level diffusion was driven by both payoffs for the policymakers and likely policy effectiveness.

The two academic contributions of the paper are its expansion of a unified policy diffusion model to simultaneously account for regional and national levels of governance, as well as for technological change and its application in the telecommunications domain. Practical contributions include providing a framework for systematic analysis of a telecommunications policy's benefits for the public as well as policymakers.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the history of the notion of universal service in the USA and the EU.

The paper takes the form of an historical account based on desk research and interviews.

The paper finds that the concept looks “universal”, so to speak, but is grounded in different legal and economic traditions. From an historical perspective, the conditions appear to be highly differentiated on either side of the Atlantic. Ironically, the main point in common, beyond the mere use of the same term, is the discrepancy between the alleged goal and the socio‐economic reality, which has existed for some decades.

The paper puts into an historical perspective the notion of universal service. It identifies strengths and weaknesses of the implemention in the EU and the USA.