Incentives for Investment in Fast Broadband: How Much Can Be Expected from the Proposed European Code?

J. S. Marcus, V. Bocarova, G. Petropoulos
{"title":"Incentives for Investment in Fast Broadband: How Much Can Be Expected from the Proposed European Code?","authors":"J. S. Marcus, V. Bocarova, G. Petropoulos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3007395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In September 2016, the European Commission presented legislative proposals to replace the European Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications (RFEC) with a new European Electronic Communications Code. Among the many stated objectives was to stimulate more rapid investment in fast and ultra-fast broadband. One can argue that the RFEC was put in place in 2002, at a time when networks were not yet liberalised or privatised, and when investment needs of existing copper networks were fairly consistent and predictable. As a consequence, the RFEC put great emphasis on achieving competition, relatively little on achieving investment. This reflects to some extent a preference for optimisation of static efficiency over dynamic efficiency, which was perhaps in order given that the former is far easier to analyse than the latter. In this paper, we review the regulatory instruments that provided in the European Code, and consider based on the economic literature, publicly available statistics, and our own analysis the degree to which the Action Lines in the proposed European Code are likely (individually or collectively) to contribute to increased investment in fast broadband in practice. Our assessment is that the proposed enhancements to broadband policy in the proposed European Code are broadly in the right direction, and collectively are likely to offer network operators a more profitable and predictable business case for investment in high speed broadband. Notwithstanding our observations that the case for FTTP/FTTP can often be significantly overblown, we would still say that this is a welcome or overdue change. The risks implied by insufficient specification of these provisions in the European Code, and the lack of clarity as regards technological neutrality, are however significant. We would hope that these provisions can be sharpened in the course of the legislative process.","PeriodicalId":305946,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Economic Systems (Sub-Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Economic Systems (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3007395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In September 2016, the European Commission presented legislative proposals to replace the European Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications (RFEC) with a new European Electronic Communications Code. Among the many stated objectives was to stimulate more rapid investment in fast and ultra-fast broadband. One can argue that the RFEC was put in place in 2002, at a time when networks were not yet liberalised or privatised, and when investment needs of existing copper networks were fairly consistent and predictable. As a consequence, the RFEC put great emphasis on achieving competition, relatively little on achieving investment. This reflects to some extent a preference for optimisation of static efficiency over dynamic efficiency, which was perhaps in order given that the former is far easier to analyse than the latter. In this paper, we review the regulatory instruments that provided in the European Code, and consider based on the economic literature, publicly available statistics, and our own analysis the degree to which the Action Lines in the proposed European Code are likely (individually or collectively) to contribute to increased investment in fast broadband in practice. Our assessment is that the proposed enhancements to broadband policy in the proposed European Code are broadly in the right direction, and collectively are likely to offer network operators a more profitable and predictable business case for investment in high speed broadband. Notwithstanding our observations that the case for FTTP/FTTP can often be significantly overblown, we would still say that this is a welcome or overdue change. The risks implied by insufficient specification of these provisions in the European Code, and the lack of clarity as regards technological neutrality, are however significant. We would hope that these provisions can be sharpened in the course of the legislative process.
对快速宽带投资的激励:从拟议的欧洲代码中可以期待多少?
2016年9月,欧盟委员会提交了立法提案,以新的欧洲电子通信规范取代欧洲电子通信监管框架(RFEC)。在众多声明的目标中,有一项是刺激对高速和超高速宽带的更快投资。有人可能会说,RFEC是在2002年实施的,当时网络还没有自由化或私有化,现有铜线网络的投资需求相当一致和可预测。因此,RFEC非常强调实现竞争,相对较少强调实现投资。这在某种程度上反映了对静态效率优化的偏好,而不是动态效率,这可能是有序的,因为前者比后者更容易分析。在本文中,我们回顾了欧洲规范中提供的监管工具,并根据经济文献、公开统计数据和我们自己的分析,考虑拟议的欧洲规范中的行动线可能(单独或集体)在实践中促进快速宽带投资增加的程度。我们的评估是,拟议的欧洲法规中对宽带政策的拟议增强大体上是正确的方向,总的来说,可能为网络运营商提供一个更有利可图、更可预测的投资高速宽带的商业案例。尽管我们观察到FTTP/FTTP的情况经常被严重夸大,但我们仍然会说这是一个受欢迎的或迟来的变化。然而,《欧洲法典》对这些条款的说明不足以及对技术中立性缺乏明确性所隐含的风险是重大的。我们希望这些规定能够在立法过程中得到加强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信