Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liberalisation of Telecommunications Services: Social Embedding of the Liberalised Market as a Regulatory Challenge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Universal Service in WTO and EU law

Part of the book series: Legal Issues of Services of General Interest ((LEGAL))

Abstract

This chapter deals with the question what makes telecommunications services so particular so as to explain their special regulatory treatment. It studies why telecommunications services are considered to be services of public interest by identifying what characteristics or values are attached to these services so as to signify public interest in them. In this context, it further discusses traditional models for telecommunications provision and regulation. The chapter draws on the theory of social embeddedness of markets developed by Karl Polanyi and puts both the existence of markets and the necessity of their regulation in a broader political-economic context. The chapter focuses on the instrument of universal service that is widely used for social embeddedness of liberalised competitive markets for telecommunications services. It studies its history and development as a regulatory concept that is effective and flexible and can be used at different stages of technological and market development. Various forms of universal service bear witness to its responsiveness to various social needs in terms of Polanyi’s social embeddedness thesis. The capability of socially embedding the telecommunications market with the help of the universal service regulatory concept is further tested by studying whether and how it responds to social considerations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To the most recent publications belong van de Gronden 2009; Krajewski et al. 2009; Krajewski 2011; Szyszczak et al. 2011.

  2. 2.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Green Paper on Services of general interest COM (2003) 270 final, p. 6.

  3. 3.

    See Krajewski 2011, p. 8.

  4. 4.

    Zacharias 2008, p. 59.

  5. 5.

    The most thorough work on the interpretation of the term “services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” has been done by Adlung 2006; Krajewski 2003, 2009; Leroux 2006; Zacharias 2008.

  6. 6.

    See respectively Article 14, 106 para 2 TFEU, Article 36 ECFR and Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Services of General Interest in Europe, OJ C 281/3 of 26.09.1996; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Services of General Interest in Europe, OJ C 17/4 of 19.01.2001; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Green Paper on services of general interest. COM(2003) 270 final of 21.05.2003; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. White Paper on services of general interest. COM(2004) 374 final of 12.05.2004.

  7. 7.

    To name just a few recent studies, Franzius 2009; van de Gronden 2009; Krajewski 2011.

  8. 8.

    See Krajewski 2011, pp. 74–107.

  9. 9.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Green Paper on services of general interest. COM(2003) 270 final, No. 15–19.

  10. 10.

    For a summary of terminological semantic complications see Krajewski 2011, pp. 9–10.

  11. 11.

    For other reasons see Scott 2000, p. 313.

  12. 12.

    Van de Walle 2008, p. 258.

  13. 13.

    A concise discussion of the notion of service in the relevant context can be found in Krajewski 2011, pp. 120–121.

  14. 14.

    Krajewski 2011, pp. 121–124.

  15. 15.

    Stone 1991, p. 26; Scott 2000, p. 312.

  16. 16.

    The term “policymakers” is chosen as a neutral description of whoever determines the public interest. Obviously, in different societies different groups may take this decision.

  17. 17.

    See some of the accounts, trying to grasp the meaning and analysing the evolution of the term: Bozeman 2002; Hantke-Domas 2003; Uerpmann 1999; Viotto 2009.

  18. 18.

    Exemplary for the development of the notion of public service in the UK and the USA is Stone 1991, pp. 27–38.

  19. 19.

    Hantke-Domas 2003, p. 186; Viotto 2009, p. 47.

  20. 20.

    Krajewski 2011, p. 130.

  21. 21.

    Idem.

  22. 22.

    For example, in Germany. See Viotto 2009, pp. 28–47.

  23. 23.

    Stone 1991, pp. 31–32.

  24. 24.

    Samuelson 1954, p. 387.

  25. 25.

    Mankiw 2004, pp. 225–226.

  26. 26.

    Samuelson 1954, pp. 387–389; Mankiw 2004, p. 226.

  27. 27.

    Anton 2000, pp. 8–11; Krajewski 2003, pp. 343–344.

  28. 28.

    Krajewski 2003, p. 344.

  29. 29.

    Musgrave introduced the concept of a merit good/merit want in: Musgrave 1956.

  30. 30.

    Compare Pulsipher 2007, p. 153.

  31. 31.

    Ver Eecke 2007, p. 331.

  32. 32.

    Head 2007, p. 118.

  33. 33.

    See, for example, McLure 2007, pp. 73–83.

  34. 34.

    Musgrave 1956, pp. 37–38.

  35. 35.

    Ver Eecke 2007, pp. 327–347.

  36. 36.

    See the entry on merit goods by Richard Musgrave in: Eatwell et al. 1987, pp. 452–453.

  37. 37.

    Eatwell et al. 1987, pp. 452–453.

  38. 38.

    Idem, pp. 452–453, Ver Eecke 2007. Barry Bozemann and Torben Beck Jørgensen have recently analysed problems of studying public values and made an interesting attempt to draw a list of public values in Bozemann and Jørgensen 2007.

  39. 39.

    Charles et al. 2011.

  40. 40.

    Idem, p. 86.

  41. 41.

    Idem, p. 86.

  42. 42.

    See Franzius 2009, Chap. 3; Krajewski 2011, p. 350.

  43. 43.

    Hulsink 1999, pp. 2–3.

  44. 44.

    Mankiw 2004, pp. 321–328.

  45. 45.

    Krajewski 2011, p. 358.

  46. 46.

    For a detailed analysis see Schweitzer 2001/2002, pp. 61–81.

  47. 47.

    Krajewski 2011, p. 357.

  48. 48.

    Buchanan 1965.

  49. 49.

    Sandler and Tschirhart 1997, p. 335.

  50. 50.

    Berglas 1976, p. 120; Mankiw 2004, p. 317.

  51. 51.

    A detailed explanation can be found in Langenfurth 2000, pp. 57–73; Mankiw 2004, pp. 316–317.

  52. 52.

    Bauer 1999, pp. 331–332.

  53. 53.

    Schulze 2006, p. 32. For other welfare advantages of competition before monopoly see Mankiw 2004, p. 328.

  54. 54.

    Franzius 2009, pp. 39–42.

  55. 55.

    Black 2002, p. 8.

  56. 56.

    Idem, p. 8.

  57. 57.

    Idem, p. 8.

  58. 58.

    Prosser 2010, p. 2.

  59. 59.

    Ogus 2004, p. 1.

  60. 60.

    Prosser 2010, pp. 4–5.

  61. 61.

    Black 2002, p. 20.

  62. 62.

    Prosser 2010, p. 5.

  63. 63.

    Similarly Krajewski 2011, pp. 354–356.

  64. 64.

    For a longer list of regulatory instruments and their detailed description see Ogus 2004.

  65. 65.

    Nielsen 2008.

  66. 66.

    Beckert 2007, p. 7.

  67. 67.

    Polanyi 2001, p. 74; see also Chap. 5 in Polanyi 2001.

  68. 68.

    Polanyi 2001, p. 74.

  69. 69.

    Idem, pp. 67–68, 145–146.

  70. 70.

    Idem, pp. 71–72.

  71. 71.

    Idem, pp. 75–76.

  72. 72.

    Idem, pp. 76–77.

  73. 73.

    Idem, p. 79.

  74. 74.

    Caporaso and Tarrow 2009, pp. 598–599.

  75. 75.

    Polanyi 2001, pp. 79 and 136–139.

  76. 76.

    Ebner 2011, pp. 33–34.

  77. 77.

    Moos 2003, p. 159; Gao 2008a, pp. 692, 694.

  78. 78.

    On the status of the document see Appellate Body Report, United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (US—Gambling), WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2005.

  79. 79.

    The classification by the GATT Secretariat corresponds to the version CPCprov. Currently, there is the fourth version CPC Ver. 2. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=9&Lg=1.

  80. 80.

    For clarification of the terms see Recital 7 Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 249/21 of 17.09.2002; Burri-Nenova 2007, Chap. 4, Sect. 3.2.2.

  81. 81.

    Article 2(c) Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), OJ L 108/33 of 24.04.2002.

  82. 82.

    Horak 2007, p. 482.

  83. 83.

    See the article “telecommunication” in Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585799/telecommunications.

  84. 84.

    Horak 2007, p. 112; see the article “Media convergence” in Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1425043/media-convergence.

  85. 85.

    For information on the introduction of telecommunications (telegraph and telephone) in different countries see Noam 1992.

  86. 86.

    Schenk et al. 1996, pp. 33–36. Eli Noam wrote and edited several publications studying various national telecommunications systems. These studies demonstrate that the absolute majority of countries have employed one of the versions of a public monopoly system, well known to us from our familiar domestic environment, either as a part of the colonial heritage (Africa, some countries of Latin America and Asia) or following the example or under the influence of developed Western countries (some countries in Latin America and Asia) or due to similar political and economic considerations and developments. For more information see Noam 1997, 1998, 1999; Campbell 1995.

  87. 87.

    Hulsink 1999, p. 5.

  88. 88.

    Noam 1992, pp. 22–25; Noam 1987, pp. 31–32.

  89. 89.

    Sandholtz 1998, p. 14; Hulsink 1999, pp. 7–8.

  90. 90.

    Pipe 1990, p. 109.

  91. 91.

    More information on cross-border provision of telecommunications services in Langenfurth 2000, pp. 141–145; Tegge 1994, pp. 159–160.

  92. 92.

    For a detailed description of the Accounting-Rate-System of the ITU see, for example, Langenfurth 2000, pp. 145–150; Frühbrodt 2002, pp. 122–130.

  93. 93.

    Frühbrodt 2002, p. 64.

  94. 94.

    Idem, p. 64.

  95. 95.

    Idem, p. 37.

  96. 96.

    Langenfurth 2000, p. 97.

  97. 97.

    On the use of the named services see the following articles in Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition, 2012: “telex” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/586267/telex, “telegraph” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585850/telegraph.

  98. 98.

    For more information see Bronckers and Larouche 2008, pp. 323–324.

  99. 99.

    Note by the Secretariat “Trade in telecommunications services”, MTN.GNS/W/52 of 19.05.1989, paras 9–10.

  100. 100.

    Note by the Secretariat “Services Sectoral classification list”, MTN.GNS/W/120 of 10.07.1991.

  101. 101.

    Decision on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Services of 15 April 1994, para 1.

  102. 102.

    See negotiations documents: MTN.GNS/TEL/1, paras 23–26, 39–44; MTN.GNS/TEL/2, paras 104–136.

  103. 103.

    See, for example, GATS/SC/46 (Japan), GATS/SC/90 (USA), GATS/SC/31 (EC) and other.

  104. 104.

    See similar criticism in the Communication from the EC TN/S/W/27, S/CSC/W/44, para 4.

  105. 105.

    Bronckers and Larouche 2008, p. 325.

  106. 106.

    See GATS/SC/31/Suppl.3. The EC explicitly excludes broadcasting from telecommunications services.

  107. 107.

    See GATS/SC/46 and GATS/SC/46/Suppl. 2.

  108. 108.

    Bronckers and Larouche 2008, p. 325.

  109. 109.

    Article 2(c) of the Framework Directive; Article 1 Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204/37 of 21.07.1998.

  110. 110.

    Drake and Nicolaïdis write that, in the 1980s “the shift to a trade discourse was a revolution in social ontology: it redefined how governments thought about the nature of services, their movement across the borders, their roles in society, and the objectives and principles according to which they should be governed”. See Drake and Nicolaïdis 1992, p. 38.

  111. 111.

    See Chaps. 3 and 4 below for more details on the liberalisation and re-regulation of telecommunications services markets.

  112. 112.

    Dordick 1990, pp. 230–231.

  113. 113.

    Mueller 1993, pp. 357–358; Friedlander 1995, pp. 39–41, 56–57.

  114. 114.

    On the reasons for interconnection refusal see Mueller 1997c, pp. 43–53.

  115. 115.

    Mueller 1993, pp. 355–360; Mueller 1997c, pp. 146–149; see also Friedlander 1995, p. 55.

  116. 116.

    AT&T (American Telephone and Telegraph) was first formed as a subsidiary of Bell Company for long-distance service. In 1899 AT&T was restructured as the holding company of regional operating companies, research and development, manufacturing and long-distance services operator. Thus, AT&T and Bell System became synonymous. For more information see Friedlander 1995, pp. 3–9, 26.

  117. 117.

    Mueller 1993, p. 363.

  118. 118.

    Dordick 1990, p. 230.

  119. 119.

    For a detailed analysis of Vail’s doctrine see Mueller 1997c, pp. 96–103.

  120. 120.

    Compare Dordick 1990, p. 230; Friedlander 1995, p. 7.

  121. 121.

    Mueller 1993, p. 365.

  122. 122.

    Friedlander 1995, p. 77.

  123. 123.

    The theory of telephony as a natural monopoly was successfully contested in the scientific research carried out in the 1970s–1980s. For a literature overview see Friedlander 1995, pp. 53–71.

  124. 124.

    Mueller 1997c, pp. 150–164.

  125. 125.

    In Mueller 1997b, p. 42, an example of a report to the Congress is given that stated that the Telecommunications Act did not change existing law.

  126. 126.

    The production of terminal equipment was deregulated, new long-distance carriers were authorised, private microwave networks were legalised. See: Mueller 1997b.

  127. 127.

    For a list of the publications produced see Friedlander 1995, pp. 4–5.

  128. 128.

    Mueller 1993, pp. 366–367.

  129. 129.

    Mueller 1993, 1997b, c.

  130. 130.

    In reality, the Preamble refers to the creation of a separate regulatory body for telecommunications, Federal Communications Commission. See Mueller 1997c, pp. 150–159.

  131. 131.

    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). An electronic version can be downloaded from the website of the Federal Communications Commission: http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html.

  132. 132.

    Bauer 1999, p. 332.

  133. 133.

    On the service public concept see Schweitzer 2001/2002, pp. 61–73.

  134. 134.

    See Sect. 3.2.2.2.

  135. 135.

    Schweitzer 2001/2002, p. 70.

  136. 136.

    For an overview, see Eliassen and From 2009, p. 243; Krajewski 2011, pp. 61–67.

  137. 137.

    See Krajewski 2011, pp. 27–34.

  138. 138.

    Schweitzer 2001/2002, pp. 74–81.

  139. 139.

    Krajewski 2011, pp. 44, 46.

  140. 140.

    See Krajewski 2011, p. 53.

  141. 141.

    See Sect. 3.2.

  142. 142.

    At the same time, the case law on common callings is regarded as a predecessor of the essential facilities doctrine in EU competition law. See Beckmerhagen 2002.

  143. 143.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Towards a Dynamic European Economy—Green Paper on the Development of a Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment, COM(87) 290 final of 30 June 1987.

  144. 144.

    Idem, p. 14.

  145. 145.

    Idem, p. 27.

  146. 146.

    Idem, pp. 34–35.

  147. 147.

    Idem, p. 66.

  148. 148.

    Idem, pp. 66–67.

  149. 149.

    Voice telephone service is meant. See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Towards a Dynamic European Economy—Green Paper on the Development of a Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment, COM(87) 290 final of 30 June 1987, p. 77.

  150. 150.

    Idem, p. 79.

  151. 151.

    Idem, pp. 67, 74, 75.

  152. 152.

    See para 3 Council Resolution 88/C 257/01 of 30 June 1988 on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment up to 1992, OJ C 257/1 of 4.10.1988; Article 3 Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, OJ L 192/10 of 24.07.1990.

  153. 153.

    Communication from the Commission. 1992 Review of the situation in the telecommunications services sector. SEC(92) 1048 final of 21 October 1992.

  154. 154.

    Schweitzer 2001/2002, p. 239.

  155. 155.

    Compare Schweitzer 2001/2002, p. 239; Franzius 2010, p. 71.

  156. 156.

    Communication from the Commission. 1992 Review of the situation in the telecommunications services sector. SEC(92) 1048 final of 21 October 1992, p. 23.

  157. 157.

    Idem, p. 23.

  158. 158.

    Idem, p. 23.

  159. 159.

    Idem, p. 31.

  160. 160.

    Idem, p. 31.

  161. 161.

    Idem, pp. 32–33.

  162. 162.

    Idem, p. 24.

  163. 163.

    Eliassen and From 2009, p. 245.

  164. 164.

    Idem, p. 246.

  165. 165.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on the consultation on the Review of the situation in the telecommunications services sector, COM(93) 159 final of 28 April 1993, p. 9.

  166. 166.

    Idem, p. 21.

  167. 167.

    Idem, p. 9.

  168. 168.

    Idem, p. 22.

  169. 169.

    Idem, p. 23.

  170. 170.

    Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. Developing universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment. COM(93) 543 final of 15 November 1993.

  171. 171.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the second periodic review of the scope of universal service in electronic communications networks and services in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/22/EC, COM(2008) 572 final of 25 September 2008, p. 8; Fetzer 2011, p. 708.

  172. 172.

    Compare Jayakar and Sawhney 2004, pp. 341–342.

  173. 173.

    See, for instance, Article 1 of the Universal Service Directive.

  174. 174.

    Burri-Nenova 2006b, p. 8.

  175. 175.

    The latter aspect is often called accessibility in the context of universal service. See Goggin and Newell 2000, pp. 127–133.

  176. 176.

    For more details see Sect. 3.1.

  177. 177.

    Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan 2004, p. 270.

  178. 178.

    Freund 2002, p. 670; Bahtsevanoglou 2010, p. 58.

  179. 179.

    Bertot et al. 1999, pp. 314–317; Freund 2002, p. 670.

  180. 180.

    Langenfurth 2000, pp. 85–90; Graham et al. 1996.

  181. 181.

    Vogelsang 2013, p. 48.

  182. 182.

    Madden 2009, pp. 110–116; Roller and Waverman 2001; Young 2005, p. 195.

  183. 183.

    Report of the Independent Commission for World Wide Telecommunications Development of the International Telecommunications Union “The Missing Link”, December 1984, p. 9; Cronin et al. 1991; Shiu and Lam 2010; Mueller 1999.

  184. 184.

    See Saunders et al. 1994, pp. 16–18. For examples see pp. 22–29.

  185. 185.

    Cited in the Report of the Independent Commission for World Wide Telecommunications Development of the International Telecommunications Union “The Missing Link”, December 1984, pp. 9–10.

  186. 186.

    Bar and Riis 2000, p. 101.

  187. 187.

    Bar and Riis 2000, pp. 101–103.

  188. 188.

    Bar and Riis 2000, p. 103.

  189. 189.

    Crandall and Waverman 2000; Rosston and Wimmer 2000; Alleman and Rappoport 2003.

  190. 190.

    Rosston and Wimmer 2000; Riordan 2001; Jain 2012; Pociask 2012.

  191. 191.

    Harker 2013, p. 16; Broadband Commission (2013). Report on the State of Broadband 2013: Universalizing Broadband, p. 54.

  192. 192.

    Oǧuz 2013, p. 15.

  193. 193.

    Similar emphasis on the prevalence of political considerations over economic ones: Franzius 2010, p. 71; Vogelsang 2013, p. 51.

  194. 194.

    Preston and Flynn 2000, pp. 95–96; Young 2005, pp. 194–195.

  195. 195.

    Nihoul and Rodford 2004, p. 505.

  196. 196.

    For more details on telecommunications’ potential to contribute to a solution to the North-South divide see Hills 1998; Bourdeau de Fontenay and Beltrán 2008.

  197. 197.

    Jaeger 2006, p. 121.

  198. 198.

    Similarly Burri-Nenova 2006a, p. 11; Sawhney and Jayakar 2005, pp. 30–32.

  199. 199.

    Sawhney and Jayakar 1996; Sawhney and Jayakar 2005.

  200. 200.

    Milne 1998, see in particular Table 1 on p. 776.

  201. 201.

    A more detailed discussion of Claire Milne’s findings and an actual application of her theory can be found in Chap. 5. Here a short outline of her theory seems to be sufficient for the purpose of this concluding section in order to present universal service as a “black box” whose content changes under the influence of external factors.

  202. 202.

    Milne 1998, p. 777; similarly Jayakar and Sawhney 2004, p. 341.

References

  • Adlung R (2006) Public services and the GATS. J Int Econ Law 9:455–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alleman J, Rappoport P (2003) Universal service: A policy survey, review and critique. In: Madden G (ed) The international handbook of telecommunications economics, vol 1., Traditional telecommunications networks. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, pp 315–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton A (2000) Public goods as commonstock: notes on the receding commons. In: Anton A, Fisk M, Homstrom N (eds) Not for sale: in defence of public goods. Boulder, Westview, pp 3–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahtsevanoglou J (2010) The pitfalls of auctioning universal service—the Australian experience. Telecommun Policy 12:57–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar F, Riis AM (2000) Tapping user-driven innovation: a new rationale for universal service. Inf Soc 16:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer J (1999) Universal service in the European Union. Gov Inf Q 16:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckert J (2007) The great transformation of embeddedness. Karl Polanyi and the New Economic Sociology. MPIfG Discussion Paper 07/1. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/19938

  • Beckmerhagen A (2002) Die essential facilities doctrine im US-amerikanischen und europäischen Kartellrecht. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglas E (1976) On the theory of clubs. Am Econ Rev 66:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertot JC, McClure CR, Owens KA (1999) Universal service in a global networked environment: selected issues and possible approaches. Gov Inf Q 16:309–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black J (2002) Critical reflections on regulation. LSE Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation Discussion Paper 4. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35985/1/Disspaper4-1.pdf

  • Bourdeau de Fontenay A, Beltrán F (2008) Inequality and economic growth: should we be concerned by the digital divide? Paper for International Telecommunications Society Biennial conference, Montréal. http://staff.business.auckland.ac.nz/DesktopModules/StaffProfiles/Publications/7781.pdf

  • Bozeman B (2002) Public-value failure: when efficient markets may not do. Public Adm Rev 62:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozemann B, Jørgensen TB (2007) Public values: an inventory. Adm Soc 39:354–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers M, Larouche P (2008) A review of the WTO regime for telecommunications services. In: Alexander K, Andenas M (eds) The World Trade Organization and trade in services. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 319–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM (1965) An economic theory of clubs. Economica 32:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri-Nenova M (2006a) The law of the World Trade Organization and the communications law of the European Community: On a path of harmony or discord? NCCR Trade Working Paper No. 2006/08. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120274

  • Burri-Nenova M (2006b) The new concept of universal service in a digital networked communications environment. Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Trade Working Paper No. 2006/10. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120282

  • Burri-Nenova M (2007) EC electronic communications and competition law. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RW (1995) Soviet and post-soviet telecommunications: an industry under reform. Westview Press Inc, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporaso J, Tarrow S (2009) Polanyi in Brussels: supranational institutions and the transnational embedding of markets. Int Org 63:598–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles MB, de Jong WM, Ryan N (2011) Public values in Western Europe: a temporal perspective. Am Rev Public Adm 41:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall R, Waverman L (2000) Who pays for universal service? When telephone subsidies become transparent. Brookings Inst Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin FJ, Parker EB, Colleran EK, Gold MA (1991) Telecommunications infrastructure and economic growth: an analysis of causality. Telecommun Policy 529–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Dordick HS (1990) The origins of universal service: history as a determinant of telecommunications policy. Telecommun Policy 14:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake WJ, Nicolaïdis K (1992) Ideas, interests, and institutionalization: “Trade in services” and the Uruguay Round. Int Org 46:37–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P (eds) (2007) The new Palgrave: a dictionary on economics, vol 3. Macmillan, London, pp 452–453 (reprinted in: Ver Eecke W (ed) An anthology regarding merit goods: the unfinished ethical revolution in economic theory. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 56–60)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebner A (2011) Transnational markets and the Polanyi problem. In: Joerges C, Falke J (eds) Karl Polanyi. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 19–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliassen KA, From J (2009) Deregulation, privatisation and public service delivery: universal service in telecommunications in Europe. Policy Soc 27:239–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer T (2011) Breitbandinternetzugang als Universaldienst? Rechtliche Zulässigkeit und ökonomische Angemessenheit einer Universaldienstverpflichtung. MultiMedia und Recht, pp 707–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C (2009) Gewährleistung im Recht: Grundlagen eines europäischen Regelungsmodells öffentlicher Dienstleistungen. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C (2010) Wo bleibt der Staat? Das Modell der Universaldienste und seine Alternativen. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 1:66–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund M (2002) Die Überbrückung des “Digital Divide”: Telekommunikations-Universaldienstkonzepte in Asien und Europa. MultiMedia und Recht, pp. 666-671

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander A (1995) Natural monopoly and universal service: telephones and telegraphs in the U.S. communications infrastructure 1837–1940, Reston, Corporation for National Research Initiatives

    Google Scholar 

  • Frühbrodt L (2002) Die Liberalisierung der Telekommunikationsdienste vom nationalen Monopol zum globalen Wettbewerb. Wiesbaden, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao H (2008) Annex on Telecommunications. In: Wolfrum R, Stoll P-T, Feinäugle C (eds) WTO—Trade in services, Max Planck commentaries on world trade law/Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, vol 6. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 683–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Goggin G, Newell C (2000) An end to disabling policies? Towards enlightened universal service. Inf Soc 16:127–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham S, Cornford J, Marvin S (1996) The socio-economic benefits of a universal telephone network. Telecommun Policy 20:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hantke-Domas M (2003) The public interest theory of regulation: non-existence or misinterpretation. Eur J Law Econ 15:165–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harker M, Kreutzmann A, Waddams C (2013) Public service obligations and competition. CERRE Final Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Head JG (2007) On merit wants: reflections on the evolution, normative status and policy relevance of a controversial public finance concept. In: Ver Eecke W (ed) An anthology regarding merit goods: the unfinished ethical revolution in economic theory. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 115–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills J (1998) Liberalization, regulation and development: telecommunications. Int Commun Gazette 60:459–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray Horak (ed) (2007) Webster’s new world telecom dictionary. Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsink W (1999) Privatisation and liberalisation in European telecommunications: comparing Britain, the Netherlands and France. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger PT (2006) Telecommunications policy and individuals with disabilities: issues of accessibility and social inclusion in the policy and research agenda. Telecommun Policy 30:112–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain R (2012) Effectiveness of public funding for rural telecom and broadband: lessons from the universal service obligation fund, India. Paper presented at the 19th ITS Biennial conference, Bangkok. http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/72541/1/742695743.pdf

  • Jayakar KP, Sawhney H (2004) Universal service: beyond established practice to possibility space. Telecommun Policy 28:339–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2003) Public services and trade liberalisation: mapping the legal framework. J Int Econ Law 6:314–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2009) Protecting a shared value of the union in a globalised world. In: van de Gronden J (ed) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realisation of general interest policies within the services markets? Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 187–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2011) Grundstrukturen des Rechts öffentlicher Dienstleistungen. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M, Neergaard U, van de Gronden J (eds) (2009) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe: between competition and solidarity. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Langenfurth M (2000) Der globale Telekommunikationsmarkt: Telekommunikationsdienste als international handelbare Dienstleistung. Peter Lang GmbH, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroux EH (2006) What is a “Service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” under article 1:3(b) and (c) of the general agreement on trade in services? J World Trade 40:345–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden G (2009) Economic welfare and universal service. Telecommun Policy 23:110–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankiw GN (2004) Principles of economics. Thomson South-Western, Mason

    Google Scholar 

  • McLure CE (2007) Merit wants: a normatively empty box. In: Ver Eecke W (ed) An anthology regarding merit goods: the unfinished ethical revolution in economic theory. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 73–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne C (1998) Stages of universal service policy. Telecommun Policy 22:775–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos F (2003) Die Bindung der Telekommunikationsregulierung durch das GATS-Abkommen. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M (1993) Universal service in telephone history: a reconstruction. Telecommun Policy 17:352–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M (1997a) “Universal Service” and the new telecommunications act: mythology made law. Commun ACM 40:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M (1997b) Universal service: competition, interconnection and monopoly in the making of the American telephone system. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M (1999) Universal service policies as wealth redistribution. Gov Inf Q 16:353–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave R (1956) A multiple theory of budget determination. Finanzarchive 17:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen K (2008) Indicative planning. In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE (eds) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd edn. Macmillan, Palgrave

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihoul PL, Rodford PB (2004) EU electronic communications law: competition and regulation in the European telecommunications market. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam EM (1987) The public telecommunications network: a concept in transition. J Commun 37:30–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noam EM (1992) Telecommunications in Europe. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam EM (ed) (1997) Telecommunications in Western Asia and the Middle East. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam EM (ed) (1998) Telecommunications in Latin America. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Noam EM (ed) (1999) Telecommunications in Africa. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogus AI (2004) Regulation: legal form and economic theory. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Oǧuz F (2013) Universal service in Turkey: recent developments. Telecommun Policy 37:13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pipe GR (1990) Telecommunications. In: Messerlin PA, Sauvant KP (eds), The Uruguay Round: services in the world economy, The World Bank and The UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, pp 105–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi K (2001) The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time, 2nd edn. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Pociask S (2012) High cost, little benefit: the analysis of universal service high-cost support. Study for the American Consumer Institute. http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/USF-Final.pdf

  • Preston P, Flynn R (2000) Rethinking universal service: citizenship, consumption norms, and the telephone. Inf Soc 16:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosser T (2010) The regulatory enterprise: government, regulation, and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pulsipher AG (2007) The properties and relevancy of merit goods. In: Ver Eecke W (ed) An anthology regarding merit goods: the unfinished ethical revolution in economic theory. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 153–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan MH (2001) Universal residential telephone service. In: Cave M, Majumdar S, Vogelsang I (eds) Handbook of telecommunications economics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 424–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Roller L-H, Waverman L (2001) Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: a simultaneous approach. Am Econ Rev 91:909–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosston G, Wimmer B (2000) The “state” of universal service. Inf Econ Policy 12:261–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson PA (1954) The Pure Theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz W (1998) The emergence of a supranational telecommunications regime. In: Sandholtz W, Stone Sweet A (eds) European integration and supranational governance. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 134–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler T, Tschirhart J (1997) Club theory: thirty years later. Public Choice 93:335–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders RJ, Warford JJ, Wellenius B (eds) (1994) Telecommunications and economic development, 2nd edn. World Bank Publication, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney H, Jayakar KP (1996) Universal service: migration of metaphors. Paper presented at the 24th Annual telecommunications policy research conference (TPRC). http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/k/p/kpj1/metaphor.html

  • Sawhney H, Jayakar KP (2005) Universal access: precedents, prevarications and progress. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual telecommunications policy research conference (TPRC). http://www.edtechpolicy.org/AAASGW/Session11/sawhney_jayakar_2005.pdf

  • Schenk K-E, Lügen B, Prößdorf H (1996) Telekommunikation in der Transformation: Handlungsoptionen, kontroverse Reformen und wirtschaftliche Wirkungen. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze A (2006) Liberalisierung von Netzindustrien—Eine ökonomische Analyse am Beispiel der Eisenbahn, der Telekommunikation und der leitungsgebundenen Energieversorgung. Dissertation, Universität Postdam. http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/959/pdf/schulze_diss.pdf

  • Schweitzer H (2001/2002) Daseinsvorsorge, “service public”, Universaldienst: Article 86 Abs. 2 EG-Vertrag und die Liberalisierung in den Sektoren Telekommunikation, Energie und Post, Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott C (2000) Services of general interest in EC law: matching values to regulatory technique in the public and privatised sectors. Eur Law J 6:310–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan AJM (2004) Universal service in developing countries: a particular focus on Bangladesh. Inf Soc 20:269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiu A, Lam P-L (2010) Economic growth, telecommunications development and productivity growth of telecommunications sector: evidence around the world. Telecommun Policy 34:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone A (1991) Public service liberalism: telecommunications and transitions in public policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E, Davies J, Andenæs M, Bekkedal T (eds) (2011) Developments in services of general interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegge A (1994) Die Internationale Telekommunikationsunion: Organisation und Funktion einer Weltorganisation im Wandel. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Uerpmann R (1999) Das öffentliche Interesse: Seine Bedeutung als Tatbestandsmerkmal und als dogmatischer Begriff. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Gronden J (ed) (2009) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realisation of general interest policies within the services markets? Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Walle S (2008) What services are public? What aspects of performance are to be ranked? The case of “Services of general interest”. Int Public Manag J 11:256–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ver Eecke W (2007) The concept of a “Merit Good”: the ethical dimension in economic theory and the history of economic thought. In: Ver Eecke W (ed) An anthology regarding merit goods: the unfinished ethical revolution in economic theory. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 327–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Viotto R (2009) Das öffentliche Interesse: Transformationen eines umstrittenen Rechtsbegriffs. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vogelsang I (2013) The endgame of telecommunications policy? A survey. CESifo Working Paper No. 4545

    Google Scholar 

  • Young M (2005) The future of universal service. Does it have one? Int J Law Inf Technol 13:188–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharias D (2008) Article I GATS. In: Wolfrum R, Stoll P-T, Feinäugle C (eds) WTO—trade in services, Max Planck commentaries on world trade law. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, vol 6. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 31–70

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana Law School, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Olga Batura

Authors
  1. Olga Batura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Batura .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Batura, O. (2016). Liberalisation of Telecommunications Services: Social Embedding of the Liberalised Market as a Regulatory Challenge. In: Universal Service in WTO and EU law. Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-081-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-081-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-080-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-081-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation