四、结尾
为了在电信业引入竞争以提高电信企业的经济效益和让消费者分享因效益增长而产生的利益，我国正在对传统的、由国有企业垄断电信服务的电信业进行重大改革。虽然加入世界贸易组织并不会使外国电信企业以独资的方式进入中国的电信业，但这并不表明这种限制是有利于消费者褔利和技术进步的。从我国本身的利益出发也不能说明为什么本国的民营或私有企业不能进入电信市场。如果允许这些企业进入电信业而实现电信业的充分竞争，政府适当地退出电信服务提供将有利于公平竞争和有效监管。
由于篇幅的限制，本文只集中讨论了国外电信业改革中对互联互通、拨打平等性与号码可带性和频谱资源的分配机制的改革。我国正在制定新的《电信法》。现有的《电信条例》对号码的可带性和拨打的平等性没有具体的规定。另外，《电信条例》对频谱资源转让、出租和用途的限制非常不利于资源的最佳利用和技术进步。在竞争全球化的环境下，没有理由继续容忍妨碍效益和技术进步的法律。也正是基于解放生产力的考虑，我国新的《电信法》有必要适当地参照财产权方法的市场分配频谱机制。还有，《电信条例》没有对互联互通的价格结算模型的实体性问题进行规定，这不利于限制有市场垄断能力经营者的机会主义行为。在争议解决程序方面，有关采用专家论证结论的规定未能使管制机构更好地实行责任负责制。这样的机制缺乏透明度，有关利益方如消费者也没有机会表达意见。这样的机制也会使争议的解决具有很大的随意性和不稳定性，没有授予法院对争议结果的法律或程序方面的问题进行司法审查也不利于减少武断和腐败现象。由于历史的原因，我国的电信业改革将会是非常艰巨的。在这样的背景下，了解和掌握国外电信业改革成败的经验和教训即使不能洋为中用，也能使我们避免前车之覆。路漫漫其修远，径路破而功倍。
【作者简介】
郁光华，单位为香港大学法学院。
【注释】 George Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” 2(1) The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3 (1971).
Daniel Spulber, “Deregulating Telecommunications”, 12 Yale Journal on Regulation 25 (1995).
Michael Katz, “Ongoing Reform of U.S. Telecommunications Policy”, 41 European Economic Review 681(1997).
Michael Kert and Damien Geradin, “Post-Liberalization Challenges in Telecommunications: Balancing Antitrust and Sector-specific Regulation,” 23(2) Journal of World Competition 27-77 (2000) at 48.
Mark Jeffries and Alicia Young, “New Zealand,” in Jane Forster ed., Telecommunications in the Pacific Rim (St. Leonards: Prospect Media Pty Ltd., 1999) at 256.
同上。
Jane Forster,“Australia” in Jane Forster ed., Telecommunications in the Pacific Rim (St. Leonards: Prospect Media Pty Ltd., 1999) at 16-17.
Jean-Jacques Laffont and Jean Tirole, Competition in Telecommunications (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000) at 99.
Robert Willig, “The Theory of Network Access Pricing,” in H. Trebing ed., Issues in Public Utility Regulation (Michigan State University Public Utilities Papers, 1979).
William Baumol and Gregory Sidak, “The Pricing of Inputs Sold to Competitors,” 11 Yale Journal on Regulation 171 (1994).
C. Armstrong, C. Doyle, and J. Vickers, “The Access Pricing Problem: A Synthesis,”44(2) Journal of Industrial Economics 131 (1996); N. Economides and L. White, “Access and Interconnection Pricing? How Efficient is the Efficient Component Pricing Rule?”40 Antitrust Bulletin 557 (1995).
William Tye and Carols Lapuerta, “The Economics of Pricing Network Interconnection: Theory and Application to the Market for Telecommunications in New Zealand,” 13 Yale Journal on Regulation 419 (1996).
同上，第485页。
同上。
Mark Jeffries and Alicia Young, “New Zealand”, in Jane Forster ed., Telecommunications in the Pacific Rim (St. Leonards: Prospect Media Pty Ltd., 1999) at 278.
Kerf and Geradin, supra, note 4 at 42.
同上，第49-50 页。
Part XIC of the Trade Practice Act.
1996 Telecommunications Act Section 251(5)(2).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 251(d)(4).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 252.
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 252(b).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 252(e)(1).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 252(d).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 252(d)(2).
Implementation of the Local Competition Provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd. 15, 499 (1996).
Jeffrey Rehlfs, “A Theory of Interdependent Demand for a Communications Service,” 5 Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 16 (1974); Michael Katz and Carl Shapiro, “Systems Competition and Network Effects, 8 Journal of Economic Perspective 93 (1994).
Howard Shelanski and Gregory Sidak, “Antitrust Divestiture in Network Industries,” 68 The University of Chicago Law Review 1 (2001).
Brian Arthur, Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events, 99 Economic Journal 116 (1989); Paul David, “Clio and the Economics of Qwerty”, 75 American Economic Review Papers and Proceeding 332 (1985).
1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 251.
Telephone Number Portability, cc Docket 95-116, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rd 8352 (1996).
Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, CC Docket No 95-116, RM 8535, FCC 98-82 (May 12, 1998).
Forster, supra, note 7 at 62-64.
同上。
Clear Communications Ltd v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd, (1992) 5 TCLR 166.
Jeffries and Young, supra, note 5 at 280-83.
Commerce Commission Media Release 1999/64, available at (http://www.comcom.govt.nz/publications/display-mr.cfm?mr-id=5447.
Ronald Coase, “The Federal Communications Commission,” 2 Journal of Law &Economics 1 (1959).
Pablo Spiller and Carlo Cardilli, “Towards a Property Rights Approach to Communications Spectrum”, 16 Yale Journal on Regulation 53 (1999).
同上， 第68-71 页。
Mace Rosenstein and David Sieradzki, “United Stateds” in Jane Forster ed., Telecommunications in the Pacific Rim (St. Leonards: Prospect Media Pty Ltd., 1999) at 391.
Ashbacker Radio Corp v FCC, 326 U.S. 327(1945); Telecommunications Act, Section 309(b).
Telecommunications Act, Section 309(i).
Forster, supra, note 7 at 51.
同上。
Jeffries and Young, supra, note 5 at 285-86.
同上，第285-90页。
Spiller and Cardilli, supra, note 39 at 75.
同上，第76页。
同上。
Rosenstein and Sieradzki, supra, note 41 at 392.
同上。
