Home/red-rock-eater/[RRE]Telecommunications Policy

[RRE]Telecommunications Policywriting

militaryeducationinternationalsurveillancecivil-libertiesinternet-policycryptographylaborcommerce
1999-05-11 · 7 min read · Edit on Pyrite

Source

Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1999/RRE.Telecommunications.P1.html

Content

This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.

[RRE]Telecommunications Policy

``` [I have taken the liberty of reformatting this message.]

---

This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre

---

Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:40:41 +100 From: "Telecom Policy"

This message includes table of contents of Telecommunications Policy Vol. 23, No. 6 and a letter from Professor William Melody, the journal's editor.

Telecommunications Policy is concerned with the changing roles of telecommunications in the economy and society. It provides a forum for research and debate amongst academics, policymakers, regulators, industry managers, consultants and other professionals. Its orientation is multidisciplinary and international, encompassing issues of both theory and practice. Its scope includes issues of telecom reform at national, regional and international levels, including issues confronting both developed and developing countries. It pays particular attention to the implications of convergence for knowledge infrastructure development, management and regulation.

CONTENTS for 23:6 (July '99)

Letter from the editor: The Learning Curve for Regulators By William H. Melody, Delft University of Technology

Alternative Regulation and the Efficiency of Local Exchange Carriers--Evidence from the Ameritech States By Trevor R. Roycroft, J. Warren McClure School, Ohio University

Access issues: Operational Support Systems and Regulation By Maria Michalis, International Institute for Regulators in Telecommunications, University of Westminster

Network Policy Formation Between Idealist and Strategic Models: A Polictical Economy Perspective from Turkey By Haluk Geray, Ankara University

Book Reviews World Telecommunication Development Report: 1998. International Telecommunication Union, 1998. Reviewed by: Bella Mody, Michigan State University

Telecommunications Transformation: Technology, Strategy, and Policy, Erik Bohlin and Stanford Levin (eds.), 1997. Reviewed by: Chang-Ho Yoon, Korea University; and Seonghoon Jeon, Sogang University

Communication and Trade: Essays in Honour of Meheroo Jussawalla, Donald M. Lamberton (ed.), 1998. Reviewed by: Michael Tyler, Tyler & Company

---

THE LEARNING CURVE FOR REGULATORS Letter From the Editor

The forms and structures of telecom regulation for the 21st century are now being shaped. Where regulation has existed for a long time, e.g., the US and Canada, new methods for implementing long established policy goals are being tried. Where established national telecom sectors are being restructured and newly established policy goals being implemented, e.g., Europe, issues relating to the extent and scope of regulation are getting priority attention. In developing countries, the structure of policy and regulatory institutions and the specific priorities for policy development and implementation remain fundamentally important. At each level, success requires that regulators learn rapidly to understand and adapt to changing circumstances.

This number examines issues at all three levels. Trevor Roycroft assesses the range of different methods of price regulation applied under the alternative regulation approaches adopted in recent years by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Midwestern states that regulate Ameritech. He documents the diversity of approaches and examines their implications empirically, concluding the primary beneficiaries of the productivity gains under alternative regulation have been the Ameritech companies, not consumers. He concludes that as more information is compiled, there should be a better balance of shared benefits of productivity gains between the dominant local exchange carriers and consumers. In the transition to new methods of regulation, it seems the telcos have learned faster than the regulators.

Maria Michalis addresses the increasing significance of operational support systems (OSS) for access to telecom networks, both for new telecom competition and for value-added service suppliers. She compares developments in Europe and the US, noting that in both arenas the first level issue of facilities interconnection is being superceded by the second level issue of access to OSS and related network management information. At this level, policymakers and regulators are struggling with the problem of defining the limits of industry specific regulation, the scope of competition policy and the role of self-regulation. The extent to which competition develops as an effective market force in the interest of consumers will depend heavily on the monitoring and rapid learning capabilities of policymakers and regulators.

Haluk Geray provides a critical assessment of network policy formation in Turkey in light of two competing models for policy development, the idealist competitive market model that developed countries recommend to developing countries and the strategic interventionist model that he argues reflects the reality in all countries. He makes a strong case that network development in developing countries requires policies providing for strategic intervention within a very broad framework of policy objectives and analysis. Here also, success requires effective monitoring of sector changes, detailed current information and rapid learning by policymakers, regulators and their advisers.

All three papers draw attention to the importance of rapid learning by policymakers and regulators during a time of transition and reform. It is essential if they are to provide informed guidance and direction during this dynamic period. Yet, ironically, the ongoing education and training of the staff of new telecom policy units and regulatory authorities has not been a central element of telecom reform. This is undoubtedly partly a consequence of a wide acceptance in the early stages of reform of the idealist model examined in Haluk Geray's article, i.e., belief that a policy of liberalisation will lead to fully competitive markets and the phasing out of regulation over a short period. Now most analysts see regulation as playing an important, if not instrumental role in implementing telecom reform, information infrastructure development and information society policies. Clearly this calls for greater attention to the specialised education and training needs of new telecom policy units and regulatory authorities.

Perhaps the first major initiative to institutionalise specialised education and training for staff of independent regulatory agencies was the Institute of Public Utilities established at Michigan State University more than 30 years ago by Professor Harry Trebing. Despite its distinct focus on specialised US issues, its two-week summer program for regulators and its annual policy conferences attracted international participation. A sister institution, the National Regulatory Research Institute was established at Ohio State University about 25 years ago under the direction of Professor Douglas Jones to focus on priority issues confronting US state and federal regulatory agencies. These two institutions have provided an essential underpinning to US regulatory agencies, helping to keep them fully informed and to continuously improve their capabilities.

The ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau has had programs to support training in developing countries for many years, most commonly of a few days duration in response to specific requests. These were expanded in its 1998 Valetta Action Plan. In addition, it is currently fostering Centres of Excellence in the developing regions, but with only very limited resources. Occasionally other international agencies such as the World Bank have sponsored specific short-term programs. Professor Jill Hills has established a certificate program at City University, London, specifically targeted at the needs of new regulators in developing countries. The Center for Tele-Information at the Technical University of Denmark periodically runs a short course for new regulators in both developing and developed countries. The multitude of professional and industry two or three day conferences and consulting programs contribute to the overall effort of understanding the continuously changing telecom sector, but rarely address the specific needs of regulators. Yet all these activities, and the others not mentioned here, do not add up to the kind of institutionalised sustained training and research support that exists for US regulatory agencies.

A recent move in that direction is the establishment of a new program on Implementing Telecom Reform (ITR), a joint initiative of the Center for Tele-Information at the Technical University of Denmark and the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at the Delft University of Technology. Its primary focus is on education and training programs for telecom regulators, the staff of regulatory and policymaking organisations, and others requiring a deeper understanding of the issues and implications of implementing telecom reforms. Its program covers both developed and developing country issues. But much more is needed. The growth in the supply of new training programs still lags far behind the growth in demand and need for them.

In addition to training, those involved in telecom reform need continuous access to the results of research, analysis and fresh insight on the unfolding issues. Although Telecommunications Policy will continue to provide major contributions, other journals will also, including new ones. Some TP readers will already know that former TP editor Colin Blackman has established a new journal in the field, Info. Details can be found at http://www.camford.co.uk. Info will help to diversify the information sources in the field, keep TP from getting complacent and provide some competition for Elsevier. There is, after all, no reason why the telecom reform process shouldn't lead to more competition in the telecom journal market. Readers will be the beneficiaries.

William Melody Editor, Telecommunications Policy melody@tpeditor.com http://www.tpeditor.com ```

This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.