Competition-regulation interface in telecommunications: What's left of the essential facility doctrine

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 23-35

  Renda, Andrea ^a,b  

^a CEPS   (Belgium)

^b LUISS UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Access policy; Broadband; Competition; Essential facilities; Next generation networks; Regulation; Telecommunications

Indexed keywords

ACCESS POLICIES; ACCESS POLICY; ANTI-TRUST LAWS; ESSENTIAL FACILITIES; EUROPEAN UNION; NEW HIGH; NEXT GENERATION ACCESS NETWORKS; NEXT GENERATION NETWORK; SERVICE-BASED COMPETITION; STEPPING STONE;

COMPETITION; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

INVESTMENTS;

EID: 75849134536     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2009.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ahlborn C., and Evans D.S. The microsoft judgment and its implications for competition policy towards dominant firms in Europe. Antitrust Law Journal 75 (2009) 887-932
2. Akman, P. (2007). Searching for the long-lost soul of Article 82EC. Working paper no. 07-5, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy.
3. ARCEP (2006). Very high-speed points of reference and outlook. Press points, 10 November 2006.
4. Areeda P. Essential facilities: An epithet in need of limiting principles. Antitrust Law Journal 58 (1990)
5. Areeda P. Essential facilities: An epithet in need of limiting principles. 841 (1990)
6. Areeda, Phillip, & Herbert Hovenkamp (2002). Antitrust law, 2nd ed., Aspen Publishers.
7. Berkman Center (2009). Next generation connectivity. A review of broadband internet transitions and policy from around the world. A report for the FCC, Draft, October 2009.
8. Elhauge E. Defining better monopolization standards. Stanford Law Review 56 253 (2003) 261-262
9. European Commission (2009). Communication from the Commission on Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks. 2009/C 235/04.
10. Frischmann B., and Waller S.W. Revitalizing essential facilities. Antitrust Law Journal 75 (2008) 1
11. Grajek, M., & Röller, L. H. (2009). Regulation and investment in network industries: Evidence from European telecoms. SFB 649 discussion paper 2009-039), Retrieved from: 〈http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2009-039.pdf 〉.
12. Hausman J.A., and Sidak J.G. Did mandatory unbundling achieve its purpose? Empirical evidence from five countries. Journal of Competition Law & Economics 1 1 (2005) 173-245
13. Hazlett T.W. Explaining the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Comment on Thomas G. Krattenmaker. Connecticut Law Review 29 (1996) 217
14. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. (2008). Unilateral refusals to deal, vertical integration, and the essential facility doctrine (July 1, 2008). U Iowa legal studies research paper no. 08-31.
15. Pietrunti, M. (2010). Regulation and investment incentivesfor next generation broadband access networks. European Investment Bank working paper, forthcoming.
16. Renda, A. (2004). Catch me if you can! The microsoft saga and the sorrows of old antitrust. Erasmus Law and Economics Review, (1), pp. 1-22
17. Renda, A. (2006, June). Last call for Lisbon? Final report of the CEPS Task Force on e-Communications, CEPS paperbacks.
18. Renda A. The costs and benefits of transatlantic convergence in telecom services. In: Hamilton D.S., and Quinlan J.P. (Eds). Sleeping giant: Awakening the transatlantic services economy (2007), Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University and Brookings Institution
19. Renda, A. (2008, October). I own the pipes, you call the tune? The net neutrality debate and its (ir)relevance for Europe. CEPS policy paper. Retreived from: http://www.ceps.be/ceps/download/1579.
20. Renda, A., Ayadi, R., Rodkiewicz, J., & Schrefler, L. (2007, April). Competition policy in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. A report for the European Institute of Public Administration-European Centre for the Regions (EIPA-ECR) in the framework of the Euro-Med Market Programme.
21. Ridyard D. Compulsory access under EC competion law - A new doctrine of 'Convenient Facilities' and the case for price regulation. European Competition Law Review 25 11 (2004) 669-673
22. Spulber, D. (2002). Competition policy in telecommunications. In: M. Cave, S. Majumdar & I. Vogelsang (Eds.), Handbook of telecommunications economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
23. US Department of Justice (2008). Competition and monopoly: Single firm conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/reports/236681.pdf〉.
24. Waller, S.W., & Tasch, W. (2010). Harmonizing essential facilities and refusals to deal, Antitrust Law Journal, 76 (3).
25. Wallsten S., and Hausladen S. Net neutrality, unbundling, and their effects on international investment in next-generation networks. Review of Network Economics 8 1 (2009) 90-112
26. Wallsten, S. (2007). Whence competition in network industries? Broadband and unbundling regulations in OECD countries. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/files/s8.pdf〉.
27. Waverman L., Meschi M., Reillier B., and Dasgupta K. Access regulation and infrastructure investment in the telecommunications sector: An empirical investigation (2007), LECG, Brussels. http://www.etno.eu/Portals/34/ETNO Retrieved from: 〈http://www.etno.eu/Portals/34/ETNO〉 Documents/LECG_Final Report.pdf