Thailand Law Journal 2009 Spring Issue 1 Volume 12

In comparison to the EU, the new regulatory framework aims at overhauling and re-systemizing the EU telecommunications regulations, with extension of the scope to cover broadcasting networks and services. The new framework keeps continuing the process of harmonization, but imposes high level of interplay among EU organizations in order to seek the greater objective of consistency across Member States via consultation between regulators and the Commission. Therefore, the new framework adopts an approach more in line with the principles of general competition law. The underlying concept for encouraging competition is to lighten substantive regulation and strengthen procedural regulation, as competition increases and technologies converge, that ex ante obligations need to be imposed only where competition is ineffective. Noticeably, the imposition of procedural systems and collaboration between organizations is a concern on integration which is not a major consideration in the U.S. systems.

Despite controversial arguments on detail applications of both systems, they find their development paths with consideration of their own factors. As of foregoing discussions, U.S. telecommunications have developed in dealing with powerful incumbent carriers. EU telecommunications have developed in dealing with liberalization and harmonization for the principle of internal market. However, those ex ante obligations in both U.S. and EU are likely to impose to give access to essential facilities with clear applications in regard to general competition law in order to facilitate end-users rather than particular competitors. This prospect of transitioning towards general competition is thereby obvious.

Thailand’s prospect has been in very well position of transitioning towards general competition. In comparison to the very long developments of the U.S. and EU, Thai telecommunications are not necessary to deal with the problem of the incumbent and asymmetric regulations. Therefore, Thai telecommunication market has been truly opened right after the privatization. Competition level has been very high even in the vacuum period of regulation. It is seemed that operators have been competing in open competition for quite a while. Significantly, they all are still in market place. No one got beaten out. Operators have proved their readiness to the higher level competition.

Unlike the U.S. and EU, it is not conventional circumstance of Thailand that operators seek to interconnect among them other than the incumbent. Well-developed principles of asymmetric regulations or ex ante obligations are seemed unnecessary and inappropriate to the situation. Today Thailand needs not to impose those asymmetric regulations to persuade new entrants. Principles like essential facilities are not required for today situation. It seems that Thailand has found its shortcut toward general competition. With regard to the transitioning prospect, Existing rules including the 2000 Act on the Organizations and the 2001 Telecommunications Business Act are well defined. They only require interpretations in the way that promote general competition. Transitioning towards general competition should be focused; light-handed regulation then should be imposed. It is an important ground to provide competitive environment that would allow operators and other private companies to find their way in competing and developing the industry where ex ante regulations are not necessary.

5. Selected References

Bauer, Johannes M. “Regulation and State Ownership: Conflicts and Complementarities in EU Telecommunications”. Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media: Michigan State University. <http://quello.msu.edu/wp/wp-05-01.pdf>. February 22, 2005.

Benjamin, Stuart Minor, Douglas Gary Lichtman, and Howard A. Shelanski. Telecommunications Law and Policy. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2001.

Boutheina Guermazi, “Exploring the Reference Paper on Regulatory principles”, Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, McGill University, (Montreal), <http://www.law.mcgill.ca/institutes/ csri/paper-guermazi-reference.php3>.

Buigues, Pierre-Andre. “Competition Policy v. Sector-Specific Regulation in Network Industries-The EU Experience”. Submitted to UNCTAD’s 7th Session of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy. Geneva. 30 October to 2 November 2006.

Bunaramrueang, Piyabutr. “Basic Telecommunication Trade in Services in the Framework of WTO and the Implementation of Additional Commitments in Reference Paper: Case Study of Thailand”. Thammasat University: Faculty of Law. LL.M. Dissertation. June 2005.

Crandall, R. W. Competition and Chaos : U.S. telecommunications since the 1996 Telecom Act. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press (2005).

Davidson, Elizabeth., “The interface between competition authorities and sectoral regulators”, Regional Seminar on Competition Policy and Multilateral Negotiations, Hong Kong, 16 – 18 April 2002.

This article is published with the kind permission of Piyabutr Bunaramrueang, Professor of Law at the School of Law, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. This article was presented at the 2007 ALIN International Academic Conference at Chulalongkorn University. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, <http://cc.in.th/wiki/by_f>