美國有線電視與電信事業跨業經營管制歷程之研究

The Cable/Telco Cross-Ownership Regulation in the U.S.: A Historical Study

本研究回溯美國有線電視與電信事業跨業經營管制歷程發現，「反市場獨占以促進競爭」的概念自始至終是美國聯邦傳播委員會 (FCC)在跨業經營管制政策之演變過程中所宣稱的理由。早期由聯邦傳播委員會(FCC)頒行的一九七○年有線電視與電信事業跨業經營禁令，最主要的考量就是擔心當時獨占電信服務市場的區域性電話公司會濫用其不公平競爭的行為，如歧視性的線桿附掛(discriminatory pole attachment)及交叉補貼(cross-subsidization)手段，藉由跨業經營而進一步獨占影視節目服務市場，阻礙當時初生的有線電視產業，然而此禁令卻在26年後隨著一九九六年電訊傳播法(Telecommunications Act of 1996)的頒行而正式廢除。一九九六年電訊傳播法雖然廢除有線電視與電信事業跨業經營禁令的規定，取消此兩業的市場進入障礙(market entry barriers)，但仍為了促進市場競爭，而有所謂的「產權買賣之禁止」(Prohibition On Buy Outs)條款，對於此兩業之併購(acquisitions)及合資經營(joint ventures)有明確的限制。本研究即深入地探討FCC、國會、白宮、法院、民眾、業者等角色，在美國管制歷程中對於是否開放跨業經營之考量及論辯，並整理一九九六年電訊傳播法對於跨業經營管制之重要規定，以提供若干經驗。

The purpose of this study is to trace back the cable/telco crossownership regulation in the United States. In 1970, Dominant local telephone companies were prohibited from providing video programming to subscribers in their telephone service areas since the ban on cable-telephone cross-ownership by FCC. According to the FCC, the telephone companies had the incentive to extend their regulated telephone monopoly into the area of CATV service by anticompetitive behavior, such as discriminatory pole attachment and cross-subsidization. Ending a lengthy legal battle, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 formally repealed the ban on February 8 in 1996 signed by President Clinton. Cable television operators are free to enter into the larger telecommunications market, but may face stiff competition from local telephone companies. The 1996 Act, however, still generally prohibits acquisitions and joint ventures between cable operators and local telephone companies within their respective service areas for keeping market competition. In order to understand the regulatory policy-making process in the U.S., argument and comments from the FCC, the Congress, the White House, the courts, citizen groups, and the regulated industries are all good study resources for this study. This study finds that as far as the U.S. authorities are concerned, the antitrust policy has never been given up.