程法彰

中文摘要

通訊傳播設施共享的概念，是近年來討論的熱門議題之一。共享的概念可能包含共建、共站、共點甚至是出租等。在光纖迴路設施出租共享的議題討論上，對於如何在網路光纖化時代中正確適用第一類電信市場主導者的不對稱管制以及主管機關的管制角色界定議題，在近年來引起相當大的關注。是否光纖迴路設施的出租共享在政策上需要到以前述市場主導者的不對稱概念管制，或是僅需以溫和的鼓勵手段由市場的機制加以決定，是本文想要討論的首要問題。其次，本文有意釐清電信法以及公平交易法兩者在促進光纖設施共享的角色、分工、甚至競合。因此本文將借鏡美國相關資訊文獻制度，並輔以對於實務的觀察提出本文對我國的建議。在此一論述架構之下，本文認為傳統上以促進服務競爭為管制角度出發的光纖迴路設施出租共享的事前管制概念，在面對數位匯流時代以促進設施競爭為事前管制的基調下，應最終將光纖迴路設施的出租共享交由市場機制決定，電信法以及公平交易法兩者僅作事後的救濟。不論兩者對於光纖迴路設施的出租共享採取何種管制模式，電信法認定上應為公平交易法的特別法，藉以防止兩者之間所可能產生個案認定不一致的爭議。

The Regulatory Issues to Fiber Loop Unbundling

Fa-Chang Cheng

abstract

The concept of telecommunications infrastructure sharing is one intensely debated topic in recent years. The meaning of infrastructure sharing may consist of co-construction, co-station, co-location, even unbundling, etc.. To precisely adapt asymmetric regulation pertaining to type 1 telecommunications enterprises and define the regulatory authorities draw a lot of attention in recent years. The primary debated controversy is whether to achieve fiber optic unbundling needs above-mentioned asymmetric regulation or just market mechanism accompanying with moderate encouraging measures. Secondly, this article attempts to untangle the confusion of characteristics and relationship between Telecommunications Act and Fair Trade Act in enhancing fiber loop unbundling. This article tries to gain experience through reviewing related information data collection in the United States, compare with Taiwan’s counterpart observation and make suggestions to the future practice in Taiwan. Under the above-mentioned review infrastructure, the observation of this article indicates unbundling fiber loop to promote traditional service-based competition through regulation in advance should eventually give away to the free market mechanism in the wake of facility-based competition through regulation in advance thinking dominant in the era of digital convergence, and both Telecommunications Act and Fair Trade Act are going to serve as remedy afterwards. No matter what kind of regulatory methodology applies in the case, Telecommunications Act should preempt Fair Trade Act in order to prevent disputes arising from disparity between applications of them in the real case.