|
Click
here for ordering
information
“Regulators’
first mission is to ensure fair competition throughout all stages of the
licensing process… but the story does not end with licensing”
 Fair competition policy
has been what has worked best in the development of both the mobile and
Internet markets. In the mobile Internet era, it will still be
regulators’ first mission to secure fair competition throughout all
stages of the licensing process. During licensing, when selecting the
participants in the mobile Internet market, regulators should ideally
select operators using market-based methods. Table 1 shows the
third-generation licensing methods applied in selected countries
worldwide, illustrating the wide range of fees charged and methods used,
including auctions, “beauty contests” (comparative selection), and
mixed or “hybrid” approaches.
But the story does
not end with licensing. After licences have been awarded, regulators have
a crucial role to play in a number of ways. One of these is the need to
monitor the mobile market structure so as not to allow dominant operators
to abuse their market position over less established operators. The introduction of Internet access into the mobile
market creates potential new bottlenecks such as portals, and new breeds
of billing system. Mobile operators have a strong potential influence on
the market for Internet platforms, and regulators are responsible for
ensuring that platforms are as open to competition as possible.
Regulators also need to
cooperate and harmonize approaches to global roaming and terminal
circulation capabilities internationally. In an increasingly globalized
economy, both these capabilities will be necessary for the mobile Internet
market to flourish. International and regional organizations have a role
to play in guiding regulators in this regard.
Security is also a key
issue, both in terms of network vulnerabilities and of data privacy. As
interconnection between wireless, and wired networks becomes easier, so
hitherto controlled and traceable information becomes more vulnerable to
malicious usage.
With mobile data
services, including future m-commerce services, providers have more
information than the average user, and therefore have greater bargaining
power. Marketing tools, such as spamming, can overstep the line of
acceptability and become a nuisance to users. Assuming that most mobile
users have little knowledge of mobile technology and legal issues, it is
imperative that consumer rights be protected by appropriate measures.
Regulators should therefore establish recognized consumer protection
rules, for example by providing charters or guidelines on protection of
consumers’ legal rights. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) has, for instance, produced a set of Consumer
Protection Guidelines, outlined in Box 2.
Box
2: Consumer protection for m-commerce
There
are a number of differences between e‑commerce using PCs, and
m-commerce using mobile phones. One of these is the relative speed of
terminals. Another, is the potentially large number of users with
limited experience and insufficient technical and legal knowledge about
m-commerce. A further difference relates to the limited screen capacity
of mobile terminals to display items, such as forms or contracts, as
well as limited keypad functions for entering data (e.g. the absence of
specific “delete” or “enter” keys). This affects the way in
which personal information might be solicited or captured. For these
reasons, special regulations for mobile Internet consumers may be
required, although established e‑commerce guidelines may provide a
good basis for similar provisions to protect m-commerce consumers.
One
example of such protection in the case of e-commerce is the OECD’s Consumer
Protection Guidelines, issued in December 1999. Its
recommendations, outlined below, are designed for inclusion in possible
legislation. It recommends that governments, business communities and
consumer groups work together nationally and internationally to
implement the guidelines and make companies and the general public more
aware of consumer protection laws. In many countries, various entities
have developed similar guidelines to protect consumers in
e‑commerce.
·
Businesses
should not act, or make any representation or omission that might be
deceptive, misleading, fraudulent or unfair. Information about
companies, products or services should be “clear, conspicuous,
accurate and easily accessible”. Businesses should comply with
policy/practice statements made and be aware of global e-commerce
regulations.
·
Consumer
requests to stop unsolicited commercial e-mail messages (spamming)
should be respected.
·
Information
on transaction terms, conditions, delivery and costs should be
sufficient for the customer to make an “informed choice” about
whether to proceed with a purchase.
·
The consumer should be able to check precisely the
goods/services they are buying before completing the transaction and be
able to cancel if they desire to.
·
Companies
should provide secure payment methods.
·
Consumers with a complaint should have
access to “fair and timely” redress and not face “undue cost or
burdens”. Governments should assess current legal frameworks to verify
that e-commerce consumers are given the same protection as other
consumers.
Source:
OECD Guidelines For E-Consumers,
OECD. See
http://www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,,EN-home-29-nodirectorate-no-no--29,00.html.
Table
1:
Allocation of 3G mobile licences in selected economies worldwide
|
Country
|
No.
of licences
|
Mobile
incumbents
|
Method
|
Date
awarded
|
Amount
paid, US$ million
|
|
Australia
|
6
|
3
|
Regional auction
|
March 2001
|
610
|
|
Austria
|
6
|
4
|
Auction
|
November 2000
|
618
|
|
Belgium
|
4
|
3
|
Auction
|
March 2001
|
421
|
|
Czech Republic
|
2
|
2
|
Auction
|
December 2001
|
200
|
|
Denmark
|
4
|
3
|
Sealed bid auction
|
September 2001
|
472
|
|
Finland
|
4
|
3
|
Beauty contest
|
March 1999
|
Nominal
|
|
France
|
4
(2
pending)
|
3
|
Beauty contest + fee
(Revived auction for 2 pending)
|
July 2001
(Results
of revived auction due in September 2002)
|
4’520
(subsequently reduced
to 553 million each, plus 1
per cent of revenue
|
|
Germany
|
6
|
4
|
Auction
|
August 2000
|
46’140
|
|
Greece
|
3
|
3
|
Hybrid
|
July 2001
|
414
|
|
Hong Kong, China
|
4
|
6
|
Hybrid
|
September 2001
|
Minimum 170 each plus royalties
|
|
Israel
|
3
|
3
|
Beauty contest + fee
|
December 2001
|
157
|
|
Italy
|
5
|
4
|
Hybrid
|
October 2000
|
10’180
|
|
Japan
|
3
|
3
|
Beauty contest
|
June 2000
|
Free
|
|
Korea (Rep.)
|
3
|
2
|
Beauty contest + fee
|
August 2001
|
2’886
|
|
Malaysia
|
3
|
3
|
Beauty contest
|
December 2001
|
Nominal
|
|
Netherlands
|
5
|
5
|
Auction
|
July 2000
|
2’500
|
|
New Zealand
|
4
|
2
|
Auction
|
January 2001
|
60
|
|
Norway
|
4
|
2
|
Beauty contest + fee
|
November 2000
|
88
|
|
Singapore
|
3
(+1?)
|
3
|
Cancelled auction
|
April 2001
|
165.8
|
|
Slovenia
|
1
|
2
|
Cancelled auction
|
December 2001
|
82
|
|
Spain
|
4
|
3
|
Beauty contest + fee
|
March 2000
|
480
|
|
Sweden
|
4
|
3
|
Beauty contest
|
December 2000
|
44
|
|
Switzerland
|
4
|
2
|
Auction
|
December 2000
|
120
|
|
Taiwan, China
|
5
|
4
|
Auction
|
February 2002
|
1’400
|
|
United Kingdom
|
5
|
4
|
Auction
|
April 2000
|
35’400
|
|
Total
(25)
|
99
+
|
79
|
13 auctions,
9 beauty contests,
3 hybrid
|
-
|
105’330
+
|
Source: ITU, European Commission, UMTS Forum and
3GNewsroom.com.
Click
here for a list of operating
frequencies for CDMA2000
|
