Abstract When the telecommunications industry was liberalised in Europe and North America in the 1980s and 1990s, it inherited a legacy of monopoly providers whose footprint was national or multi-regional in its character. The regulatory framework, particularly that adopted in EU member states, reflected this pattern of relatively homogeneous deployment achieved, in part, by decades of cross-subsidised pricing and universal service goals. Perhaps because of this legacy, telecommunications regulators have often adopted the presumption that relevant markets are national in character, unless proven otherwise Although geographically-variegated regulatory remedies have been permitted (even in the face of allegedly national relevant markets) and adopted in many member states, many regulators have never done so, and overly cautious thresholds for permitting geographically based forbearance suggest a continued bias towards presuming national markets and remedies. We find that this presumption of uniformity and the tendency to aggregate geographic markets together is not supported by first principles of antitrust analysis, although there may have been strong practical reasons to apply this presumption in the past circumstances of the telecommunications and broadband industries. On the ground, however, there has arguably never been as much heterogeneity across geographies and across technological solutions that provide effective ultra-fast broadband speeds. Both technological (i.e., product market) and geographic heterogeneity are likely to increase with the advent of mobile 5G networks. With their deployment, a cautious regulatory stance towards geographic variation and a cautious regulatory stance towards inter-technology or inter-modal competition may result in regulation that could exceed what is required to ensure effective competition and could instead distort the incentives to enter of facilities-based actors. This may also result in higher-cost and inefficient investment. A more geographically varied and technologically agnostic regulatory framework may satisfy the principle of proportionate and focused regulation—with the possibility that the locus of regulation shifts from the access network to bottleneck facilities such as fibre, ducts and poles. This discussion is especially germane when one considers the highly speculative nature of forecasts and projections about future demand, and the competing claims of proponents of 5G and fibre. While there is some scepticism about the performance of mobile networks, we note that pure mobile and fixed 5G services may have synergies in deployment, and that the idea of competing with residential broadband services is a core strategy of very influential large-scale industry actors. In terms of a future research agenda, regulatory decisions could benefit from much more research into the relationship between domestic and global bandwidth constraints and their influence on development of software and application, as well as much more quantitative research by academics on the drivers of bandwidth demand. The risks associated with promoting investment that results in large-scale wasted resources should also be central to the regulatory agenda.

中文翻译：

---

宽带市场的技术和地域异质性：监管挑战

摘要 当 1980 年代和 1990 年代欧洲和北美的电信业自由化时，它继承了垄断供应商的遗产，其足迹具有全国性或多地区性。监管框架，尤其是欧盟成员国采用的监管框架，反映了这种相对同质化的部署模式，部分是通过几十年的交叉补贴定价和普遍服务目标实现的。或许由于这一传统，电信监管机构通常假定相关市场具有国家性质，除非另有证明 尽管许多成员国已允许（即使面对所谓的国家相关市场）并采用不同地域的监管补救措施，许多监管机构从未这样做过，允许基于地域的宽容的过于谨慎的门槛表明继续偏向于假定国家市场和补救措施。我们发现这种统一性假设和将地域市场聚合在一起的趋势不受反垄断分析的首要原则的支持，尽管在电信和宽带行业的过去情况中应用这一假设可能有很强的实际理由。然而，在实际中，跨地域和跨技术解决方案提供有效的超快宽带速度可以说从未有过如此多的异质性。随着移动 5G 网络的出现，技术（即产品市场）和地理异质性都可能增加。随着他们的部署，对地域差异采取谨慎的监管立场，对跨技术或多模式竞争采取谨慎的监管立场，可能会导致监管超出确保有效竞争所需的范围，反而可能扭曲基于设施的行为者进入的激励机制。这也可能导致更高的成本和低效的投资。一个在地理上更加多样化和技术不可知的监管框架可能满足比例和集中监管的原则——监管地点可能从接入网络转移到光纤、管道和电线杆等瓶颈设施。当人们考虑到对未来需求的预测和预测的高度投机性质，以及 5G 和光纤支持者的竞争主张时，这一讨论尤其密切。虽然有人对移动网络的性能持怀疑态度，但我们注意到纯移动和固定 5G 服务在部署方面可能具有协同效应，与住宅宽带服务竞争的想法是非常有影响力的大型行业参与者的核心战略。就未来的研究议程而言，监管决策可以受益于对国内和全球带宽限制之间的关系及其对软件和应用程序开发的影响的更多研究，以及学术界对带宽需求驱动因素的更多定量研究. 与促进导致大规模资源浪费的投资相关的风险也应成为监管议程的核心。我们注意到，纯移动和固定 5G 服务在部署上可能会产生协同效应，与住宅宽带服务竞争的想法是非常有影响力的大型行业参与者的核心战略。就未来的研究议程而言，监管决策可以受益于对国内和全球带宽限制之间的关系及其对软件和应用程序开发的影响的更多研究，以及学术界对带宽需求驱动因素的更多定量研究. 与促进导致大规模资源浪费的投资相关的风险也应成为监管议程的核心。我们注意到，纯移动和固定 5G 服务在部署上可能会产生协同效应，与住宅宽带服务竞争的想法是非常有影响力的大型行业参与者的核心战略。就未来的研究议程而言，监管决策可以受益于对国内和全球带宽限制之间的关系及其对软件和应用程序开发的影响的更多研究，以及学术界对带宽需求驱动因素的更多定量研究. 与促进导致大规模资源浪费的投资相关的风险也应成为监管议程的核心。就未来的研究议程而言，监管决策可以受益于对国内和全球带宽限制之间的关系及其对软件和应用程序开发的影响的更多研究，以及学术界对带宽需求驱动因素的更多定量研究. 与促进导致大规模资源浪费的投资相关的风险也应成为监管议程的核心。就未来的研究议程而言，监管决策可以受益于对国内和全球带宽限制之间的关系及其对软件和应用程序开发的影响的更多研究，以及学术界对带宽需求驱动因素的更多定量研究. 与促进导致大规模资源浪费的投资相关的风险也应成为监管议程的核心。