Telecommunications after competition: challenges, institutions, regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the paper is to explore the remaining aspects of telecommunications service that might require continued economic and technical regulation even after competition is present to the maximum extent feasible. The paper further explores the regulatory institutions and practices that will best accomplish this required regulation. Design/methodology/approach The paper evaluates the traditional choices between a sector‐specific regulator and a competition authority, as well as ex post and ex ante regulation. In addition, the paper evaluates less traditional methods of regulation including laws of general application, such as consumer protection laws, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and self‐regulation. The characteristics of each of these means of regulation are identified, and, following a set of principles, the regulatory institutions and practices are matched to the areas of telecommunications requiring regulation. Findings The paper identifies five areas of telecommunications that will likely require continuing regulation and matches a regulatory institution or practice to each of the five areas of regulation. These five areas are retail regulation of local services in rural and remote areas with insufficient competition for forbearance, interconnection of competing networks and essential facilities, duty to serve (carrier of last resort and obligation to serve), subsidies for high‐cost or low‐income customers, and social regulation such as emergency service and message relay obligations. Originality/value Previous studies have not focused on the need for continuing regulation after competition develops to the maximum extent feasible. Also, studies typically consider the limited framework of a sector‐specific regulator or a competition authority and do not consider the other regulatory options or institutions available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".