The CETA-agreement on telecommunication services – A blueprint for a future WTO accord in multilateral trade liberalisation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 1997 WTO members signed the Fourth protocol, which, for the first time, determined a set of international rules for trade in basic telecommunication services. While this agreement was a major step in the direction of liberalising national telecommunication markets, many deficiencies remained. At the time, it was agreed to enter a new round of negotiations by the year 2000. However, 20 years later, as of today, the former rules are still in place without any revision. While this is rather disillusioning from a free trade perspective, progress has been made on bilateral trade agreements. One such agreement is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada, which provisionally entered into force on 21 September 2017. CETA, that includes two Chapters affecting telecommunications markets, one on services in general and one on telecommunications services, envisages amongst others to further open up service markets to foreign companies by lifting existing market entry barriers. It is the objective of this paper to analyse whether the CETA-agreement on telecommunications services can serve as a blueprint for a future WTO accord towards multilateral trade liberalisation. In answering this question, the results of the CETA-agreement on telecommunication services will be compared with the results of the WTO accord on telecommunications services. Thereby the focus will be on the question whether CETA can serve as model for a future revision of the WTO rules in the area of telecommunications services. Is CETA a major step in the direction of further liberalising national telecommunication markets and are the regulatory provisions detailed enough to make competitive market access become reality?
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".