付费电视竞争法律的垂直效应与监管决策:法国、英国和美国

Agustin Diaz Pines, Y. Biondi
{"title":"付费电视竞争法律的垂直效应与监管决策:法国、英国和美国","authors":"Agustin Diaz Pines, Y. Biondi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2616385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines vertical effects in competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a focus on vertical input and customer foreclosure, exclusive dealing, countervailing buyer power and some aspects of the implementation of remedies. Its inception in the discussion surrounding convergence is justified by the importance of vertical effects in consolidation and vertical integration trends between the telecommunication and pay-television industries. Although convergence between these two industries may be considered both from the vertical (vertical integration) and horizontal (service bundling) perspective, this paper only addresses its vertical aspects. Among all types of vertical effects, only those judged more relevant by the authorities, and subject to a greater degree of scrutiny are being addressed, as explained in Section 1. First, we examine the different treatments of buyer power and its use as an argument to justify relaxing requirements for the authorisation of mergers in France and the United Kingdom (countervailing buyer power). Second, we conduct an exhaustive assessment of vertical foreclosure (both input and customer foreclosure) in relation to its regulatory treatment in these countries. In a separate section, exclusive dealing and related competition law practice are assessed in order to discern in which situations it can be pro- or anti-competitive, including future market structures. Finally, a section discusses the pros and cons of having wholesale reference offers for pay-television content against the use of arbitration mechanisms to prevent vertical foreclosure.The overall conclusion of the paper is that, while the United States has been moving away from stringent ex-ante regulation in pay-television markets, justified by an improvement in competition dynamics, France and United Kingdom have only partially succeeded in addressing these concerns – in many ways more serious that in the United States – due to a lack of a legal framework to issue ex-ante regulation. The empirical evidence for this paper is based on an exhaustive assessment of all related competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Annex includes a summary of vertical effects in antitrust and merger decisions in these countries from 1996 to 2014.","PeriodicalId":345107,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vertical Effects in Competition Law and Regulatory Decisions in Pay-Television: France, the United Kingdom and the United States\",\"authors\":\"Agustin Diaz Pines, Y. Biondi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2616385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines vertical effects in competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a focus on vertical input and customer foreclosure, exclusive dealing, countervailing buyer power and some aspects of the implementation of remedies. Its inception in the discussion surrounding convergence is justified by the importance of vertical effects in consolidation and vertical integration trends between the telecommunication and pay-television industries. Although convergence between these two industries may be considered both from the vertical (vertical integration) and horizontal (service bundling) perspective, this paper only addresses its vertical aspects. Among all types of vertical effects, only those judged more relevant by the authorities, and subject to a greater degree of scrutiny are being addressed, as explained in Section 1. First, we examine the different treatments of buyer power and its use as an argument to justify relaxing requirements for the authorisation of mergers in France and the United Kingdom (countervailing buyer power). Second, we conduct an exhaustive assessment of vertical foreclosure (both input and customer foreclosure) in relation to its regulatory treatment in these countries. In a separate section, exclusive dealing and related competition law practice are assessed in order to discern in which situations it can be pro- or anti-competitive, including future market structures. Finally, a section discusses the pros and cons of having wholesale reference offers for pay-television content against the use of arbitration mechanisms to prevent vertical foreclosure.The overall conclusion of the paper is that, while the United States has been moving away from stringent ex-ante regulation in pay-television markets, justified by an improvement in competition dynamics, France and United Kingdom have only partially succeeded in addressing these concerns – in many ways more serious that in the United States – due to a lack of a legal framework to issue ex-ante regulation. The empirical evidence for this paper is based on an exhaustive assessment of all related competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Annex includes a summary of vertical effects in antitrust and merger decisions in these countries from 1996 to 2014.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2616385\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2616385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了法国、英国和美国付费电视市场中竞争法和监管决策的垂直影响,重点关注垂直投入和客户丧失抵押品赎回权、独家交易、反补贴买方权力以及实施补救措施的某些方面。在电信和付费电视行业之间的整合和垂直整合趋势中,垂直效应的重要性证明了它在围绕融合的讨论中是合理的。虽然这两个行业之间的融合可以从垂直(垂直整合)和水平(服务捆绑)的角度来考虑,但本文只讨论其垂直方面。在所有类型的垂直影响中,如第1节所述,只有那些被当局认为更相关、需要更严格审查的影响才会得到解决。首先,我们研究了对买方权力的不同处理,以及在法国和英国(反补贴买方权力)作为放宽合并授权要求的理由的使用。其次,我们对垂直止赎(输入和客户止赎)在这些国家的监管处理进行了详尽的评估。在一个单独的章节中,将对排他性交易和相关竞争法实践进行评估,以辨别在哪些情况下排他性交易可能有利于竞争或不利于竞争,包括未来的市场结构。最后,一节讨论了为付费电视内容提供批发参考报价与使用仲裁机制以防止垂直止赎的利弊。这篇论文的总体结论是,虽然美国已经在付费电视市场上摆脱了严格的事前监管,但竞争动态的改善证明了这一点,法国和英国只是部分成功地解决了这些问题——在许多方面比美国更严重——由于缺乏发布事前监管的法律框架。本文的经验证据是基于对法国、英国和美国付费电视市场中所有相关竞争法和监管决定的详尽评估。附件包括1996年至2014年这些国家反垄断和合并决定的纵向影响的总结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Vertical Effects in Competition Law and Regulatory Decisions in Pay-Television: France, the United Kingdom and the United States
This paper examines vertical effects in competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a focus on vertical input and customer foreclosure, exclusive dealing, countervailing buyer power and some aspects of the implementation of remedies. Its inception in the discussion surrounding convergence is justified by the importance of vertical effects in consolidation and vertical integration trends between the telecommunication and pay-television industries. Although convergence between these two industries may be considered both from the vertical (vertical integration) and horizontal (service bundling) perspective, this paper only addresses its vertical aspects. Among all types of vertical effects, only those judged more relevant by the authorities, and subject to a greater degree of scrutiny are being addressed, as explained in Section 1. First, we examine the different treatments of buyer power and its use as an argument to justify relaxing requirements for the authorisation of mergers in France and the United Kingdom (countervailing buyer power). Second, we conduct an exhaustive assessment of vertical foreclosure (both input and customer foreclosure) in relation to its regulatory treatment in these countries. In a separate section, exclusive dealing and related competition law practice are assessed in order to discern in which situations it can be pro- or anti-competitive, including future market structures. Finally, a section discusses the pros and cons of having wholesale reference offers for pay-television content against the use of arbitration mechanisms to prevent vertical foreclosure.The overall conclusion of the paper is that, while the United States has been moving away from stringent ex-ante regulation in pay-television markets, justified by an improvement in competition dynamics, France and United Kingdom have only partially succeeded in addressing these concerns – in many ways more serious that in the United States – due to a lack of a legal framework to issue ex-ante regulation. The empirical evidence for this paper is based on an exhaustive assessment of all related competition law and regulatory decisions in pay-television markets in France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Annex includes a summary of vertical effects in antitrust and merger decisions in these countries from 1996 to 2014.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can Collusion Promote Sustainable Consumption and Production? Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US Worlds Colliding: Competition Policy and Bankruptcy Asset Sales The Passing-On of Price Overcharges in European Competition Damages Actions: A Matter of Causation and an Issue of Policy How to Fix Unreasonable Merger Regulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1