{"title":"欧洲移动市场和“4个网络好,3个网络坏”的原则","authors":"P. Curwen, J. Whalley","doi":"10.1108/INFO-05-2016-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nIn light of the recent European Commission decisions that clearly favour the maintenance of a four-network structure in European mobile markets, the purpose is to provide an empirical examination of the case for and against such a structure. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nA table of concentration ratios in 35 sample European markets is constructed and is followed by a detailed analysis of all relevant merger/takeover cases since 2012. These are then used to provide a general analysis of the desirability of further consolidation in the European mobile sector. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nAlthough the relevant investigatory bodies claim to have made out a watertight case for the maintenance of existing structures, the paper explains why these claims should be met with some scepticism, especially in light of the development of “quad-play” in all markets. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nWhen a decision is made on a market structure, it is pointless to pursue the “but what if?” alternatives any further. However, it should be possible in a few years’ time to assess whether the Commission’s predictions have come to pass. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nAs the UK decision has only just been delivered, the only commentary so far has had a narrow focus, whereas this paper seeks to provide useful and relevant background data about the structure of markets and technological developments.","PeriodicalId":88488,"journal":{"name":"Fruhneuzeit-Info","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"European mobile markets and the doctrine of “4 networks good, 3 networks bad”\",\"authors\":\"P. Curwen, J. Whalley\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/INFO-05-2016-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nIn light of the recent European Commission decisions that clearly favour the maintenance of a four-network structure in European mobile markets, the purpose is to provide an empirical examination of the case for and against such a structure. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nA table of concentration ratios in 35 sample European markets is constructed and is followed by a detailed analysis of all relevant merger/takeover cases since 2012. These are then used to provide a general analysis of the desirability of further consolidation in the European mobile sector. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAlthough the relevant investigatory bodies claim to have made out a watertight case for the maintenance of existing structures, the paper explains why these claims should be met with some scepticism, especially in light of the development of “quad-play” in all markets. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nResearch limitations/implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nWhen a decision is made on a market structure, it is pointless to pursue the “but what if?” alternatives any further. However, it should be possible in a few years’ time to assess whether the Commission’s predictions have come to pass. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAs the UK decision has only just been delivered, the only commentary so far has had a narrow focus, whereas this paper seeks to provide useful and relevant background data about the structure of markets and technological developments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fruhneuzeit-Info\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fruhneuzeit-Info\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/INFO-05-2016-0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fruhneuzeit-Info","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/INFO-05-2016-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
European mobile markets and the doctrine of “4 networks good, 3 networks bad”
Purpose
In light of the recent European Commission decisions that clearly favour the maintenance of a four-network structure in European mobile markets, the purpose is to provide an empirical examination of the case for and against such a structure.
Design/methodology/approach
A table of concentration ratios in 35 sample European markets is constructed and is followed by a detailed analysis of all relevant merger/takeover cases since 2012. These are then used to provide a general analysis of the desirability of further consolidation in the European mobile sector.
Findings
Although the relevant investigatory bodies claim to have made out a watertight case for the maintenance of existing structures, the paper explains why these claims should be met with some scepticism, especially in light of the development of “quad-play” in all markets.
Research limitations/implications
When a decision is made on a market structure, it is pointless to pursue the “but what if?” alternatives any further. However, it should be possible in a few years’ time to assess whether the Commission’s predictions have come to pass.
Originality/value
As the UK decision has only just been delivered, the only commentary so far has had a narrow focus, whereas this paper seeks to provide useful and relevant background data about the structure of markets and technological developments.