查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 有線電視與電信產業匯流之法律問題研究=The Legal Problems Arising from the Convergence of Cable and Telecommunications Industry |
---|---|
作者 | 江耀國; 周韻采; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
卷期 | 70 2002.06[民91.06] |
頁次 | 頁87-148 |
分類號 | 557.7 |
關鍵詞 | 有線電視; 有線廣播電視法; 電信; 電信法; 纜線電話; 電路出租; 纜線數據機; 網路電話; 隨選視訊; 網路電視; 開放接續; 服務搭售; Cable television; Cable broadcast and television law; Telecommunication; Telecommunications law; Cable telephony; Network leasing; Cable modem; Internet phone; Video on demand; Web TV; Open access; Service tying; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 繼美國通過1996年電信法允許電信與有線電視產業的跨業經營之後,我國也在1999年修正通過有線廣播電視法,開放這兩個產業的跨業經營。科技匯流下之產業互跨已成沛然之趨勢,然而在法令上允許跨業經營卻可能導致原本有線電視與電信二元管制體系在適用上的困擾。 本文分析我國的跨業經營有四種態樣。(一)有線電視經營第一類電信:由於電信綜合網路執照的高門檻,我國有線電視業者並不熱衷於以自有纜線網路從事電信服務,而較有興趣於電路出租業務。(二)有線電視經營第二類電信:纜線數據機服務的推出在國內已有數年,由此引申出的是「開放接續」議題。我國於2001年7月始開放網路電話服務,並歸為第二類特殊電信業務。(三)第一類電信經營有線電視:在全國有線電視市場不斷合併集中的情況下,並無足夠市場空間讓第一類電信業者成為有線電視系統經營者。至於電信業者以其電信網路傳送視訊節目,如VOD或MOD是否成為「有線電視服務」而必須取得有線電視經營執照,成為現階段亟待解決之議題,本文建議電信業者若尚未直接提供多頻道視訊節目傳播,可豁免於有線廣播電視法的適用。(四)第二類電信經營有線電視:由於第二類電信業者非自有電信機線設備,故再另外建置纜線網路經營有線電視業務的可能性很低。 |
英文摘要 | After the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowing cross-ownership of telecommunications and cable industry, Taiwan also amended the Cable Broadcast and Television Law in 1999 that permits the cross-ownership of the two industries. However, cable and telecommunications industry are subject to two different sets of regulatory laws. Convergence of the two industries may cause problems and confusions in application of two different sets of rules. In this article, we indicate four scenarios of cross-ownership in Taiwan. (1) Cable systems provide Type I telecommunications services: Due to the high threshold of telecommunications franchise, cable systems in Taiwan are not particularly interested in becoming a telecommunications service provider. However, they are more interested in leasing their cable networks. (2) Cable systems provide Type II telecommunications services: Cable modem services have been launched in Taiwan for years. An important issue in this regard is "open access." Furthermore, Taiwan began to legalize Internet phone services in July 2001. (3) Type I telecommunication carriers provide cable service: Under the circumstances of an increasingly concentrated cable market, there is little space for telecommunication carriers to enter into the market. Nevertheless, whether a telecommunication carrier via its telecommunication network providing video signal such as VOD or MOD will be considered as "cable service" is controversial. We suggest that when a telecommunication carrier has not yet provided instant "multichannel video programming distribution" (MVPD) should not be classified as "cable service" (4) Type II telecommunication carriers provide cable service: Type II carriers are very. unlikely to provide cable service because they are non-facility based service providers. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。