長久以來,電信業與有線電視業的發展毫不相干,直到匯流之後,兩者的界線模糊了,才彼此在同一個產業成為競爭者。我國在匯流的過程中,電信業經營電視服務碰上諸多問題,因此本研究試圖透過文獻分析與比較法學,針對美國、日本的法制來探討其中對於我國法治的改進之處。 結果發現,美國OVS架構與我國現在的有線電視產業架構相近,而日本電信服務廣電架構與我國現行「多媒體平台模式」架構相近。但是,由於我國與日本的產業結構、法制規範落差較大,因此經由比較衡量後,本研究認為美國OVS架構可作為我國修法之借鏡。 電信業者透過修正後的《有線廣播電視法》來經營「電信類有線電視」,必須另行取得有線電視之許可,但得以跨區經營以及受到較低度管制的費率監督,其他管制則比照以往「一般類有線電視」之規範。「一般類有線電視」規範由於與「電信類有線電視」規範相似,因此法規套利(regulatory arbitrage)應無法實現。
Telecommunications and cable operators did not have a chance to compete until the technical convergence of communication services. Telcos in Taiwan have encountered many problems providing television services. My thesis focuses on United States and Japan's regulatory regimes. It is hoped my study will provide suggestions to Taiwan's regulatory framework. The author provides the following findings. First, the OVS regime of U.S. is similar to Taiwan's cable regulation and the Law Concerning Broadcast on Telecommunications Services of Japan is similar to Taiwan's new regime of "Multimedia Content Platform Service". Second, the market structure between Taiwan and Japan varies. Third, OVS regime of U.S. is a good reference for Taiwan, if a statutory amendment is needed. The suggestions are as follow. First, the "Cable Radio and Television Act" should be amended. Second, telcos in Taiwan who intend to provide "telco CATV" should obtain cable licenses but not be subject to in-region operation. For the rest, regulations of "telco CATV" should be the same as those of "conventional CATV". Due to similar regulation between "telco CATV" and "conventional CATV", regulatory arbitrage should not be possible.