通訊傳播業的結合管制-雙元權力規範下之分權與運作

Merger Control of Telecom and Broadcasting industries- The Decentralization and Operation under Dual Normal Regulation Structure

張正憲(Cheng-Hsien Chang)

指導教授 ： 廖義男

共同指導教授 ： 黃銘傑(Ming-Jye Huang)

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.02041

摘要

我國通訊傳播產業間之結合管制，競爭法主管機關公平會與目的事業主管機關通傳會均應當有管制權限，故於我國法制之下，對於通訊傳播產業之結合係採取雙元規範管制結構。雙元規範管制架構下，接下來所需釐清與面對的，即為公平員會與通傳會兩會之間的權限分際，分工模式。競爭法主管機關公平會在市場結構、市場競爭秩序之維護等方面，自係具有跨產業的競爭分析專業能力，可確保通訊傳播事業間相互結合時不至於會實質減少市場上之競爭或造成獨占之恐會侵害競爭秩序之狀態出現；目的事業主管機關通傳會則擁有電信管制、傳播政策以及涉各種非經濟因素方面之專業能力，可以確保結合案確實得以符合通訊傳播法制所追求相關之公眾利益。
然而，在此一兩會分工之大方向下，本論文就台灣近年來所發生的數個通訊傳播產業結合之案件處理中所發生之種種待解難題，延伸出問題意識而為進一步討論除了兩會針對處分理由時有論述不夠詳盡之情況出現外，於管制依據上，目的事業主管機關通傳會僅有在對於第一類電信事業間之結合時，方有法律明文賦予許可權限，於授權法規欠缺下，通傳會如何解釋運作？公平法第12條「整體經濟利益」考量與產業發展之揪葛為何？大眾傳播產業間之結合，即於媒體無遠弗界影響力與型塑輿論功能下，通傳會應如何善盡其把關之職責，如何解讀抽象又不能忽視的「多元化」之判斷，以保障言論市場之意見自由流通？復以涉及有線電視系統結合案件，性質之認定、有線電視數位化之發展、多角化結合下之跨媒體效應等各項議題，兩會又當如何為妥適之合作？而雙元規範管制下的兩會決定不一致以及行政處分附款功效之質疑，都是我國法制下仍待解決之問題。
　上述問題，在今日通傳產業數位匯流趨勢與解除管制思潮下，加上近年網路電視(IPTV)與隨選視訊(MOD)之發展，未來應如何來劃定兩會彼此之職掌界線更顯重要。在參考相關美國、歐盟與英國等相關外國立法例後，希望從比較法中得到啟發，除了提出了在現行法制下，兩會對於通訊傳播產業間之結合管制，「怎麼管？如何管」之外，最後也提出了立法論上的機關建構之建議，走向單一決定機關之方向，以求最終能達成促進競爭、有利產業發展、增進消費者利益與創造公私雙贏之局面。

關鍵字

數位匯流 ； 多元化 ； 結除管制 ； 雙元規範 ； 多角化結合 ； 行政處分附款 ； 言論市場 ； 跨媒體效應 ； 整體經濟利益

並列摘要

Both Fair Trade Commission for competent authorities of Competition Act and NCC of the industrial competent authority should have regulatory authorities in the combining of national communications industries. Therefore, the dual normal regulation structure is used for the combing of communications industries under the national legal institution. Under this kind of regulation structure, what we have to clarify and confront in subsequence are the right boundary and the division of labor between Fair Trade Commission for competent authorities of Competition Act and NCC of the industrial competent authority. Fair Trade Commission for competent authorities of Competition Act possesses the professional competency of cross-industrial competitive assay in market structure and market competition order maintaining, which could ensure that the market competition won’t be reduced actually or competition order won’t be invaded by monopoly when the communications industries combine. On the other hand, NCC of the industrial competent authority possesses the professional competency of telecommunication regulation, communications policy and involvement in various kinds of non-economic factors which could ensure that the combing policy is suitable for related public profits pursued by the telecommunication and broadcasting law. However, under the division of labor of the two commissions, this paper based on all sorts of problems in the several cases of communications industrial combination happened in Taiwan in recent years, extend consciousness of problems for continue discussing that NCC of the industrial competent authority has endowed rights which were expressly stipulated by laws when telecommunications of the first kind combine only, but what will NCC do if Authorization Act absent in accordance with regulation, except that the two commissions have ambiguity aim at punishment reasons. Article 12 of Fairness Act considers what relationship between the overall economic benefit and the industrial development. The combination of mass communication industries, that is, because media has no world-wide influence and has no function of shaping public opinion, what would NCC do to fulfill its duty, unscramble the judgment of diversification which is abstract but cannot be ignored, and maintain the free opinion flow about the Market for Ideas. And then, involved with the case of cable TV system combination, what will the two commissions do to deal with the affirmation of character, the development of cable TV digitization, cross-media effect under the conglomerate merger and some other issues? Thus, both disparities of the decisions under the dual normal regulation structure and the queries of Incidental Provisions of Administrative Dispositions are the problems to be solved under the national laws. According to the problems mentioned above, under the trend of digital convergence and ideological trend of deregulation in communications industries nowadays, and with the development of IPTV and MOD, it is more significant to delimit responsibilities clearly between two commissions in the future. After referring to some related instances of legislation in US, EU and UK, it was wished to get some inspiration from the comparative law. In some other words, not only the regulations of the two commissions aiming at the combination of the communications industries under the current legal system, such as how to regulate, were proposed, but also the suggestions of official construction in legislation. Going ahead in a monolithic way determines the direction of office so as to promote competition, do good to industrial development, increase consumer benefit and create a public-private win-win situation in the end.

並列關鍵字

digital convergence ； diversification ； deregulation ； dual normal regulation ； Conglomerate Merger ； Incidental Provisions of Administrative Dispositions ； Market for Ideas ； cross-media effect ； the overall economic benefit

參考文獻

18. 陳仲嶙（2008），〈傳播媒體的真實義務-以通訊傳播管理法草案相關規定為中心〉，《通訊法制研討會-科技、法理與管制》。

1. 王以國(2010)，〈網路中立管制在美國及歐盟的新發展〉，《科技法律透析》，22卷7期。

19. 張其祿(2003)，〈美國醫療證照管制政策之政治經濟分析〉，《歐美研究》，33卷第1期。

21. 張天欽，陳人傑，林孟芃（2004），〈通訊傳播匯流〉，《律師雜誌》，296期。

25. 廖義男（1995），〈事業結合四則實務之探討〉，《臺大法學論叢》，25卷第1期。