Since the fixed link of telecommunication market (e.g. voice telephoning and internet services) was opened up completely at the beginning of 1998, substantial progress in the appropriateness of the regulatory environment to enable competition can be observed in most of the countries. Yet, there are still remarkable differences across European countries. With regard to the degree of liberalisation Denmark and the United Kingdom have top positions at the end of 2002. Germany and Austria have made considerable progress in establishing regulatory conditions promoting competition, however, it is still lagging behind the top countries. Generally it can be stated that in Europe the liberalisation of the core network has made much more progress than the liberalisation of the subscriber access network.
The analysis of the actual competition situation in the fixed link market segment shows that the intensity of competition has increased considerably in almost all European countries. Sweden holds the top position at the end of 2001 followed by Denmark. Germany and Austria rank only in a medium position. The intensity of competition is in principle much stronger in the long distance segment of a country than in the local segment in old European countries. The market concentration in the long distance segment usually decreases in Europe. In contrast, the market concentration in the local segment is still relatively high, but is decreasing since 2001. In almost all European countries price competition in the long distance segment is already very intensive.
There are substantial differences of the growth dynamics across the countries. In particular, a positive growth rate of minutes frequently goes along with a decline of the growth rate in the market volume of the telephony segment. At the end of 2001, Germany belongs to the countries with the highest growth. Yet, Denmark ranks at the top position at this point in time.
Sectoral Regulation 154
The fixed link telecommunication markets (e.g. voice telephoning and internet service providers) of Telecom markets of European Member countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany. France, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom) have been opened up completely since at least three years. One can observe substantial progress in the appropriateness of the regulatory environment to enable competition in most of the countries. Yet, there are still remarkable differences across European countries in particular with regard to the treatment of still existing bottlenecks. This heterogenity rests in particular on the differences as regards interconnection and access to the local loop. With regard to the degree of liberalisation, Denmark has a top position at the beginning of 2001. Although considerably behind Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden have also made considerable progress in establishing regulatory conditions promoting competition.
An analysis of the actual competition situation in the fixed link market segment shows that competition is most intensive in Denmark and Sweden. Germany and Austria7 ranks only in a medium position. In almost all countries voice telephony price competition is very intensive and prices have fallen considerably. The concentration in the long distance segment is low. In contrast, the market concentration in the local segment is still relatively high. According to the penetration of broadband access as well as prices of internet usage and leased lines, there are strong differences among the European countries.
At the beginning of 2002, Austria and Italy belong to the countries with the highest growth. Across all countries the growth rates in the internet segment are higher than in the voice segment. Italy has the highest growth rates in the internet segment, France is ranking at the second position.
If one compares the development of the telecom sector with the postal one, one immediately realises that the telecom sector more or less has been transformed from a state monopoly situation to a competitive market situation for almost all EU countries. Prices have fallen considerably, new products and services have been offered, hence,
7
Compare Elixmann, Schimmel and Schwab (2001), Elixmann, Kuhlenkampff, Schimmel and Schwab (2001), and Immenga, Kirchner, Knieps and Kruse (2001).
Schneider 155
enterprises and consumers using telecom products and services have considerably profited from the deregulation and the introduction of competition markets in the telecom sectors. The development of the liberalisation of the postal sector is much behind the telecom sector and major steps have to be implemented in most of the single EU-countries. Whether we well observe a similar development of the postal sector is likely but when and to what extend is an open question.8
First results point to a similar direction like in the telecom sector but the spirit now (2002) and the political altitudes towards this sector may not be the same as in the beginning of the nineties. As we also realize now some negative developments (due to political interventions) in the whole deregulation/privatisation business (compare e.g. the sluggish liberalisation process of the Austrian public energy/power utilities!) one should first develop an economic policy frame ("ordnungspolitischer Rahmen") before considering further deregulation/privatisation of the Austrian postal system.9
6. L
ITERATUREBrennan, T.J., "Gross Subsidisation and Cost Miss-Allocation by regulated Monopolists", Journal of Regulatory Economics 2/1, pp. 37-51, 1990.
Campbell, J.I.jr., "Overview of the international postal reform movement", Washington D.C.: Cato-Institute, 1998.
Campbell, J.I.jr., "Reforming the universal postal union", in: Cruw, M.A., Kleindorfer P.R. (eds.), "Future directions of postal reform", Boston, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Cruw, M.A., Kleindorfer, P.R., "Regulation and the nature of postal and delivery services", Boston (MA), Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Elixmann, D., Kuhlenkampff, G., Schimmel, U., Schwab, R., "Internationaler Vergleich der TK-Märkte in ausgewählten Ländern – ein Liberalisierungs-, Wettbewerbs- und Wachstums- index", Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 216, Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Bad Honnef (Germany), February 2001.
8
Compare Knieps (1997, 1999, 2001), Schmidt and Schmidt (1997).
9
Sectoral Regulation 156
Elixmann, D., Schimmel, U., Schwab, R., "Liberalisierung, Wettbewerb und Wachstum auf Europäischen Märkten", Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 227, Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Bad Honnef (Germany), October 2001.
Elsenbast, W., "Universaldienst unter Wettbewerb", Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag, 1999.
Elsenbast, W., Smit, H., "Gesamtwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der Marktöffnung auf dem deutschen Postmarkt", Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 204, Bad Honnef, 2000.
European Commission, "Studies on the Impacts of the Liberalisation in the Postal Sector: Liberalisation of Incoming and Outgoing Intra- Community Cross Border Mail", Brussels, Prizewaterhouse- coopers, 1998.
Immenga, O., Kirchner, C., Knieps, G., Kruse, J., "Telekommunikation im Wettbewerb – eine ordnungspolitische Konzeption nach erfolgreicher Marktöffnung", München (Germany): Verlag C. H. Beck, 2001.
Kay, N.R., "Direct Testemony of Nancy R. Kay on behalf of the United States Postal Service", Washington: Document Number: R2000- 1-USPS-T-23, 2000.
Knieps, G., "Phasing out sector-specific regulation in competitive telecommunications", Kyklos 50/3, pp. 325-339, 1997.
Knieps, G., "Zur Regulierung monopolistischer Bottlenecks", Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik 48/3, pp. 297-304, 1999.
Knieps, G., "Wettbewerbsökonomie – Regulierungstheorie, Industrieökonomie – Wettbewerbspolitik", Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2001.
Knorr, A., "Das ordnungspolitische Modell Neuseelands: Ein Vorbild für Deutschland?", Tübingen: Verlag Mohr-Siebeck, 1997. Niederbulm, A., "Quersubventionierung und Wettbewerb im
Postmarkt", Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 225, Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Bad Honnef, July 2001. Schmidt, I., Schmidt, A., "Europäische Wettbewerbspolitik", München,
Verlag Vahlen, 1997.
Schneider, F., "Privatisierung und Deregulierung in Österreich in den 90er Jahren: Einige Anmerkungen aus Sicht der neuen politischen Ökonomie", in: Berg H. (ed.), "Deregulierung und Privatisierung: Gewolltes – Erreichtes – Versäumtes", Schriften
Schneider 157
des Vereins für Socialpolitik Vol. 287, Berlin, Duncker&Humblot, pp. 89-120, 2002.
Smit, H., "Regulierungs- und Wettbewerbsentwicklung auf dem neuseeländischen Postmarkt", Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 212, Bad Honnef, December 2000.
Darlap, Grünbichler, Pribil 159