Şahin ARDIYOK, Hakan DEMİRKAN, EMİN KÖKSAL, Barış YÜKSEL

6822

MOBİL İLETİŞİM HİZMETLERİNDE ŞEBEKE TARAFSIZLIĞI DÜZENLEMELERİ VE TRAFİK YÖNETİMİ UYGULAMALAR- ININ REKABET HUKUKU AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Son yıllarda internet ile ilgili tartışmaların merkezinde bulunan şebeke tarafsızlığı kavramı mobil iletişim hizmetleri için ayrı bir önem arz etmektedir. Mobil işletmeciler, kendi sundukları hizmetlerinin ikamesi haline gelen over–thetop OTT hizmetlerin etkilerini çeşitli trafik yönetimi uygulamalarıyla azaltmaya çalışmaktadırlar. Yakın geçmişte, çeşitli ülkelerde uygulamaya konulan şebeke tarafsızlığı düzenlemeleri, mobil işletmecilerin şebekeleri üzerinden geçen trafiği yönetme kabiliyetlerini belli ölçülerde kısıtlasa da, ortaya çıkabilecek rekabet hukuku ihlallerini ortadan kaldırmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, çift taraflı pazar dinamiklerini dikkate alarak, mobil hizmetlerde şebeke tarafsızlığı ve trafik yönetimi uygulamalarını rekabet hukuku çerçevesinde ele almaktadır. Çalışma, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ABD ve Avrupa Birliği AB uygulamalarından hareketle, mobil işletmecilerin tek taraflı ve içerik sağlayıcılar ile birlikte girişebilecekleri davranışları çerçevesinde ele almakta ve Rekabet Kanunu’nun 4. ve 6. maddeleri kapsamında bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Mobil iletişim hizmetleri, şebeke tarafsızlığı, trafik yönetimi, OTT, çift taraflı pazar

ASSESSMENT OF NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS AND TRAFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPETITION LAW

Recent debate on net neutrality exhibits a particular importance for mobile communications services. Mobil operators strive to decrease the substitution between their own services and the services offered by over–the-top OTT providers. Although recent enacted net neutrality regulations in certain countries have limited the traffic management capabilities of mobile operators, they do not completely eliminate competition infringement risks. This study assesses net neutrality regulations and traffic management activities in mobile communications from the perspective of competition law, considering the dynamics of two sided markets. Based on the practices in United States US and in European Union EU , the study examines unilateral and collusive behaviors of mobile operators around the Articles 4 and 6 of the Competition Law
Keywords:

Mobile communications services, net neutrality, traffic management, OTT, two sided market,

PDF

___

  • ANDERSSON, K., Ø. FOROS ve B. HANSEN (2012), “Empirical evidence on the relationship between mobile termination rates and firms’ profit.”, NHH Dept. of Finance & Management Science Discussion Paper 2012/10.
  • ARMSTRONG, M. (2002), “The theory of access pricing and interconnection.”, M. Cave, S. Majumdar, ve I. Vogelsang (der.), Handbook of Telecommunications Economics içinde, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
  • ARMSTRONG, M. (2006), “Competition in Two-Sided Markets.” The Rand Journal of Economics, No.37(3), s.668-691.
  • ARMSTRONG, M. ve J. WRIGHT (2009), “Mobile call termination.”, Economic Journal, No.119, s.270–307.
  • BELLI, L, ve P. D. FILIPPI (2016), “General Introduction: Towards a Multistakeholder Approach to Network Neutrality”, L. Belli ve P. D. Filippi (der.), Net Neutrality Compendium, içinde, Springer International Publishing, s.1-7.
  • BEREC (2011a), Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches, http://berec.europa.eu/doc/berec/bor/ bor11_67_transparencyguide.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • BEREC (2011b), A framework for Quality of Service in the scope of Net Neutrality, http://berec.europa.eu/doc/berec/bor/bor11_53_qualityservice.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • BEREC (2012a), A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe, https://ec.europa.eu/digital- agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Traffic%20Management%20Investigation%20 BEREC_2.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • BEREC (2012b), Differentiation practices and related competition issues in the scope of Net Neutrality, http://berec.europa.eu/files/news/bor_12_31_comp_ issues.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016, s. 16.
  • BEREC (2012c), An assessment of IP interconnection in the context of Net Neutrality, http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/ download/0/1130-an-assessment-of-ip-interconnection-in-t_0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • BEREC (2016), Report on OTT Services
  • http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/ download/0/5751-berec-report-on-ott-services_0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2016. BLOOMBERG (2005), Online Extra: At SBC, It’s All About “Scale and Scope”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2005-11-06/online-extra-at-sbc-its-all- about-scale-and-scope, Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2016.
  • BTK (2011), Şebeke Tarafsızlığı (Net Neutrality), https://www.btk.gov. tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FSayfalar%2FArastirma_ Raporlari%2FSebeke_Tarafsizligi.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • BTK (2015), Üç Aylık Pazar Verileri Raporu, 2015 Yılı 3. Çeyrek Temmuz – Ağustos - Eylül, https://www.btk.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments %2fSayfalar%2fPazar_Verileri%2f2015-Q3_v1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016, s. 72.
  • CAILLAUD, B., ve B. JULLIEN (2003), “Chicken & egg: Competition among intermediation service providers”, Rand Journal of Economics, No.34(2), s.309- 328.
  • CHANG, H., D. S. EVANS ve D. D. G. SWARTZ (2005), “The Effect of Regulatory Intervention in Two-Sided Markets: An Assessment of Interchange- Fee Capping in Australia.” Review of Network Economics, No.4(4), s.1-31.
  • COLINO, S. M. (2010), Vertical Agreements and Competition Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, s.48.
  • DARGUE, M. ve W. WADSWORTH (2013), Over the Top Operator Threat and Oppurtunity Cartesian, http://www.cartesian.com/wp_content/upload/OTT- Operator-Threat-and-Opportunity_Cartesian_Feb2013.pdf, s.2, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • EKDİ, B. (2009), “Hakim Durumda Bulunan Teşebbüsün Dikey Anlaşmalar Yoluyla Piyasayı Kapatması.” Rekabet Kurumu Lisansüstü Tez Serisi, No.16.
  • EU COMISSION (2010), Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, http://ec.europa. eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/guidelines_vertical_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • EU COMISSION (2013a), Future electronic communications markets subject to ex-ante regulation
, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_ id=3148, s.72, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • EU COMISSION (2013b), Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent - COM(2013) 627, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=2734
  • Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • EU COMISSSION (2015), Our commitment to Net Neutrality, https://ec.europa. eu/digital-agenda/en/eu-actions, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • EVANS, D. S. ve M. D. NOEL (2008), “The analysis of mergers that involve multisided platform businesses.”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, No.4(3), s.663-695.
  • EVANS, D. S., ve R. SCHMALENSEE (2007), “The Industrial Organization of Two Sided Markets.”, Competition Policy International, No.3(1), s.151-179.
  • FCC (1996), Telecommunications Act of 1996, https://transition.fcc.gov/telecom. html, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2004), Preserving internet freedom: guiding principles for the industry, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.pdf
  • Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2005), New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- 260435A1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2008), Comments of Robert M. Topolski, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ document/view;NEWECFSSESSION=XzQ4Wf9HpwCC9Q9hh72bG9ZxBjX7 T81TcL5HY2TKNC1ksTV92xGq -1678543329 -1135238304?id=6519843340, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2010), Preserving the Open Internet, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2015a), Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC- 331869A1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • FCC (2015b), FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/ DOC-332260A1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • GENAKOS, C. ve T. VALLETTI (2011a), “Testing the waterbed effect in mobile telecommunications.”, Journal of the European Economic Association, No.9, s.1114–1142.
  • GENAKOS, C. ve T. VALLETTI (2011b), “Seesaw in the air: interconnection regulation and the structure of mobile tariffs.”, Information Economics and Policy, No.23, s.59–170.
  • GENAKOS, C. ve T. VALLETTI (2012), “Regulating prices in two-sided markets: The waterbed experience in mobile telephony.”, Telecommunications Policy, No.36, s.360-368.
  • KÖKSAL, E (2010), Network Neutrality on the Internet: An Economic Analysis, Lambert Academic Publishing Saarbrücken, Germany, s.7-9.
  • KRATTENMAKER, T. G., ve S. C. SALOP (1986), “Anticompetitive exclusion: Raising rivals’ costs to achieve power over price.”, Yale Law Journal, s.209-293. LAFFONT, J.-J., P. REY ve J. TIROLE (1998), “Network competition I: overview and nondiscriminatory pricing.”, RAND Journal of Economics, No.29(1), s.1–37. MUSACCHIO, J., G. SCHWARTZ ve J. WALRAND (2009), “A two-sided market analysis of provider investment incentives with an application to the net- neutrality issue.” Review of Network Economics, No.8(1), s.1-18.
  • O’DONOGHUE, R. ve A. J. PADILLA (2006), The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC, OXFORD, s. 358.
  • ROCHET, J-C, ve J. TIROLE (2003), “Platform competition in two-sided markets.” Journal of the European Economic Association, No.1(4), s.990-1029.
  • ROCHET, J-C, ve J. TIROLE (2004) “Two-sided markets: an overview”, IDEI working paper, No.258, s.1-44.
  • ROSON, R. (2005), “Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey.” Review of Network Economics, No.4(2), s.42-160.
  • SARMA, C. (2014), Oprator’s Delemma and Oppurtunity: The 4th Wawe, http:// www.chetansharma.com/Operators_Dilemma_The_Fourth_Wave_Chetan_ Sharma_Consulting.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2016.
  • WRIGHT, J. (2004), “One-Sided Logic in Two-Sided Markes.”, Review of Network Economics, No.3(1), s.44-64.
  • WU, T. (2003), “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination.”, Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, No.2, s.141-179.
  • WU, T., ve C. YOO (2007), “Keeping the internet neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo debate.” Federal Communications Law Journal, No.59(3), s.575–592.
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 5 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

KARTELLERİN SEMPTOMLARI VE İKTİSADİ TEŞHİSİ: YOLUN NERESİNDEYİZ?

Şerife Demet KORKUT

MOBİL İLETİŞİM HİZMETLERİNDE ŞEBEKE TARAFSIZLIĞI DÜZENLEMELERİ VE TRAFİK YÖNETİMİ UYGULAMALAR- ININ REKABET HUKUKU AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Şahin ARDIYOK, Hakan DEMİRKAN, EMİN KÖKSAL, Barış YÜKSEL

ATIK YÖNETİMİ PİYASALARINDA KAYIT DIŞILIK, ÇEVRESEL DÜZENLEMELERE UYUMSUZLUK VE REKABET

Evrim Özgül KAZAK