jayfei2000的部落格

The subject of regulation stimulates strong opinions.

       Almost nobody in the telecommunications industry can claim to be uninterested in the topic and indeed few are disinterested in its impact. In short, regulation matters.

法規目標的施行或討論常引起激烈討論的意見。電信產業中幾乎每位業內人士都對此類議題深感興趣，很少人對上述事務的影響會不感興趣。簡單說來，對電信業而言，法規真得很重要!

But despite that, it is a subject that is widely misunderstood. Many members of the public look at the regulator as a 「watch dog」whose duty it is to right every wrong and keep order in the industry. Some go further and expect the regulator to act as a 「fairy godmother」 who will magically deliver their very wish. Even players in the industry itself sometimes like to think that it is the regulator’s job to ensure their business plan is viable and remains so whatever happens to market conditions. Some even think we（the regulators）can prevent companies from going bust. If only it were so. But then, how damaging it might be if we truly had the powers of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice!

事實雖然如，法規議題引起的錯誤誤解卻是最多。社會上許多人認為法規的責任是看家犬，法規要能糾正產業界任何行為上的錯誤舉止並且將它們的作法導入正途。有些人更進一步地期望監理者扮演西方神仙教母的角色，用法術實現他們的願望。甚至部份業者有時也抱著希望，要求監理者應該肩負責任促進產業界的商業計劃賺錢，甚至不管市場發生任何變化時，監理者還要繼續完成這樣的任務。居然還有些人真的認為監理者有能力幫助業者免於事業上的失敗。實際上，如果監理者像「魔法師的徒弟」[1]一樣有力，那就萬事OK了。

The reality is that all regulators are “creatures of statute”,whose role and powers are closely defined by law, albeit that their wider objectives are general enough to leave plenty of scope to adopt different tactics, as can be seen by the different approaches taken across the globe or even within the common framework in Eruope.

不管監理機關通常擁有寬廣目標與龐大的運作空間－例如從全球範圍到歐洲區域聯盟的共同架構－這一事實，也同時允許採納許多不同的方法應對實務上的需求，然而監理機關的地位與權力是由法律條文嚴密定義。本質上來看，監理機關是成文法律體系下的產物。

As an engineer myself, I like to think of regulation as a form of negative feedback. It is a form of control mechanism that has the effect of limiting the worst extremes of market swing and instability, but is not so constraining as to prevent any given swing from occurring at all. It does not define how the market will be, but has a strong influence on how it behaves. It is there to mitigate those aspects of “market failure” where intervention has a net beneficial effect. And that means that doing nothing is sometimes the right answer.

身為一位工程師，我比較喜歡把法規視為一個「負作用力回饋系統」。這是一個負責控制功能的系統，功能在於防止最糟的市場極端狀況發生－最糟的不穩定或兩極化交易狀況。它不是用來決定市場該長得像什麼型態，但能強烈影響市場如何運作。於是監理單位對市場運作的行政干涉就能減輕「市場失靈」[2]的現象，而獲得有益的效果。有時「負作用力回饋系統」也暗示政府停止干涉市場或許不是件壞事。

Inevitably, for such an important subject, much has been written about regulation in recent years. This includes articles in the tabloid newspapers, which complain about the “scandal” of high prices or poor service: “Something must be done”, they proclaim. At the other end of the spectrum, some heavyweight books, mostly targeted at professional people in these disciplines, have been written about the economic and legal principles that underpin regulation.

殆無疑問，對於這樣一個重要的目標，近年許多人持續針對法規貢獻不少著作。[3]著作的表現手法也包括如台灣蘋果日報般一樣，諸如對於高資費價格、劣等服務之類的醜聞，作出報怨型態報導。此類報導高呼「監理單位要作點事囉」。而在這些文章的另一種型態，針對法規專業人士所寫的大部頭書籍，很早以前就開始發表關於此門學問的經濟與法律分析以強化法規學門[4]的理論基礎。