Elektronik Haberleşme Sektöründe Arabağlantı Ücretleri Düzenlemesinde Maliyet Bazlı Fiyatlama Yöntemi İle Faturala ve Sakla Yönteminin Karşılaştırılması: Optimum Arabağlantı Ücreti Önerisi

Öz

In order to promote competition in the field of communication, efficient regulations are required. Interconnection is one of the most important issues in regulation of communication sector. In communications sector, the subject that operators and regulatory authorities mostly encounter is about the interconnection rates and indirectly the interconnection costs. There is a big dispute about optimum interconnection price especially in some countries where calling party pay principle is applied. Bill and Keep has become a current issue as an alternative to the currently used regime Calling Party Pays. Also choosing the interconnection charging mechanism to be applied and determining the level of call termination rates is very important. In this context, optimum interconnection rate is explained in this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interconnection, Calling Party Pay, Bill and Keep, On net – Off net Price Differentiation, Incremental Cost.

Elektronik Haberleşme Sektöründe Arabağlantı Ücretleri Düzenlemesinde Maliyet Bazlı Fiyatlama Yöntemi İle Faturala ve Sakla Yönteminin Karşılaştırılması: Optimum Arabağlantı Ücreti Önerisi

Öz

Elektronik haberleşme sektöründe rekabetin sağlanması için etkin düzenlemelerin yapılması gerekmektedir. Yapılan düzenlemelerden arabağlantı konusu haberleşme sektörünün en önemli konularının başında gelmektedir. Haberleşme sektöründe işletmecilerin ve regülasyon kurumlarının en çok karşı karşıya geldikleri husus; arabağlantı ücretlerinin, dolaylı olarak da arabağlantı maliyetlerinin ne olması gerektiğidir. Özellikle Arayan Taraf Öder prensibinin benimsendiği ülkelerde optimum arabağlantı ücreti konusunda önemli tartışmalar mevcuttur. Faturala ve Sakla arabağlantı ücretlendirme yöntemi de halihazırda yaygın bir şekilde kullanılan Arayan Taraf Öder arabağlantı ücretlendirme yönteminin bir alternatifi olarak gündeme gelmektedir. Bu kapsamda, arabağlantı ücretlendirme yönteminin seçimi ve seçilen yöntem uyarınca arabağlantı ücretlerinin nasıl ve hangi seviyede belirleneceği hususları da önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada optimum arabağlantı ücretinin ne olması gerektiğine ilişkin değerlendirmelerde bulunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arabağlantı, Arayan Taraf Öder, Faturala ve Sakla, Şebeke içi – Şebeke dışı Fiyat Farklılaşması, Artan Maliyet.

Kaynakça

1. ALLEMAN James ve SORCE Barbara (1997), International Settlements: A Time for Change, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0530, USA, Proceedings of the Global Networking ’97 Conference.
2. BAYAZITLI Ercan ve YAZICI Kuddusi (2006), “Telekomünikasyon Sektöründe Arabağlantı Kavramı ve Mobil Arabağlantı Ücretleri Regülasyonu”, İktisat İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, Temmuz.
3. BERGER Ulrich, “Bill-and-Keep vs. Cost-Based Access Pricing Revisited”, Journal of Economic Literature, http://129.3.20.41/eps/io/papers/0408/0408002.pdf, (26.07.2012).
4. BEZZINA Jerome (2005), Interconnection Challenges in a Converging Environment, Policy Implications for African Telecommunications Regulators, The World Bank, June.
5. BİLGİ TEKNOLOJİLERİ VE İLETİŞİM KURUMU (2012), Üç Aylık Pazar Verileri Raporu, 2012 Yılı 1. Çeyrek, (Ocak-Şubat-Mart).
6. CARTER Michael, WRIGHT Julian (1999), Interconnection in Network Industries, Review of Industrial Organization, 14, 1, Feb.
7. CLAUSSEN Jörg, TRÜG Moritz, ZUCCHINI Leon (2011), Termination-Based Price Discrimination: Tariff-Mediated Network Effects and the Fat-Cat Effect, Working Paper, December, http://www.isto.bwl.unimuenchen.de/download/forschung/ictcm/2012/session_i/claussen_trueg_zucchini.pdf, (02012).
8. COLIN Drury (1996), Management and Cost Accounting, 4th Edition.

9. COMPETITION COMMISSION, OFTEL (2003), “Vodafone, O2, Orange and T-Mobile: Reports on references under section 13 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 on the charges made by Vodafone, O2, Orange and T-Mobile for terminating calls from fixed and mobile networks: Volume 2: Chapters 3 to 15”, UK, January.
10. CONFRARIA J., NORONHA J., VALA R. ve AMANTE A. (2002), On the use of LRIC models in price regulation, Instituto das Communicaçoes de Portugal.
11. COURCOUBETIS Costas (2002), An Introduction to Communications Networks and Services, October, http://www.aueb.gr/Users/courcou/courses/telecomsMBA/telecom-mba.pdf, (02012).
12. CROCIONI Pietro (2001), “Should telecoms liberalization stop at call termination”, Telecommunications Policy, 25.
13. CROCIONI P. ve VELJANOVSKI, C. (1999), “Pricing calls to mobiles: analysis of the UK Monopolies & Mergers Commision Reports on mobile termination charges”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 23, Issues. 7-8, August.
14. DIPPON Christian Michael (2001), “Local loop unbundling: flaw of the cost model proxy model”, Info, Vol. 3, No. 2, April.
15. DOĞAN Ahmet (1996), Faaliyete Dayalı Maliyet Sistemi ve Türkiye Uygulaması, T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi.
16. ECONOMICS Nicholas, LOPOMO Giuseppe ve WOROCH Glenn (1997), “Strategic Commitments and the Principle of Reciprocity in Interconnection Pricing”, Stern School of Business, New York University, February 5.
17. EDYTHE S. Miller (1996), “Economic Regulation and New Technology in the Telecommunications Industry”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXX, No. 3, September.
18. ERKOÇ Serhat (2011), Yeni Nesil Şebekelerde Ses Hizmetine İlişkin Arabağlantı Ücretlendirme Yaklaşımları Kapsamında Faturala Ve Sakla Yöntemi: Uluslararası Düzenleme Çalışmaları Ve Türkiye İçin Öneriler, Yayınlanmamış Bilişim Uzmanlık Tezi, Haziran. ETNO REFLECTION DOCUMENT RD312 (2009/12) (2009), Reflection Document on Bill &Keep for IP interconnection charging, December.
19. EUROPEAN COMMMISSION (2009), Working document accompanying the Commission Recommendation on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU: Implications for Industry, Competition and Consumers (C(2009) 3359 final).
20. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2002), Study on Cost Structures in Mobile Networks and Their Relationship to Prices, Open Network Provision Committe, Working Document, ONPCOM02-09, Brussels, 18 Şubat.
21. EUROPE ECONOMICS (2001), Cost Structures in Mobile Networks and Their Relationship to Prices, Contract No. 48544, London, 28 November.
22. FRANKLIN Bob, HALL Robert, KEE Richard ve LEWIN Davis (1997), Interconncetion in Switzerland: A Report to OFCOM, Ovum, CC611, December.
23. FREUND Mag. Natascha ve RUHLE Ernst-Olav (2002), “Regulatory concept for fixed-to-fixed and fixed-to-mobile interconnection rates in the European Union”, Regional ITS Europe conference, Madrid, September.
24. GABEL David, Interconnection Payments in Telecommunications a Compettive Market Approach, http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/1488/gabel_interconn_pymnt.pdf?sequence =2, (07.2012).
25. GANS Joshua S. ve KING Stephen P. (2000), “Using ‘Bill and Keep’ Interconnect Arrangements to Soften Network Competition”, Journal of Economic Literature.
26. GENAKOS Christos, VALLETTI Tommaso (2009), Testing the “Waterbed” Effect in Mobile Telephony, December, http://www.sel.cam.ac.uk/Genakos/Genakos%20VallettiTesting%20Waterbed%20Effect.pdf, (01.04.2012).
27. GROWITSCH Christian, MARCUS J. Scott, WERNICK Christian (2010), The effect of lower Mobile Termination Rates (MTRs) on Retail Price and Demand, Communications&Strategies, 80, 4th Q.
28. HARBORD David and PAGNOZZI Marco (2010), “Network-Based Price Discrimination and ‘Billand-Keep’ vs. ‘Cost-Based’ Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates”, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, Art. 1, The Berkeley Electronic Press.
29. HARBORD David, HOERNING Steffen (2010), Welfare Analysis of Regulating Mobile Termination Rates in the UK (with an Application to the Orange/T-Mobile Merger, 3 March, http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/21515/1/harbordhoernigwelfareplusmergerpaper03march2010.pdf, (02012).
30. HARBORD, David and PAGNOZZI Marco (2008), “On-Net/Off-Net Price Discrimination and Bill-and-Keep vs. Cost-Based Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates”, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14540/1/MPRA_paper_14540.pdf, (05.02.2012).
31. HAUCAP Justus, HEIMESHOFF Ulrich (2011), Consumer Behavior towards On-net/Off-net Price Differentiation, DICE discussion paper, No. 16, Econstor.
32. HAUCAP Justus (2003), The Economics of Mobile Telephone Regulation, March.
33. HOERNIG Steffen, HARBORD David, MANTZOS Adam (2009), “Welfare Effects of Alternative Approaches to Regulating Call Termination Rates in the UK Mobile Market”, A Report for H3G UK by Market Analysis Ltd., Final draft, 28 July, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/mobilecallterm/responses/Hutchis on_3G_UK_LimitedAnnex.pdf, (08.05.2012.)
34. HOERNIG Steffen (2007), On-Net and Off-net Pricing On Asymmetric Telecommunications Networks, January 2007, http://www.anacom.pt/streaming/Estudo8mai07.pdf?categoryId=241362&contentId=4810 92&field=ATTACHED_FILE, (07.04.2012).
35. HOERNIG Steffen (2007), Tariff-Mediated Network Externalities: Is Regulatory Intervention Any Good?, November 2007, http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~depeco/ft-0708-SHoerning.pdf, 02012. http://www.cullen-international.com/report/6995/t7012#Table_19
36. HURKENS Sjaak, LOPEZ Angel L. (2010), Mobile Termination, Network Externalities, and Consumer Expectation, March 9, 2010, http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0850-E.pdf, (02012).
37. HURKENS Sjaak, Lopez Angel L. (2011), The welfare effects of mobile termination rate regulation in asymmetric oligopolies: The case of Spain, October 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1952754, (14.05.2012).
38. ITU (2011), Telecommunication Reform: Interconnection Regulation, 3 rd edition.
39. İÇÖZ Özge (2003), Telekomünikasyon Sektöründe Regülasyon ve Rekabet, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara.
40. KENNET D. Mark and RALPH Eric K. (2006), “Efficient Interconnection Charges and CapacityBased Pricing, Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, George Mason University, VA, USA; 3 September 2006; Updated 8 February 2007.
41. LIEBOWITZ S. J ve MARGOLIS Stephen E., Network Externalities (Effects), http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/network.html, (17.05.2012).
42. LUST Philipp (2003), “Mobile Interconnection”, International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, Issue 7, Winter 2002/2003.
43. MARCUS J. Scott, Call Termination fees: The US in global perspective, ftp://193.196.11.222/pub/zew-docs/div/IKT04/Paper_Marcus_Parallel_Session.pdf, (02012).
44. MELODY W. H. (1997), Telecom Reform: Principles, Policies and Regulatory Practices, Edited by Melody W. H., Denmark, 1997.
45. ODTR (1999), The Development of Long Run Incremental Costing for Interconnection, Document No. ODTR 99/38, June 1999.
46. OECD (2004), Access Pricing in Telecommunications.
47. OFCOM (2004), Wholesale Mobile Voice Call Termination, 1 June 2004.
48. SANDBACH Jonathan (2008), “Theory and practise of on-net pricing”, On-net Pricing in Mobile, Moving the debate forward, The Policy Paper Series, Number 8, April 2008.
49. SANNAES Halvor (2008), “On-Net Pricing in Mobile Services”, On-net Pricing in Mobile, Moving the debate forward, The Policy Paper Series, Number 8, April 2008.
50. STÜHMENIER Torben (2011), Access Regulation with Asymmetric Termination Costs, http://www.dice.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche_Fa kultaet/DICE/Discussion_Paper/029_Stuehmeier.pdf, July 11, 2011, TOPKAYA Ferhat (2003), Telekomünikasyon Sektöründe Erişim Sorunları, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezi, Ankara.
51. TÖZER Ayhan, GÜNGÖR Müberra (2012), Rekabet Düzenlemeleri Ne Kadar Etkili? Su Yatağı Etkisi ve Türkiye İncelemesi, Rekabet Dergisi, Cilt 13, Sayı 2, Nisan.
52. TRAIN, Kenneth E. (1991), Optimal Regulation, The MIT Press Cambridge, London, England.
53. VAGANS Alf (2010), Mobile Termination: How to Regulate or Perhaps Not to Regulate at All?, TeliaSonera Institute Discussion Paper No 8, September 2010.
54. VOGELSANG Ingo (1997), “Cost and Pricing of Interconnection Charges in the US: Lessons for Germany”, Telecommunications Reform in Germany: Lessons and Priorities, Conferenc Report, The Johns Hopkins University, Germay, 20 November 1997.
55. WRIGHT Julian (2002), Bill and Keep as the Efficient Interconnection Regime?, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 1, Issue 1, March 2002.