Rory Macmillan Dispute Resolution in the Telecom Sector: Priorities, Processes and Trends ITU/BDT
description
Transcript of Rory Macmillan Dispute Resolution in the Telecom Sector: Priorities, Processes and Trends ITU/BDT
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
Rory Macmillan
Dispute Resolution in the Telecom Sector:
Priorities, Processes and Trends
ITU/BDTArab Regional Workshop on Dispute Resolution
Bahrain31 May – 1 June 2004
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Table of contents
• WHERE SHOULD REGULATORS FOCUS
• REGULATORY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW
• TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Table of contents
• WHERE SHOULD REGULATORS FOCUS
• REGULATORY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW
• TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Disputes are an inevitable aspect oftoday’s increasingly complex telecom
sector• Proliferation of infrastructure and service
providers
• More varieties of inter-woven and competing business relationships
• Collisions of new and old business models
• Divergent interests produce disputes!
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Liberalization and privatization disputes
• Negotiating transition to open markets without alienating key constituencies
• E.g.: Telia in Latvia; Bulgaria’s privatization; Lebanon’s mobile disputes
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Interconnection, accessand competition disputes
• Challenging dominant interests and asymmetric market power
• Pricing, operational, technical issues central to functional competition
• E.g., Batelco vs MTC in Bahrain
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Disputes between operators and regulators
• Regulatory commitments
• Industry reliance
• E.g.s: Turkey’s IsTim case on national roaming; appeals against German regulator T-Reg
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Trade disputes
• GATS
• WTO Reference Paper on Regulation
• E.g.: US v Mexico – introducing the international dimension to regulation and dispute resolution
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Consumer disputes
• Pricing, billing, slamming, quality of service, privacy, advertising
• E.g: Portugal’s DECO case; Turkey’s consumer case concerning tariffs
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Disputes resulting from structural regulatory problems, changing
technologies and markets
• Rapid transition of technologies and markets
• Matching regulatory regime to realities
• E.g.: India WLL(M) dispute; 3G/Wifi?
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
What disputes are specificto the “telecommunications” sector?
Access products are at the
centre of many disputes
InterconnectionLeased lines
Infrastructuresharing
Frequency use andinterference
Pricing andcost accounting
Service level
agreements
Technical co-locationrequirements
Delays
Rights of way
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
What disputes concern the telecom regulator as opposed to the courts and
other agencies?
DisputingParties
Telecom regulator
Competition authority
Consumer protection body
Court system
?
??
?
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Most countries are muddy on jurisdictional lines between regulatory adjudication and the courts
• Jordan: regulatory adjudication is “…without prejudice of licensees’ rights to go to the courts…”
Section 2.1 of Interconnection Dispute Process(similar in UK Communications Act)
• Ireland: regulatory adjudication may proceed “…if legal proceedings in relation to the dispute are not in process…”Statement of ComReg
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
How should telecom disputes interact with competition and consumer disputes?
• Much telecom regulation is basically ex ante applied competition or consumer protection policy
• Many countries have competition and consumer laws and agencies
• Cooperation among agencies is crucial, but which body should be responsible?
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Setting boundaries is complex and practice varies, e.g. compare India and Australia
• TDSAT’s authority in India excludes disputes that are:– “subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Commission” – “maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum or Commission”Section 14 of the TRAI Act 1997, amended 2000
• Australia views telecom access disputes as a form of competition problem, so the ACCC handles telecom access disputes as well as consumer complaints and antitrust
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
The U.S. Supreme Court recently wrestled with such institutional and jurisdictional questions
• Verizon v Trinko (2004)
• Verizon was accused of breaching the Shearman Act (antitrust legislation):– Failing to provide AT&T with adequate local
loop connection to Verizon’s network– Resulting in poor quality of service for
AT&T customers
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
It recognized the difficulty for courts in dealing with sharing and interconnection disputes
• “Allegations of violations of [sharing and interconnection] duties are difficult for antitrust courts to evaluate…”
• “highly technical…likely to be extremely numerous…”
• “incessant, complex, and constantly changing interaction of competitive and incumbent [local exchange carriers] implementing the sharing and interconnection obligations”
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
The court drew a line between antitrust and telecom regulation disputes for practical reasons
• The effective remediation of violation and enforcement of these detailed sharing obligations is a “daunting task…beyond the ability of judicial tribunal to control”
• There is a “regulatory agency with effective power to compel and to regulate sharing”
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Dispute resolution is now a strategic concernfor telecom policy-makers and regulators
• Retards the introduction of new services and infrastructure
• Limits investment and restrains competition
• Results in higher prices and lower quality
• Ultimately impedes economic and technical development
Failure to resolve disputes effectively and efficiently
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Where should policy-makers’ andregulators’ resources be focused?
• Key obstacles to sector development
• Investment and competition
• Financial and operating conditions
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Disputes needing particular attentionof regulators for sector development
• Access and interconnection disputes which make or break competition
• Major licensing disputes that may hinder investment
• Disputes where transition of technologies and markets require regulation to adjust to reality
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
An economic lens is crucial in structuring parties’ incentives and reducing or
resolving disputesMacro
Micro
Costs of delay to sector and economy
Underlying commercial and financial realities in the
industryDisparities in market power
between disputing parties (game theories)
Allocation of specific costs of dispute among adjudicators and
parties
Developing a “market” in dispute resolution
techniques
Economic incentives of parties to engage in or
resolve disputes
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Table of contents
• WHERE SHOULD REGULATORS FOCUS
• REGULATORY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW
• TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
What are key aims for policymakers/regulators considering
dispute resolution techniques?Efficiency of resolution
Efficacy of result
Coherent regulation
• Speed• Cost to parties and official
sector
• Implementation and enforcement
• Durability of result
• Compliance with regulatory regime
• Investment and competition• Transparency and minimal
uncertainty
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Regulatory adjudication is both a regulatory function and an adjudicatory
functionRegulatoryprocesses
Adjudicatoryprocesses
…tend to be more investigatory,consultative and on-going
…tend to be more adversarialand seek to be finite
Regulatory adjudication needs to address both functions
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
The regulatory function emphasizes efficiency, sector development and
regulatory compliance• Flexibility of process is important
– Ireland’s ComReg and UK’s OFCOM publish draft determinations for comment of market participants
– Australia’s ACCC is “not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence”
Section 152DB of Trade Practices Act 1974
• Availability of specific regulatory remedies
• The regulator/adjudicator has a policy agenda
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
The “adjudicatory” nature makes it important to take into account the role of
the “3rd party neutral”Follows a formal written procedure
Adjudicator is a third party, not a party to the dispute
Parties position themselves offering adjudicator a binary choice of decisions
Adjudicator’s decision is enforced by the state
Adjudicator’s decision often produces win-lose results
Procedure must be transparent
Adjudicator must be neutral and accountable
Adjudicator must be well informed of broader sector issues
Remedies must be sure and proportionate
Correction of mistakes must be available (review and/or appeal)
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Various powers and prohibitions may be required to make regulatory adjudication process effective
Australian ACCC and Indian TDSAT:
• Power to compel witnesses to testify
• Power to take evidence on oath
• Prohibition on giving false or misleading testimony or documents
• Criminal penalties, including jail time
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Allocating costs can reduce regulator’s burden and change parties’ incentives in the dispute
• Jordan’s TRC will “charge the disputants for the cost of actual resources consumed in terms of number and cost per man hours per class of profession for resolving the dispute”
Section 4.1 of the Interconnection Dispute Procedure
• UK’s OFCOM may require parties to pay costs to each other or to OFCOM
Section 190(6) of the Communications Act 2003
• On the other hand, Botswana’s Telecom Regulatory Authority views dispute resolution as a public good paid for in license fees
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Achieving a balance betweentransparency and confidentiality
• Investor confidence requires regulators to publish dispute rulings
• Public consultation before issuing a final ruling (e.g., Ireland’s ComReg & UK’s Ofcom)
• May information provided in a dispute be used for other purposes?
Sections 152DBA and 152DK of Australian Trade Practices Act 1974
• Confidential treatment of matters sensitive to business strategy (e.g., problem in Germany)
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Relationship of courts and regulatoryadjudicators and “review” versus “appeal”
Protecting the integrity of the adjudicatory system versus ensuring individual outcomes
Focusing on bounds of adjudicator’s authority versus substance of his/her decision
Considering factors weighed by the adjudicator versus rules of evidence
Emphasizing procedure followed by the adjudicator versus finding on the merits
Traversing government (executive and judicial) branches versus upwards appeal within a branch
Reasonableness versus correctness of decision
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
There are numerous approaches to internal and external review/appeal of decisionsInternal & external
(Jordan, Netherlands)
External only (Ireland, Malaysia)
Hybrids(India)
Jordanian TRC orold Dutch OPTA
Commission
Commissioneror Adjudicator
Courts
ComReg or MCMC
Commission
TDSATbench of 3
Courts
TelecommunicationsRegulatory
Authority of India
TRAIDisputingParties
Supreme Court
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Whatever the structure, appeal/reviewneeds to be efficient, transparent and reliable
• Hundreds of pending cases and appeals are taking years in Germany and The Netherlands
• Best to avoid establishing elaborate appeal processes if the appellate body is jammed with cases (e.g., Dutch OPTA is simplifying)
• The greater the confidence in the initial decision-makers and process, the less need for appeal on substance
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Table of contents
• WHERE SHOULD REGULATORS FOCUS
• REGULATORY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW
• TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Delays and uncertainties are influencing the European agenda on dispute resolution
• Netherlands– OPTA’s review was averaging 7 months– Over 200 cases on appeal– final resolution can take 3½ years
• Germany– 1,000 cases pending– 2,500 appeals of RegTP decisions and 150 appeals to
higher court
• Spain– Appeal to national court can take 2-3 years– Appeals to Supreme Court can take 4 years
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Effectiveness of decisions while under appeal
is at the centre of delays and uncertainties• Netherlands: in half of cases before the
Court of First Instance, OPTA’s decisions were suspended by interim measures
BUT
• Spain: Few interim suspensions of regulator decisions so sector reform can continue despite extensive delays
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
There is a trend to accelerate official dispute resolution and make it more
effective• EU Framework Directive
• Emphasis on timelines (e.g., 4 months)
• Refining regulatory adjudication and competences
• Reducing extensive appeals processes (e.g.OPTA)
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
And there are some initiatives to introduce alternatives to regulatory adjudication
• Some regulators using more mediation (e.g.ComReg)
• Ombudsmen schemes
• Industry initiatives (e.g., UKCTA, BT, Vodafone)
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Recent innovation indispute resolution in various countries
• Nigeria – televised consumer parliament to popularize consumer protection
• Denmark – broad industry forum to review entire sector problems as a means to dispute prevention
• UK – industry ombudsman and dispute resolution schemes set up telecom companies; new local loop unbundling adjudicator scheme
• Hungary – establishing a telecom dispute mechanism supplied by a bank of pre-approved arbitrators
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
Conclusion:priorities for effective regulatory adjudication
• Focus attention and resources on disputes that are a turning point for competition and investment
• Understand big picture institutional roles and parties’ incentives
• Give regulatory adjudicators powers and resources they need
• Fit appeal/review processes to the institutions without clutter
• Take advantage of the innovations
_______________RORY MACMILLANLegal • Mediation
+41 79 75 236 [email protected]
om
For further information
• “Dispute Resolution in the Telecommunications Sector: Current Practices and Future Directions”, Robert Bruce, Rory Macmillan et al: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/2003/GSR/Documents/DRS_Final_GSR_5.pdf
• ITU Case Studies in interconnection dispute resolution, Robert R. Bruce & Rory Macmillan: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Case_Studies/index.html
• “Reflections on Dispute Resolution and Regulation in the Indian Telecom Sector”, Rory Macmillan, 2005 Journal of Indian Law Institute
• “Dispute Resolution in the Telecom Sector”, Rory Macmillan, ITU News 2004
• ITU web pages on dispute resolution: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/related-links/links-docs/dispute.html