as a tax on entry 英翻中...

**勿用翻譯軟體 翻譯網站**

我把前文post出來, 避免問題模糊不清, 但是, 我實際要問的是第二點跟第三點...

A certain level of competition is therefore developing under the current policies. Nevertheless, in the longer term, the policy approach of regulating entry to promote infrastructure development can be questioned:

First, competition itself provides powerful incentives to enhance network penetration. By diminishing competition in the market place, it is possible that the mechanism is reducing the overall level of new investment relative to the situation in which there are no restrictions on entry. There need be no policy trade-off between network build-out and competition. Competition itself provides strong incentives for new investment.

Second, as a tax on entry, this tax is relatively non-transparent. It is difficult to observe the price that consumers are paying in the form of reduced competition. Third, the network investment obligations set out in the concession (which must be specified many months or years in advance) may restrict the ability of the new entrants to respond to new technological, demand and market developments in the industry as they arise.

1 個解答

評分
  • T40
    Lv 5
    1 0 年前
    最佳解答

    根據所提文章所述,有關當局將以發放執照方式開放電信業務,取得執照本身將成為業者進入市場的門檻。而此種執照發放的控制過程,代表他們所管裡的市場將不能享受一個傳統的完全競爭市場所可能提供的好處。這裡不再贅述我們討論多次的concession的含意。

    第二點,譯釋如后,

    執照發放形成的門檻,可以看做是一種稅(tax on entry應該是取得許可執照需付出高額的費用,或是其他如后討論的投資項目),由於這種稅比較不透明(不是一種明白的稅目),很難估計消費者將因之付出多少代價(因為高額執照許可費造成的寡佔/競爭減少,消費者因而無法享受完全競爭帶來的好處)。

    第三點,譯釋如后:

    由於許可執照中所規定的有關基礎系統佈建的要求(需要高額的投資,也需要長時間執行(佈建))。可能限制了新業者對市場裡的新技術/新需求,做出(及時)反應的能力(也有可能根本無力反應)。

    [這裡其實討論的是一種兩面(難)論:其一,電信業一般業務需投入大筆資金以佈建基礎結構,才能保證服務品質,因此在許可執照中註明業者投資這些基礎結構的要求,但一旦發出許可,也就形成門檻,保護了取得執照的業者,但也限制了競爭;其二,由於這類基礎建設需時需錢,為執照有效之必要條件,就算新業者進入市場,也必須花時間/資源來滿足這一部份要求,因此可能無力及時反應新技術,及新需求。由此可看出管理此項行業,所必須考慮之各項利弊(trade-offs)。]

還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。