電信自由化與市場開放是我國政府近年來施政重點之一，也是世界潮流。民國八十一年行政院提出舊版電信法修正草案時，正值實施公平交易法。可惜當時之電信政策與電信法修正草案，不但與時代及世界潮流脫節，尚且完全不符合公平交易法所反映的競爭政策。 本文以亞太營運中心計畫以及「競爭政策為主，產業政策為輔」之思念，探討電信市場自由化之競爭政策與法律問題。作者先回顧國外電信市場自由化之經驗，如長途電話之競爭、AT&T之解體、歐盟電信自由化運動、自英國開始之電信事業民營化潮流，以及美國一九九六年電信法開放完全競爭等發展，繼而介紹我國推動「電信三法」之背景、癥結與政經環境。作者認為一九九六年通過電信三法，固然有助於市場開放，但未及加強競爭規範，為其美中之不足之處。 準此，本文對加強電信事業之競爭規範，提出深入之分析以及具體之建議，並於附錄以歐盟為例，簡介有關促進電信市場競爭規範之「歐盟網路互連指令」。詳言之，本文主張擴大市場之參與，如放寬電信法之外資比例。以及開放替代網路。本文亦主張以程序法落實實體法，強化主管機關職能;並應以競爭法落實電信法，以確保競爭秩序。 本文對修訂電信法及加強電信法規，提出許多具體之建議，如將促進競爭增列為立法目的之一，加強外資參與，重新探討第一類暨第二類電信事業之定義，將資費管制機制改為價格上限法，落實網路互連及設施共用之義務，縝密規劃普及服務機制，改採「不對稱管制」以促進有效競爭，規範電信事業間之聯合行為，建立電信事業會計制度，加強爭議解決之機制及行政調查權等等，對有線電視法之跨業及競爭設備使用限制亦建議刪除。 本文之結論認為應以競爭法深植電信法，並以公平法第四十六條第一項等規定，公平會「行業導正」之實務，以及主要工業先進國家電信法皆在在強調競爭規範為例，說明以電信法及公平法形成兩階段之競爭秩序不但可行，且有必要。

Telecom market liberalization is one of the important recent policy initiatives of the ROC government. Indeed, when the previous version of Telecom Law amendment bill was tabled by the cabinet (the Executive Yuan), the Fair Trade Law had just come into force. However, the telecom policy and amendment bill of the early 1990s were not only out of steps with the liberalization trend worldwide. They contradicted the competition policy embodied in the Fair Trade Law. This paper addresses competition law and policy issues for Taiwan’s telecom market opening, in the context of Taiwan’s Asia­Pacific Regional Operations Center initiative. The author argues that competition policy should be the foremost consideration. The author begins with a short historical overview of telecom market developments around the world, such as long distance telephony competition in the U.S., the AT&T divestiture, movement in the European Union towards telecom market opening and liberalization, the trend to privatize telcos that began in the U.K., and full competition called for by the U.S. Telecom Act of 1996. The author then introduces the background, issues and the political-economic context of the passage of the telecom reform legislation in Taiwan in 1996. Although such enactment laid the foundation for market opening, the author finds fault with the inadequate emphasis on competition in these amended laws and their failure to conform with the fundamental principles of the Fair Trade Law. Therefore, this paper makes an in-depth analysis and concrete proposals regarding the enhancement of competition rules in the telecom sector. It also contains an appendix which, through the Interconnection Directive, illustrates the EU’s effort to enhance competition rules in the telecom sector. In essence, this paper argues for widening market participation through, for example, increasing foreign ownership in telecos and the use of alternative infrastructure. It also argues that competition laws should inform telecom policy and laws to ensure effective competition, and that procedural safeguards should be installed to protect substantive rights in the marketplace. To this end, many specific recommendations regarding further amendment of the telecom law and strengthening telecom regulation are proposed. They inc1ude adding competition safeguard as one of the legislative goals, intensifying competition through high foreign ownership in telecos, redefining type Ⅰ and tye Ⅱ telecom companies, migrating to a price capping regulatory regime, imposing interconnection and facility-sharing obligations, embracing “asymmetric regulation” and “regulatory forbearance” principles to ensure effective competition, regulating horizontal agreements among telecos, establishing an accounting system for telecos, and strengthening mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms and investigative powers of the regulators. Similarly, restrictions in the CATV law on competition with telecos and use of facilities should also be abolished. In conc1usion, the author argues that competition rules should be transplanted into the telecom law. Cited as persuasive authorities are the competition advocacy program under article 46(2) of the Pair Trade Law, the Pair Trade Commission’s own sectoral enforcement program, and the fact that competition rules have been embedded in recent amendments of foreign telecom laws. In closing,the author argues that this dual framework of competition rules is not only feasible, but also highly desirable in Taiwan.