통신규제법 집행과정의 비교연구

Abstract

The more competitive has become the communications industry market, the more important has become the effective and efficient enforcement of ex-post regulation, which is for the compliance either with the ex-ante regulatory obligations, or with the general competition law. In Korea, Communications Commission is a regulatory agency specialized in the regulatory enforcement. It is in charge of the law enforcement against the "Prohibited Business Practices" of the telecommunications company, which are banned by the Telecommunication Business Act and the informal adjudicatory services for the disputes between communication industries each other or industry and consumer. In the U.K., the Office of Communications, Ofcom has played similar role as a sectoral regulator for the communications industry. It has power to enforce the compliance with ex-ante (general or specific) conditions and 1998 Competition Act. The investigation for it can be triggered by the complaints that the Competition Act or an ex ante condition has been breached. It also provides dispute resolution procedure for the disputes about access or other regulatory obligations. This paper scrutinized the enforcement procedures by both of the regulatory agencies and compared each other. It points out a few distinctions between them. First, in the U.K. much more details of the enforcement procedure are included in the statutes. In Korea only the basic concepts are in the statute, and the rest of them are delegated to the administrative rule-making and internal rules of agency. Second, in the U.K. there is a step in the law enforcement procedure, which makes clear the concrete regulatory obligations for the specific businesses and gives chance to comply with it voluntarily. It is a "notification of contravention of conditions," which is prior procedure to the "Enforcement notification for contravention of conditions." In Korea, once the breach of legal prohibition is found the agency directly ordered the necessary remedies, not waiting for the self-correction. Third, in the U.K. the consultation process is used much more broadly and effectively, especially to seek opinions of the interested or the public about the regulatory issues. Fourth, in Feb. 28, 2007 the internal rules for the regulatory enforcement of the Communications Commission were amended. And the basic purposes of the amendment seem to introduce more elements of formal procedure into the regulatory enforcement procedures and to share the burden of regulatory enforcement with the complainants or the parties to the dispute procedures like in the U.K.