| 關 鍵 詞： |
有線電視系統經營許可；特許；有線廣播電視法；換照許可；換照基準；換照請求權；財產權保障；市場進入之管制 |
| 中文摘要： |
根據我國現行有線廣播電視法第 18 條規定，對於有線電視系統經營者之市場進入，係採許可之高度管制架構。不寧惟是，同法第 35 條第 1 項更進一步規定：「系統經營者之營運許可，有效期間為九年。系統經營者於營運許可期限屆滿，欲經營時，應於營運許可期限滿八年後六個內，向中央主管機關申請換發。」此等「換照」之結構管制措施，雖屬立法者斟酌線電產業特性、保障消費者權益，以及防止危害等公益因素，行使立法形成自由之結果。然因涉及現行有線廣播電視系統經營者得否繼續存立於市場之中，對其受憲法第 15 條保障之營業自由與財產權影響甚鉅，應受到基本權保障之拘束，而置於憲法第 23 條之下予以評價。
從規範體系以觀，有線廣播電視法明文區分「發照」與「換照」兩種不同管制措施，在解釋上應有合理理由支持其各有不同之管制目的，始符規範邏輯。較之於擬初次或重新進入市場之申請人，管制機關對於業已取得營運許可之現有有線電視系統經營者之主、客觀營運狀況，應掌握有較為詳盡之資料。從而，理論上對其是否續存於市場，應可採行密度較低之管制手段；主管機關在審查現有業者申請換照時，即不宜採行與發照相同嚴苛之程序要件及審查基準。觀之德國邦廣電法之規定，對於換照之審查基準，通常亦僅著重於申請業者在持有營運許可期間有無違法，或嚴重背離營運計畫等主觀上之形式要件而已。我國有線廣播電視法新增之第 35 條之一第 1 項，在換照要件之規範上雖已蘊含此等思維，惟遺憾地與發照基準之相似度仍屬偏高，依舊未體察到「換照」與「發照」間所存在管制目的之不同。本文建議於將來修法時，宜儘可能降低主管機關得為實質審查與評價性判斷之要件比例，俾符換照之制度本旨。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Permission to operate cable radio television system；Charter；Cable Radio and Television Act；Renewal Permission；Standard of Renewal；Right to Renewal；Guaranties of Property；Regulation of Access to Market |
| 英文摘要： |
According to Art. .18 of Cable Radio and Television Act, a highly regulated structure on permission of access to the market of cable radio and television has been set up. Additionally, Art.35 furthered"The operating license of a system operator shall be valid for nine years. A system operator wishing to continue operation after the expiration date of the operating license, shall apply to the central regulatory agency for license renewal within the first six months of the ninth year of the operating license." Such regulatory procedures of renewal of license are due to the characters of cable television business -accounted by legislators, and public interests like. protection of consumers interests as well as prevention from danger. It has enormous impact, however, on freedom to run business and property entitled under Art.15 of the constitution, which involves whether the operators who are running cable television can continue to Survive. Thus it must be subject to the protection of' fundamental rights wand further be considered the constitutionality under article 23.
Systematically, Cable Radio and Television Act explicitly differentiate the regulatory procedures between permission of license and renewal of license, so. that supposedly lay some reasons to support such distinction between regulatory purposes and. functions. In contrast with those appliers who intends to enter the market at the first time or to reenter it, regulatory agency is supposed to command more detailed, comprehensive information about those cable television operators who have already gotten permissions. Thereby theoretically follow regulations with lower density about whether operators can stay in or shut out; that is, it is not appropriate to maintain procedural requirement and standards of review as strict as permission giving when the regulatory agency check out the renewal of license. For instance, German State Broadcasting Acts merely focus on formal requirements, such as whether app.lie.rs are illegal during their operation, or only on significant deviance from operating plans, as far as standards of review are concerned. The revision of Art.35-1, Seal of Cable Radio and Television Act, has implicitly taken it into account, but what is a pity is that standard of renewal is similarly high compared with standard of permission, and the difference between the permission of license and the renewal： of it has :not yet been aware of with respect to -regulatory purposes; It is recommended to reduce the portion of substantial review and evaluative judgments when the Act. is revised, in the future, so as to fit in with the goal of renewal of license.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、德國廣電立法體系概述
參、德國有線電視系統經營管制之變遷
一、有線電視網路架設之性質及法規適用範圍
二、從許可制到登記制
（一）舊電信法時期之「許可制」
（二）現行電信法之「登記制」
肆、德國電視頻道業者播放許可延長請求權
一、邦法規範
二、行政法院見解
三、小結
伍、德國有線電視經營管制對我國適用有線廣播電視法之啟示
一、有線電視系統經營者市場進入之管制架構
二、「換照」與「發照」管制目的之差異性
三、「換照」與「發照」要件及審查基準之區隔
陸、建議與展望
一、換照與發照差別思考之必要性
二、換照基準之規範精緻化
三、業者換照請求權之肯定
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|