IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/wikstu/265393.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Interoperabilitätsvorschriften für digitale Dienste: Bedeutung für Wettbewerb, Innovation und digitale Souveränität insbesondere für Plattform- und Kommunikationsdienste

Author

Listed:
  • Wiewiorra, Lukas
  • Steffen, Nico
  • Thoste, Philipp
  • Fourberg, Niklas
  • Taş, Serpil
  • Kroon, Peter
  • Busch, Christoph
  • Krämer, Jan

Abstract

Digitale Märkte weisen starke Konzentrationstendenzen und eine Entwicklung zu immer stärker verzahnten, sich verschließenden Ökosystemen auf. In dieser Studie wird (ein Mangel an) Interoperabilität (IOP) als mögliche Ursache oder Treiber solcher Konzentrationstendenzen beleuchtet und der Bedarf für entsprechende IOP-Verpflichtungen analysiert. Dabei werden neben den Zielen und möglichen positiven Auswirkungen solcher Vorschriften auch eine Reihe von Risiken herausgearbeitet. IOP kann einerseits das Nutzen von zuvor firmenspezifischen Netzwerkeffekten für mehr Marktteilnehmer auf horizontaler und vertikaler Ebene ermöglichen und somit Lock-In-Effekte reduzieren. Auf vertikaler Ebene können so häufig Innovationsanreize und modulare Kombinationsmöglichkeiten über vor- und nachgelagerte Wertschöpfungsstufen hinweg geschaffen werden. Insbesondere auf horizontaler Ebene kann es aber auch zu einer Einschränkung von Differenzierungs- und Innovationsmöglichkeiten kommen, da IOP ein gewisses Maß an Homogenisierung bedingt, gerade wenn aus technischer Sicht eine starke Standardisierung erforderlich ist, um eine effektive IOP zu erreichen. Neben technischen, ökonomischen und juristischen Grundlagen von IOP und deren Auswirkungen auf Dienste der Plattformökonomie liegt der Fokus der Studie insbesondere auf Online-Kommunikationsdiensten und nummernunabhängigen interpersonellen Telekommunikationsdiensten (NI-ICS), für die zuletzt im Digital Markets Act (DMA) eine IOP-Verpflichtung vorgesehen wurde. Zwar ist der Markt der Online-Kommunikationsdienste stark durch Dienste des Meta-Konzerns geprägt, dennoch ist Multi-Homing (das parallele Nutzen unterschiedlicher Dienste) als Alternative zu IOP hier günstig möglich und entsprechend stark verbreitet. Demgegenüber stehen gerade durch die hohe technische Komplexität solcher Dienste eine Reihe von Kosten und Risiken von IOP-Verpflichtungen, die mögliche Abstriche u. a. des Sicherheitsniveaus, der Nutzbarkeit und der Marktakzeptanz befürchten lassen. Vor diesem Hintergrund sollte die anstehende praktische Implementierung regulatorisch eng begleitet werden, um die identifizierten Risiken bestmöglich zu minimieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiewiorra, Lukas & Steffen, Nico & Thoste, Philipp & Fourberg, Niklas & Taş, Serpil & Kroon, Peter & Busch, Christoph & Krämer, Jan, 2022. "Interoperabilitätsvorschriften für digitale Dienste: Bedeutung für Wettbewerb, Innovation und digitale Souveränität insbesondere für Plattform- und Kommunikationsdienste," Study Series, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH, number 265393, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wikstu:265393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/265393/1/1819067947.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Economic Issues in Standardization," Working papers 393, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    3. Robin S. Lee, 2013. "Vertical Integration and Exclusivity in Platform and Two-Sided Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2960-3000, December.
    4. Arnold, René & Schneider, Anna, 2017. "An App for Every Step: A psychological perspective on interoperability of Mobile Messenger Apps," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169444, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Fernanda Viecens, 2009. "Compatibility with Firm Dominance," Working Papers 2009-12, FEDEA.
    2. Emeric Henry & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Keeping Secrets: The Economics of Access Deterrence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 95-118, August.
    3. Scharpf, Fritz W. & Mohr, Matthias, 1994. "Efficient self-coordination in policy networks: A simulation study," MPIfG Discussion Paper 94/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    4. Dietrich, Antje-Mareike, 2016. "Governmental platform intermediation to promote alternative fuel vehicles," Economics Department Working Paper Series 16, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Economics Department.
    5. Ruiz-Aliseda, Francisco, 2012. "Innovation Beyond Patents: Technological Complexity as a Protection against Imitation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Roberto Fontana, 2000. "Determinants of Innovation and Competition of Component System Technologies in the Local Area Network Industry," KITeS Working Papers 117, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Sep 2000.
    7. Holler Marit, 2022. "Welfare Effects of Platforms’ Exclusivity Clauses," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 143-170, October.
    8. Ricard Gil & Frederic Warzynski, 2015. "Vertical Integration, Exclusivity, and Game Sales Performance in the US Video Game Industry," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(suppl_1), pages 143-168.
    9. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    10. Jin‐Hyuk Kim & Peter Newberry & Liad Wagman & Ran Wolff, 2022. "Local Network Effects in the Adoption of a Digital Platform," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 493-524, September.
    11. James E. Prieger & Wei‐Min Hu, 2012. "Applications Barrier To Entry And Exclusive Vertical Contracts In Platform Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 435-452, April.
    12. Pouyet, Jérôme & Trégouët, Thomas, 2016. "Vertical Mergers in Platform Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 11703, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Mark J. Tremblay, 2019. "Platform Competition and Endogenous Switching Costs," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 537-559, December.
    14. Jin Li & Gary Pisano & Yejia Xu & Feng Zhu, 2023. "Marketplace Scalability and Strategic Use of Platform Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3958-3975, July.
    15. Rupayan Pal & Vinay Ramani, 2017. "Will a matchmaker invite her potential rival in?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 806-819, December.
    16. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    17. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    18. Ho, Kate & Rosen, Adam M., 2015. "Partial Identification in Applied Research: Benefits and Challenges," CEPR Discussion Papers 10883, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Kate Ho & Robin S. Lee, 2017. "Insurer Competition in Health Care Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 379-417, March.
    20. Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen & Bjørn Olav Johansen & Teis Lunde Lømo, 2018. "Resale Price Maintenance In Two‐Sided Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 570-609, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wikstu:265393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.wik.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.