民營化與自由化改革關係密切，亦存在張力與衝突。我國臺灣地區民營化後的中華電信僅短暫經歷移動通訊市場龍頭地位不保的局面，旋即憑藉剩餘獨佔市場地位，搭配網路效益，以及民營化後的靈活行銷手法，屢屢限制市場競爭，使得所有其他新進業者都仰賴其移動與固定網路，消費者權益未獲應有保障，與電信自由化政策目標相去甚遠。中國大陸電信業改革實踐中也同樣遭遇超高定價攫取超額利潤，嚴重損害消費者利益和寬頻低效掣肘產業發展無法釋放帶動效應等問題。兩岸比較下，後民營化時代我國臺灣地區應從行業管制和公司治理兩個層面進行革新：前者包括制度面盡速開放用戶回路，執法面強化管制與加強協調；後者包括變更持股機關、強化董事會功能、明定中華電信政策任務。而中國大陸民營化和自由化審慎緩進過程中則宜記取民營化與自由化不可混為一談，徹底民營化與自由化並無必然關聯，批發部門功能分離應作為三大電信公司治理的基本原則，並盡速制定頒行富有前瞻性和回應三網融合的《通訊傳播法》。 Privatization reform and liberalization reform are not only closely related but also conflictive. Just a short period of losing mobile communications market leading position after privatization reform in Taiwan， HiNet soon restricts competition in the market by remaining exclusive market position， networks benefits and flexible marketing practices， leading to all other new entrants relying on its mobile and fixed networks， the interests of consumers out of full protection， which are very different from telecom liberalization policy objectives. Telecommunications industry reform in mainland China also suffers high pricing grab excess profits， seriously harming the interests of consumers and inefficient broadband constraining industrial development and its’ driving effect. Comparatively， Taiwan should innovate industry regulation and corporate governance in post-privatization era. The former includes the establishment of user loop openness system and the strengtheness of regulation and coordination enforcement； the latter includes changing holdings authorities， strengthening the functions of the Board stipulates specifying HiNet policy tasks. During the process of privatization and liberalization reform， mainland China should learn lessons that privatization and liberalization should not be confused， thorough privatization and liberalization are not necessarily associated， functional separation should be taken as the basic governance principle of telecommunication company. Mainland China also should issue forward-looking and responsive Communications and Broadcast Law as soon as possible.