te of competition prevails in the industry, and that new technology is used to its full potential for the benefit of consumers. However, main players should not be discouraged from investing in new technologies. This means that regulators will need to strike a fine balance between maintaining an open environment and stimulating innovation by incumbents and challengers alike. Whether they will be able to do SO effectively remains an open question. Liberalisation and unbundling (i.e. separation of power generation, transmission, distribution and supply) has also had a major impact on the energy sector. However, the outcome is more mixed than in the case of telecoms: while such reform may have led to efficiency gains it is also creating a more uncertain environment for infrastructure investment decisions, and raises questions regarding the appropriate level of capacity reserve. Hence there is a danger that not enough investment will be carried out in the future unless more effective risk management techniques are put in place. Alternatively, governments may have to step in or allow a partial reconsolidation of the industry, which may raise important competition issues as noted by Morgan in the IEA chapter. Public policy plays also a dominant role for land infrastructure. Indeed, because of the overwhelming presence of the state in the sector, land transport investment may well fall victim of the "short-termism" that characterises the public decision-making process, according to Stambrook. Land transport infrastructure (road and rail) has a very long economic life (30+ years) - and capital planning and budgeting requires a lengthy (10-20 year) cycle that clearly conflicts with 7-year business cycles, 3-5 year political cycles and 2-3 year budgetary cycles. Any time there is a short-term crisis, long-term plans for land transport infrastructure funding will be sacrificed for short-term expediency to meet other, more pressing political pressures and policy agenda goals. INFRASTRUCTURE TO 2030: TELECOM, LAND TRANSPORT, 