澳門電信管理局在2012年1月推出「全城3G」計劃，規定2012年7月8日停用所有GSM服務，16萬2G用戶要在半年內轉移到3G服務，但是外地遊客仍可繼續在澳門使用2G漫遊服務，政府希望透計劃推動3G服務的發展，讓無線電資源更具效率地利用，然而在計劃推行期間澳門出現多宗電信故障，加上澳門廉政公署就「全城3G」計劃所發表的調查報告指有關計劃過份介入市場運作，使得本地用戶失去選擇權，損害用戶及業者的權益，而且不符合公共利益，最終「全城3G」計劃無法如期實行，各業者的2G執照與其3G執照一同延長有效期至2023年6月4日。 　　本研究利用文獻分析法，透過蒐集澳門「全城3G」計劃的相關資料，分析澳門「全城3G」計劃的得失，與此同時借鏡與澳門政治體制相似的香港政府的頻譜政策，檢視兩地政府在回收2G頻譜的成效。本研究綜合分析下發現澳門與香港回收2G頻譜最大的差異在於香港回收的是兩個閒置的CDMA及TDMA系統，對業者有一定的影響，但是影響民眾的範圍卻很小，而且給予3年緩衝的時間讓業者轉移用戶，而澳門則是停用一個在世界上仍算主流的GSM服務，而且要在半年內轉移十多萬用戶到3G，加上在過渡期間出現5宗電信故障，讓民眾質疑計劃的可行性，最終把技術問題變成社會問題。因此本研究建議政府未來要避免直接介入市場，以間接的方式例如徵收階梯式的頻譜使用費來推動行動通訊業發展，回收頻譜時要以平穩適度的方式進行，以及提高電信故障的罰款。 / In January 2012, the Telecommunications Regulation Bureau of Macau (DSRT) announced its decision to scrap the city’s 2G network and rely solely on 3G capabilities. Effective on July 8, 2012, the policy change left about 160,000 local users without 2G service, primarily affecting local tourists still on the 2G roaming network. DSRT stated that the objectives of its decision were to create more investment opportunities and to facilitate the adequate diversification of economic development. However, during this time, two mobile operators failed to provide stable and adequate network services and the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) of Macau stated that DSRT’s decision deprived consumers of their right to choose their own cellular network and their right to fair treatment. This prompted the 2G service cancellation to be further postponed until June 4, 2023. This study used literature analysis to review the termination of the 2G mobile network in Macau, and to examine the 2G spectrum reallocation in Hong Kong. This study found that Hong Kong terminated two unused mobile network services (CDMA and TDMA), while Macau is planning to scrap a GSM service which will affect about 150,000 users in Macau. Therefore, opposition to network terminations are greater in Macau than in Hong Kong. At the same time, the failure to provide adequate mobile services by two network operators in Macau led to public mistrust of the government. This study suggests that 1) the DSRT should not have used administrative means to force consumers into using a specific mobile system, and 2) the DSRT should have amended the penalties for mobile operators to closer reflect the current social situation.