Expecting heavy regulations on essential facilities ex post, firms may avoid or delay socially beneficial investment projects on infrastructure. For example, although the prospect for next generation network (NGN) has been blooming for quite a while, regulators in many countries have had difficult times to persuade operators to invest in fiber optic access networks. It has been proposed that the investment risks faced by operators should be reduced by exempting newly deployed networks from access regulation, awarding “regulatory holidays” to operators. However, those who oppose to this idea claim that there is no need for allowing monopoly exploitation, because the same goal can be achieved by allowing constant risk premium under regulation. In this paper, I survey the recent debate on this issue and devise a simple theoretical model to compare two approaches. It is shown that, while constant risk premium approach is generally better in terms of maximizing social welfare, there are some cases in which regulatory holidays is optimal.