Advertisement

Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 51–79 | Cite as

The impact of regulation and competition on the adoption of fiber-based broadband services: recent evidence from the European union member states

  • Wolfgang Briglauer
Original Article

Abstract

Fiber deployment of next-generation high-speed broadband networks is considered to be a decisive development for any information-based society, yet investment activities and especially the adoption of fiber-based broadband services take place only very gradually in most countries. This work employs static and dynamic model specifications and identifies the most important determinants of the adoption of fiber-based broadband services with recent panel data from the European Union member states for the years from 2004 to 2012. The results show that the more effective previous broadband access regulation is, the more negative the impact on adoption, while competitive pressure from mobile networks affects adoption in a non-linear manner. Finally, we also find evidence for substantial network effects underlying the adoption process.

Keywords

Next generation communications networks Regulation   Competition Fiber adoption 

JEL

H5 L38 L43 L52 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to two anonymous referees as well as to Klaus Gugler and Georg Ecker for their helpful comments. Furthermore, the author is grateful for the suggestions of the participants at the 2nd Conference on the Regulation of Infrastructure Industries at the EUI in Florence and the 24th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society in Florence.

References

  1. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 701–728.Google Scholar
  2. Andres, L., Cuberes, D., Diouf, M., & Serebrisky, T. (2010). The diffusion of the internet: A cross-country analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 34, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources to invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of economic activity. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bacache, M., Bourreau, M., & Gaudin, G. (2012). Dynamic entry and investment in new infrastructures: Empirical evidence from the telecoms industry. Working paper. Paris: Telecom ParisTech.Google Scholar
  5. Berkman Center (2010). Next generation connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world. Final report. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  6. Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Working paper, centre for microdata methods and, practice, CWP09/02.Google Scholar
  7. Bouckaert, J., van Dijk, T., & Verboven, F. (2010). Access regulation, competition, and broadband penetration: An international study. Telecommunications Policy, 34, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourreau, M., Dogan, P., & Manant, M. (2010). A critical review of the ladder of investment approach. Telecommunications Policy, 34, 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briglauer, W., & Gugler, K. (2013). The deployment and penetration of high-speed fiber networks and services: Why are European member states lagging behind? Telecommunications Policy, 37, 819–835.Google Scholar
  10. Briglauer, W., Ecker, G., & Gugler, K. (2013). The impact of infrastructure- and service-based competition on the deployment of next generation access networks: Recent evidence from the European member states. Information Economics and Policy, 25, 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno, G. (2005a). Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models. Economics Letters, 87, 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruno, G. (2005b). Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel-data models with a small number of individuals. The Stata Journal, 5, 473–500.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cava-Ferreruela, I., & Albau-Munoz, A. (2006). Broadband policy assessment: A cross-national empirical analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cullen International (2011). Cross-country analysis April 2010. Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. Czernich, N., Falck, O., Kretschmer, T., & Wößmann, L. (2011). Broadband infrastructure and economic growth. The Economic Journal, 121, 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denni, M., & Gruber, H. (2007). The diffusion of broadband telecommunications in the U.S. Communications and Strategies, 68, 139–157.Google Scholar
  18. Distaso, W., Lupi, P., & Maneti, F. M. (2006). Platform competition and broadband uptake: Theory and empirical evidence from the European union. Information Economics and Policy, 18, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2010a). A digital agenda for Europe. COM(2010) 245, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2010b). Commission recommendation of 20 September 2010 on regulated access to next generation access networks (NGA). (2010/572/EU), Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2012). Digital agenda for Europe scoreboard 2012. June 2012, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KKAH12001ENN-PDFWEB_1.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  23. European Commission. (2013). Commission recommendation of 11.9.2013 on consistent non-discrimination obligations and costing methodologies to promote competition and enhance the broadband investment environment. C(2013) 5761, Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. FTTH Council Europe (2012). FTTH business guide (3rd ed.). Business Committee. www.ftthcouncil.eu. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  25. Grajek, M. (2010). Estimating network effects and compatibility: Evidence from the Polish mobile market. Information Economics and Policy, 22, 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grajek, M., & Kretschmer, T. (2009). Usage and diffusion of cellular telephony, 1998–2004. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grajek, M., & Röller, L. H. (2012). Regulation and investment in network industries: Evidence from European telecoms. Journal of Law and Economics, 55, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guthrie, G. (2009). Real options in theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7, 281–312.Google Scholar
  31. Höffler, F. (2007). Costs and benefits from infrastructural competition: Estimating welfare effects from broadband access competition. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jung, I., Gayle, P. G., & Lehman, D. E. (2008). Competition and investment in telecommunications. Applied Economics, 40, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M. (2002). Cross-country diffusion of the internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kiviet, J. F. (1995). On bias, inconsistency and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, S., Marcu, M., & Lee, S. (2011). An empirical analysis of fixed and mobile broadband diffusion. Information Economics and Policy, 23, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49, 1417–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nitsche, R., & Wiethaus, L. (2011). Access regulation and investment in next generation networks: A ranking of regulatory regimes. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pindyck, R. S. (2007). Mandatory unbundling and irreversible investment in telecom networks. Review of Network Economics, 6, 274–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. RTR— Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications. (2010). Communications report 2009, Vienna. http://www.rtr.at/de/komp/alleBerichte. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
  40. Shy, Oz (2010). A short survey on network economics. Working paper no. 10–3. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.Google Scholar
  41. Valletti, T. (2003). The theory of access pricing and its linkage with investment incentives. Telecommunications Policy, 27, 659–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallsten, S., & Hausladen, S. (2009). Net neutrality, unbundling, and their effects on international investment in next-generation networks. Review of Network Economics, 8, 90–112.Google Scholar
  43. wik consult. (2008). The Economics of Next Generation Networks. Report commissioned by ECTA, Bad Honnef.Google Scholar
  44. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zenhäusern, P., Schneider, Y., Berner, S., & Vaterlaus, S. (2012). Manual for the ‘Polynomics Regulation Index 2012’ Data Set. Polynomics, Olten.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Research Institute for Regulatory EconomicsVienna University of Economics and Business (WU)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations