Abstract
In Weisman (1995), I construct a model to investigate the incentives of a vertically-integrated regulated firm to discriminate against downstream rivals. This model suggests that the RBOCs do not have the same incentives to discriminate as AT&T prior to divestiture. Reiffen (1998) questions this and other conclusions. This reply addresses his claims.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beard, T. Randolph, David L. Kaserman, and John W. Mayo. 1996. “Regulation, Vertical Integration, and Sabotage.” Mimeo (November).
Economides, Nicholas. 1997. “The Incentive for Non-Price Discrimination by an Input Monopolist.” Stanford University Working Paper.
Reiffen, David. 1998. “A Regulated Firm's Incentive To Discriminate: A Reevaluation and Extension of Weisman's Result.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 14:1 (this volume).
Sappington, David E. M., and Dennis L. Weisman. 1996. Designing Incentive Regulation For The Telecommunications Industry. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute and Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sibley, David E, and Dennis L. Weisman. 1998. “The Competitive Incentives of Vertically Integrated Local Exchange Carriers: An Economic and Policy Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17 (No. 1, Winter): 74–93.
Sibley, David E, and Dennis L. Weisman. 1998. “Raising Rivals' Costs: Entry of an Upstream Monopolist into Downstream Markets.” Information Economics and Policy (Forthcoming).
Weisman, Dennis L. 1995. “Regulation and the Vertically Integrated Firm: The Case of RBOC Entry Into InterLATA Long Distance.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 8(No. 3, November): 249–266.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weisman, D.L. The Incentive to Discriminate by a Vertically-Integrated Regulated Firm: A Reply. Journal of Regulatory Economics 14, 87–91 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008031906785
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008031906785