Resale and the Growth of Competition in Wireless Telephony

  • Mark L. Burton
  • David L. Kaserman
  • John W. Mayo
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 37)


The closing decade of the 20th century has been marked by profound technological changes. Among these, it is difficult to imagine one more quickly embraced by the marketplace than wireless telecommunications. What was, a decade ago, merely a novelty or an indulgence is now a central component of personal and professional communications. Although barely in its adolescence, wireless telephony has already left an indelible mark on both American society and commerce. To accurately predict the magnitude of the wireless contribution to future economic welfare is impossible, yet the growth of this contribution is virtually indisputable. Wireless services that are today barely imaginable are likely to pervade the telecommunications marketplace of the future. Moreover, the costs of providing the wireless services which millions of customers currently enjoy are likely to be driven ever lower by technological advance and emerging competition. Wireless services that are now pervasive may, in the foreseeable future, be universal.


Supra Note Price Discrimination Wireless Service Access Charge Upstream Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold, Scott, Paul Roche, Mark Knich Rehm, and Byron Auguste. 1998. “How to Stay Ahead in the US Wireless Industry: Part 1 of 2,” Global Telecoms Business: 50–54.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, T. Randolph, David L. Kaserman, and John W. Mayo. 1998. “The Role of Resale Entry in Promoting Local Exchange Competition,” Telecommunications Policy 22: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beard, Randolph T., David L. Kaserman, and John W. Mayo. “Regulation, Vertical Integration, and Sabotage,” Working Paper, April 1999.Google Scholar
  4. Bernheim, Douglas S. and Robert D. Willig. 1996. The Scope of Competition in Telecommunications, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Berresford, John W.. 1989. “The Impact of Law and Regulation on Technology: The Case History of Cellular Radio,” Business Lawyer, American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, Roger D., Thomas E. Cooper, and David L. Kaserman. 1985. “A Note on Vertical Integration as Entry,” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 3: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borenstein, Severin. 1985. “Price Discrimination in Free-Entry Markets,” RAND Journal of Economics 16: 380–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crandall, Robert and Jerry Ellig. 1997. Economic Deregulation and Customer Choice: Lessons for the Electric Utility Industry, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Duerig, Alfred W. “The Demise of the Telephone Industry.” 1986. Public Utilities Fortnightly, January 23: 30–38.Google Scholar
  10. Harte, Lawrence, Steve Prokup, and Richard Levine. Cellular and PCS: The Big Picture. McGraw Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Lande, Jim and Katie Rangos. 1998. Telecommunications Industry Review. Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Kahai, Simran, David L. Kaserman and John W. Mayo. 1996. “Is the ‘Dominant Firm’ Dominant? An Empirical Analysis of AT&T’s Market Power.” Journal of Law and Economics 39: 499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaserman, David L. and John W. Mayo. 1995. Government and Business: The Economics of Antitrust and Regulation, Chapter 8, Ft. Worth, TX: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kaserman, David L. and John W. Mayo. 1994. “Long-Distance Telecommunications: Expectations and Realizations in the Post-Divestiture Period.” In Incentive Regulation for Public Utilities, edited by Michael A. Crew, Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. MacAvoy, Paul W. and Kenneth Robinson. “Losing by Judicial Policy Making: The First Year of the AT&T Divestiture.” Yale Journal on Regulation 2: 225–262.Google Scholar
  16. Mehta, Stephanie N. “Locked Out.” 1998. Wall Street Journal, September 21, p. R8.Google Scholar
  17. Parker, Philip M. and Lars Hendrik-Roller. 1997. “Collusive Conduct in Duopolies: Multimarket Contact and Cross-Ownership in the Mobile Telephone Industry,” RAND Journal of Economics, 28: 304–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perry, Martin K. 1978. “Price Discrimination and Forward Integration.” Bell Journal of Economics 9: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perry, Martin K. 1989. “Vertical Integration: Determinants and Effects.” In Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 1, edited by Richard Schmalensee and Robert D. Willig, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Ordover, Janusz A., Garth Saloner, and Steven C. Salop. 1990. “Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure,” American Economic Review 80: 127–142.Google Scholar
  21. Pryor, Timothy M. and Carl G.K. Weaver. 1987. “The Future of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry,” Public Utilities Fortnightly March 5: 28–32.Google Scholar
  22. Salinger, Michael A. 1988. “Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 77: 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherer, F.M. and David Ross. 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Third edition, Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in Company.Google Scholar
  24. Spicer, Malcolm E., John Sullivan and Ellen B. Mullally. 1998. “Catching on to the Prepaid Rising Star,” Mobile Phone News, June 15: 1–2.Google Scholar
  25. Stigler, George J. 1951.”The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market.” Journal of Political Economy 59: 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark L. Burton
    • 1
  • David L. Kaserman
    • 2
  • John W. Mayo
    • 3
  1. 1.Marshall UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Auburn UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Georgetown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations