Advertisement

Regulation by TSLRIC: Economic Effects on Investment and Innovation

Chapter

Abstract

A number of countries have adopted policies to cause dominant network providers to unbundle their networks to provide network elements to new competitors. Two important questions arise with respect to these policies: the degree of network disaggregation that unbundling will cause and the regulated price of the unbundled elements. Economic principles suggest that only the “essential facility” elements of the network, which cannot be economically reproduced in the short term by new competitors, should be unbundled by regulation.1 It is these essential facility elements that provide the barriers to competition by new entrants. However, if unbundling goes beyond these essential facility elements, new entrants will not have an economic incentive to invest in their own networks. Thus, economic analysis leads to the recommendation that the local network should be unbundled with respect to its essential facility elements, at least in the short run, but that other networks such as long distance and wireless networks should not be unbundled since they do not contain essential facility elements.2 Overall, long distance and wireless networks should not be regulated so long as competitive entry is sufficient to keep prices at competitive levels.3

Keywords

Capital Good Federal Communication Commission Social Planner Predatory Price Irreversible Investment 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumol W. J. and J. G. Sidak, Toward Competition in Local Telephony, MIT Press, 1994Google Scholar
  2. Dixit, A. And R. Pindyck, Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton Univ. Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Farrell, J., “Competition, Innovation and Deregulation,” mimeo, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Hausman, J., “Competition in Long Distance and Equipment Markets: Effects of the MFJ,” Journal of Managerial and Decision Economics, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Hausman, J., “Reply Affidavit of Prof. Jerry Hausman,” FCC CC Docket No. 96-98, July 1996, mimeo.Google Scholar
  6. Hausman, J., “Valuation and the Effect of Regulation on New Services in Telecommunications,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. Hausman, J., “Telecommunications: Building the Infrastructure for Value Creation,” in S. Bradley and R. Nolan eds., Sense and Respond, Harvard Business School Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Hausman J. and W. E. Kohlberg, “The Evolution of the Central Office Switch Industry,” in S. Bradley and J. Hausman eds., Future Competition in Telecommunications, Harvard Business School Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. Hausman, J. and T. Tardiff, “Efficient Local Exchange Competition,” Antitrust Bulletin, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Kahn, A.E., The Economics of Regulation, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. Laffont, J.J. and J. Tirole, “Competition in Telecommunications,” mimeo, Nov. 1996.Google Scholar
  12. MacDonald R. and D. Siegel, “The Value of Waiting to Invest,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 707–728, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schafer H., Telecommunications Law, RWS Verlag Kommunikationsforum, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations