We examine, in a network market open to competition, various mechanisms of allocating and funding ''universal service obligations'' among agents (rival operators and consumers). The obligations we consider are geographic ubiquity and non discrimination. We analyze, from both the efficiency and equity point of views, the respective advantages of a ''restricted-entry'' system (where the entrant is not allowed to serve high cost consumers) and the ''pay or play'' system at work for instance in Australia. We show that the pay or play regulation always dominates the restricted-entry regulation under ubiquity constraint alone. This result no longer holds when the regulator imposes also the non discrimination constraint.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Paper
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)