IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/randje/v46y2015i2p297-327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The strategic use of download limits by a monopoly platform

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Economides
  • Benjamin E. Hermalin

Abstract

type="main"> We offer a new explanation for why platforms, such as Internet service providers and mobile-phone networks, offer plans with download limits: through one of two mechanisms, doing so causes content providers to reduce prices or improve quality. This generates greater surplus for consumers, which a platform captures via higher consumer access fees. Even accounting for congestion externalities, a platform limits downloads more than would be welfare maximizing; indeed, by so much, that barring such practices can be welfare superior to what a platform would do. Paradoxically, a platform will install more bandwidth when it can restrict downloads than when it cannot.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Economides & Benjamin E. Hermalin, 2015. "The strategic use of download limits by a monopoly platform," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 297-327, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:randje:v:46:y:2015:i:2:p:297-327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1756-2171.12087
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    2. Greenstein, Shane & McDevitt, Ryan C., 2011. "The broadband bonus: Estimating broadband Internet's economic value," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 617-632, August.
    3. Jay Pil Choi & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2010. "Net neutrality and investment incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 446-471, September.
    4. Economides, Nicholas & Tåg, Joacim, 2012. "Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 91-104.
    5. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    6. Anthony Dukes & Esther Gal–Or, 2003. "Negotiations and Exclusivity Contracts for Advertising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 222-245, November.
    7. Hsing Kenneth Cheng & Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo, 2011. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 60-82, March.
    8. Nicholas Economides & Benjamin E. Hermalin, 2012. "The economics of network neutrality," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(4), pages 602-629, December.
    9. Jan Kraemer & Lukas Wiewiorra, 2010. "Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation," Working Papers 10-09, NET Institute, revised Sep 2010.
    10. Marc Rysman, 2009. "The Economics of Two-Sided Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 125-143, Summer.
    11. Hermalin, Benjamin E. & Katz, Michael L., 2007. "The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 215-248, June.
    12. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
    13. Jean-Charles Rochet Author-Email:rochet@cict.fr Author-Workplace-Name: IDEI, University of Toulouse & Jean Tirole Author-Email: tirole@cict.fr Author-Workplace-Name: IDEI, University of Toulouse, 2006. "Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, Autumn.
    14. Jay Pil Choi & Doh-Shin Jeon & Byung-Cheol Kim, 2015. "Net Neutrality, Business Models, and Internet Interconnection," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 104-141, August.
    15. Roson Roberto, 2005. "Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Njoroge Paul & Ozdaglar Asuman & Stier-Moses Nicolás E. & Weintraub Gabriel Y., 2014. "Investment in Two-Sided Markets and the Net Neutrality Debate," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 355-402, February.
    2. Nielsen, Martin, 2015. "Strategic Investment Dependence and Net Neutrality," Discussion Papers on Economics 11/2015, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    3. Economides, Nicholas & Tåg, Joacim, 2012. "Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 91-104.
    4. Frago Kourandi & Jan Krämer & Tommaso Valletti, 2015. "Net Neutrality, Exclusivity Contracts, and Internet Fragmentation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 320-338, June.
    5. D'Annunzio, Anna & Russo, Antonio, 2015. "Net Neutrality and internet fragmentation: The role of online advertising," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 30-47.
    6. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Stocker, Volker & Stockhammer, Paul, 2019. "Ist Netzneutralität tatsächlich gut? Eine Neubewertung vor dem Hintergrund der Regulierung in den USA und in der EU sowie aktueller Forschungsergebnisse," Policy Notes 38, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Nicholas Economides, 2015. "Economic Features of the Internet and Network Neutrality," Working Papers 15-01, NET Institute.
    8. Jan Krämer & Lukas Wiewiorra, 2012. "Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Content Variety, Broadband Investment, and Regulation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1303-1321, December.
    9. Baake, Pio & Sudaric, Slobodan, 2019. "Net neutrality and CDN intermediation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 55-67.
    10. Gautier, Axel & Somogyi, Robert, 2020. "Prioritization vs zero-rating: Discrimination on the internet," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Vogelsang Ingo, 2013. "The Endgame of Telecommunications Policy? A Survey," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 64(3), pages 193-270, December.
    12. Baake, Pio & Sudaric, Slobodan, 2018. "Net Neutrality, Prioritization and the Impact of Content Delivery Networks," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 102, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Sahar Fekih Romdhane & Chokri Aloui & Khaïreddine Jebsi, 2020. "On the Net Neutrality Efficiency under Congestion Price Discrimination," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 833-872, September.
    14. Peitz, Martin & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Net neutrality and inflation of traffic," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 16-62.
    15. Marc Bourreau & Frago Kourandi & Tommaso Valletti, 2015. "Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 30-73, March.
    16. Timothy Brennan, 2017. "The Post-Internet Order Broadband Sector: Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(4), pages 469-486, June.
    17. Baranes, Edmond & Poudou, Jean-Christophe, 2011. "Internet access and investment incentives for broadband service providers," 22nd European Regional ITS Conference, Budapest 2011: Innovative ICT Applications - Emerging Regulatory, Economic and Policy Issues 52196, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Juliane Fudickar, 2015. "Net Neutrality, Vertical Integration, and Competition Between Content Providers," BDPEMS Working Papers 2015014, Berlin School of Economics.
    19. Soohyun Cho & Liangfei Qiu & Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, 2016. "Should Online Content Providers Be Allowed To Subsidize Content?—An Economic Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 580-595.
    20. Боровкова А.Е., 2019. "Поведение Фирмы-Посредника На Двустороннем Рынке При Дифференциации Продукта В Условиях Асимметрии Информации," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 55(2), pages 104-117, апрель.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:randje:v:46:y:2015:i:2:p:297-327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/randdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.