Open access policies, regulated charges and non-price discrimination in telecommunications
Open access policies in telecommunications, including interconnection and unbundling, are implemented by regulators in an effort to increase competition in the sector. Lack of cooperation from incumbents is pervasive, given their incentives to engage in non-price discrimination and the moral hazard resulting from the inability of regulators to monitor the contract. We build a relationship between the access price and non-price discrimination, neither assuming a pre-determined market strategic interdependence or a specific demand function format. When the access charge is liberalized, the incentive for non-price discrimination disappears. It may be optimal for the regulator to set a second-best regulated access price to avoid non-price discrimination.
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.:
- Oecd, 2003. "Developments in Local Loop Unbundling," OECD Digital Economy Papers 74, OECD Publishing.
- Pindyck Robert S., 2007.
"Mandatory Unbundling and Irreversible Investment in Telecom Networks,"
Review of Network Economics,
De Gruyter, vol. 6(3), pages 1-25, September.
- Robert S. Pindyck, 2004. "Mandatory Unbundling and Irreversible Investment in Telecom Networks," NBER Working Papers 10287, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Reiffen David & Ward Michael R, 2002. "Recent Empirical Evidence on Discrimination by Regulated Firms," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, March.
- Bustos Alvaro E & Galetovic Alexander, 2009. "Vertical Integration and Sabotage with a Regulated Bottleneck Monopoly," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-52, September.
- Alvaro Bustos & Alexander Galetovic, 2003. "Vertical Integration and Sabotage in Regulated Industries," Documentos de Trabajo 164, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
- Mini, Federico, 2001. "The Role of Incentives for Opening Monopoly Markets: Comparing GTE and BOC Cooperation with Local Entrants," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, September.
- David Mandy & David Sappington, 2007. "Incentives for sabotage in vertically related industries," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 235-260, June.
- David Mandy & David E. M. Sappington, 2004. "Incentives for Sabotage in Vertically Related Industries," Working Papers 0404, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 16 Dec 2004.
- Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, Pinar, 2004. "Service-based vs. facility-based competition in local access networks," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 287-306, June.
- César Mattos, 2007. "Vertical Foreclosure In Telecommunications In The Long Run: Full Interconnection Quality Foreclosure X Sleeping Patents," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 527-549.
- Mandy, David M, 2000. "Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-172, March.
- Sand, Jan Y., 2004. "Regulation with non-price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1289-1307, November.
- Weisman, Dennis L & Kang, Jaesung, 2001. "Incentives for Discrimination when Upstream Monopolists Participate in Downstream Markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 125-139, September.
- Economides, Nicholas, 1998. "The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 271-284, May. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)