IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/iepoli/v23y2011i1p107-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calling party pays or receiving party pays? The diffusion of mobile telephony with endogenous regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Dewenter, Ralf
  • Kruse, Jörn

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact on mobile telephony diffusion patterns of the two predominant payment regimes, calling party pays (CPP) and receiving party pays (RPP), for mobile termination services. By applying instrumental variable techniques to panel data we account for a possible interdependency of penetration rates and regulatory interventions. For this purpose we use data on political and institutional factors to instrument endogenous regulatory decisions. We conclude from our empirical analysis that there is no significant impact of either RPP or CPP on penetration rates. Therefore an application of RPP in order to obviate regulation of termination fees would be feasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Dewenter, Ralf & Kruse, Jörn, 2011. "Calling party pays or receiving party pays? The diffusion of mobile telephony with endogenous regulation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 107-117, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:107-117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6245(10)00047-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. repec:eee:ecolet:v:71:y:2001:i:3:p:413-42 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gruber, Harald & Verboven, Frank, 2001. "The evolution of markets under entry and standards regulation -- the case of global mobile telecommunications," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1189-1212, July.
    3. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    4. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Entry, Standards and Competition: Firm Strategies and the Diffusion of Mobile Telephony," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 26(1), pages 89-113, November.
    5. Chu, Wen-Lin & Wu, Feng-Shang & Kao, Kai-Sheng & Yen, David C., 2009. "Diffusion of mobile telephony: An empirical study in Taiwan," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 506-520, October.
    6. Michalakelis, Christos & Varoutas, Dimitris & Sphicopoulos, Thomas, 0. "Diffusion models of mobile telephony in Greece," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3-4), pages 234-245, April.
    7. Littlechild, S.C., 0. "Mobile termination charges: Calling Party Pays versus Receiving Party Pays," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5-6), pages 242-277, June.
    8. Donald, Stephen G & Sappington, David E M, 1995. "Explaining the Choice among Regulatory Plans in the U.S. Telecommunications Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 237-265, Summer.
    9. Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 1999. "Interconnection in Network Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Randall S. Kroszner & Philip E. Strahan, 1999. "What Drives Deregulation? Economics and Politics of the Relaxation of Bank Branching Restrictions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1437-1467.
    11. Doyle, Chris & Smith, Jennifer C., 1998. "Market structure in mobile telecoms: qualified indirect access and the receiver pays principle," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 471-488, December.
    12. Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen & Steinar Vagstad, 2008. "M2M Call Termination – regulation or competition?," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 54(3), pages 203-215.
    13. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 1999. "The size and scope of government:: Comparative politics with rational politicians," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 699-735, April.
    14. Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W & Pacey, Patricia L, 1993. "The Political Economy of Deregulation: The Case of Intrastate Long Distance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-63, March.
    15. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 1998. "Network Competition: II. Price Discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 38-56, Spring.
    16. Berger, Ulrich, 2005. "Bill-and-keep vs. cost-based access pricing revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 107-112, January.
    17. Gans, Joshua S. & King, Stephen P., 2001. "Using 'bill and keep' interconnect arrangements to soften network competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 413-420, June.
    18. Gruber, Harald, 2001. "Competition and innovation: The diffusion of mobile telecommunications in Central and Eastern Europe," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 19-34, March.
    19. Nigel Meade & Towhidul Islam, 1998. "Technological Forecasting---Model Selection, Model Stability, and Combining Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(8), pages 1115-1130, August.
    20. Olivier Boylaud & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 2003. "Regulation, market structure and performance in telecommunications," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2001(1), pages 99-142.
    21. Dessein, Wouter, 2003. " Network Competition in Nonlinear Pricing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(4), pages 593-611, Winter.
    22. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    23. Duso, Tomaso & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2003. "Endogenous deregulation: evidence from OECD countries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 67-71, October.
    24. Ralf Dewenter & Justus Haucap, 2005. "The Effects of Regulating Mobile Termination Rates for Asymmetric Networks," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 185-197, September.
    25. Patrick Degraba, 2003. "Efficient Intercarrier Compensation for Competing Networks When Customers Share the Value of A Call," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 207-230, June.
    26. Tommaso Valletti & George Houpis, 2005. "Mobile Termination: What is the “Right” Charge?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 235-258, November.
    27. Harbord David & Pagnozzi Marco, 2010. "Network-Based Price Discrimination and `Bill-and-Keep' vs. `Cost-Based' Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-46, February.
    28. Stefan Buehler & Justus Haucap, 2004. "Mobile Number Portability," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 223-238, September.
    29. Gans, Joshua S. & King, Stephen P., 2000. "Mobile network competition, customer ignorance and fixed-to-mobile call prices," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 301-327, December.
    30. Tomaso Duso, 2002. "On the Politics of the Regulatory Reform: Econometric Evidence from the OECD Countries," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-07, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    31. Cunningham, Brendan M. & Alexander, Peter J. & Candeub, Adam, 2010. "Network growth: Theory and evidence from the mobile telephone industry," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-102, March.
    32. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    33. Ros Agustin J., 2003. "The Impact of the Regulatory Process and Price Cap Regulation in Latin American Telecommunications Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-17, September.
    34. Wright Julian, 2002. "Bill and Keep as the Efficient Interconnection Regime?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, March.
    35. Silvia Massini, 2004. "The diffusion of mobile telephony in Italy and the UK: an empirical investigation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 251-277.
    36. Donald, Stephen G & Sappington, David E M, 1997. "Choosing among Regulatory Options in the United States Telecommunications Industry," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 227-243, November.
    37. Armstrong, Mark, 1998. "Network Interconnection in Telecommunications," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 545-564, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clémence Christin, 2013. "Entry Deterrence Through Cooperative R&D Over-Investment," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 79(2), pages 5-26.
    2. Hoernig, Steffen, 2012. "The Breakdown of Connectivity Breakdowns," CEPR Discussion Papers 9189, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Hurkens, Sjaak & López, Ángel L., 2014. "Who Should Pay for Two-way Interconnection?," IESE Research Papers D/1102, IESE Business School.
    4. Gu, Yiquan & Wenzel, Tobias, 2012. "Transparency, entry, and productivity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 7-10.
    5. Sjaak Hurkens & Angel L. Lopez, 2014. "Who should pay for two-way interconnection?," Working Papers 774, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    6. Sjaak Hurkens & Ángel Luis López, 2010. "Mobile Termination and Consumer Expectations under the Receiver-Pays Regime," Working Papers 10-12, NET Institute.
    7. Stühmeier Torben & Wenzel Tobias, 2012. "Regulating Advertising in the Presence of Public Service Broadcasting," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Barth, Anne-Kathrin & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2012. "Der angemessene Kostenmaßstab für Terminierungsentgelte - "Pure LRIC" vs. "KeL"," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 29, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    9. Kongaut, Chatchai & Bohlin, Erik, 2012. "Impacts of mobile termination rates (MTRs) on retail prices: The implication for regulators," 23rd European Regional ITS Conference, Vienna 2012 60348, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. Hawthorne, Ryan, 2016. "Do call termination rate interventions affect developing countries (with smaller fixed line networks) differently? Testing for the ‘waterbed effect' for non-linear tariffs in South Africa," 27th European Regional ITS Conference, Cambridge (UK) 2016 148673, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    11. Haucap, Justus & Herr, Annika & Frank, Björn, 2011. "In vino veritas: Theory and evidence on social drinking," DICE Discussion Papers 37, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    12. ., 2014. "Restructuring among mobile service providers: a ten-year perspective," Chapters,in: Mobile Telecommunications Networks, chapter 1, pages 1-25 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Hoernig, Steffen, 2016. "Going beyond duopoly: Connectivity breakdowns under receiving party pays," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Genakos, Christos & Valletti, Tommaso, 2011. "Seesaw in the air: Interconnection regulation and the structure of mobile tariffs," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 159-170, June.
    15. Genakos, Christos & Valletti, Tommaso, 2012. "Regulating prices in two-sided markets: The waterbed experience in mobile telephony," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 360-368.
    16. Vogelsang Ingo, 2013. "The Endgame of Telecommunications Policy? A Survey," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 64(3), pages 193-270, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mobile telephony markets Calling party pays Mobile termination fees Endogenous regulation;

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • L96 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Telecommunications

    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:eee:iepoli:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:107-117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505549 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.