IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Does the fourth entrant make any difference?: Entry and competition in the early U.S. broadband market

Listed author(s):
  • Xiao, Mo
  • Orazem, Peter F.

We study the importance of sunk costs in determining entry conditions and inferences about firm conduct in an adapted Bresnahan and Reiss (1991, 1994) framework. In our framework, entrants incur sunk costs to enter, while incumbents disregard these costs in deciding on continuation or exit. We apply this framework to study entry and competition in the local U.S. broadband markets from 1999 to 2003. Ignoring sunk costs generates unreasonable variation in firms' competitive conduct over time. This variation disappears when entry costs are allowed. Once the market has one to three incumbent firms, the fourth entrant has little effect on competitive conduct.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167718710001384
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal International Journal of Industrial Organization.

Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5 (September)
Pages: 547-561

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:29:y:2011:i:5:p:547-561
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Otto Toivanen & Michael Waterson, 2005. "Market Structure and Entry: Where's the Beef?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(3), pages 680-699, Autumn.
  2. Patrick Bajari & C. Lanier Benkard & Jonathan Levin, 2007. "Estimating Dynamic Models of Imperfect Competition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1331-1370, 09.
  3. Robert S. Pindyck, 2005. "Sunk Costs and Real Options in Antitrust," NBER Working Papers 11430, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. repec:adr:anecst:y:1994:i:34:p:07 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Allan Collard-Wexler, 2006. "Demand Fluctuations and Plant Turnover in the Ready-Mix Concrete Industry," Working Papers 06-25, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
  6. Timothy Dunne & Shawn D. Klimek & Mark J. Roberts & Daniel Yi Xu, 2013. "Entry, exit, and the determinants of market structure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(3), pages 462-487, 09.
  7. Berry, Steven T, 1992. "Estimation of a Model of Entry in the Airline Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 889-917, July.
  8. Richard Ericson & Ariel Pakes, 1995. "Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 53-82.
  9. Martin Pesendorfer & Philipp Schmidt-Dengler, 2003. "Identification and Estimation of Dynamic Games," NBER Working Papers 9726, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Peter C. Reiss, 1990. "Entry in Monopoly Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(4), pages 531-553.
  11. Ariel Pakes & Michael Ostrovsky & Steven Berry, 2007. "Simple estimators for the parameters of discrete dynamic games (with entry/exit examples)," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 373-399, 06.
  12. Angelique Augereau & Shane Greenstein & Marc Rysman, 2006. "Coordination versus differentiation in a standards war: 56K modems," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 887-909, December.
  13. Michael J. Mazzeo, 2002. "Product Choice and Oligopoly Market Structure," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 221-242, Summer.
  14. Andrew M. Cohen & Michael J. Mazzeo, 2007. "Market Structure and Competition among Retail Depository Institutions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 60-74, February.
  15. Wilson, Robert, 1992. "Strategic models of entry deterrence," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 305-329 Elsevier.
  16. repec:reg:rpubli:237 is not listed on IDEAS
  17. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Reiss, Peter C, 1991. "Entry and Competition in Concentrated Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 977-1009, October.
  18. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Peter C. Reiss, 1987. "Do Entry Conditions Vary across Markets?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3), pages 833-882.
  19. Michael J. Mazzeo, 2002. "Competitive Outcomes in Product-Differentiated Oligopoly," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 716-728, November.
  20. Victor Aguirregabiria & Pedro Mira, 2007. "Sequential Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 1-53, 01.
  21. James E. Prieger, 2003. "The Supply Side of the Digital Divide: Is There Equal Availability in the Broadband Internet Access Market?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 346-363, April.
  22. David Dranove & Anne Gron & Michael J. Mazzeo, 2003. "Differentiation and Competition in HMO Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 433-454, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:29:y:2011:i:5:p:547-561. 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)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.