IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v30yi5-6p242-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mobile termination charges: Calling Party Pays versus Receiving Party Pays

Author

Listed:
  • Littlechild, S.C.

Abstract

In many countries there is widespread concern at the level of mobile termination charges. This is attributable to the bottleneck monopoly created by the Calling Party Pays (CPP) principle. It has led to increasingly severe price controls on termination charges. Regulatory experience in the three foremost such countries (UK, Australia and New Zealand) suggests that price controls are of limited effectiveness in aligning termination charges with costs, that net welfare gains from controls are small and that costs of setting controls are high. The Receiving Party Pays (RPP) principle, which applies in North America and several Asian countries, avoids the bottleneck monopoly problem. After allowing for various economic and technical average revenue (price) per call is significantly lower with RPP, average minutes of usage per subscriber are significantly higher and the mobile penetration rate is not significantly different. Handset subsidies seem to be lower in the US (with RPP) than in the UK (with CPP). Surprisingly, CPP regulators have either ignored RPP or rejected it for various alleged disadvantages. These do not withstand investigation. However, in CPP countries there is still concern about the idea of paying to receive calls. There is a way to get the benefits associated with RPP without this disadvantage. RPP is based on a 'bill and keep' regime. Some mobile operators in RPP countries are now offering customers the option of calling plans with free incoming calls. Changing to a 'bill and keep' regime would avoid the bottleneck monopoly and associated distortions of conventional CPP regimes, yet enable operators and customers themselves to choose how to pay for calls--in effect, to choose between CPP and RPP.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:30:y::i:5-6:p:242-277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596106000255
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. christoph Engel, 2005. "Voice over IP. Competition Policy and Regulation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2005_26, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Haucap Justus & Heimeshoff Ulrich & Stühmeier Torben, 2011. "Wettbewerb im deutschen Mobilfunkmarkt," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 60(2), pages 240-268, August.
    4. Engel, Christoph, 0. "Competition in a pure world of Internet telephony," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 530-540, September.
    5. Tommaso Valletti & George Houpis, 2005. "Mobile Termination: What is the “Right” Charge?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 235-258, November.
    6. Harbord, David & Pagnozzi, Marco, 2008. "On-Net/Off-Net Price Discrimination and 'Bill-and-Keep' vs. 'Cost-Based' Regulation of Mobile Termination Rates," MPRA Paper 14540, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Peters, Kay & Albers, Sönke & Kumar, V., 2008. "Is there more to international Diffusion than Culture? An investigation on the Role of Marketing and Industry Variables," EconStor Preprints 27678, ZBW - German National Library of Economics.
    8. J. Scott MARCUS, 2008. "IP-based NGNs and Interconnection: The Debate in Europe," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(72), pages 17-32, 4th quart.

    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:telpol:v:30:y::i:5-6:p:242-277. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.