IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v35y2011i9p818-826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of the equality of access and no-regulation approaches to next generation networks

Author

Listed:
  • Brito, Duarte
  • Pereira, Pedro
  • Vareda, João

Abstract

The European Commission believes that for the regulation of next generation fixed telecommunications networks the continuity approach is preferable to the equality of access approach and the no-regulation approach. According to the European Commission, (i) functional separation eliminates discrimination and promotes competition, but should only be used as a measure of last resort because it involves various complex trade-offs, whereas (ii) the no-regulation approach fosters investment, at the cost of sacrificing competition. The article agrees that functional separation involves complex trade-offs but disputes the assertion that functional separation necessarily eliminates discrimination and promotes competition. In addition, the article also establishes conditions under which the no-regulation approach does not reduce competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Brito, Duarte & Pereira, Pedro & Vareda, João, 2011. "An assessment of the equality of access and no-regulation approaches to next generation networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 818-826.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:35:y:2011:i:9:p:818-826
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2011.04.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596111000759
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.04.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, PInar & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A critical review of the "ladder of investment" approach," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 683-696, December.
    2. Michał Grajek & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2012. "Regulation and Investment in Network Industries: Evidence from European Telecoms," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(1), pages 189-216.
    3. Buehler, Stefan & Schmutzler, Armin & Benz, Men-Andri, 2004. "Infrastructure quality in deregulated industries: is there an underinvestment problem?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 253-267, February.
    4. Vareda, João, 2010. "Access regulation and the incumbent investment in quality-upgrades and in cost-reduction," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 697-710, December.
    5. P.W.J. De Bijl, 2005. "Structural Separation and Access in Telecommunications Markets," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 6(2), pages 95-115, June.
    6. Cambini, Carlo & Jiang, Yanyan, 0. "Broadband investment and regulation: A literature review," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10-11), pages 559-574, November.
    7. Lundborg, Jörg & Lundborg, Martin & Lundborg, Ernst-Olav, 2006. "Infrastructure-Based Versus Service-Based : Competition In Telecommunications," MPRA Paper 3571, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bouckaert, Jan & van Dijk, Theon & Verboven, Frank, 2010. "Access regulation, competition, and broadband penetration: An international study," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 661-671, December.
    9. Kondaurova, Irina & Weisman, Dennis L., 2003. "Incentives for non-price discrimination," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 147-171, June.
    10. Weisman, Dennis L, 1995. "Regulation and the Vertically Integrated Firm: The Case of RBOC Entry into Interlata Long Distance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 249-266, November.
    11. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, Pinar, 2005. "Unbundling the local loop," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 173-199, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Teppayayon, Orada & Bohlin, Erik, 2010. "Functional separation in Swedish broadband market: Next step of improving competition," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 375-383, August.
    14. Dogan, Pinar & Bourreau, Marc & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A Critical Review of the “Ladder of Investment†Approach," Scholarly Articles 4777447, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Cadman, Richard, 2010. "Means not ends: Deterring discrimination through equivalence and functional separation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 366-374, August.
    16. Brito, Duarte & Pereira, Pedro & Vareda, João, 2010. "Can two-part tariffs promote efficient investment on next generation networks?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-333, May.
    17. Jonathan E. Nuechterlein & Philip J. Weiser, 2007. "Digital Crossroads: American Telecommunications Policy in the Internet Age," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026264066x, December.
    18. Nucciarelli, A. & Sadowski, B.M., 2010. "The Italian way to functional separation: An assessment of background and criticalities," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 384-391, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Cave, Martin & Vogelsang, Ingo, 0. "How access pricing and entry interact," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(10-11), pages 717-727, November.
    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. Howell, Bronwyn, 2014. "Separation anxieties: Structural separation and technological diffusion in nascent fibre networks," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106840, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Howell, Bronwyn, 2014. "Structural Separation and Technological Diffusion," Working Paper Series 4353, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    3. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Gugler, Klaus, 2013. "The deployment and penetration of high-speed fiber networks and services: Why are EU member states lagging behind?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 819-835.
    4. Rajabiun, Reza & Middleton, Catherine A., 2013. "Multilevel governance and broadband infrastructure development: Evidence from Canada," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 702-714.
    5. Fabian Queder, 2020. "Towards a vertically separated broadband infrastructure: The potential role of voluntary separation," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 21(2), pages 143-165, June.
    6. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19314 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Howell, Bronwyn, 2014. "Structural Separation and Technological Diffusion," Working Paper Series 19314, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.

    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. Tselekounis, Markos & Varoutas, Dimitris & Martakos, Drakoulis, 2014. "A CDS approach to induce facilities-based competition over NGA networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 311-331.
    2. Hrovatin, Nevenka & Švigelj, Matej, 2013. "The interplay of regulation and other drivers of NGN deployment: A real-world perspective," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 836-848.
    3. Cave, Martin, 2014. "The ladder of investment in Europe, in retrospect and prospect," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 674-683.
    4. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Gugler, Klaus & Haxhimusa, Adhurim, 2016. "Facility- and service-based competition and investment in fixed broadband networks: Lessons from a decade of access regulations in the European Union member states," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 729-742.
    5. Briglauer Wolfgang & Frübing Stefan & Vogelsang Ingo, 2014. "The Impact of Alternative Public Policies on the Deployment of New Communications Infrastructure – A Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 227-270, September.
    6. Calzada, Joan & Martínez-Santos, Fernando, 2014. "Broadband prices in the European Union: Competition and commercial strategies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 24-38.
    7. Marc Bourreau & Pınar Doğan & Romain Lestage, 2014. "Level of access and infrastructure investment in network industries," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 237-260, December.
    8. Brito Duarte & Pereira Pedro & Vareda João, 2012. "Does Vertical Separation Necessarily Reduce Quality Discrimination and Increase Welfare?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-44, November.
    9. Manenti, Fabio M. & Scialà, Antonio, 2013. "Access regulation, entry and investments in telecommunications," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 450-468.
    10. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Cambini, Carlo & Fetzer, Thomas & Hüschelrath, Kai, 2017. "The European Electronic Communications Code: A critical appraisal with a focus on incentivizing investment in next generation broadband networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 948-961.
    11. Parcu, Pier Luigi & Silvestri, Virginia, 2014. "Electronic communications regulation in Europe: An overview of past and future problems," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 246-255.
    12. Ben Dkhil, Inès, 2014. "Regulation and Investment in Telecom Network Infrastructure Facilities: The Recent Developments and Debates," MPRA Paper 72910, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Feb 2015.
    13. Francis Bloch & Axel Gautier, 2017. "Strategic bypass deterrence," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 189-210, October.
    14. Fabian Queder, 2020. "Towards a vertically separated broadband infrastructure: The potential role of voluntary separation," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 21(2), pages 143-165, June.
    15. Bourreau, Marc & Cambini, Carlo & Doğan, Pınar, 2012. "Access pricing, competition, and incentives to migrate from “old” to “new” technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 713-723.
    16. Cadman, Richard, 2019. "Legal separation of BT: A necessary incentive for investment?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 38-49.
    17. Viktória KOCSIS & Paul de BIJL & Rob van der NOLL & Bert TIEBEN, 2015. "Reconsidering ex ante Regulation in the Dutch Electronic Communications Market," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(98), pages 61-83, 2nd quart.
    18. Bose, Arup & Pal, Debashis & Sappington, David E.M., 2017. "Pricing to preclude sabotage in regulated industries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 162-184.
    19. Briglauer, Wolfgang, 2014. "The impact of regulation and competition on the migration from old to new communications infrastructure: Recent evidence from EU27 member states," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-085, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Paolo Piselli & Carla Scaglioni, 2014. "Regulation Performance and Investment in Telecommunications in the European Union: a policy evaluation approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2014/19, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.

    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:35:y:2011:i:9:p:818-826. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.