IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1576-d146419.html

Optimal Price Subsidy for Universal Internet Service Provision

Author

Listed:
  • Hailing Zhu

    (Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Khmaies Ouahada

    (Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Andre Nel

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Universal service has been adopted by many countries to bridge the digital divide between Information and communication technologies (ICTs) “haves” and “have-nots”. The key goal of universal service is to provide telecommunications services to “needy persons” at “reasonable” rate. It is, therefore, critical for policymakers to make decisions on what is a “reasonable” price or subsidy for “needy persons” so that the targeted users do utilize ICTs and benefit from them. This paper analyzes universal service subsidies in providing subsidized Internet access from a pricing point of view through a hypothetical scenario where the subsidized users being subsidized through a price subsidy and non-subsidized users share the same network operated by a service provider. We propose a service differentiation system based on priority queuing to accommodate both groups of users, and model such a system as a Stackelberg game from both a revenue-maximizing service provider perspective and a social welfare maximizing planner’s perspective. We then analyze the optimal prices that maximize the service provider’s revenue and social welfare respectively, investigate how the revenue maximizing price and social welfare maximizing price are effected by users’ willingness to pay and the subsidy ratio, and evaluate the revenue maximizing solution on welfare grounds using the social-maximizing solution as a benchmark. Interestingly, the optimal revenue maximizing solution corresponds to the socially optimal solution in terms of social welfare under the optimum subsidy ratio that maximizes the social welfare. This suggests that the subsidy ratio can be used as a tool to induce the revenue maximizing service provider to set a price that leads to social optimality.

Suggested Citation

  • Hailing Zhu & Khmaies Ouahada & Andre Nel, 2018. "Optimal Price Subsidy for Universal Internet Service Provision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1576-:d:146419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1576/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1576/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phlips,Louis, 1983. "The Economics of Price Discrimination," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521283946, Enero-Abr.
    2. Michel Mandjes, 2004. "Pricing Strategies and Service Differentiation," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 59-81, April.
    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. Jiaguo Liu & Huida Zhao & Yibing Lyu & Xiaohang Yue, 2023. "The provision strategy of blockchain service under the supply chain with downstream competition," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 327(1), pages 375-400, August.
    2. Fenling Feng & Tianzuo Zhang & Chengguang Liu & Lifeng Fan, 2020. "China Railway Express Subsidy Model Based on Game Theory under “the Belt and Road” Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Simon P. Anderson & Régis Renault, 2011. "Price Discrimination," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 22, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Tarkka, Juha, 1994. "Implicit interest as price discrimination in the bank deposit market," Research Discussion Papers 1/1994, Bank of Finland.
    3. Yin, Xiangkang, 2004. "Two-part tariff competition in duopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 799-820, June.
    4. Iñaki Aguirre, 1999. "Information transmission and incentives not to price discriminate," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299.
    5. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2014. "Where to locate to escape predation?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(2), pages 614-626.
    6. Paul A. David, 2006. "Economic Policy Analysis and the Internet: Coming to Terms with a Telecommunications Anomaly," Discussion Papers 06-004, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Pablo Dorta‐González & Dolores R. Santos‐Peñate & Rafael Suárez‐Vega, 2005. "Spatial competition in networks under delivered pricing," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 84(2), pages 271-280, June.
    8. Jerod Coker & Jean-Manuel Izaret, 2021. "Progressive Pricing: The Ethical Case for Price Personalization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(2), pages 387-398, October.
    9. Nathan Berg & Jeong†Yoo Kim, 2018. "Price Discrimination in Public Healthcare," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 181-192, June.
    10. A. Golan & H. Shalit, 1993. "Wine Quality Differentials In Hedonic Grape Pricing," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 311-321, May.
    11. Begoña García-Mariñoso & Xavier Martinez-Giralt & Pau Olivella, 2008. "Bundling in Telecommunications," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 762.08, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    12. Simon P. Anderson & Wesley W. Wilson, 2008. "Spatial Competition, Pricing, And Market Power In Transportation: A Dominant Firm Model," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 367-397, May.
    13. James Love & Frank Stephen, 1996. "Advertising, Price and Quality in Self-regulating Professions: A Survey," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 227-248.
    14. Navajas Fernando, 2023. "Electricity rate structure design in Latin America: Where do we stand? Where should we go?," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4676, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    15. María García & Blas Pelegrín & Pascual Fernández, 2011. "Location strategy for a firm under competitive delivered prices," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(1), pages 1-23, August.
    16. Graubner, Marten & Balmann, Alfons & Sexton, Richard J., 2011. "Spatial Pricing and the Location of Processors in Agricultural Markets," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114601, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Stefan Buehler & Daniel Halbheer & Michael Lechner, 2017. "Payment Evasion," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 804-832, December.
    18. Paolo Garella, 1989. "Fusions et acquisitions dans l'industrie européenne," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 29(1), pages 185-219.
    19. Tharakan, J., 2001. "Revisiting “On nations’ size and transportation costs”," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2001032, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    20. Eric Langlais & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2022. "Endogenous market structures, product liability, and the scope of product differentiation," Working Papers hal-04159801, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1576-:d:146419. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.