Broadband Openness Rules Are Fully Justified by Economic Research
This paper is an outgrowth of the filings in the FCC's broadband openness proceeding that focused on the issue of networks neutrality. Newly available data confirm that competition in the broadband access marketplace is limited. Wireless broadband access services are unlikely to act as effective economic substitutes for wireline broadband access services and instead are likely to act as a complement. Nor will competition in the Internet backbone marketplace constrain "last mile" broadband access providers. The last mile's concentrated market structure, combined with high switching costs, provides these providers with the ability to engage in practices that will reduce social welfare in the absence of open broadband rules. Allowing broadband providers to charge third party content providers will not necessarily result in lower prices being charged to residential Internet subscribers. The effect of open broadband rules on broadband provider revenues is likely to be small and can be either positive or negative. Price discrimination by broadband providers against third party applications and content providers will reduce societal welfare for numerous reasons. This reduction in societal welfare is especially acute when price discrimination is taken to the extreme of exclusive dealing imposed on content providers. Antitrust and consumer protection laws are insufficient to protect societal welfare in the absence of open broadband rules.
Volume (Year): 1 (2011)
Issue (Month): 84 (4th quarter)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: BP 4167, 34092 Montpellier cedex 5|
Phone: 33 (0)467 144 444
Fax: 33 (0)467 144 400
Web page: http://www.idate.org/en/Home/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Choi, Jay & Kim, Byung-Cheol, 2008.
"Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives,"
Working Paper Series
4010, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
- Nicholas Economides & Lawrence J. White, 1997.
"Access and Interconnection Pricing: How Efficient is the Efficient Component Pricing Rule?,"
- Nicholas Economides & Lawrence J. White, 1995. "Access and Interconnection Pricing: How Efficient is the Efficient Component Pricing Rule?," Working Papers 95-04, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
- Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1983. "Raising Rivals' Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(2), pages 267-71, May.
- 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.
- Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
- Krattenmaker, Thomas G & Salop, Steven C, 1986. "Competition and Cooperation in the Market for Exclusionary Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 109-13, May.
- Paul Klemperer, 1987. "The Competitiveness of Markets with Switching Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 138-150, Spring.
- Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, March.
- Hermalin, Benjamin E. & Katz, Michael L., 2007.
"The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate,"
Information Economics and Policy,
Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 215-248, June.
- Hermalin, Benjamin E & Katz, Michael L, 2006. "The Economics of Product-Line Restrictions With an Application to the Network Neutrality Debate," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt81r3b7xs, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:3:p:645-667 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2000. "Exclusive Contracts and Protection of Investments," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 603-633, Winter.
- Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1998.
"Incomplete Contracts and Strategic Ambiguity,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 902-32, September.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1997. "Incomplete Contracts and Strategic Ambiguity," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1787, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:idt:journl:cs8407. 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: (BLAVIER Thomas)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.