IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v29y2010i4p701-720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complementarities and the Demand for Home Broadband Internet Services

Author

Listed:
  • Hongju Liu

    (School of Business, University of Connecticut, Connecticut 06269)

  • Pradeep K. Chintagunta

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Ting Zhu

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

Abstract

Before the deregulation of digital subscriber line (DSL) services by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2005, phone companies were required to share their DSL bandwidth with independent DSL providers. Despite the large number of independent providers that entered the market, phone companies accounted for 95.3% of all DSL subscribers in 2005. A common explanation for this is based on supply-side factors such as the costs faced by these providers to lease phone lines from phone companies, as well as the price discounts offered by phone companies. In this paper, we look for a demand-side explanation for this market outcome. Analyzing consumer choices in the broadband category alone would lead us to the conclusion that consumers have a much higher preference for their local phone providers--a finding at odds with service awards received by independent DSL providers. Thus we look for a demand-side explanation that is based on the demand not just for broadband services but also for related services such as cable TV and local phone. We find evidence of strong complementarities between the consumption of broadband and of those related categories. The main source of such complementarities, in our data, is the benefits to consumers from having a single provider for multiple services. We then carry out counterfactual experiments assuming that there are no changes in the regular prices of the various services. Our results indicate that the share of phone companies in the broadband market would have been 43% smaller without complementarities stemming from such a single-provider effect, whereas shutting off the state dependence effects would have reduced their share by 30%, and shutting off the effects of price discounts on the DSL+local phone bundle would have resulted in their share declining by 21%.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongju Liu & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Ting Zhu, 2010. "Complementarities and the Demand for Home Broadband Internet Services," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 701-720, 07-08.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:4:p:701-720
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0551
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1090.0551?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. Amil Petrin, 2002. "Quantifying the Benefits of New Products: The Case of the Minivan," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 705-729, August.
    3. Erdem, Tulin & Sun, Baohong, 2001. "Testing for Choice Dynamics in Panel Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(2), pages 142-152, April.
    4. Alan L. Montgomery & Eric T. Bradlow, 1999. "Why Analyst Overconfidence About the Functional Form of Demand Models Can Lead to Overpricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 569-583.
    5. Jeremy T. Fox & Amit Gandhi, 2009. "Identifying Heterogeneity in Economic Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 15147, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. P. Seetharaman & Siddhartha Chib & Andrew Ainslie & Peter Boatwright & Tat Chan & Sachin Gupta & Nitin Mehta & Vithala Rao & Andrei Strijnev, 2005. "Models of Multi-Category Choice Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 239-254, December.
    7. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    8. Amit Gandhi & Jeremy T. Fox, 2009. "Identifying Heterogeneity in Economic Choice and Selection Models Using Mixtures," 2009 Meeting Papers 165, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    9. Inseong Song & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2006. "Measuring Cross-Category Price Effects with Aggregate Store Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(10), pages 1594-1609, October.
    10. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
    11. Oz Shy, 1996. "Industrial Organization: Theory and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691795, December.
    12. Park, Rolla Edward & Wetzel, Bruce M & Mitchell, Bridger M, 1983. "Price Elasticities for Local Telephone Calls," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1699-1730, November.
    13. Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
    14. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    15. Austan Goolsbee & Amil Petrin, 2004. "The Consumer Gains from Direct Broadcast Satellites and the Competition with Cable TV," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 351-381, March.
    16. S. Sriram & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Manoj K. Agarwal, 2010. "Investigating Consumer Purchase Behavior in Related Technology Product Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 291-314, 03-04.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Matthew Gentzkow, 2006. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarities: Online Newspapers," NBER Working Papers 12562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jean-Pierre H. Dubé, 2018. "Microeconometric Models of Consumer Demand," NBER Working Papers 25215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    4. Yukihiro Kidokoro, 2015. "Discrete choice models for multicategory goods," GRIPS Discussion Papers 15-08, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    5. Philip G. Gayle & Ying Lin, 2022. "Market effects of new product introduction: Evidence from the brew‐at‐home coffee market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 525-557, August.
    6. Hongju Liu & Qiang Liu & Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 2017. "Promotion Spillovers: Drug Detailing in Combination Therapy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 382-401, May.
    7. Matthew Gentzkow, 2007. "Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 713-744, June.
    8. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Vishal Singh, 2003. "Balancing Profitability and Customer Welfare in a Supermarket Chain," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-147, March.
    9. Nicholas Economides & Katja Seim & V. Brian Viard, 2008. "Quantifying the benefits of entry into local phone service," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 699-730, September.
    10. W. Ross Morrow & Steven J. Skerlos, 2011. "Fixed-Point Approaches to Computing Bertrand-Nash Equilibrium Prices Under Mixed-Logit Demand," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 328-345, April.
    11. Pradeep Chintagunta & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Khim Yong Goh, 2005. "Beyond the Endogeneity Bias: The Effect of Unmeasured Brand Characteristics on Household-Level Brand Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 832-849, May.
    12. Genakos, Christos D., 2004. "Differential merger effects: the case of the personal computer industry," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6726, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    14. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim & Martin O'Connell, 2018. "Income effects and the welfare consequences of tax in differentiated product oligopoly," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), pages 305-341, March.
    15. Maxim Sinitsyn, 2012. "Coordination of Price Promotions in Complementary Categories," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2076-2094, November.
    16. Wang, Ao, 2023. "Sieve BLP: A semi-nonparametric model of demand for differentiated products," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 325-351.
    17. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2014. "Identification in Differentiated Products Markets Using Market Level Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1749-1797, September.
    18. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Ullrich, Hannes, 2010. "Consumer welfare and unobserved heterogeneity in discrete choice models: The value of alpine road tunnels," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Hawthorne, Ryan & Grzybowski, Lukasz, 2021. "Distribution of the benefits of regulation vs. competition: The case of mobile telephony in South Africa," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    20. Tatsuya Abe, 2022. "Welfare Effects of Fuel Tax and Feebate Policies in the Japanese New Car Market," ISER Discussion Paper 1183, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:4:p:701-720. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.