Funding Universal Service Obligations with an Essential Facility: Charges vs. Taxes and Subsidies
This paper compares three schemes for funding Universal Service Obligations in network industries with an essential facility: an uplift to the network access charge, the establishment of a Universal Service (US) fund financed through a lump-sum tax and a US fund financed through a unit tax. The comparison is made under a duopoly structure with a potential entrant and an incumbent, which owns the essential facility and is responsible for universal service. The incumbent is also constrained to offer the same price on all markets. Using a social welfare criteria, we show that the US fund financed with a lump sum tax dominates the other two schemes, while the US fund with unit tax is equivalent to the access charge uplift.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: CREDEN, Faculté d'Economie, Avenue Raymond Dugrand, CS 79606, 34960 MONTPELLIER Cedex 2, France|
Phone: 33 (0)4 67 15 83 60
Fax: 33 (0)4 67 15 84 04
Web page: http://www.creden.univ-montp1.fr
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mop:credwp:04.07.47. 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: (Olivier ROUSSE)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.