Network Competition: Workhorse Resurrection
I generalize the workhorse model of network competition (Armstrong, 1998; Laffont, Rey and Tirole, 1998a,b) to include income effects in call demand. Income effects imply that call demand depends also on the subscription fee, not only on the call price. In the standard case of differentiated networks, weak income effects are enough to deliver results in line with stylized facts: The networks have an incentive to agree on high mobile termination rates to soften competition. They charge a higher price for calls outside (off-net) than inside (on-net) the network. This vindicates the use of (a perturbation of) the workhorse model of network competition.
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.:
- Gans, Joshua S. & King, Stephen P., 2001.
"Using 'bill and keep' interconnect arrangements to soften network competition,"
Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 413-420, June.
- Gans, J.S. & King, S.P., 2000. "Using 'Bill and Keep' Interconnect Arrangements to Soften Network Competiti on," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 739, The University of Melbourne.
- Lars-Hendrik Röller & Leonard Waverman, 1996.
"Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach,"
CIG Working Papers
FS IV 96-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Lars-Hendrik Roller & Leonard Waverman, 2001. "Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 909-923, September.
- Röller, Lars-Hendrik & Waverman, Leonard, 2000. "Telecommunications Infrastructure And Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 2399, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Berger, Ulrich, 2005. "Bill-and-keep vs. cost-based access pricing revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 107-112, January.
- Jong-Hee Hahn, 2000.
"Network Competition and Interconnection with Heterogeneous Subscribers,"
Keele Department of Economics Discussion Papers (1995-2001)
2000/11, Department of Economics, Keele University.
- Hahn, Jong-Hee, 2004. "Network competition and interconnection with heterogeneous subscribers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 611-631, May.
- Cambini, Carlo & Valletti, Tommaso, 2003.
"Investments and Network Competition,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3829, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Wouter Dessein, 2000.
"Network Competition in Nonlinear Pricing,"
CIG Working Papers
FS IV 00-22, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 2003. "Asymmetric Network Interconnection," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 22(1), pages 27-46, February.
- Gabrielsen, Tommy Staahl & Vagstad, Steinar, 2008. "Why is on-net traffic cheaper than off-net traffic Access markup as a collusive device," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 99-115, January.
- Doh-Shin Jeon & Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2004.
"On the Receiver-Pays Principle,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 85-110, Spring.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:1005. 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: (Nicholas Economides)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.