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.
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.:
- Tommaso M. Valletti & Carlo Cambini, 2005.
"Investments and Network Competition,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 446-468, Summer.
- Doh Shin Jeon & Jean Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2001.
"On the receiver pays principle,"
Economics Working Papers
561, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Dessein, Wouter, 2003.
" Network Competition in Nonlinear Pricing,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(4), pages 593-611, Winter.
- Röller, Lars-Hendrik & Waverman, Leonard, 2000.
"Telecommunications Infrastructure And Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2399, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 2003. "Asymmetric Network Interconnection," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 22(1), pages 27-46, February.
- Berger, Ulrich, 2005. "Bill-and-keep vs. cost-based access pricing revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 107-112, January.
- 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.
- Hahn, Jong-Hee, 2004.
"Network competition and interconnection with heterogeneous subscribers,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 611-631, May.
- 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.
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.