Competition and Market Strategies in the Swiss Fixed Telephony Market. An estimation of Swisscom’s dynamic residual demand curve
Fixed telephony has long been a fundamentally important market for European telecommunications operators. The liberalisation and the introduction of regulation in the end of the 1990s, however, allowed new entrants to compete with incumbents at the retail level. A rapid price decline and a decline in revenues followed. Increased retail competition consequently led a number of national regulators to deregulate this market. In 2013, however, many European countries (including Switzerland) continued to have partially binding retail price regulation. More than a decade after liberalisation and the introduction of wholesale and retail price regulation, sufficient data is available to empirically measure the success of regulation and assess its continued necessity. This paper develops a market model based on a generalised version of the traditional “dominant firm – competitive fringe” model allowing the incumbent also more competitive conduct than that of a dominant firm. A system of simultaneous equations is developed and direct estimation of the incumbent‟s residual demand function is performed by instrumenting the market price by incumbent-specific cost shifting variables as well as other variables. Unlike earlier papers that assess market power in this market, this paper also adjusts the market model to ensure a sufficient level of cointegration and avoid spurious regression results. This necessitates introducing intertemporal effects. While the incumbent's conduct cannot be directly estimated using this framework, the concrete estimates show that residual demand is inelastic (long run price elasticity of residual demand of -0.12). Such a level of elasticity is, however, only compatible with a profit maximising incumbent in the case of largely competitive conduct (conduct parameter below 0.12 and therefore close to zero). It is therefore found that the Swiss incumbent acted rather competitively in the fixed telephony retail market in the period under review (2004-2012) and that (partial) retail price caps in place can no longer be justified on the basis of a lack of competition.
|Date of creation:||10 Dec 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2001. "Competition in Telecommunications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262621509, June.
- Dean A. Worcester & Jr., 1957. "Why "Dominant Firms" Decline," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 338.
- Baker, Jonathan B & Baresnahan, Timothy F, 1985. "The Gains from Merger or Collusion in Product-differentiated Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 427-44, June.
- Inderst, Roman & Peitz, Martin, 2012.
"Network investment, access and competition,"
Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 407-418.
- Christos Genakos & Tommaso Valletti, 2007.
"Testing the "Waterbed" Effect in Mobile Telephony,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0827, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Genakos, Christos D. & Valletti, Tommaso, 2009. "Testing the "Waterbed" Effect in Mobile Telephony," CEPR Discussion Papers 7611, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Christos Genakos & Tommaso Valletti, 2008. "Testing the “Waterbed” Effect in Mobile Telephony," CEIS Research Paper 110, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 11 Jul 2008.
- Christos Genakos & Tommaso Valletti, 2007. "Testing the "waterbed" effect in mobile telephony," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19680, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Scheffman, David T & Spiller, Pablo T, 1987. "Geographic Market Definition under the U.S. Department of Justice Merger Guidelines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 123-47, April.
- Joshua S. Gans & Stephen P. King, 2005. "Competitive Neutrality in Access Pricing," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 38(2), pages 128-136, 06.
- Ward, Michael R. & Woroch, Glenn A., 2010. "The effect of prices on fixed and mobile telephone penetration: Using price subsidies as natural experiments," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 18-32, March.
- Calzada, Joan & Valletti, Tommaso, 2005.
"Network Competition and Entry Deterrence,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
5381, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. "Empirical studies of industries with market power," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 1011-1057 Elsevier.
- Katharina GASSNER, 1998. "An Estimation of UK Telephone Access Demand Using Pseudo-Panel Data," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 9817, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Vogelsang, Ingo, 2010. "The relationship between mobile and fixed-line communications: A survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 4-17, March.
- Wolfgang Briglauer & Anton Schwarz & Christine Zulehner, 2011. "Is fixed-mobile substitution strong enough to de-regulate fixed voice telephony? Evidence from the Austrian markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 50-67, February.
- Ingo Vogelsang, 2003. "Price Regulation of Access to Telecommunications Networks," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(3), pages 830-862, September.
- McCloughan, Patrick & Lyons, Sean, 0. "Accounting for ARPU: New evidence from international panel data," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(10-11), pages 521-532, November.
- Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
- Kahai, Simran K & Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W, 1996. "Is the "Dominant Firm" Dominant? An Empirical Analysis of AT&T's Market Power," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 499-517, October.
- Baker, Jonathan B. & Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1988. "Estimating the residual demand curve facing a single firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 283-300.
- Nardotto, Mattia & Valletti, Tommaso & Verboven, Frank, 2012.
"Unbundling the incumbent: Evidence from UK broadband,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
9194, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Mattia Nardotto & Tommaso Valletti & Frank Verboven, 2014. "Unbundling the incumbent: Evidence from UK broadband," CEIS Research Paper 331, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 03 Oct 2014.
- Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1982. "The oligopoly solution concept is identified," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 10(1-2), pages 87-92.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:54078. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.