IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qsh/wpaper/33648.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unbundling the Local Loop

Author

Listed:
  • M. Bourreau
  • P. Dogan

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Bourreau & P. Dogan, "undated". "Unbundling the Local Loop," Working Paper 33648, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    • Handle: RePEc:qsh:wpaper:33648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://scholar.harvard.edu/pdogan/node/33648
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Prieger, 2002. "Regulation, Innovation, and the Introduction of New Telecommunications Services," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 704-715, November.
    2. Michael H. Riordan, 1992. "Regulation and Preemptive Technology Adoption," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(3), pages 334-349, Autumn.
    3. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. M. Bourreau & P. Dogan, "undated". "Innovation and Regulation in the Telecommunications Industry," Working Paper 33652, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    5. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    6. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, Pinar, 2005. "Unbundling the local loop," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 173-199, January.
    7. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, Pinar, 2001. "Regulation and innovation in the telecommunications industry," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 167-184, April.
    8. Kim, Jeong-Yoo & Kim, Sang Taek & Kim, Dong-Ju, 2000. "Local loop unbundling and antitrust policy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 393-412, December.
    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. Bauer, Johannes M. & Shim, Woohyun, 2012. "Regulation and digital innovation: Theory and evidence," 23rd European Regional ITS Conference, Vienna 2012 60364, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Hoppe, Heidrun C., 2000. "Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 315-338, February.
    3. Marc Bourreau & Pinar Dogan, 2006. ""Build-or-Buy" Strategies in the Local Loop," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 72-76, May.
    4. Werner Hölzl & Jürgen Janger & Andreas Reinstaller & Isabel Stadler & Fabian Unterlass & Stephanie Daimer & Thomas Stehnken, 2010. "Barriers to Internationalisation and Growth of EU's Innovative Companies. PRO INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II Report," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41059.
    5. Maria Alipranti & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2022. "Upstream market structure and the timing of technology adoption," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1298-1310, July.
    6. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    7. Marino, Marianna & Parrotta, Pierpaolo & Valletta, Giacomo, 2019. "Electricity (de)regulation and innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 748-758.
    8. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    9. Clément Bonnet, 2016. "Revisiting the optimal patent policy tradeoff for environmental technologies," EconomiX Working Papers 2016-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    10. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    11. Kim, Suwon, 2018. "Snack-media platform market segmentation based on user heterogeneity: A Q-methodology approach," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190357, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    12. Olga Slivko & Bernd Theilen, 2014. "Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 253-282, July.
    13. Fontana, Roberto & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2023. "How far from the tree does the (good) apple fall? Spinout creation and the survival of high-tech firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 26-49.
    14. Bourreau, Marc & Cambini, Carlo & Doğan, Pınar, 2012. "Access pricing, competition, and incentives to migrate from “old” to “new” technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 713-723.
    15. Massaro, Maria & Pogorel, Gérard, 2015. "Next generation of radio spectrum management licensed shared access and the trade-off between static and dynamic efficiency," 2015 Regional ITS Conference, Los Angeles 2015 146322, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Garella, Paolo G., 2012. "Monopoly incentives for cost-reducing R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 21-24.
    17. Bruno D. Badia, 2019. "Patent Licensing and Technological Catch-Up in a Heterogeneous Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 287-300, September.
    18. Philipp Weinschenk, 2009. "Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, 2018. "Dark fiber price regulation in the absence of facilities-based competition," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 45(2), pages 243-278, June.
    20. Jerbashian, Vahagn, 2015. "The telecommunications industry and economic growth: How the market structure matters," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 515-523.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:qsh:wpaper:33648. 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: Richard Brandon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbrssus.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.