Shooting in the Dark -- Owen Comments Waikiki Conference
Only when we understand why open access is necessary can we design an implementation that is responsive to the particular form of market failure that gives rise to the need for regulatory intervention. Otherwise, we are “shooting in the dark.” There are at least two equal access issues: First, should competitors have equal access to each other’s facilities, and second, should competitors have equal access to each other’s entertainment and other content. The answers depend on whether such departures from normal competition policy would enhance consumer welfare. Normal competition policy is to rely on market forces to allocate resources in a way that enhances consumer welfare. Competition generally produces supplier incentives that are compatible with welfare maximization. Centralized allocation and regulation in principle can mirror these incentives, but requires information not usually available to those in charge of the intervention. Regulators are also subject, by design, to political influence.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 366 Galvez Street, Stanford, California 94305-6015|
Phone: (650) 725-1874
Fax: (650) 723-8611
Web page: http://siepr.stanford.edu
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:10-013. 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: (Anne Shor)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.