IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Regulation of Access to the Telecommunications Network of New Zealand: A Review of the Literature

Listed author(s):
  • Vogelsang, Ingo

The rapid widespread technological change and concomitant deregulation of network industries has engendered a burgeoning demand for connection between technologically like as well as technologically unlike networks. The processes by which contracts are reached and the nature of these contracts is important for the performance of these industries.This is a review of the state of the economic literature about interconnection. While its focus is on telecommunications the principles it reviews are more or less relevant to other networks depending upon their particular characteristics. The review considers only the pricing element of an interconnection contract leaving other issues such as risk sharing transactions costs and technological agreement aside. It does not consider the direct or political economy costs of regulation. Even so it reveals that the pricing issues have not been solved.It is apparent from the review that interconnection pricing can only be appraised in the wider context of the regulation and competition of the market as a whole. For example the properties of the now-famous Baumol-Willig (ECPR) rule are different when there is a retail price cap than without it. It is critical for the special treatment of interconnection contracts that there are natural monopoly elements in the network. Where these are absent or bypass is economically viable interconnection contracts will generally not pose special competition concerns.The survey reviews the conceptual basis of proposed regulatory schema andmeasurement issues that arise in their use. In particular it considers various price-cap mechanisms. It does not systematically review the literature on industry and regulatory performance under the different regulatory regimes.Where there are natural monopoly elements the review suggests that for one-way access the two leading approaches to regulation appear to be price caps or access price caps combined with deregulated retail tariffs. These approaches would include a form of the Baumol-Willig rule. The review emphasises that two-way access is characterised by both potential exclusion and potential collusion. It suggests that a regulatory approach would seek to concentrate on keeping access charges low. Lighthanded regulation would then come in the form of deregulated retail tariffs. Taken together this suggests that in a system with both one-way and two-way access theremight be access price caps possibly with two baskets one for one-way access and one for two-way access charges. At the same time retail would be deregulated. In New Zealand the regulatory price cap has been on household access.The literature surveyed on private negotiations is quite thin. It suggests that where regulators can step in as backups if private negotiations fail it would allow regulators to concentrate on contentious issues while the "technical" issues would be resolved privately. In such circumstances regulatory determination can become the common mechanism by default.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/3931
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation in its series Working Paper Series with number 3931.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2000
Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:3931
Contact details of provider: Postal:
ISCR, PO Box 600, Victoria University Wellington 6140, New Zealand

Phone: +64 (4) 463 5562
Web page: http://www.iscr.co.nz/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
  2. Mandy, David M, 2000. "Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-172, March.
  3. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 1998. "Network Competition: I. Overview and Nondiscriminatory Pricing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 1-37, Spring.
  4. Haring, John & Rohlfs, Jeffrey H., 1997. "Efficient competition in local telecommunications without excessive regulation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 119-131, June.
  5. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1994. "Access pricing and competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1673-1710, December.
  6. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, January.
  7. Brennan, Timothy J., 1997. "Industry parallel interconnection agreements," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 133-149, June.
  8. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 1998. "The Access Pricing Problem with Deregulation: A Note," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 115-121, March.
  9. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, 1998. "Network Competition: II. Price Discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 38-56, Spring.
  10. Armstrong, Mark & Doyle, Chris & Vickers, John, 1996. "The Access Pricing Problem: A Synthesis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 131-150, June.
  11. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1996. "Creating Competition through Interconnection: Theory and Practice," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 227-256, November.
  12. Lehman, Dale E & Weisman, Dennis L, 1996. "Telephone Pools and Economic Incentives," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 123-146, September.
  13. Gasmi, F & Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Sharkey, W W, 1997. "Incentive Regulation and the Cost Structure of the Local Telephone Exchange Network," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 5-25, July.
  14. Beard, T Randolph & Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W, 2001. "Regulation, Vertical Integration and Sabotage," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 319-333, September.
  15. Ingo Vogelsang & Jorg Finsinger, 1979. "A Regulatory Adjustment Process for Optimal Pricing by Multiproduct Monopoly Firms," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 157-171, Spring.
  16. Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production II: Tax Rules," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(3), pages 261-278, June.
  17. Lewis, Tracy R. & Sappington, David E. M., 1999. "Access pricing with unregulated downstream competition," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 73-100, March.
  18. Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production: I--Production Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 8-27, March.
  19. Economides, Nicholas, 1998. "The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 271-284, May.
  20. King, Stephen P. & Maddock, Rodney, 1999. "Light-handed regulation of access in Australia: negotiation with arbitration," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, March.
  21. Armstrong, Mark, 1998. "Network Interconnection in Telecommunications," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 545-564, May.
  22. J. Gregory Sidak & William Baumol, 1994. "Toward Competition in Local Telephony," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52984, September.
  23. Weisman, Dennis L, 1995. "Regulation and the Vertically Integrated Firm: The Case of RBOC Entry into Interlata Long Distance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 249-266, November.
  24. Richard T. Shin & John S. Ying, 1992. "Unnatural Monopolies in Local Telephone," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(2), pages 171-183, Summer.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:3931. 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: (Library Technology Services)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.