IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vuw/vuwcsr/4353.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Structural Separation and Technological Diffusion

Author

Listed:
  • Howell, Bronwyn

Abstract

Vertical separation of upstream network operations from downstream retail activities, as the most extreme form of access regulation,has long been considered a legitimate regulatory remedy against use of market powerin upstream infrastructure markets to engage inprice-and non-price discrimination to foreclose competition in downstream retail markets. However, the remedy is increasingly being mandated for new networks, sometimes before any investment has been made.This paper uses theories of General Purpose Technologies and regulatory economics to consider how vertical separation–compared to both access regulation and no regulation-poses challenges to the ability to maximise scale economies at the early stage of a network life-cycle. This suggests greater caution in its use at this stage compared to middle and mature phases of the life-cycle. The theories are examined via case studies of two markets where vertical separation has been mandated for Fibre-to-the-Home networks–Australia and New Zealand–and one where ithas not–the Netherlands. The case studies suggest that mandatory separation imposes additional constraints on the network owner’s ability to achieve scale economies arising from rapid uptake of a new network relative to access regulation when it fails to replicate amongst any retailers the vertically-integrated operator’s incentives to engage in aggressive early-stage marketing. Analysisal so suggests that contractual limitations may have greater effect onthe ability to achieve scale economies than structural impositions and ownership limitations

Suggested Citation

  • Howell, Bronwyn, 2014. "Structural Separation and Technological Diffusion," Working Paper Series 4353, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
  • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:4353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/4353
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Gonçalves, Ricardo & Nascimento, Álvaro, 2010. "The momentum for network separation: A guide for regulators," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 355-365, August.
    3. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, PInar & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A critical review of the "ladder of investment" approach," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 683-696, December.
    4. Given, Jock, 2010. "Take your partners: Public private interplay in Australian and New Zealand plans for next generation broadband," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 540-549, October.
    5. Wallsten, Scott, 2005. "Returning to Victorian Competition, Ownership, and Regulation: An Empirical Study of European Telecommunications at the Turn of the Twentieth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 693-722, September.
    6. Joshua Gans & Stephen King, 2003. "Access Holidays for Network Infrastructure Investment," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 163-178.
    7. P.W.J. De Bijl, 2005. "Structural Separation and Access in Telecommunications Markets," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 6(2), pages 95-115, June.
    8. Lestage, Romain & Flacher, David, 2014. "Infrastructure investment and optimal access regulation in the different stages of telecommunications market liberalization," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 569-579.
    9. Brito, Duarte & Pereira, Pedro & Vareda, João, 2011. "An assessment of the equality of access and no-regulation approaches to next generation networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 818-826.
    10. Jason WHALLEY & Peter CURWEN, 2008. "Is Functional Separation BT-Style the Answer?," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(71), pages 145-168, 3rd quart.
    11. Fabian KIRSCH & Christian von HIRSCHHAUSEN, 2008. "Regulation of NGN: Structural Separation, Access Regulation, or No Regulation at All?," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(69), pages 63-84, 1st quart.
    12. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2010. "UFBI 2.0: Revised separation boundaries may partially address pricing and uptake limitations in New Zealand fibre broadband model, but significant competition policy problems remain," Working Paper Series 4061, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    13. Duarte Brito & Pedro Pereira & João Vareda, 2011. "Can Vertical Separation Reduce Non-Price Discrimination and Increase Welfare?," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_06, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    14. Graeme Guthrie, 2006. "Regulating Infrastructure: The Impact on Risk and Investment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 925-972, December.
    15. Maya Bacache & Marc Bourreau & Germain Gaudin, 2014. "Dynamic Entry and Investment in New Infrastructures: Empirical Evidence from the Fixed Broadband Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 179-209, March.
    16. Howell, Bronwyn & Meade, Richard & O'Connor, Seini, 2010. "Structural separation versus vertical integration: Lessons for telecommunications from electricity reforms," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 392-403, August.
    17. Bert SADOWSKI & Bronwyn HOWELL & Alberto NUCCIARELLI, 2013. "Structural Separation and the Role of Public-Private Partnerships in New Zealand's UFB Initiative," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(91), pages 57-80, 3rd quart.
    18. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:24 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Timothy Bresnahan & Pai-Ling Yin, 2010. "Reallocating innovative resources around growth bottlenecks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 1589-1627, October.
    20. Dogan, Pinar & Bourreau, Marc & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A Critical Review of the “Ladder of Investment†Approach," Scholarly Articles 4777447, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    21. Cadman, Richard, 2010. "Means not ends: Deterring discrimination through equivalence and functional separation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 366-374, August.
    22. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2010. "UFBI 2.0: Revised separation boundaries may partially address pricing and uptake limitations in New Zealand fibre broadband model, but significant competition policy problems remain," Working Paper Series 4329, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    23. Mancuso, Paolo, 2012. "Regulation and efficiency in transition: The case of telecommunications in Italy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 762-770.
    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. Howell, Bronwyn, 2014. "Separation anxieties: Structural separation and technological diffusion in nascent fibre networks," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106840, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Howell, Bronwyn, 2012. "Competition and Regulation Policy in Antipodean Government-Funded UltraFast Fibre Broadband Markets," Working Paper Series 2787, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    3. Ben Dkhil, Inès, 2014. "Regulation and Investment in Telecom Network Infrastructure Facilities: The Recent Developments and Debates," MPRA Paper 72910, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Feb 2015.
    4. Fabian Queder, 2020. "Towards a vertically separated broadband infrastructure: The potential role of voluntary separation," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 21(2), pages 143-165, June.
    5. Howell, Bronwyn, 2012. "Competition and Regulation Policy in Antipodean Government-Funded UltraFast Fibre Broadband Markets," Working Paper Series 4133, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    6. Howell, Bronwyn, 2011. "Competition and Regulation Policy in Antipodean Government-Funded Ultrafast Broadband Network Markets," Working Paper Series 4099, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    7. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Gugler, Klaus & Haxhimusa, Adhurim, 2016. "Facility- and service-based competition and investment in fixed broadband networks: Lessons from a decade of access regulations in the European Union member states," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 729-742.
    8. Briglauer Wolfgang & Frübing Stefan & Vogelsang Ingo, 2014. "The Impact of Alternative Public Policies on the Deployment of New Communications Infrastructure – A Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 227-270, September.
    9. Cadman, Richard, 2019. "Legal separation of BT: A necessary incentive for investment?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 38-49.
    10. Marc Bourreau & Pınar Doğan & Romain Lestage, 2014. "Level of access and infrastructure investment in network industries," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 237-260, December.
    11. Brito, Duarte & Pereira, Pedro & Vareda, João, 2011. "An assessment of the equality of access and no-regulation approaches to next generation networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 818-826.
    12. Bertschek, Irene & Briglauer, Wolfgang & Hüschelrath, Kai & Krämer, Jan & Frübing, Stefan & Kesler, Reinhold & Saam, Marianne, 2016. "Metastudie zum Fachdialog Ordnungsrahmen für die Digitale Wirtschaft: Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi)," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 147040.
    13. Marc Bourreau & Joeffrey Drouard, 2014. "Progressive entry and the incentives to invest in alternative infrastructures," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 329-351, June.
    14. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Gugler, Klaus, 2013. "The deployment and penetration of high-speed fiber networks and services: Why are EU member states lagging behind?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 819-835.
    15. 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.
    16. Cave, Martin, 2014. "The ladder of investment in Europe, in retrospect and prospect," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 674-683.
    17. Maya Bacache & Marc Bourreau & Germain Gaudin, 2014. "Dynamic Entry and Investment in New Infrastructures: Empirical Evidence from the Fixed Broadband Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 179-209, March.
    18. Calzada, Joan & Martínez-Santos, Fernando, 2014. "Broadband prices in the European Union: Competition and commercial strategies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 24-38.
    19. Viktória KOCSIS & Paul de BIJL & Rob van der NOLL & Bert TIEBEN, 2015. "Reconsidering ex ante Regulation in the Dutch Electronic Communications Market," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(98), pages 61-83, 2nd quart.
    20. 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).

    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:vuw:vuwcsr:4353. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fcvuwnz.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.