IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v17y1999i4p593-609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Access costs and entry in the local telecommunications network: a case for de-averaged rates

Author

Listed:
  • Maher, Maria E.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Maher, Maria E., 1999. "Access costs and entry in the local telecommunications network: a case for de-averaged rates," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 593-609, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:17:y:1999:i:4:p:593-609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(97)00049-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 1990. "Proper Quadratic Cost Functions with an Application to the Bell System," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(2), pages 202-210, May.
    2. Evans, David S & Heckman, James J, 1984. "A Test for Subadditivity of the Cost Function with an Application to the Bell System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(4), pages 615-623, September.
    3. A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper & T. Sueyoshi, 1988. "A Goal Programming/Constrained Regression Review of the Bell System Breakup," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26, January.
    4. David S. Evans & James J. Heckman, 1988. "Rejoinder---Natural Monopoly and the Bell System: Response to Charnes, Cooper and Sueyoshi," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 27-38, January.
    5. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vasiliki Skreta, 2005. "Interconnection Negotiations between Telecommunication Networks and Universal Service Objectives," UCLA Economics Online Papers 348, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Gregory L. Rosston & Scott J. Savage & Bradley S. Wimmer, 2006. "The Impact of "Deregulation" on Regulator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of the Telecommunications Act of 1996," Discussion Papers 05-006, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    3. Zhang, Yan & Xia, Guoping, 2010. "Short-run cost-based pricing model for a supply chain network," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 167-174, November.
    4. Patrice Geoffron, 2001. "Le choc de l’UMTS sur la « corporate governance » des firmes européennes," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 63(3), pages 231-249.
    5. Gregory L. Rosston & Scott J. Savage & Bradley S. Wimmer, 2008. "The Effect of Private Interests on Regulated Retail and Wholesale Prices," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(3), pages 479-501, August.
    6. Nick Wills‐Johnson, 2008. "Separability and Subadditivity in Australian Railways," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(264), pages 95-108, March.
    7. Victor Glass & Stela Stefanova, 2012. "Economies of scale for broadband in rural United States," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 100-119, February.
    8. Gasmi, F. & Laffont, J. J. & Sharkey, W. W., 2002. "The natural monopoly test reconsidered: an engineering process-based approach to empirical analysis in telecommunications," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 435-459, April.
    9. Uri, Noel D., 2002. "CLEC access charges and the problem of monopoly power," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 51-65, March.

    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. Das, Nibedita, 2000. "Technology, efficiency and sustainability of competition in the Indian telecommunications sector," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 133-154, June.
    2. Lucinda, Claudio Ribeiro & Anuatti, Francisco, 2017. "Economies of Scale and Scope in the Sanitation Sector," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 37(2), November.
    3. Harry Bloch & Gary Madden & Grant Coble‐Neal & Scott J. Savage, 2001. "The Cost Structure of Australian Telecommunications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 77(239), pages 338-350, December.
    4. Resende, Marcelo, 1999. "Productivity growth and regulation in U.S. local telephony," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 23-44, March.
    5. Wilson, Wesley W. & Zhou, Yimin, 2001. "Telecommunications deregulation and subadditive costs: Are local telephone monopolies unnatural?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 909-930, May.
    6. Gary Madden & Harry Bloch & Grant Coble-Neal, 2002. "Labour and capital saving technical change in telecommunications," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(14), pages 1821-1828.
    7. Krouse, Clement G & Cabolis, Christos & Danger, Kenneth L & Carter, Tanja D & Riddle, Jon M & Ryan, Daniel J, 1999. "The Bell System Divestiture/Deregulation and the Efficiency of the Operating Companies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 61-87, April.
    8. Harry Bloch & Gary Madden & Scott Savage, 2001. "Economies of Scale and Scope in Australian Telecommunications," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(2), pages 219-227, March.
    9. Hsihui Chang & Raj Mashruwala, 2006. "Was the bell system a natural monopoly? An application of data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 251-263, July.
    10. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsi-Hui & Majumdar, Sumit K., 1998. "Economies of scope in the U.S. telecommunications industry1," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 253-272, June.
    11. Brockett, Patrick L. & Cooper, W.W. & Golden, Linda L. & Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Kwinn Jr., Michael J. & Layton, Brian & Parker, Barnett R., 2008. "Estimating elasticities with frontier and other regressions in evaluating two advertising strategies for US Army recruiting," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Segendorff, Björn, 1995. "The Telecommunication Market: A Survey of Theory and Empirics," Working Paper Series 442, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    13. Nadiri, M. Ishaq & Nandi, Banani, 1997. "The changing structure of cost and demand for the U.S. telecommunications industry," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 319-347, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Nick Wills‐Johnson, 2008. "Separability and Subadditivity in Australian Railways," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(264), pages 95-108, March.
    16. Christodoulopoulos, Th., 1995. "Telecommunications in Greece: A study of production structure and natural monopoly issue," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2-3), pages 147-157, March.
    17. Bitzan, John D., 1997. "Railroad Cost Considerations and the Benefits/Costs of Mergers," MPC Reports 231799, North Dakota State University, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute.
    18. Kjell Salvanes & Sigve Tjøtta, 1998. "A Note on the Importance of Testing for Regularities for Estimated Flexible Functional Forms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 133-143, March.
    19. Tschirhart, John, 1995. "Monopsony power and the existence of natural monopoly in energy utilities," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 327-340, December.
    20. Dan Horsky & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Testing the Statistical Significance of Linear Programming Estimators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 128-135, January.

    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:eee:indorg:v:17:y:1999:i:4:p:593-609. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    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.