IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v39y2015i6p444-449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confusion, denial and anger: The response of the telecommunications industry to the challenge of the Internet

Author

Listed:
  • Feasey, Richard

Abstract

The author discusses the impact of the Internet on the telecommunications industry drawing upon own professional experience of the past 20 years. Applies the Kubler-Ross model of grieving to argue that telecoms operators have moved from denying the disruptive power of the Internet, to anger and then to adaptation of their own business models and acceptance of the Internet. Highlights fundamental differences in approach to competition, interoperability and innovation. Discusses failure of ‘walled gardens’, attempts to block VOIP and proposals for ‘data termination rates’. Argues that telecommunications operators must consider Internet services as complements not substitutes and adapt business models accordingly. Concludes that European telecommunications operators have been slower to understand this than those in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Feasey, Richard, 2015. "Confusion, denial and anger: The response of the telecommunications industry to the challenge of the Internet," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 444-449.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:39:y:2015:i:6:p:444-449
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.08.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596114001268
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.08.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. William D. Nordhaus, 2004. "Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement," NBER Working Papers 10433, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Peitz, Martin & Valletti, Tommaso, 2015. "Reassessing competition concerns in electronic communications markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 896-912.
    2. Wellmann, Nicolas, 2017. "OTT-Messaging and Mobile Telecommunication: A Joint Market? An Empirical Approach," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169503, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    3. Wellmann, Nicolas, 2019. "Are OTT messaging and mobile telecommunication an interrelated market? An empirical analysis," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9).
    4. Matinmikko, Marja & Latva-aho, Matti & Ahokangas, Petri & Seppänen, Veikko, 2018. "On regulations for 5G: Micro licensing for locally operated networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 622-635.
    5. Wellmann, Nicolas, 2017. "OTT-messaging and mobile telecommunication: A joint market? - An empirical approach," DICE Discussion Papers 256, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    6. UNVER, Mehmet Bilal & VANBERG, Ayşem Diker, 2016. "How interoperable and standardised should IoT market be: A policy discussion from an EU-centric point of view," 27th European Regional ITS Conference, Cambridge (UK) 2016 148710, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    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. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    2. Felix Bracht & Dennis Verhoeven, 2021. "Air pollution and innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1817, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Brynjolfsson, Erik & Collis, Avinash & Diewert, W. Erwin & Eggers, Felix & Fox, Kevin J., 2019. "GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods in the Digital Economy," OSF Preprints sptfu, Center for Open Science.
    4. Milo Bianchi & Magnus Henrekson, 2005. "Is Neoclassical Economics still Entrepreneurless?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 353-377, July.
    5. Magnus Henrekson, 2014. "Entrepreneurship, innovation, and human flourishing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 511-528, October.
    6. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    7. Crafts, Nicholas, 2010. "The contribution of new technology to economic growth: lessons from economic history," Revista de Historia Económica / Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 409-440, December.
    8. Michael J. Rizzo, 2005. "The public interest in higher education," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 19-45.
    9. Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2009. "Innovation and the welfare effects of public drug insurance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 541-548, April.
    10. Philipson Tomas J & Jena Anupam B, 2006. "Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-33, January.
    11. William Baumol, 2010. "Some Significant Slips in Schumpeter’s Scenario," Chapters, in: Jean-Luc Gaffard & Evens Salies (ed.), Innovation, Economic Growth and the Firm, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Giuliana Battisti & Paul Stoneman, 2019. "Defining and Measuring the Innovativeness of Firms," Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) Discussion Papers ESCoE DP-2019-19, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE).
    13. Baumol William, 2011. "Innovation: Meager Private Gains, Enormous Social Gains," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, October.
    14. Casey B. Mulligan, 2021. "Peltzman Revisited: Quantifying 21st Century Opportunity Costs of FDA Regulation," NBER Working Papers 29574, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Scott Duke Kominers & Alex Tabarrok, 2022. "Vaccines and the Covid-19 pandemic: lessons from failure and success," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 38(4), pages 719-741.
    16. McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2012. "A liberal and rhetorical reply," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 749-752.
    17. Tianjiao Xia & Xiaohui Liu, 2017. "Foreign competition, domestic competition and innovation in Chinese private high-tech new ventures," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(6), pages 716-739, August.
    18. Henry Manne, 2014. "Resurrecting the ghostly entrepreneur," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 249-258, September.
    19. Matthew Sinclair, 2016. "Fair and Efficient Regulation of the Sharing Economy," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 204-211, June.
    20. Tino Sanandaji & Peter T. Leeson, 2013. "Billionaires," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 313-337, February.

    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:telpol:v:39:y:2015:i:6:p:444-449. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.