IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v72y2005i1p197-212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Allowing the Bells to Offer InterLATA Long‐Distance Service Affect Entry into Local Telephony?

Author

Listed:
  • Susan M. V. Flaherty
  • Paul R. Zimmerman

Abstract

Following the 1984 divestiture of AT&T, local telephone service was provided by several Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). The RBOCs served as monopoly providers of local telephone service in their respective territories but were prohibited from offering long‐distance service to their in‐region subscribers. Section 271 of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows an RBOC to offer in‐region long‐distance service if it demonstrates that the local telephone exchange market is open to competitive entry. This study empirically evaluates the efficacy of this policy by considering the impact of RBOC entry into long‐distance on the development of competitive entry into local telephony. The results suggest that section 271 has been successful in promoting entry into local telephony. However, aggregate price data suggest that this entry has not been realized with lower rates for residential telephone subscribers.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan M. V. Flaherty & Paul R. Zimmerman, 2005. "Does Allowing the Bells to Offer InterLATA Long‐Distance Service Affect Entry into Local Telephony?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 197-212, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:72:y:2005:i:1:p:197-212
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00696.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00696.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00696.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abel, Jaison R, 2002. "Entry into Regulated Monopoly Markets: The Development of a Competitive Fringe in the Local Telephone Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 289-316, October.
    2. Donald Alexander & Robert Feinberg, 2004. "Entry in Local Telecommunication Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 25(2), pages 107-127, June.
    3. Jaison Abel & Michael Clements, 2001. "Entry under Asymmetric Regulation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(2), pages 227-242, September.
    4. Uri, Noel D., 2001. "Monopoly power and the problem of CLEC access charges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(8-9), pages 611-623, September.
    5. Federico Mini, 2001. "The Role of Incentives for Opening Monopoly Markets: Comparing GTE and BOC Cooperation with Local Entrants," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, September.
    6. Zolnierek, James & Eisner, James & Burton, Ellen, 2001. "An Empirical Examination of Entry Patterns in Local Telephone Markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 143-159, March.
    7. Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, 2002. "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 9336, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Brown, Keith S. & Zimmerman, Paul R., 2004. "The effect of Section 271 on competitive entry into local telecommunications markets: an initial evaluation," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 215-233, June.
    2. Shane Greenstein & Michael Mazzeo, 2003. "Differentiation Strategy and Market Deregulation: Local Telecommunication Entry in the Late 1990s," NBER Working Papers 9761, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Abel, Jaison R, 2002. "Entry into Regulated Monopoly Markets: The Development of a Competitive Fringe in the Local Telephone Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 289-316, October.
    4. Eric Chiang & Janice Hauge & Mark Jamison, 2007. "Subsidies and distorted markets: Do telecom subsidies affect competition?," Working Papers 07002, Department of Economics, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University.
    5. Ying Fan & Mo Xiao, 2015. "Competition and subsidies in the deregulated US local telephone industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 751-776, October.
    6. Eric P. Chiang & Janice A. Hauge, 2007. "Funding Universal Service: The Effect of Telecommunications Subsidy Programs on Competition and Retail Prices," Working Papers 07-08, NET Institute, revised Aug 2007.
    7. Janice Hauge & Mark Jamison & R. Jewell, 2009. "A Consideration of Telecommunications Market Structure in the Presence of Municipal Provision: The Case of US Cities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(2), pages 135-152, March.
    8. Nicholas Economides & Katja Seim & V. Brian Viard, 2008. "Quantifying the benefits of entry into local phone service," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 699-730, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Steven D. Levitt, 2004. "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 163-190, Winter.
    11. Carlisle E. Moody & Thomas B. Marvell, 2008. "The Debate on Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapons Laws," Working Papers 71, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    12. Downes, Tom & Greenstein, Shane, 2007. "Understanding why universal service obligations may be unnecessary: The private development of local Internet access markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 2-26, July.
    13. Kovandzic, Tomislav & Schaffer, Mark E & Kleck, Gary, 2008. "Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach," IZA Discussion Papers 3589, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Trevor R. Roycroft, 2005. "Empirical Analysis of Entry in the Local Exchange Market: The Case of Pacific Bell," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(1), pages 107-115, January.
    15. Travaglini, Guido, 2010. "Supervised Principal Components and Factor Instrumental Variables. An Application to Violent CrimeTrends in the US, 1982-2005," MPRA Paper 22077, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Zimmerman, Paul R., 2014. "The deterrence of crime through private security efforts: Theory and evidence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 66-75.
    17. Sumit K. Majumdar & Rabih Moussawi & Ulku Yaylacicegi, 2014. "Do Incumbents’ Mergers Influence Entrepreneurial Entry? An Evaluation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(3), pages 601-633, May.
    18. Gregory L. Rosston & Scott J. Savage & Bradley S. Wimmer, 2018. "Price competition in the market for business telecommunications services," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 81-104, August.
    19. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2011. "Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 448-478, August.
    20. Dino Falaschetti, 2003. "Voter Turnout, Regulatory Commitment, and Capital Accumulation: Evidence from the US Telecommunications Sector," Microeconomics 0311002, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:wly:soecon:v:72:y:2005:i:1:p:197-212. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.