Structural Problems & Firms’ Observed Conduct: Economic Prescriptions for Future Growth or “Is it the Long Run Yet?” John W. Mayo Georgetown University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Economics: Principles in Action
Advertisements

Is the Road to Competition Paved with Net Neutrality? John W. Mayo Georgetown University (202) Phoenix Center 2006 Annual.
Wireline Competition Bureau 2004 Promoting Real Consumer Choice and Investment in Broadband Facilities.
The Old Rules Just Don’t Fit Anymore: A Panel Discussion on the Proposed Revision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 John Windhausen, Jr., Past President,
The AT&T Divestiture: Was it Necessary? Was It a Success? Robert W. Crandall The Brookings Institution U.S. Department of Justice March 28, 2007.
POLICYMAKERS RUN AMOK WHAT’S A CLEC TO DO? POLICY & PRACTICE FOR THE NEW MARKET REALITIES November 20, 2002 Jon Canis Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
HoustonKemp.com Vertical Restraints in Regulated Sectors CCS Competition Economics Roundtable Carol Osborne 21 January 2015.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Signed into law, February 8, 1996 “ An Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices.
STATE OF ISRAEL MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS Fixed-Mobile Convergence Regulatory Point of View Daniel Rosenne Director General, Ministry of Communications,
Richard T. Shin Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. John S. Ying University of Delaware and University of California, Irvine. Lecturer Chaowei Fan Illinois.
ECO 436 Industry Seminar Dr. David G. Loomis Illinois State University
Georgetown University. Natural Monopoly AC MC Potential Natural Monopolies: 1.Telecommunications 2.Water 3.Electicity Historically, regulated Quantity.
1 Access: From Interconnection to Convergence Yale M. Braunstein School of Information University of California Berkeley, CA (U.S.A.) March 2008.
Antitrust policy Ch17. Government roles to support a modern domestic economy 1- maintain efficiency (prevent excessive abuse of market power.) 2- promote.
1 End of Regulation? Jerry Hausman Professor of Economics MIT July 2005
The Telecom Act, State Action, and the Realization and Prospects for Competition George S. Ford, PhD Chief Economist Phoenix Center
The California energy crisis Introduction (Wolak March ‘01) –Wholesale: averaged $33 MWH in 1999, $116 MWH in 2000, $310MWH Jan –Natural gas $3-$4.
1 Telecom Regulation and Competition Law in Canada American Bar Association -Telecom Antitrust Fundamentals II – Globalization and Telecom June 27, 2007.
The Four Conditions for Perfect Competition
U.S. Telecoms Symposium November 20, 2002 Hyatt Regency Washington DC George S. Ford, PhD Adjunct Scholar.
Network Economics “We know how to route packets, what we don’t know how to do is route dollars.” -- David C. Clark IS250 Spring 2010
Testimony before the Florida House Committee on Utilities and Telecommunications Thomas M. Koutsky Co-Founder and Resident Scholar Phoenix Center March.
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Unit 3-4: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy 1.
Econ 100 Mar Increasing Market Competition: Deregulation & Incentive Regulation.
To what extent is there competition in the markets where state-owned industries were privatised? To see more of our products visit our website at
ITS 302 Purposes of the course –Review the history of US telecommunications as a case study –Examine the basics of regulation, especially as they apply.
Communication & Information Technology Telecommunications Policy.
Market Power 101 Phil Weiser Aspen, Colorado Sunday, April 29, 2007.
Enforcing Competition on the Internet Howard Shelanski Georgetown University February 13, 2012.
Some questions to consider Do we need regulation? Does history matter? Why is one-stop shopping important? Why didn’t the U.S. Telecom Act of 1996 work?
Can Technology Save Competition in Telecommunications? John W. Mayo Georgetown University (202) Phoenix Center December.
Regulation and Deregulation The Government’s Role in Competition.
Georgetown University. Congruity and Incongruity in the Evolving Telecommunications Industry John W. Mayo Georgetown University (202)
Communication & Information Technology Telecommunications Policy.
Proposed Tactical Framework Telecomm Regulation Onno W. Purbo
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.13-1 Natural Monopolies And Regulation.
Telecommunications competition - a new entrant’s perspective on the UK experience Rickard Granberg 2 December 2008.
1 Telecom Competition and the 1996 Act: Reflecting Back and Looking Forward Marius Schwartz Professor of Economics Georgetown University Washington DC.
ECON 100 Mar 10, 2008 Mergers, Natural Monopolies and Deregulation.
Market Structures Regulation and Deregulation. How firms increase Market Power  Controlling prices - leading firms can form a cartel, merge, or practice:
Common Costs and Cross-Subsidies: Why Do Common Costs Appear So Large in Regulated Industries? Mark L. Burton David L. Kaserman John W. Mayo University.
Applying the 1996 Act TC 310 May 21, Current Event FCC investigating cell phone contract termination  Cancel early  Reduce over time  Take state.
1 TINF 2010 Tuesday 30 November 2010 Present and Future Regulation of Electronic Communications Vesa Terävä European Commission Information Society & Media.
The Regulation of Network Industries Simon Wilkie. Caltech Lecture for May 7, 2004.
Monopolistic Competition The best (worst) of both worlds?
1/6/2008Lesson 11 Telephony is not a pure science like chemistry or physics. It is not even computer science. Telephony has evolved from the first successful.
Industry Overview AT&T and the Bell System Post Divestiture Factors in the Emergence of Competition to the Bells The Vision of the Telecommunications Act.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Prof. Karl Manheim Spring, : Interconnection Copyright © 2007.
State of Kansas Senate Bill 350 Telecom Reform Bill Overview David Kerr AT&T Kansas.
Interconnection and Access Presentation by Dale N. Hatfield Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission June 6, 2000.
Structural Separation and Universal Service Conference on “The Enduring Lessons of the Breakup of AT&T: A Twenty-Five Year Retrospective” University of.
Mec1224 EETT: From Telecommunications to Electronic Communications Athens, 28 March 2005 “Investment and competition in electronic communications services.
Local loop Unbundling Dr. ZOUAKIA Rochdi ANRT. Presentation outline Definition of Unbundling local loop (LLU) Importance of LLU Types of LLU : Description.
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy 1.
ITS 602 Purposes of the course
Classical vs. Keynesian
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Daniel F. Spulber Northwestern University
Chapter 5 Microeconomic Reform
PHOENIX CENTER 2002 U.S. TELECOMS SYMPOSIUM
Unit 10 Antitrust and Information Policy
[ 4.3 ] Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Unit 3: Aggregate Demand and Supply and Fiscal Policy
Wireline Post 1996 TC 310 May 20, 2008.
Telecom History.
Presentation transcript:

Structural Problems & Firms’ Observed Conduct: Economic Prescriptions for Future Growth or “Is it the Long Run Yet?” John W. Mayo Georgetown University Phoenix Center 2002 Annual Telecoms Symposium November 20 th, 2002

A Long-Run Perspective “In the Long Run, we’re all dead.” “In the Long Run, we’re all dead.” –John Maynard Keynes –A Tract on Monetary Reform “Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in the tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.” “Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in the tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.”

The Vision of Post-Act Competition Pre-divestiture BOC Long lines Post-Divestiture BOC MCI AT&T MCIIXC Post-Act BOC LD BOC CLEC LD

Long-Distance Telecommunications Pre-divestiture Pre-divestiture –Little or no consumer choice –AT&T share – 90% –One nationwide network –Dialing disparity –No demonstrated ability of competitors to expand –Willingness to switch –Coast-to-coast call -- $.55/minute 2002 –Hundreds of LD firms (choice typically >25) –AT&T Share – 40% –Dialing parity –Scores of Facilities- based competitors –Demonstrated willingness to switch – Coast-to-coast call  $.07/minute.

The Benefits of Long Distance Telecommunications Competition The policies put in place in the telecommunications industry over the past two decades have dramatically increased competition in the long-distance industry and have created billions of dollars of consumer surplus. The policies put in place in the telecommunications industry over the past two decades have dramatically increased competition in the long-distance industry and have created billions of dollars of consumer surplus.

The Vision of Post-Act Competition Pre-divestiture BOC Long lines Post-Divestiture BOC MCI AT&T MCIIXC Post-Act BOC LD BOC CLEC LD

Guiding Economic Principles 1] Entry by a monopolist into an effectively competitive market can lessen competition ; [ 1] Entry by a monopolist into an effectively competitive market can lessen competition ; [2 ] Entry by a competitor into a monopolized market unequivocally enhances competition ; and [2 ] Entry by a competitor into a monopolized market unequivocally enhances competition ; and [3] Entry by a competitor with no monopoly power into an effectively competitive market cannot harm competition. [3] Entry by a competitor with no monopoly power into an effectively competitive market cannot harm competition.

Opening Local Exchange Markets Unrestricted Resale Unrestricted Resale Facilities-based entry Facilities-based entry Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) –Rates “shall be based on cost” –“Nondiscriminatory” –“May include a reasonable profit”

Subsequent Developments in Local Exchange Markets Initially, a great deal of interest/entry Initially, a great deal of interest/entry Difficult battles over resale and UNE rates Difficult battles over resale and UNE rates Entry met with ongoing “operational difficulties” Entry met with ongoing “operational difficulties” Substantial operational and pricing issues remain Substantial operational and pricing issues remain

Bankrupt and Discontinued Telephony Entrants

Sabotaging Competition Virginia – Cavalier Telephone’s “premature disconnects” Virginia – Cavalier Telephone’s “premature disconnects” Pennsylvania – intra-company billing Pennsylvania – intra-company billing Bell South found to have “Provided preferential and discriminatory service to itself and to the detriment of other customers.” Bell South found to have “Provided preferential and discriminatory service to itself and to the detriment of other customers.” SBC fined for failure to provide non- discriminatory access (72 fines- 9/96-4/02) SBC fined for failure to provide non- discriminatory access (72 fines- 9/96-4/02) Bell South proposes Tariff to discount price of access based on access customer’s percentage growth rate Bell South proposes Tariff to discount price of access based on access customer’s percentage growth rate

The Current Status of Local Exchange Competition Reduced number of RBOCs Reduced number of RBOCs Some inroads, principally for high-end business customers Some inroads, principally for high-end business customers ILECs still retain roughly 90% share of access lines nationally ILECs still retain roughly 90% share of access lines nationally Many new entrants are “dead or dying” Many new entrants are “dead or dying”

The Historical Role of Regulators Underlying Premise – Natural Monopoly Underlying Premise – Natural Monopoly Regulators’ Role: Protect Consumers by Disabling Monopoly Power Regulators’ Role: Protect Consumers by Disabling Monopoly Power

The many meanings of “Deregulation” Deregulate price but not entry Deregulate price but not entry –Cable TV (1984) Deregulate entry but not price Deregulate entry but not price –Long Distance Telephone ( ) Deregulate wholesale but not retail Deregulate wholesale but not retail –California Electricity (2001)

Lessons from “Deregulation” Monopolies will not willingly cede their monopoly positions Monopolies will not willingly cede their monopoly positions “Network” industries poise the biggest challenges for deregulation (trucking v. local telecommunications) “Network” industries poise the biggest challenges for deregulation (trucking v. local telecommunications) Policies that implicitly deny access at one vertical stage in network industries will deny, delay and denigrate competition at all stages Policies that implicitly deny access at one vertical stage in network industries will deny, delay and denigrate competition at all stages The path to deregulation is hard and if not done right will backlash (California?) The path to deregulation is hard and if not done right will backlash (California?)

Lessons for Regulatory Policy Old Model of Regulation: Disabling monopoly power by protecting consumers from monopoly power and monopoly from entrants Old Model of Regulation: Disabling monopoly power by protecting consumers from monopoly power and monopoly from entrants New Model of (DE)Regulation: Enabling competition by opening markets New Model of (DE)Regulation: Enabling competition by opening markets

Competition-Enabling Policies Policies to Promote Competition Policies to Promote Competition –Eliminate regulatory barriers to entry »Assure access »Efficient Prices –Identify areas of continued monopoly Policies to Protect Competition Policies to Protect Competition –Unbundling –Imputation –Unrestricted resale –Be alert to “sabotage”

A Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More: Well, take me home. Sir Thomas More: Well, take me home. Boatman: From Richmond to Chelsea, a penny halfpenny…from Chelsea to Richmond, a penny halfpenny. From Richmond to Chelsea, it’s a quiet float downstream. From Chelsea to Richmond, it’s a hard pull upstream. And it’s a penny halfpenny either way. Whoever makes the regulations doesn’t row a boat. Boatman: From Richmond to Chelsea, a penny halfpenny…from Chelsea to Richmond, a penny halfpenny. From Richmond to Chelsea, it’s a quiet float downstream. From Chelsea to Richmond, it’s a hard pull upstream. And it’s a penny halfpenny either way. Whoever makes the regulations doesn’t row a boat.

Lessons Learned Where do we go from Here? Will only get one bite of the competitive “apple” Will only get one bite of the competitive “apple” The path to facilities-based competition is through UNEs and resale The path to facilities-based competition is through UNEs and resale No time to be timid (“Tough Love”) No time to be timid (“Tough Love”) Competition must precede deregulation Competition must precede deregulation

The Impact of “Experts” Now that I’m here, we’ll turn the program around 360 degrees. Now that I’m here, we’ll turn the program around 360 degrees. »Jason Kidd »Dallas Mavericks’ No. 1 draft pick talking