Access regulation with asymmetric termination costs

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The working papers published in the Series constitute work in progress circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comments. Views expressed represent exclusively the authors' own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor. Terms of use: Documents in Access Regulation with Asymmetric Termination CostsTorben Stühmeier * Universität Düsseldorf Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) July 11, 2011Abstract In many telecommunications markets incumbent providers enjoy a demand-side advantage over any entrant. However, market entrants may enjoy a supply-side advantage over the incumbent, since they are more efficient or operate on innovative technologies. Considering both a supply-side and a demand-side asymmetry, the present model analyzes the effect of two regulatory regimes: An access markup for a low cost network and reciprocal charges below the costs of a high cost network. Both regimes may have adverse effects on subscribers, market shares, and profits. It can be shown that an access markup is not generally beneficial and an access deficit not generally detrimental for the respective networks. However, if providers discriminate between on-net and off-net prices a markup on the entrant's termination cost is generally to its benefit and to the incumbent's detriment.

Global Sourcing of Complex Production Processes

“…Result 1 shows that firms from highly component-intensive industries choose full outsourcing of all suppliers, and the corresponding complexity level follows directly as ÑO by using ξ = 1 in (29). To derive the threshold level η1 , notice that the FOC (27) implies that…”

Team building and hidden costs of control

“…This is a more appropriate outcome variable than total agent effort when analyzing the behavioral impact of a negative sensation, because it is not a function of the principal's control decision. 29 The results in the table evidence that CE agents who did not expect control reciprocate being controlled with a higher reduction in voluntary effort than their NCE counterparts. The treatment difference in the voluntary effort decrease when the principal controls as compared to the baseline of no control is approximately 9 ECUs, being significant at the 10 percent level for…”

“…We will illuminate the meaning of disappointment for control aversion in more detail in the real-effort game, where sensations can be expected to be more salient. 29 Using total agent effort as the dependent variable leaves all results on treatment differences in the response to a negative sensation unaffected. 30 If we drop the one (eleven) NCE (CE) agent(s) whose effort provision is independent of the principal's control, the treatment differences in voluntary sharing become substantially stronger: Min 6 (-20.7 ECUs; p = 0.008) and Min 21 (-18.7 ECUs; p = 0.014).…”

Mobile Access Charges and Collusion under Asymmetry

“…Hoernig (2007) finds evidence that larger firms will tend to have a larger price differential between its on-and offnet prices, but does not explicitly model access charges. Stühmeier (2012) extend the analysis to asymmetric termination costs. Hoernig (2014) allows for asymmetric market shares with more than two firms and also looks at mobile-to-mobile call termination, however only in a symmetric setting.…”