The Telecommunications Act at three years: An economic evaluation of its implementation by the Federal Communications Commission

Information Economics and Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 319-365

  Kahn, Alfred E ^a   Tardiff, Timothy J ^a   Weisman, Dennis L ^b  

^a NERA ECONOMIC CONSULTING   (United States)

^b KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Competition; Efficiency; Innovation; Regulation; Telecommunications

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; LEGISLATION; TELECOMMUNICATIONS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033452003     PISSN: 01676245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6245(99)00025-6     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Brandon, P.S., Schmalensee R.L., 1998. Direct testimony before the Missouri Commission on behalf of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Case No. TO-99-227, November.
2. Breyer S.G. Regulation and Its Reform. 1982;Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Cauley L. Genuine competition in local phone service is a long distance off. The Wall Street Journal. 117:(C):1997;A1.
4. Clark J.M. Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs. 1923;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
5. Crandall, R.W., 1999. The Telecom Act's phone-y deregulation, Wall Street Journal, January 27, op ed section.
6. Crandall R.W., Waverman L. Talk is Cheap. 1996;Brookings, Washington, DC.
7. Economides N.S. The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 16:1998;271-284.
8. Fazzari S., Hubbard R.G., Petersen B. Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers On Economic Activity. 1:1988;141-195.
9. Felix, M.T., 1996. Preparing the market for enhanced service implementation, Telephony 230 (13), March 25.
10. Fellner W. The influence of market structure on technological progress. American Economic Association, Readings in Industrial Organization and Public Policy. 1958;Richard D. Irwin, Homewood.
11. Froot K.A., Scharfstein D.S., Stein J.C. A framework for risk management. Harvard Business Review. November-December:1994;91-102.
12. Grieve, W., Levin S.L., 1997. Telecom competition in Canada and the U.S.: the tortoise and the hare, Selected Papers from the 25th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, VA, September 27-29.
13. Gruley B. Must AT&T give internet rivals access to TCI's network? The Wall Street Journal. 103:((10)):1999;A1.
14. Hall R. Long Distance: Public Benefits From Increased Competition. 1993;Applied Economics Partners, Menlo Park. October.
15. Haring, J.R., Rohlfs J.H., 1997. Economic perspectives on access charge reform, prepared for BellSouth Telecommunications, Strategic Policy Research, January 29.
16. Haring, J.R., 1985. The FCC, the OCC's, and the exploitation of affection, Federal Communications Commission, Office of Plans and Policy, Working Paper 17.
17. Harris R.G., Kraft C.J. Meddling through: Regulating local telephone competition in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 11:(4):1997;93-112.
18. Hausman, J.A., 1998. Testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of Pacific Bell, April 8.
19. Hausman, J.A., 1997. Valuation and the effect of regulation on new services in telecommunications, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, pp. 1-38.
20. Hausman J.A., Tardiff T.J. Efficient local exchange competition. Antitrust Bulletin. 40:(3):1995;529-556.
21. Hausman, J.A., Tardiff T.J., 1995b. Valuation and regulation of new services in telecommunications, OECD Workshop on the Economics of the Information Society, Toronto Canada, June.
22. Hinton P.J., Zona J.D., Schmalensee R.L., Taylor W.E. An analysis of the welfare effects of long distance market entry by an integrated access and long distance provider. Journal of Regulatory Economics. 13:1998;183-196.
23. Hubbard, R.G., Lehr, W.H., 1994. An analysis of competition in U.S. long-distance telephone service, testimony on behalf of Western Electric Company, Inc., and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. 82-0192 (HHG), December 5, Attachment 1.
24. Hundt R. Policymakers admit regrets and surprises on Telecom Act's 2-year birthday. Communications Daily, February. 11:1998;2-3.
25. Kahn, A.E., 1999 (forthcoming). Bribing customers to leave and calling it 'competition,' Electricity Journal.
26. Kahn, A.E., 1998. Letting go: Deregulating the process of deregulation, (East Lansing, Michigan State University).
27. Kahn A.E. The uneasy marriage of regulation and competition. Telematics. 1:1984;1-17.
28. Kahn, A.E., 1970; 1971. The economics of regulation. Vols. 1 and 2, (New York, Wiley; reprinted by MIT Press, 1988).
29. Kahn A.E. Cartels and trade associations. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6:1968;MacMillan, New York.
30. Kaserman D.L., Mayo J.W. An efficient avoided cost pricing rule for resale of local exchanges telephone services. Journal of Regulatory Economics. 11:1997;91-107.
31. Kolbe L.A., Tye W.B. The Dusqesne Opinion: How much 'hope' is there for investors in regulated firms? Yale Journal on Regulation. 8:(1):1991;113-157.
32. Krattenmaker T.G. The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Federal Communications Law Journal. 49:(1):1996;1-49.
33. Lewis B.W. Lyon L.S., Abramson V. Government and Economic Life: Development and Current Issues of American Public Policy. 1940;691 Brookings, Washington.
34. Litan, R.E., Noll, R.G., 1998. Unleashing telecommunications: The case for true competition, Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #39, November.
35. MacAvoy, P.W., Weisman, D.L., Williams M.A., 1999. Should local telephone companies be allowed to enter the long-distance market? A regulatory conundrum, Yale School of Management working Paper Series C, 56, February.
36. Maloney, M.T., McCormick, R.E., Saver, R.D., undated. Customer choice, consumer value: An analysis of retail competition in America's electric industry, Washington Citizens for a Sound Economy, Vol. 1, xxiii.
37. Mayo, J.W., 1999. Rebuttal testimony before the Missouri Public Service Commission, on behalf of AT&T, Case No. TO-99-227, January 25.
38. Mayo, J.W., 1997. Prefiled Direct Testimony on behalf of AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. and MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCIMETRO Access Transmission Services, Inc. before the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Docket 16226, Docket 16285, September 9.
39. McNulty P.J. Economic theory and the meaning of competition. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 82:(4):1968;639-656.
40. Ordover, J.A., Willig, R.W., 1998. Declaration attached to AT&T's and TCI's Joint Reply to Comments and Joint Opposition to Petitions to Deny or to Impose Conditions, FCC CS Docket 98-178, November 13.
41. Rohlfs, J.H, Jackson, C.L., Kelley, T.E., 1991. Estimate of the loss to the United States caused by the FCC's delay in licensing cellular telecommunications, NERA Report, November 4.
42. Sappington D.E.M, Weisman D.L. Designing Incentive Regulation For the Telecommunications Industry. 1996;American Enterprise Institute and MIT Presses, Washington, DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
43. Schmalensee, R., Taylor, W.E., 1997. Economic aspects of access reform: A reply, NERA USTA Reply Comments, CC Docket 96-262, February 14.
44. Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 1950;Harper Torchbooks, New York.
45. Schwartz, M., 1997. Affidavit prepared for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, May 14.
46. Sibley, D., 1998. Testimony on behalf of GTE-California in the pricing phase of the California Public Utilities Commission Open Access and Network Architecture Development Investigation and Rulemaking, April 8.
47. Sibley D.S., Weisman D.L. Raising rivals' costs: The entry of an upstream monopolist into downstream markets. Information Economics and Policy. 10:(4):1998;551-570.
48. Sidak J.G., Spulber D.F. The tragedy of the telecommons: Government pricing of unbundled network elements under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Columbia Law Review. 97:(4):1997;1081-1161.
49. Spiller P.T., Cordelli C.G. The frontier of telecommunications deregulation: Small countries leading the pack. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 11:1997;127-138.
50. Tardiff, T., 1998. Testimony on behalf of Pacific Bell in the pricing phase of the California Public Utilities Commission Open Access and Network Architecture Development Investigation and Rulemaking, April 8.
51. Taylor W.E., Zona J.D. An analysis of the state of competition in long-distance telephone markets. Journal of Regulatory Economics. May:1997;227-255.
52. Warren-Boulton, F., 1998. Direct Testimony before the Kansas Corporation Commission on behalf of AT&T and MCI, May 12.
53. Weisman, D.L., 1999 forthcoming . The (in)efficiency of the 'efficient-firm' cost standard, Antitrust Bulletin.
54. Weisman, D.L., 1997. Direct testimony on behalf of Southwestern Bell before the Texas Public Utilities Commission, Docket 16189, et al., September 15, 4, 9-10.
55. Weisman D.L. Asymmetrical regulation. Telecommunications Policy. 18:(7):1994;499-505.
56. Weisman D.L. A note on first-best marginal cost measures in public enterprise. Energy Economics. 13:(4):1991;250-253.
57. Affidavit of USTA Comments, 1996. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, May 16.
58. California Public Utilities Commission, 1989. In the matter of alternative regulatory frameworks for local exchange carriers, Decision 89-10-031, October 12, Findings of Fact 104 and 106.
59. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, 1997. Telecom Decision CRTC97-8, May 1.
60. Federal Communications Commission, 1999. In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorization from Tele-Communications Inc., Transferor to AT&T Corp., Transferee. CS Docket 98-178, February 18, FCC 99-24.
61. Federal Communications Commission, 1997a. In the matter of access charge reform, CC Docket 96-262, et al., First Report and Order, FCC 97-158, Adopted: May 7, Released: May 16.
62. Federal Communications Commission, 1997b. Federal-state joint board on universal service, CC Docket 96-45, Report and Order, May 8.
63. Federal Communications Commission, 1996a. First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In The Matter of Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, FCC, CC Docket 96-149, Adopted: December 23, 1996, Released: December 24.
64. Federal Communications Commission, 1996b. Report and Order, In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 96-490, CC Docket No. 96-150, Adopted: December 23.
65. Federal Communications Commission, 1996c. Implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, FCC 96-325, Adopted: August 1, Released: August 8. (Interconnection Order).
66. Federal Communications Commission, 1996d. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket 96-61. Adopted: March 21, 1996, Released: March 25.
67. Federal Communications Commission, 1995. Order, In the Matter of Motion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a Non-Dominant Carrier, FCC 95-427, Adopted: October 12, Released: October 23.
68. HAI Model Release 5.0a, 1998. Model description, HAI Consulting, Inc., Boulder, CO, February 2.
69. Hatfield Model Release 3.1, 1997. Model Description, Hatfield Associates, Inc., February 28, Appendix B, 52.
70. Monitoring Report (CC Docket No. 87-339), May 1997.
71. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1991. The NTIA infrastructure report: Telecommunications in the age of information, Pub. 91-26, October.
72. Supplement, The Economist, 1999. Innovation in industry, February 20, unpaginated.
73. Supreme Court of the United States, 1999. AT&T Corporation, et al. v. The Iowa Utilities Board, et al. U.S. Lexis 903, January 25.
74. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. (110 Stat.) 56, 56 (to be codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.).
75. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 1997. In the matter of the pricing proceedings for interconnection, unbundled elements, transport and termination, and resale, Docket UT-960369, et al., Workshop, February 14.