Is the case for structural separation of the local loop persuasive?

Info

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 74-92

  Xavier, Patrick ^a   Ypsilanti, Dimitri ^b  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b OECD   (France)

Author keywords

Communication technologies; Local area networks; Telecommunications

Indexed keywords

TELECOMMUNICATION;

EID: 23444456453     PISSN: 14636697     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/14636690410542081     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Beard, T.R., Ford, G.S. and Spiwak, L.J. (2001), Why ADCo? Why Now? An Economic Exploration into the Future of Industry Structure for the "Last Mile" in Local Telecommunications Markets, Phoenix Center Policy Paper No. 12, The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, Washington, DC.
2. Cave, M. (2003), "Is LoopCo the answer?", Info, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 25-31.
3. Crandall, R.W. and Sidak, J.G. (2002), "Is structural separation of incumbent local exchange carriers necessary for competition?", Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 19 No. 2.
4. Eason, R. (2002), "What role for Telstra", Evatt Foundation, available at http://evatt.labor.net.au.
5. (The) Economist (2001), "The slow progress of fast wires", 15 February.
6. Eickers, G. (2001), "Local loop unbundling in Germany: The broadband perspective", mimeo.
7. Eisenach, J., May, R.J. and Eldering, C.A. (1999), "Regulatory overkill: Pennslvania's proposal to breakup Bell Atlantic", available at www.pff.org/publications/communications/121699regulatoryoverkill.html.
8. Gabel, D. (2002), "Why is there so little competition in the provision of local telecommunications services? An examination of alternative approaches to end-user access", Department of Economics, Queen's College, Flushing, NY, 21 August.
9. Japan Telecommunications Council (2002), Second Report on Desirable Pro-competitive Policies in the Telecommunications Business Field for Promoting the IT Revolution, Inquiry No. 29 of 2000, 13 May, Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications, Japan Telecommunications Council.
10. Morris, R.L. (2001), "A proposal to promote telephone competition: the LoopCo plan", available at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/RoyM11/LoopCo/Article.html.
11. OECD (2001), Structural Separation in Regulated Industries, Report by the Secretariat, DAFFE/CLP(2001)11, 11 April, OECD, Paris Cedex.
12. OECD (2002), Structural Separation of the Local Loop: Benefits and Costs, DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2002)1/FINAL, OECD, Paris.
13. Oftel (2001), "Open access: Delivering effective competition in communications markets", April, available at www.oftel.gov.uk.
14. Pociask, S.B. (2001a), "Structural separation of BellSouth Telecommunications and its effects on Florida consumers", TeleNomic Research, 31 July, available at: www.TeleNomic.com.
15. Pociask, S.B. (2001b), "Competition and consumer benefits: A quantitative assessment of the in-region Bell South long-distance market", TeleNomic Research, 29 May, available at www.TeleNomic.com.
16. Rohde, L. (2002), "Study warns local loop unbundling failing in Europe", Itworld.com, 2 November.
17. Sandbach, J. (2001), "Levering open the local loop: Shaping BT for competition", Info, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 195-202.
18. Switkowski, Z. (2002), "Telstra just too good", Herald Sun Newspaper, 23 May.
19. Thierer, A. and Crews, C.W. (2001), "Structural separation of the Bells: An idea whose time has passed", TechKnowledge, No. 17, 20 August, available at www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/tech/tk/010820-tk.html.