Conceptual problems with the hypothetical monopolist test in ex-ante regulation of communications under the new regulatory framework

Journal of Competition Law and Economics

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 311-334

  Briglauer, Wolfgang ^a  

^a Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50349086380     PISSN: 17446414     EISSN: 17446422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joclec/nhm034     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baker, J.B., Bresnahan, T.E. 1985. The Gains from Merger or Collusion in Product-Differentiated Industries, Journal of Industrial Economics 33: 427-44.
2. Baker, J.B., Bresnahan, T.E. 1988. Estimating the residual demand curve facing a single firm, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 6: 283-300.
3. Baker, J.B. 2006. Market Definition: An Analytical Overview, working paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=854025 (visited 24 January 2007).
4. Bishop, S., Walker, M. 1991. Economics of E.C. Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
5. Briglauer, W. 2004. Generic Reference Model for the Analysis of Relevant Communications Markets: Fundamental Competition Issues, info, 6(2): 93-104.
6. Briglauer, W., Schwarz, A. 2005. Can the HM-Test be Brought to an End?, netnomics, 7: 1-16.
7. Briglauer, W. 2006. Market Analyses under the New European Communications Framework - Some Conceptual Issues, in P.J.J. Welfens, M. Weske (eds), Digital Economic Dynamics - Innovations, Networks and Regulations. Berlin: Springer; pp. 63-90.
8. Church, J.R.,Ware, R. 1999. Industrial Organization - A Strategic Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9. Dobbs, I.M. 2002. An Operational Rule for the Application of the Hypothetical Monopolist Test, University of Newcastle, working paper, europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/ publiconsult/comments/fixed/bt.pdf (visited 24 January 2007).
10. Dobbs, I.M. 2003. Demand, Cost Elasticities and Pricing Benchmarks in the Hypothetical Monopoly Test: The Consequences of a Simple SSNIP, Applied Economics Letters, 10: 545-8.
11. Dobbs, I.M. 2005. Defining Markets for ex-ante regulation using the hypothetical monopolist test, University of Newcastle, working paper, http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/i.m.dobbs/Files/ market%20definition%20general%20case.pdf (visited 24 January 2007).
12. ERG (European Regulators Group). 2003. ERG Common Position on the approach to appropriate remedies in the new regulatory framework, 30 rev. 1, http://www.erg.eu.int/documents/index_en.htmergdocuments (visited 24 January 2007).
13. European Commission. 2002a. Guidelines on Market Analysis and the Assessment of Significant Market Power, C 165/03, http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Publication.aspx?id=1493 (visited 24 January 2007).
14. European Commission. 2002b. Market Definition in the Media Sector - Economic Issues, Report by Europe Economics for the European Commission DG Competition, Brussels.
15. European Commission. 2003. Recommendation of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex-ante regulation, OJ 8.5.2003 L 114/45, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/topics/telecoms/ regulatory/maindocs/index_en.htm (visited 24 January 2007).
16. European Commission. 2006a. "External Studies," Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/info_centre/ documentation/studies_ext_consult/index_en.htm (visited 24 January 2007).
17. European Commission. 2006b. Commission Staff Working Document Public Consultation on a Draft Commission Recommendation, second edition, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/ itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=2824 (visited 24 January 2007).
18. Geroski, P., Griffith, R. 2004. Identifying Anti-Trust Markets, in M. Neumann and J. Weigand (eds), International Handbook of Competition Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19. Gual, J. 2002. Market Definition in the Telecoms Industry, 3988 CEPR discussion paper series, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/ others/telecom/market_definition.pdf (visited 24 January 2007).
20. Hausman, J.A., Leonard, G., Vellturo, C. 1996. Market Defintion under price discrimination, Antitrust Law Journal, 64: 367-86.
21. Henderson, J., Quandt, R. 1980. Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Inderst, R., Valletti, T.M. 2006. Market Analysis in the Presence of Indirect Constraints and Captive Sales, London, http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7309738.PDF (visited 24 January 2007).
23. Kaserman, D.L., Mayo, J.W. 2002. Competition in Long-distance Markets, in M.E. Cave, S.K. Majumdar and I. Vogelsang (eds), Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland.
24. Kuhlman, J.M., Thompson, R.G. 1965. Substitution and Values of Elasticities, American Economic Review, 55: 506-10.
25. Landes, W., Posner, R.A. 1981. Market Power in Antitrust Cases, Harvard Law Review, 94(5): 937-96.
26. Lexecon. 2003. An Introduction to Quantitative Techniques in Competition Analysis. London: Lexecon.
27. Massey, P. 2000. Market Definition and Market Power in Competition Analysis: Some Practical Issues, The Economic and Social Review, 31(4): 309-28.
28. nera (National Economic Research Associates). 1992. Market Definition in UK Competition Policy, Office of Fair Trading Research Paper, 1.
29. nera (National Economic Research Associates). 2001. The Role of Supply-side Substitution in the Definition of the Relevant Market in Merger Control, Madrid, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/library/ lib-competition/doc/supply-side_substitution.pdf (visited 24 January 2007).
30. OFT (Office of Fair Trading). 1999. Quantitative techniques in competition analysis, OFT Research Paper 17.
31. OFT (Office of Fair Trading). 2001. The Role of Market Definition in Monopoly and Dominance Inquires, Economic Discussion Paper, 2.
32. Pleatsikas, C., Teece, D. 2001. The Analysis of Market Definition and Market Power in the Context of Rapid Innovation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19: 665-93.
33. Richards, P. 2006. The Limitations of Market-based Regulation of the Electronic Communications Sector, Telecommunications Policy, 30: 201-22.
34. RTR. (Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications). 2004. Marktanalyseverfahren im neuen Rechtsrahmen, Schriftenreihe, Vol. 5, http://www.rtr.at (visited 24 January 2007).
35. Sleuwaegen, L., De Voldere, I. 1999. Competitive distortions and state aid to firms: How to define the relevant market?, European Commission, DGIII, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/library/lib-competition/ doc/market_definition.pdf (visited 24 January 2007).
36. Schwarz, A. 2007. Wholesale Market Definition in Telecommunications: The Issue of Wholesale Broadband Access, Telecommunications Policy, 31: 251-64.
37. Triffin, R. 1962. Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. 1982. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, revised 1992, 1997, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/horiz_book/toc.html (visited 24 January 2007).
39. Weisman, D.L. 2006. When can Regulation Defer to Competition for Constraining Market Power?: Complements and Critical Elasticities, JOCLEC, 2(1): 101-12.
40. Werden, G.J. 2002. Market Definition Algorithms Based on the Hypothetical Monopolist Paradigm, working paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=327282 (visited 24 January 2007).
41. WIK (Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste). 2003. Methodologies for market definition and market analysis, Bad Honnef, http://www.anacom.pt/streaming/WIK.pdf?categoryId=79055&contentId= 128770&field=ATTACHED_FILE (visited 24 January 2007).