Cable television rate deregulation

International Journal of the Economics of Business

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 145-164

  Hazlett, Thomas W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cable television; Jel classifications: 619, 635; Product quality; Rate regulation; Telecommunications policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011869860     PISSN: 13571516     EISSN: 14661829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/758528450     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ken, Auletta. 1991. Three Blind Mice, New York: Random House.
2. Alan, Beats. 1984. The Cable TV Issue: Where We Are, What We Must Do. Nation's Cities Weekly, 30 January: 1–7.
3. Beil, Richard O., Jr., Dazzio, P. Thomas, Jr., Ekelund, Robert B., Jr. and Jackson, John D., 1993. Competition and the Price of Municipal Cable Television Services: An Empirical Study. Journal of Regulatory Economics,: 401–415.
4. Philip, Beutel. 1990. City Objectives in Monopoly Franchising: The Case of Cable Television. Applied Economics, 22: 1237–1247.
5. Boudreaux, Donald J., and Ekelund, Robert B., 1993. The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: The Triumph of Private Over Public Interest. Alabama Law Review, 44: 355–391.
6. Mary Lu, Carnevale. 1989. Soaring Cable–TV Prices Could Usher in Reregulation. Wall Street Journal, 3 August: Bl
7. Carroll, Kathleen A., and Lamdin, Douglas J., 1993. Measuring Market Response to Regulation of the Cable TV Industry. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 5: 385–399.
8. Edwards, Peter D.,“Cable Television Franchising: A Case Study of Minneapolis, Minnesota,” Monograph, Communications Media Center, New York Law School, 1985
9. Willis, Emmons, and Robin, Prager. 1993. The Effects of Market Structure and Ownership on Prices and Service Offerings in the U.S. Cable Television Industry. paper presented at the Western Economics Association annual meetings. June221993.
10. Paul, Farhi. 1992. Reregulating Cable: A Political Response to a Wired Nation. Washington Post, 22 January: Al
11. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,” CS Docket No. 94–48, Adopted: 19 September, 1994; Released: 28 September, 1994b
12. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,” CS Docket No 1989. GAO/RCED. Telecommunications: National Survey of Cable Television Rates and Services, 3 August: 89–193.
13. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,” CS Docket No 1989 1990. GAO/RCED. Telecommunications: Follow–up National Survey of Cable Television Rates and Services, 13 June: 90–199.
14. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,” CS Docket No 1989 1990 1991. GAO/RCED. Telecommunications: 1991 Survey of Cable Television Rates and Services, 17 July: 91–195.
15. Hazlett, Thomas W., 1986. Private Monopoly and the Public Interest: An Economic Analysis of the Cable Television Franchise. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134: 1335–1409.
16. Hazlett, Thomas W., 1991. The Demand to Regulate Franchise Monopoly: Evidence from CATV Rate Deregulation in California. Economic Inquiry, XXIX: 275–296.
17. Alfred, Kahn. 1988. The Economics of Regulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Levin, Stanford L., and Meisel, John B., 1990. Cable Television and Telecommunications: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. Telecommunications Policy,: 519–528.
19. Lee, Margulies. 1979. Pending Bill Pulls Plug on Fee Controls. Los Angeles Times, June: VI–12. 19
20. Mayo, John W., and Yasuji, Otsuka. 1991. Demand, Pricing, and Regulation: Evidence from the Cable TV Industry. Rand Journal of Economics, 22: 396–410.
21. Mayo, John W 1994. Cable Television Developments, 7A April
22. Mayo, John W 1994 1992. Editorial: To Stop the Cable Gouging. A20 January 28
23. Noam, Eli M., 1982. Towards an Integrated Communications Market: Overcoming the Local Monopoly of Cable Television. Federal Communications Law Journal, 34 (2): 209–257.
24. Noam, Eli M 1988. Cable Television Financial Databook, 1993
25. Noam, Eli M 1988 1989. Cable Television Franchising, May: 1 31
26. Noam, Eli M 1988 1989 1993. The Cable TV Financial Factbook, June: 7
27. Noam, Eli M 1988 1989 1993 1995. Cable TV Investor, January: 8 31
28. Robin, Prager. 1990. Firm Behavior in Franchise Monopoly Markets. Rand Journal of Economics, 21: 211–225.
29. Rubinovitz, Robert N.,“Market Power and Price Increases for Basic Cable Service Since Deregulation,” United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Economic Analysis Group (Discussion Paper No. 91–8; 6 August 1991);Subsequently published in the Rand Journal of Economics, Spring, 1993, 24, 1–18
30. Setzer, Florence and Levy, Jonathan, “Broadcast Television in a Multichannel Marketplace,” OPP Working Paper No. 26, June, 1991
31. Jube, Shiver. 1989. Rising Rates Bring Cable Firms Static from Public. Los Angeles Times, IV1 March: 7 17
32. Stigler, George J., and Claire, Friedland. 1962. What Can Regulators Regulate? The Case of Electricity. Journal of Law & Economics, V October: 1–16.
33. Stigler, George J 1993. The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al. v. United States of America, 24 August No.92–1751–A
34. Oliver, Williamson. 1976. Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopoly: in General and With Respect to CATV. Bell Journal of Economics&Management Science, 7 Spring: 73–104.
35. Zupan, Mark A., 1989a. Non–price Concessions and the Effect of Franchise Bidding Schemes on Cable Company Costs. Applied Economics, 21: 305–323.
36. Zupan, Mark A., 1989b. The Efficacy of Franchise Bidding Schemes in the Case of Cable Television: Some Systematic Evidence. Journal of Law & Economics, XXXII: 401–456.