On the design of performance measurement plans in the telecommunications industry

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 28, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 801-820

  Wood, Lisa V ^a   Sappington, David E M ^b  

^a THE BRATTLE GROUP   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Performance measurement; Regulation; Service quality; Standards

Indexed keywords

CARRIER COMMUNICATION; COMPETITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PERFORMANCE; QUALITY OF SERVICE; STANDARDS; TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES; TELEPHONE EXCHANGES;

LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT; SERVICE QUALITY;

TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY;

EID: 9944262883     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2004.05.014     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ameritech.-(2001). The Ameritech Michigan performance remedy plan description, September 12.
2. AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc. (2002). TCG Detroit, MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC., Brooks Fiber Communications of Michigan, Inc., and MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., Comments in response to the Michigan Public Service Commission's February 25, 2002 Opinion and Order (Case No. U-11830), In the matter of SBC's submission on performance measurements, reporting, and benchmarks in compliance with the October 2, 1998 Order in MPSC Case No. U-11654, filed April 5, 2002.
3. BellSouth, SBC, Qwest, & Verizon (2002). UNE Fact Report, 2002. Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. In the matter of Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 01-338; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98; and Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98-147, April 2002.
4. BellSouth. (2003). Georgia self-effectuating enforcement mechanism administration plan, version 1.2, July 22, 2003.
5. Berg, S., & Lynch, J. (1992). The measurement and encouragement of telephone service quality. Telecommunications Policy, 76(3), 210-224.
6. California Public Utilities Commission. (2002). Opinion on the performance incentives plan for Pacific Bell Telephone Company. Decision 02-03-023, March 5, 2002.
7. Demski, J., & Sappington, D. (1991). Resolving double moral hazard problems with buyout agreements. Rand Journal of Economics, 22(2), 222-240.
8. Gupta, S., & Romano, R. (1998). Monitoring the principal with multiple agents. Rand Journal of Economics, 29(2), 427-442.
9. Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. (1987). Multiple comparison procedures. New York: Wiley.
10. Lynch, J., Buzas, T., & Berg, S. (1994). Regulatory measurement and evaluation of telephone service quality. Management Science, 40(2), 169-194.
11. Michigan Public Service Commission. (2001). Opinion and Order (Case No. U-11830). In the matter of Ameritech Michigan's submission on performance measurements, reporting, and benchmarks pursuant to the October 2, 1998 Order in Case No. U-11654, July 25, 2001.
12. Sappington, D., & Weisman, D. (2004). Competition policy, parity regulation, and self-sabotage. Info, 6(1), 52-56.
13. SBC/Ameritech. (2001). Performance measurement user guide, version 1.9. ' 1 to the Ameritech Michigan Performance Remedy Plan, September 12, 2001.
14. Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed). USA: Iowa State Press.
15. Telecommunications Act (1996). Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 stat. 56 (1996) (codified at 47 USC. Sections 151 et seq).
16. Westfall, P., & Young, S. (1993). Resampling-based multiple testing. New York: Wiley.