Unbundling and infrastructure competition for broadband adoption: Implications for NGA regulation

The common idea of open access policy is that it refers to the sharing of particular elements, such as wholesale access networks, backhaul, under-sea cable and internet exchange points in fixed and mobile networks. In broadband networks, the use of open access policy usually refers to the infrastructure parts, which are considered a bottleneck. Many regulators have generally focused open access policy on fixed broadband networks, especially digital subscriber line (DSL) technology, in the last decade. Local loop unbundling (LLU) regulation is one of the main strategies for the regulator to open access to an incumbent’s bottleneck network in order to soften its monopoly power and encourage competition in the DSL broadband market. The OECD countries have different strategies regarding unbundling local loop and infrastructure competition, as the characteristics and infrastructure networks of countries vary. There are currently more choices of next generation network (NGN) technologies to develop. While local loop unbundling may not be applied fully to NGN development (the cost is not sunk, more technologies are available to implement, incentive of investment by operator), it can indicate benefits and drawbacks of open access policy in the past decade that can be adapted to NGN.The empirical results of this study show that during 2002–2008, LLU regulation was one of the strategies used to increase broadband adoption in countries that had difficulty encouraging infrastructure competition. Unbundling regulation can therefore be implemented carefully and differently in each country that has inefficiency that is harmful to consumers in its market from a monopoly incumbent. Infrastructure competition, on the other hand, is introduced as another strategy to increase broadband adoption. The empirical results of this study indicate that infrastructure competition can be used as a strategy when there are already enough infrastructures in the area or country. These results support the idea of using open access and infrastructure competition policy depending on the existing competition of broadband infrastructure in each country.     

Do Merger Efficiencies Always Mitigate Price Increases?

In a Cournot model with differentiated products, we demonstrate that merger efficiencies in the form of lower marginal costs for the merging firms (the insiders) lead to higher post‐merger prices under certain conditions. Specifically, when the degree of substitutability between the two insiders is not too high relative to that between an insider and an outsider, increased efficiencies may exert upward rather than downward pressure on the prices of the merging firms. Our results suggest that in cases where firms engage in quantity competition, antitrust authorities should not presume that efficiencies will necessarily mitigate the anticompetitive effects of the merger.     

Mechanisms to incentivise shared-use of spectrum

A key concern with the Licensed-shared access (LSA) approach currently being developed by European regulators is that leaving incumbents and secondary users to agree to bilateral arrangements may be insufficient to incentivise an optimal level of sharing.We propose an efficient auction mechanism to incentivise incumbent users to offer shared access to the spectrum they use. The mechanism consists of two stages. In the first stage, LSA licences are auctioned. In the second stage, the incumbent is provided with a choice of either granting access under an LSA agreement to the winner of the auction or not. If the incumbent accepts, its existing licence fee is reduced, whereas, if it rejects, its existing licence fee is increased. The change in the licence fee is such that a rational incumbent always opts to share when it is efficient to do so, i.e. when the cost of sharing is below the value to the secondary user.We also explore how this simple mechanism can be extended to situations in which there is more than one incumbent in a band. Our proposed approach involves package (combinatorial) bidding and linear reference prices.     

Preemptive mergers under spatial competition

Mergers for market power generally benefit outsider firms more than participating firms. Hence, outsiders should welcome such mergers between their competitors but, frequently, this is not the case. Under spatial competition some outsiders gain more than the participating firms but others might benefit less. Thus, if the number of admissible mergers is limited, firms may decide to merge to preempt rival mergers. This paper studies the incentives for preemptive merger by firms engaged in spatial competition.     

Duopolistic competition between independent and collaborative business-to-business marketplaces

This paper studies imperfect price competition between two intermediaries in an electronic business-to-business matching market with indirect network externalities. The intermediaries have different ownership structures: an independent incumbent competes with a collaborative buy side consortium to attract buying and selling firms. When firms can register exclusively with one intermediary, the incumbent can deter entry only if the number of consortium owners is sufficiently small. Otherwise, the consortium can enter and monopolize the market. When firms can register with both intermediaries simultaneously, the consortium can always enter and both intermediaries stay in the market with positive profits.     

Mergers that harm competitors

Standard models of oligopolistic interdependence predict that firms remaining outside of a horizontal merger will benefit from it. Why, then, do nonparticipating firms feel threatened by mergers? This paper shows that under reasonable conditions a non-participating firm is harmed by a merger. The analysis is based on a spatial equilibrium with suppliers and demanders located at fixed points. Mergers harm non-participating firms as a result of the decrease in the level of marginal costs of the merged firm attributable to decreased output in markets where competition is eliminated. This lowered marginal cost makes the merged firm a more formidable competitor in markets in which outsiders participate. This effect is in almost all cases sufficient to make outsiders worse off after a merger. Simulations on a sample of spatial equilibria show that the harm to outsiders is a reliable index of the harm that the merger causes to social welfare.     

Losing by winning: The danger zone of adverse competitor replacement

Research Summary: We use a formal model, motivated by a case study from the airline industry, to consider an industry structure wherein a firm may find that improving its competitiveness hurts its performance. Specifically, we examine the possibility that a superior incumbent may, by getting stronger, drive a weak rival from the market, and thereby allow a stronger rival to enter in its place. Such “adverse competitor replacement” reduces the profit of the superior incumbent and may even, in an extreme case, cause the superior incumbent to be driven from the market as well. We show that adverse competitor replacement can arise under a rational equilibrium and may become more likely if a firm improves its capability for self‐improvement. Managerial Summary: Managers are consistently advised to improve the competitiveness of their firms and beat the competition. We examine the possibility that beating out the competition may have adverse consequences. Specifically, a strong incumbent may, by getting stronger, outcompete a weaker rival to such an extent that the weaker rival exits the market, thereby creating an open market niche for a stronger rival to enter, in effect, a form of adverse competitor replacement. Competing with this stronger rival may in turn reduce the strong incumbent's profits below what they had been before driving the weak rival out. We illustrate adverse competitor replacement with a case study from the airline industry and discuss implications for a firm's investment in its own competitiveness.     

Overlapping ownership and product innovation

We characterize the effect of overlapping ownership (OO) on investments in drastic product innovation. The success probability of innovation increases with investment. We analyse two opposing forces: (1) OO induces firms to internalize that success on their own behalf erodes the rivals’ business, reducing investments; (2) OO softens competition in the product market, enhancing investments. Our analysis reveals that the competition-softening effect, by stimulating investments, can induce OO to benefit consumers, in particular when the R&D projects are complex. We also show that an incumbent technology raises the threshold required for OO to stimulate investments in innovation.     

Asset divestment as a response to media attacks in stigmatized industries

In stigmatized industries characterized by social contestation, hostile audiences, and distancing between industry insiders and outsiders, firms facing media attacks follow different strategies from firms in uncontested industries. Because firms avoid publicizing their tainted‐sector membership, when threatened, they can respond by divesting assets from that industry. Our analyses of the arms industry demonstrate that media attacks on the focal firm and its peers both increase the likelihood of divestment for the focal firm. Specifically, attacks on the focal firm are the most consequential, followed by attacks on peers in the same industry subcategory, and by attacks on peers in different subcategories. These findings shed new light on divestment as a response to media attacks in stigmatized industries and lead us to rethink impression management theory. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND R&D INCENTIVES

In open systems, firms give up their property rights to technologies and permit other companies to use these technologies. We ask how an incumbent's architecture choice affects social welfare by altering R&D competition among firms. More specifically, we ask whether an incumbent, by adopting an open system, can establish its socially inefficient technology as the market standard, while an entrant is developing a more efficient technology. It is shown that an incumbent has an incentive to preempt an entrant's competing technology by choosing an open system, but that the open system might result in a premature market standard.     

Decoupling market incumbency from organizational prehistory: Locating the real sources of competitive advantage in R&D for radical innovation

The creative destruction literature has argued that differences in R&D performance of incumbent vs. entrant firms can be explained through organizational change theories about established vs. de novo firms. A disconnect exists between these theories and the available empirical evidence because often the best performing firms are established firms as well. I propose to resolve this disconnect by distinguishing between market incumbency (presence in a market prior to a discontinuity) and organizational prehistory (organizational experience prior to a transition, whether between technologies or between markets). Doing so allows me to contrast incumbent vs. entrant and de alio vs. de novo studies, and to suggest more robust future research designs. I illustrate my proposition using qualitative data from the anticancer and AIDS‐treatment drug markets. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic investments under competition for access provision

We examine competition for access provision when symmetric vertically integrated firms invest in infrastructure upgrades. Spillovers through access have two effects (a wholesale-profit effect and a retail-production effect) on infrastructure investment made by vertically integrated firms. When the vertically integrated firms freely set access charges, due to the dominance of the wholesale-profit effect, quality differentials endogenously occur between these firms (asymmetric equilibria). When access charges are regulated, symmetric equilibria occur with multiple equilibrium investments due to the retail-production effect. Because competition for access provision induces a strong incentive for infrastructure investment, it also achieves a higher social welfare than does access regulation.     

Economic implications of a co-investment scheme for FTTH/PON architectures

Due to the high costs associated with the deployment of the passive infrastructure of FTTH networks, a few alternative operators have pondered the possibility of making co-investments based on a network sharing model. The purpose of this article is to explore economic aspects of a co-investment scheme for present and future FTTH/PON architectures. The article describes the cost reductions that can be achieved when a co-investment scheme is used, as well as the relationship between market shares and the cost per home connected. A cost model was employed to calculate the investment per home passed and the investment per home connected. The investment per home passed for an alternative operator indicates significant cost reductions when a co-investment scheme is used. On the other hand, the results show that when the incumbent's market share is equal or higher than the total market share of all the alternative operators that share the network infrastructure, the investment per home connected for an alternative operator is higher than that for the incumbent operator. Moreover, to be cost competitive with the incumbent operator, the necessary market share that each alternative operator should achieve is much lower than that of the incumbent operator.     

Discrimination in Dynamic Procurement Design with Learning-by-doing

We study the long-run impact of procurement discrimination on market structure and future competition in industries where learning-by-doing makes incumbent firms more efficient over time. We consider a sequential procurement design problem in which local and global firms compete for public good provision. Both firms benefit from learning-by-doing if they provide the public good in the previous period, but global firms only may be able to transfer learning-by-doing from different markets. We show that the optimal procurement has to be biased in favor of the local firm even when all firms are symmetric with respect to their initial cost distribution.     

Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices

The issue of the failure of incumbent firms in the face of radical technical change has been a central question in the technology strategy domain for some time. We add to prior contributions by highlighting the role a firm's existing set of complementary assets have in influencing its investment in alternative technological trajectories. We develop an analytical model that considers firm heterogeneity with respect to both technological trajectories and complementary assets. Complementary assets play a dual role in incumbents' investment behavior toward radical technological change: they are not only resources (pipes) that can buffer firms from technology change, but also prisms through which firms view those changes, influencing both the magnitude of resources that should be invested and the trajectory to which these resources should be directed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

VERTICAL INTEGRATION AND SHARED FACILITIES IN UNREGULATED INDUSTRIES

In this paper we analyze the equilibrium market structure, following liberalization, of an industry involving an essential facility. Two alternative modes of market entry are considered, in conjunction with vertical integration, namely: (i) full entry, which means building a new and more efficient facility at a positive fixed cost; and (ii) partial entry, which means purchasing existing capacity from the incumbent, at a fixed price per unit that is freely negotiated between the incumbent and the entrant. We show that vertical integration is a dominant strategy for each firm under either entry mode, and that upstream firms choose to share the incumbent's facility when the entrant's fixed cost exceeds a positive threshold. In addition, welfare analysis shows that in many situations the market can efficiently solve the trade-off between fixed-cost savings and softened downstream competition, thus providing a rationale for the liberalization of such industries. Several competition policy implications are discussed.     

Same but different? Similarities and fundamental differences of informal social networks in China (<Emphasis Type="Italic">guanxi</Emphasis>) and Korea (<Emphasis Type="Italic">yongo</Emphasis>)

This research reports on the similarities and distinctive differences between informal social networks in China (guanxi) and Korea (yongo). Within an analytical framework derived from social capital and institutional theory, the structural forms and characteristics of both network forms are compared. Although we observe some similarities, surprisingly, the two networks show several fundamental differences. Both are society-spanning constructs, developed and maintained by reciprocal action that creates trust and trustworthiness, and serve as a major factor in network cohesion. Both networks are relatively closed or inaccessible to outsiders, with insiders able to connect other insiders to each other (i.e., internal bridging of structural holes). However, guanxi can be characterized as being utilitarian (purpose-based), whereas yongo in principle describes cause-based ties. Furthermore, guanxi networks are somewhat accessible to outsiders and draw on a diverse base of ties; yongo networks are predefined, partly by birth, and are hence homogeneous and highly exclusive. Guanxi networks can benefit from spillover effects through bridging different networks; yongo networks often cannot, as there is antipathy, competition, and potential hostility between certain types of networks. The results add knowledge to social network theory in general and in particular on informal social networks in East Asia.     

The impact of different fibre access network technologies on cost,competition and welfare

Using a novel approach to the evaluation of new network technologies that combines an engineering cost model with a differentiated multi-player oligopoly model with wholesale access regulation this article evaluates the choice among different Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) architectures. The cost modelling relies upon an engineering bottom-up approach that feeds into a competition model. For addressing competition the pyramid model was chosen, which is an extension of the Hotelling model to multiple firms/services. The paper solves for price setting Nash equilibria between an incumbent, wholesale-access-based entrants and cable as an additional fully integrated network competitor. Welfare tradeoffs are highlighted with respect to cost differences and QoS differences between the various FTTH architectures and between the modes of regulation. According to the analysis architectures that can be unbundled (and that allow for greater speeds) outperform, from a social welfare perspective, architectures that (realistically) allow only for bitstream access.     

Competitive customer poaching with asymmetric firms

Conditioning the pricing policies on purchase history is proven to generate a cutthroat price competition enhancing consumer surplus. This result typically relies on a framework where competitors are assumed to be symmetric. This paper demonstrates that under significant asymmetries of competing firms, the strong firm trades off current market share for future market share and the weak firm does the opposite. This inter-temporal market sharing agreement generates unidirectional poaching and entails new and distinctive welfare implications. In particular, if consumers are sufficiently myopic, price discrimination softens price competition in relation to uniform pricing, overturning the conclusion of previous studies.     

Quality differentiation and firms’ choices between online and physical markets

We study firms’ choices between online and physical markets with respect to product quality and competition, and examine consequences of transparency policies on price competition and market structure. We investigate two contrasting forces. First, since consumers cannot fully inspect an online product’s quality prior to purchase, conventional wisdom and some of the literature suggest that this attracts low-quality products to the online market (a pooling effect). On the other hand, the literature on vertical product differentiation indicates that a firm with a lower-quality product may prefer to reveal its product quality in the physical market because quality differentiation helps alleviate price competition (a differentiation effect). We show that an entrant firm with product quality lower than that of the offline incumbent may choose the physical market, whereas the entrant with a quality higher than the incumbent’s may sell online. More generally the two contrasting forces can give rise to a wide range of product quality—from low-end to high-end—in both markets.