1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-7187(97)00049-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Access costs and entry in the local telecommunications network: a case for de-averaged rates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…17. For example, see Maher (1999) for local telecommunications, and Joskow (1989) for electricity. 18.…”
Section: Regulatory Risk and The Design Of Regulatory Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…17. For example, see Maher (1999) for local telecommunications, and Joskow (1989) for electricity. 18.…”
Section: Regulatory Risk and The Design Of Regulatory Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Hausman et al (1993) find that increased economic efficiency from a re-balancing of tariffs in the United States did not lead to decreased penetration rates. 67 In addition, Maher (1999) estimates the cost of local access to the telecommunications network in one of the major states in the United States and finds that, contrary to public opinion, de-averaged (i.e. nonuniform) cost-based rates at the local level also do not threaten USO.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, Hausman et al (1993) find that increased economic efficiency from a re-balancing of tariffs in the United States did not lead to decreased penetration rates. 72 In addition, Maher (1999) estimates the cost of local access to the telecommunications network in one of the major states in the United States and finds that, contrary to public opinion, de-averaged cost-based rates at the local level also do not threaten USO. 73 In light of the growing evidence that re-balancing of prices has increased efficiency without the resulting loss in penetration rates, a number of OECD countries have undertaken some re-balancing, see Figure 6.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As this implies higher basic monthly rental fees, they argue that these changes need to be accompanied by a targeted subsidy programme for low-income households. Maher (1999) also argues for the use of direct transfers and the removal of cross-subsidies since distortions in the tariff structure only lead to inefficiencies by inducing the wrong incentives. If the concern is about the impact on low-income households, alternatives to cross-subsidies include direct cash transfers to consumers or direct subsidies to operators serving remote rural areas at prices below costs or meeting other social obligations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%