Regulating termination charges in asymmetric oligopolies

This paper extends a standard Hotelling model to three firms and analyzes the competitive effect of asymmetric regulation on mobile and fixed termination charges. In the presence of fixed-mobile substitution, above-cost mobile termination charge creates a trade-off on the mobile network’s profit: i.e., (i) reducing retail profit by strengthening competition for subscribers (“price competition effect”), and (ii) raising termination profit by increasing market shares (“market share effect”). Our analysis shows that the competitive effect of asymmetric regulation on mobile and fixed termination charges is decided by the interaction between these two effects, which in turn depends on the distribution of customer types. That is, above-cost termination charges are likely to be beneficial to consumers for a sufficiently large fixed-mobile type (i.e., customers choosing between mobile and fixed networks) compared to a mobile type (i.e., customers choosing between mobile networks), while they are likely to be harmful to consumers for a small fixed-mobile type. It would be an important implication for regulatory authorities that there exist various factors to consider in regulating termination charges, including the industry development and market structure.

[1]  Á. López,et al.  Foreclosing Competition Through High Access Charges and Price Discrimination , 2016 .

[2]  Sjaak Hurkens,et al.  Promoting network competition by regulating termination charges , 2012 .

[3]  The Effects of Lower Mobile Termination Rates (MTRs) on Retail Price and Demand , 2010 .

[4]  Marc Bourreau,et al.  Fixed-Mobile Substitution and Termination Rates , 2014 .

[5]  T. Ungern-Sternberg Monopolistic Competition on the Pyramid , 1991 .

[6]  T. Valletti,et al.  Regulating Prices in Two-Sided Markets: The Waterbed Experience in Mobile Telephony , 2011 .

[7]  Joshua S. Gans,et al.  Using 'Bill and Keep' Interconnect Arrangements to Soften Network Competition , 1999 .

[8]  M. Riordan,et al.  Price and Variety in the Spokes Model , 2007 .

[9]  R. Inderst,et al.  Calling Circles: Network Competition with Non-Uniform Calling Patterns , 2010 .

[10]  J. Laffont,et al.  Network Competition: II. Price Discrimination , 1998 .

[11]  J. Hausman Two-sided markets with substitution: Mobile termination revisited , 2012 .

[12]  J. Laffont,et al.  Network Competition: I. Overview and Nondiscriminatory Pricing , 1998 .

[13]  Julian Wright,et al.  Mobile Call Termination , 2007 .

[14]  Sjaak Hurkens,et al.  Mobile Termination, Network Externalities and Consumer Expectations , 2014 .

[15]  M. Peitz,et al.  Access regulation and the adoption of VoIP , 2006 .

[16]  Christos Genakos,et al.  Testing the 'Waterbed' Effect in Mobile Telephony , 2008 .

[17]  Martin Peitz,et al.  Asymmetric access price regulation in telecommunications markets , 2005 .

[18]  M. Armstrong Network Interconnection in Telecommunications , 1998 .

[19]  M. Armstrong The theory of access pricing and interconnection , 2001 .

[20]  Steffen Hoernig Competition between Multiple Asymmetric Networks: Theory and Applications , 2010 .

[21]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Termination fees revisited , 2013 .

[22]  S. Salop Monopolistic competition with outside goods , 1979 .

[23]  Á. López,et al.  The Welfare Effects of Mobile Termination Rate Regulation in Asymmetric Oligopolies: The Case of Spain , 2011 .

[24]  M. Peitz Asymmetric Regulation of Access and Price Discrimination in Telecommunications , 2005 .