Skip Navigation

Journal of Competition Law and Economics 2005 1(4):635-678; doi:10.1093/joclec/nhi024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spulber, D. F.
Right arrow Articles by Yoo, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2005, all rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

NETWORK REGULATION: THE MANY FACES OF ACCESS

Daniel F. Spulber * and Christopher S. Yoo **

Telecommunications regulation has experienced a fundamental shift from rate regulation to increased reliance on compelled access, perhaps best exemplified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996's imposition of no fewer than four new access requirements. Unfortunately, each access requirement is governed by a separate set of rules for determining both the scope and the price of access. The resulting ad hoc regime has created difficult definitional problems and opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. In this article we propose a system inspired by the discipline of mathematics known as graph theory that integrates all of the different forms of access into a single analytical framework. This system separates different access regimes into five categories: (1) retail access, (2) wholesale access, (3) interconnection access, (4) platform access, and (5) unbundled access. It also provides insights into how each type of access complicates the already difficult problems of network configuration and management and introduces inefficient biases into decisions about network capacity and design. The approach we propose also provides insights into the transaction cost implications of the different types of access. Drawing on the Coasean theory of the firm, our approach examines the tradeoffs between internal governance costs and the external transaction costs of providing access to offer a theory of network boundaries. This framework shows how access regulation distorts networks' natural boundaries and provides a basis for evaluating whether private ordering through markets would lead to more efficient network design.


* Elinor Hobbs Distinguished Professor of International Business, Kellogg School of Management, and Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. Email: jems{at}kellogg.northwestern.edu. Support from the Searle Fund is gratefully acknowledged.

** Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School. Email: christopher.yoo{at}vanderbilt.edu. Support from the Vanderbilt Dean's Fund is gratefully acknowledged.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Competition Law and EconomicsHome page
G. Knieps
THE DIFFERENT ROLE OF MANDATORY ACCESS IN GERMAN REGULATION OF RAILROADS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Journal of Competition Law and Economics, March 1, 2006; 2(1): 149 - 158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.