Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and PublicationsEconomic IndicatorsWeekly CommentaryCommunity Asset InventoryManufacturing Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

Previewing the Long-Term Effects of TariffsThe dominant effect of the Trump tariffs will be to raise production costs on almost every American manufacturing firm.

It’s TDS to Suppose These Tariffs Are WorkingTrump has pushed the U.S. into an economic downturn that will be especially hurtful to Hoosiers.

Trump’s Tariff Recession Is HereMy new forecast, completed in late April, predicts a national recession began as early as March in reaction to Trump’s tarriffs.

Two Key Economic Lessons in One BillHoosiers face trade-offs and opportunity costs in the wake of SEA1.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 262
economics 203
state and local government 188
education 186
indiana 173
economic development 171
taxes 146
budget and spending 145
law and public policy 144
workforce and human capital 139
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

July 17, 2006

Old Versus New in Telecommunications Reform

Those of us who spend a lot of time in airports get a very effective education in the economics of competition by observing – and paying – the fares charged by airlines.  It’s really quite simple.  Fly a route served by several airlines, especially if one of them is a low cost, no frills, carrier such as Southwest, and fares will be reasonably low.  But if you are unlucky enough to fly to or from a smaller city, or even a large one where a single carrier has captured a dominant share of landing slots, and it’s another story entirely.

Economists have begun to realize that the fruits of competition for the consumer can be realized with as few as two sellers of a product or service, especially if there is a credible threat of others entering the marketplace as well.  Those benefits extend beyond price, to the important dimensions of quality, delivery, and innovation.

In the arena of telecommunications, particularly for local telephone service, these fruits are too often dying on the vine.  Too many states and localities, including most in Indiana, have made a deal with the devil – in the guise of a monopoly landline service provider – that they and many in the electorate who keep them in power have been too slow to undo.

Details vary, but the bargain struck many decades ago goes something like this.  In return for a promise of universal service to city and countryside alike, and with a little extra sweetener in the form of an artificially low rate for residential service, states and regions signed away their rights to the benefits of competition by taking away the rights of all but one company to set up shop.

And so many generations of Hoosiers, like others throughout the nation, have lived knowing only the world of regulated phone service, where commissions hold hearings for public comment on rate increases and the chaos of competition is far away.

Yet today that world is crumbling.  Customer counts and revenues for traditional phone service providers have been in free fall for the last several years, as wireless and digital-based phone services usage has exploded, and businesses who pay the price for artificially low rates households enjoy have aggressively explored the alternatives that rapidly evolving technology offers them.

That evolution has produced a competition of sorts, but along two diametric poles.  On one side of the street is the stable, familiar, yet ultimately unsustainable realm of regulated service providers.  It speaks the language of regulation – devising pricing formulas that address bureaucratic concepts like embedded cost, rate bases, and allowable rates of return. 

On the other side are the cowboys of capitalism, skimming the most profitable, urban customers from both the regulated behemoths and each other, bundling phone service with a dizzying array of information, communications and entertainment services in ways we’re still trying to get familiar with.  No one tells them what to charge, or where to offer their services, for that matter.  Yet prices remain in check by the same forces that constrain airlines to match fares of low-cost competitors along routes where competition exists.

It’s mostly a happy story, but with one big catch.  The competitive side of the street doesn’t exist in areas of the state lacking access to the networks that make it all work.  The world of poor cellular coverage, where broadband internet access is nonexistent, is a much different place.  Connecting those rural areas to the rest of us may be of little commercial value to the for-profit entities that own the networks, but it is of high importance to governments and other institutions which can thrive only when service is universal.

The irony is that the among the companies best positioned to extend networks statewide to provide the fruits of competition to city and country dwellers alike are the same companies who are already there – the landline telephone service providers.  Will Indiana’s telecommunications reform law spur them to invest in their networks to bring about this happy result?  We’ll all have to stay tuned.

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/209/old-versus-new-in-telecommunications-reform

Tags: technology and automation, finance


About the Author

Pat Barkey none@example.com

Patrick Barkey is director of the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. He served previously as Director of the Bureau of Business Research (now the Center for Business and Economic Research) at Ball State University, overseeing and participating in a wide variety of projects in labor market research and state and regional economic policy issues. Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of funders, associations, any entity of Ball State University, or its governing body.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close