PL EN


2012 | 5(7) | 143-155
Article title

To regulate or not to regulate? – Economic Approach to Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU)

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The aim of this paper is to present an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) as a possible remedy for telecom infrastructure EU projects that (in Poland) have been lagged behind the time. Thanks for IRU, Beneficiaries of these EU projects will be able to save both: time and money and will finish projects successfully. The author discusses two possible methods of implementing IRU: via regulatory obligation and via incumbent’s goodwill. The author proposes a game theory model with payoffs depending on regulator’s and incumbent’s strategies. Using a game theory tree, the author shows that if only the incumbent is willing to offer his own network, IRU may be signed and most delays in EU projects disappear. The success is not so obvious while implementing IRU as an obligation – in this case EU projects will probably fail.
FR
Le but de cet article est de présenter le droit irrévocable d’usage (IRU) comme un remède possible pour les projets d’infrastructure de télécommunications de l’UE qui, en Pologne, ont été lancés avec du retard. Grâce à l’IRU, les bénéficiaires de ces projets européens seront en mesure d’épargner à la fois le temps et l'argent pour terminer des projects avec succès. L'auteur décrit deux méthodes possibles de mise en œuvre de l'IRU: par l’obligation réglementaire et par le bias de bonne fois de l’opérateur historique. L'auteur propose un modèle de la théorie des jeux avec des gains qui dépendra de la stratégie choisie par le législateur et par l’opérateur historique. Par l'utilisation d'un arbre de la théorie des jeux, l'auteur montre que si seulement l’opérateur historique est prêt à offrir son propre réseau, l'IRU peut être signé, ce qui en effet aboutira à la disparition de la plupart des retards dans la mise en oeuvre des projets. Le succès n'est pas si évident dans le cas où la mise en œuvre de l'IRU est une obligation - là, les projets européens échoueront probablement.
Year
Volume
Pages
143-155
Physical description
Dates
published
2012-11-30
Contributors
  • Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw
References
  • Bain J. S., Barriers to New competition: their character and consequences in manufacturing industries, Harvard University Press, 1956.
  • Bijl P., Peitz M., Regulation and Entry into Telecommunication Markets, Cambridge 2004.
  • Borucki W., Bielewicz K., Radziulis P., The Relevance Analysis of implementing WLR in Poland [Analiza zasadności wdrożenia WLR w Polsce], Instytut Technik Telekomunikacyjnych i Informatycznych, Poznań 2005.
  • Bourreau M., Doğan P., "Build-or-Buy" Strategies in the Local Loop’ (2006) 96(2) The American Economic Review.
  • Carlton D.W., Barriers to Entry, NBER Working Papers 11645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2005.
  • Cave M., Majumdar S.K., Vogelsang I., Handbook of Telecommunications Economics. Structure, Regulation and Competition, vol. 1, Elsevier, 2002.
  • Caves R.E., Porter M.E., ‘From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition’ (1977) 91(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
  • BEREC Report on Co-investment and SMP in NGA Networks, 2011.
  • Fisher F.M., ‘Diagnosing Monopoly’ (1979) 19(2) Quarterly Review of Economics and Business.
  • Guthrie G., ‘Regulating Infrastructure: The Impact on Risk and Investment’ (2006) 44(4) Journal of Economic Literature/
  • Laffont J.J., Tirole J., Competition in telecommunications, The MIT Press, 2000.
  • McAfee R.P., Mialon H.M., Williams M.A., What Is a Barrier to Entry?,The American Economic Review, Vol. 94, nr 2, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Assocation San Diego, CA, 2004.
  • Noga A., Dominacja a efektywna konkurencja, Fundacja Naukowa Taylora, Warszawa 1993.
  • Pindyck R. S., Sunk Costs and Real Options in Antitrust, NBER Working Papers 11430, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Inc., 2005.
  • Pindyck R. S., Sunk Costs and Risk-Based Barriers to Entry, NBER Working Papers 14755, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2009.
  • Porter M. E., Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York 1980.
  • Public consultation on the IRU Reference Offer, UKE, document of public consultation, 2012
  • Refference offer for infrastructure, Telekomunikacja Polska, 2012.
  • Response to the public consultation on the IRU Reference Offer, UKE, Warszawa 2012.
  • Response to the public consultation on costing methodologies for key wholesale access prices in electronic communications, Bouygues, public consultations, 2011.
  • Schmalensee R., ‘Economies of Scale and Barriers of Entry’ (1981) 8(6) Journal of Political Economy.
  • Schmalensee R., ‘Sunk Costs and Antitrust Barriers to Entry’ (2004) 94(2) American Economic Review.
  • Stigler G., The organization of industry, University of Chicago Press, 1968.
  • von Weizäcker C., ‘A welfare Analysis of Barriers to Entry’ (1980) 11 Bell Journal of Economics.
  • The explanatory note about eligibleness of telecom infrastructure leasing costs (including IRU), according to Development of Eastern Poland and Regional Operational Programmes, UKE, Warszawa 2012.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-69c42cbb-258e-4ce6-b77d-7ced2906ee75
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.