Margin Squeeze: Theory, Practice, Policy

Margin squeeze occurs where the margin between the price charged by a vertically integrated firm for a wholesale input, and its own retail price for the end product incorporating the input, is so low as to foreclose one or more affected markets. The extent to which margin squeeze should constitute a discrete competition law offence, distinct from predation or refusal to deal, is a disputed question. A jurisprudential chasm between the approaches to margin squeeze under European Union competition law and United States antitrust has emerged, following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgments in Deutsche Telekom and TeliaSonera and the US Supreme Court’s decision in LinkLine. The EU recognises a broad concept of margin squeeze, applicable in any sector; the US does not recognise margin squeeze as a standalone abuse, and moreover, the presence of sector-specific regulation excludes the application of antitrust to the price levels that comprise the squeeze. This paper explores the margin squeeze concept, with particular attention to both areas of contention

Access to telecommunications networks

telecommunication;telecommunication industry;networks;access to market;policy;allocation;microeconomics

The evolution from sector-specific regulation towards competition law in EU telecom markets from 1997 to 2011: Different effects in practical implementation

The telecommunications markets in the European Union have gone through a period of rapid technological as well as economic change. After the market opening in the late 1990s, the approach to regulate these markets has likewise changed over time. Whereas a sectorspecific framework dominated the phase from 1998-2002, a more prominent role of competition law regulating telecommunications markets has become visible within the last years. The two reviews of the regulatory framework (2002 and 2010) have seen sector-specific measures being scaled back and competition law measures gaining a more prominent role. This paper tries to analyse the development from sector-specific regulation towards competition law in its application to telecommunications markets in the EU. It draws conclusions from the changes in the different reviews and demonstrates how these modifications of the framework have taken place. Additionally, the practical implementations are analysed with respect to two countries. Despite the fact, that EU member states are following a joint approach (EU framework), there are still differences on the national level as regards the application of regulatory instruments and the regulation of specific markets. This can be demonstrated by looking at how national regulatory authorities conduct the process of for example market definition, market analysis, SMP designation and levying of remedies. In the paper Germany and Austria are analysed, two neighbouring countries, with similar principles in the transposition of EU frameworks into national legislation, but with strongly different outcomes as regards specific regulatory measures in terms of e.g. market analysis, price regulation, organisation of the regulatory authorities etc. Thereby we demonstrate that although the EU framework tends to achieve harmonisation, there are still a number of differences between member states in practical implementation. The paper is organised as follows: after the introduction in section 1, section 2 draws the picture of the development of the most important elements of the EU regulatory framework over time. Thereby. we specifically look at the issues of market definition, analysis and dominance designation but also issues of access and interconnection are analyzed. This encompasses conclusions regarding the overall trends of development in the design of the EU regulatory framework. Section 3 analyses the corresponding developments in the Austrian and the German telecommunications act, especially with respect to the balance between the role of sector-specific regulation and competition law in national legislation. This is done be looking at some specific topics such as, market definition and analysis, organization of the regulatory authority, potential conflicts between regulatory authority and competition authority regarding competences and responsibilities, possibilities of enforcement, and the treatment of margin squeeze. Section 4 contains our conclusions with respect to the practical implementation in member states against the overall goal of harmonisation and demonstrates differences in the way EU legislation has been transposed to national legislation in a comparison between Germany and Austria. --

Margin Squeeze in Fixed-Network Telephony Markets – competitive or anticompetitive?

This paper looks at the effects of different forms of wholesale and retail regulation on retail competition in fixed network telephony markets. We explicitly model two asymmetries between the incumbent operator and the entrant: (i) While the incumbent has zero marginal costs, the entrant has the wholesale access charge as (positive) marginal costs; (ii) While the incumbent is setting a two-part tariff at the retail level (fixed fee and calls price), the entrant can only set a linear price for calls. Competition from other infrastructures such as mobile telephony or cable is modelled as an ‘outside opportunity’ for consumers. We find that a horizontally differentiated entrant with market power may be subject to a margin squeeze due to double marginalization but will never be completely foreclosed. Entrants without market power might be subject to a margin squeeze if the wholesale access price is set at average costs and competitive pressure from other infrastructures increases. We argue that a wholesale price regulation at average costs is not optimal in such a situation and discuss retail minus and deregulation as potential alternatives.access regulation, foreclosure, margin squeeze, telecommunications, fixed networks

Do we (still) need to regulate fixed network retail markets?

In the beginning of fixed network liberalisation in Europe in the late 1990s, the main concern of regulators was to lower calls prices. This was done by introducing wholesale regulation and promoting service based competition. Some years later, the concern of some regulators turned from too high calls prices to too low calls prices which might ‘squeeze’ entrants out of the market. We look at a simple model in which this development is explained by increasing competitive pressure from an ‘outside opportunity’, e.g. mobile telephony. We conclude that a margin squeeze is not necessarily used by the incumbent as a device to drive competitors out of the market and increase market power but can also result from increased inter-model competition. If this is the case, we argue that regulators should consider alternatives to cost oriented access prices such as retail minus or complete deregulation.access regulation, vertical integration, foreclosure, price squeeze, telecommunications, fixed networks

Article 82 EC – The Problems and The Solution

The Commission's Guidance paper on exclusionary abuse under Article 82 EC is open to three fundamental criticisms. First, it leads to less legal certainty, because the rules suggested are vague and imprecise, because dominant companies will not have the information needed to apply them, and because the Commission is trying to change the law, which it has no power to do. Second, it would lead to some anticompetitive effects, because in practice it discourages price competition, by discouraging individualised price negotiations and retroactive rebates, and by suggesting that the Commission will protect not-yet-as-efficient competitors from price competition. Third, it leads to too many "false positives", i.e., findings of exclusionary abuse that are not justified in economics or law. The solution is to return to the test in the Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice: an exclusionary abuse must involve limiting the production, marketing or technical development of competitors of the dominant company, if harm is caused to consumers.Article 82EC, Competition, Abuse

Does market concentration of downstream buyers squeeze upstream suppliers’ market power?

Using a theoretical model, we examine both the relationship between a downstream dominant firm’s market share and an upstream monopoly’s Lerner index and the relationship between upstream and downstream price elasticities of demand, in a regulated industry context. We undertake an empirical study that confirms our theoretical predictions, namely that the market share of a leader downstream firm is significant in explaining the upstream producers’ Lerner indexes. Also in accordance with the results of the theoretical model, the Lerner index is negatively influenced by the competition that suppliers face and by the level of economies of density, amongst other variables.vertical relations, buyers’ market power

Open Access to Telecommunications Infrastructure and Digital Services: Competition, Cooperation and Regulation

Open Access, defined as the non-discriminatory access to an upstream bottleneck resource, takes a central role in information and communications technology markets. This thesis investigates the competitive and cooperative interactions in these markets, where firms require access to an essential input resource. Theoretical analyses and experimental evaluations are employed to examine market outcomes under alternative regulatory institutions and voluntary access agreements

Price Squeezes and Imputation Tests on Next Generation Access Networks

A vertically integrated firm that wholesales to its retail rivals can, if it has sufficient market power, set the margin between its retail and wholesale prices so as to harm its rivals. Conventionally, an imputation test is used to determine whether such behavior is being undertaken. Such tests are common in electronic communications, and the EC calls for their potentially intensive ex ante application in the supply of NGANs. This paper shows that while imputation tests are helpful analytical tools for understanding the nature of price squeezes, difficulties associated with implementation, which are sharp in an NGAN context, can make them misleading in practice. Instead, price squeezes are best dealt with through the rigorous comparison of expected outcomes, given the alleged anticompetitive behavior, with the outcomes expected in that behavior’s absence. Such analysis is not suited to ex ante application.price squeeze, imputation tests, next generation access networks, vertical discrimination, electronic communications, regulation