Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Networks in TelecommunicationsEconomics and Law, pp. 439 - 472Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
2002. “Entry into regulated monopoly markets: The development of a competitive fringe in the local telephone industry,” Journal of Law and Economics 45: 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. “Vertical integration, variable proportions and successive oligopolies,” Journal of Industrial Economics 36: 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , with the assistance of Paulene McCalman 1997. Telecommunications economics and policy issues: Industry Commission staff information paper. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/research/information/teleeco.Google Scholar
1990. “Essential facilities: An epithet in need of limiting principles,” Antitrust Law Journal 58: 841–54.Google Scholar
and 2006a. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, 3d ed. Vol. 1. New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar
and 2006b. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, 3d ed. Vol. 2A. New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar
and 2008a. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, 3d. ed. Vol. 3. New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar
and 2008b. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, 3d. ed. Vol. 3A. New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar
and 2008c. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application, 3d ed. Vol. 3B. NY: Aspen.Google Scholar
and 1978. Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their application. Vol. 3. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
and 2003. “Broadband adoption in the United States: An empirical analysis,” in Down to the wire: Studies in the diffusion and regulation of telecommunications technologies, (ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 119–38.Google Scholar
2008. “Class I railroad statistics,” http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/statistics.pdf.
1901. 1900 annual report.
1905. 1904 annual report.
1907. 1906 annual report.
1908. 1907 annual report.
1911. 1910 annual report.
1914. 1913 annual report.
and 2000. A competitively neutral approach to network interconnection. Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 34, Federal Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp34.pdf.
Atlanta Journal Constitution 2005. “Battered EarthLink shifts gears: Phone services play role in makeover,” 24 July.
and 1962. “Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint,” American Economic Review 52: 1052–69.Google Scholar
1988. Vertical integration and overbuying: An analysis of foreclosure via raised rivals' costs. Working Paper No. 8803, American Bar Foundation.
B2Day 2006. “Powell warns net neutrologists not to be naive,” 3 April, http:business2.blogs.com/business2blog/2006/04/powell_warn_ne.html.
1956. Barriers to new competition, their character and consequences in manufacturing industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “Recent developments in economics that challenge Chicago school views,” Antitrust Law Journal 58: 645–56.Google Scholar
, , , , , and 2000. “Access and innovation policy for the third-generation Internet,” Telecommunications Policy 24: 489–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1972. “State, federal, and local regulation of cable television,” Notre Dame Law Review 47: 685–814.Google Scholar
and 1987. “Ski-lift pricing, with applications to labor and other markets,” American Economic Review 77: 875–90.Google Scholar
and 1991. “Ski-lift pricing, with applications to labor and other markets: Reply,” American Economic Review 81: 378–80.Google Scholar
, , , and (eds.) 1988. Hart and Wechsler's The federal courts and the federal system, 3d ed. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
2006. “Refusals to deal with competitors by owners of patents and copyrights: Reflections on the Image Technical and Xerox decisions,” DePaul Law Review 55: 1211–46.Google Scholar
1983. “Some subtle pricing issues in railroad regulation,” International Journal of Transport Economics 10: 341–55.Google Scholar
and 1985. “Use of antitrust to subvert competition,” Journal of Law and Economics 28: 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1982. Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
and 2002. “The pig in the python: Is lumpy capacity investment used and useful?” Energy Law Journal 23: 383–99.Google Scholar
and 1981. “Fixed costs, sunk costs, entry barriers, and sustainability of monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 96: 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1983. “Conditions creating antitrust concern with vertical integration by regulated industries: ‘For whom the Bell doctrine tolls,’” Antitrust Law Journal 52: 243–8.Google Scholar
1995. “Swerving to avoid the ‘takings’ and ‘ultra vires’ potholes on the information superhighway: Is the New York collocations and telecommunications policy a taking under the New York public service law?” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 18: 51–84.Google Scholar
, , and . 1998. “The role of resale entry in promoting local exchange competition,” Telecommunications Policy 22: 315–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1984. “The cost function given imperfectly flexible capital,” Economics Letters 16: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 1978. Selected topics in graph theory. New York: Academic Press.
2003. “Spectrum abundance and the choice between private and public control,” New York University Law Review 78: 2007–2102.Google Scholar
2000. “From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access,” Federal Communications Law Journal 52: 561–80.Google Scholar
and 1995. “A market test for natural monopoly in local exchange,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 8: 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1981. “The market provision of club goods once again,” Journal of Public Economics 15: 389–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1981. “Clubs, local public goods, and transportation models: A synthesis,” Journal of Public Economics 15: 141–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1999. “Setting the X factor in price-cap regulation plans,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 16: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. “Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and 2001. “Advances in routing technologies and Internet peering arrangements,” American Economic Review 91: 292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , 1997. “Active networking and the end-to-end argument,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Network Protocols, 1997, pp. 220–28.Google Scholar
1976. “Cost allocation for a spanning tree: A game theoretic approach,” Networks 6: 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. “End-to-end and subsequent paradigms,” Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law 2002: 709–18.Google Scholar
and 2001. “Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new world,” ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 1: 70–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , 1984, “Optimal pricing in electrical networks over space and time,” RAND Journal of Economics 15: 360–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1949. “La tarification des demande en pointe: Application de la théorie de la vente au coût marginal,” Revue Générale de l'Electricité 58: 321–40. Translated by H. W. Izzard 1960 as “Peak-load pricing,” Journal of Business 33: 157–79.Google Scholar
, , , 1984. The transition to competition: Telecommunications policy for the 1980s. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
and 1983. “The early history of competition in the telephone industry,” in Breaking up Bell: Essays on industrial organization and regulation, (ed.). New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 8–40.Google Scholar
Boston Globe 2003. “News from the Chicago cable and telecom show,” 16 June.
1957. “Tying arrangements and the leverage problem,” Yale Law Journal 67: 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1987. “Why regulated firms should be kept out of unregulated markets: Understanding the divestiture in U. S. v. AT&T,” Antitrust Bulletin 32: 741–93.Google Scholar
1990. “Was cable television a monopoly?” Federal Communications Law Journal 42: 365–412.Google Scholar
1996. Law and regulation of common carriers in communications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
1985. Network externalities and the demand for residential long distance telephone service. Working paper, Concordia University.
1999. “New modes of competition: Implications for the future structure of the computer industry,” in Eisenach and Lenard (eds.), pp. 155–208.CrossRef
and 1996. “Technical progress and co-invention in computing and in the uses of computers,” Brookings Papers in Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1996: 1–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1999. “Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics 47: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1891. “Protection to private property from public attack,” New Englander and Yale Review 5: 97–110.Google Scholar
Broadcasting & Cable 2005. “Plug-and-play Internet: Wall-outlet broadband attracts heavy hitters,” 18 July.
2002. “Historical overview,” in Cave et al. (eds.), pp. 3–75.
2003. Nexus: Small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Business Week 2005. “At stake: The net as we know it,” 26 December: 38.
and 2003. “Chicken and egg: Competition among intermediation service providers,” RAND Journal of Economics 34: 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1984. “Multiproduct two part tariffs,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 2: 105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. “California ISP Association v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,” Decision 03-07-032, 2003 WL 21704389.
1985. “The antitrust record of the first Reagan administration,” Texas Law Review 64: 353–70.Google Scholar
and 2002. “The strategic use of tying to preserve and create market power in evolving industries,” RAND Journal of Economics 33: 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. “The fable of Fisher Body,” Journal of Law and Economics 43: 67–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (eds.) 2002. Handbook of telecommunications economics. Vol. 1. New York: New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
CED Magazine 2006. “Network neutrality: Battle royale,” April.
1962. The theory of monopolistic competition: A reorientation of the theory of value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
, , and 1988. “A goal programming constrained regression review of the Bell system breakup,” Management Science 34: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. “The last picture show (on the twilight of federal mass communications regulation),” Minnesota Law Review 80: 1415–1510.Google Scholar
1999. “The magnificent seven: American telephony's deregulatory shootout,” Hastings Law Journal 50: 1503–84.Google Scholar
1949. “Engineering production functions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 63: 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian Science Monitor 2006. Editorial, “Whose Internet is it anyway?” 24 March.
CIO Magazine 2006. “The net neutrality debate: You pay, you play?” 15 April.
1982. “An economic analysis of the state–municipal action antitrust cases,” Texas Law Review 61: 481–515.Google Scholar
1996. “Adding service discrimination to the Internet,” Telecommunications Policy 20: 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and 2006. “Overlay networks and the future of the Internet,” Communications & Strategies 63: 109–29.Google Scholar
1914. “A contribution to the theory of competitive price,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 28: 747–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1923. Studies in the economics of overhead costs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CNET News.com 2003. “FCC chief dubious about new cable rules,” 18 August, http://news.com.com/FCC+chief+dubious+about+new+cable+rules/2100-1025_3-5065325.html?tag=nl.
CNET News.com 2005. “Playing favorites on the net?” 21 December, http://news.com.com/Playing+favorites+on+the+Net/2100-1028_3-6003281.html.
2003. Ex parte communication submitted in FCC (2002e), http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513401671.
1988. “The nature of the firm: Origin, meaning, influence,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 4, reprinted in and (eds.) 1991, pp. 34–74.Google Scholar
1994, “The institutional structure of production,” The 1991 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize Lecture in Economic Sciences, in Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. “The acquisition of Fisher Body by General Motors,” Journal of Law and Economics 43: 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Technological analysis of open access and cable television systems,” http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/broadband_report.pdf.
Communications Daily 1997. “AT&T targets local service, administrative costs and perks in cost-cutting,” 22 December.
Communications Today 1998. “MCI says it will scrap resale plans in favor of facilities-based competition,” 23 January.
Congress Daily PM 2006. “Stevens ‘very close’ to votes needed for telecom cloture,” 27 July.
, , , and 2005. “Vertical antitrust policy as a problem of inference,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 23: 639–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. “Open access to the broadband Internet: Technical and economic discrimination in closed, proprietary networks,” University of Colorado Law Review 71: 1011–71.Google Scholar
2003. “Open communications platforms: The physical infrastructure as the bedrock of innovation and democratic discourse in the Internet age,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: 177–244.Google Scholar
and 1996. The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. “The failure of structural remedies in Sherman Act monopolization cases,” Oregon Law Review 80: 109–98.Google Scholar
and 2000. “Competition in U. S. telecommunications service: Effects of the 1996 legislation,” in Peltzman and Winston (eds.), pp. 73–112.
, , and 2004. “Do unbundling policies discourage CLEC facilities-based investment?” Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy 4: 1136, http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1136&content=bejeap.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2002. “Is structural separation of incumbent local exchange carriers necessary for competition?” Yale Journal on Regulation 19: 335–411.Google Scholar
, , and 2002. “The empirical case against asymmetrical regulation of broadband Internet access,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 17: 953–88.Google Scholar
and 1995. Talk is cheap: The promise of regulatory reform in North American telecommunications. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
2000. “The impact of the 1992 Cable Act on household demand and welfare,” RAND Journal of Economics 31: 422–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2000. “Connectivity in the commercial Internet,” Journal of Industrial Economics 48: 433–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1982. “Cost–benefit analysis of local measured service,” in Regulatory reform and public utilities, (ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co., pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
and 1983. “BC/Alberta long distance calling,” in Economic analysis of telecommunications: Theory and applications, , , and (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., pp. 199–230.Google Scholar
1995. “Unjust compensation: The continuing need for reform,” South Carolina Law Review 46: 579–94.Google Scholar
2000. Bill and keep at the central office as an efficient interconnection regime. Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 33, Federal Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp33.pdf.
and 1956. “Law and the future: Trade regulation,” Northwestern University Law Review 51: 258–72.Google Scholar
and 1977. “Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity,” American Economic Review 67: 297–308.Google Scholar
1985. “From turnpike to nuclear-power: The constitutional limits on utility rate regulation,” Boston University Law Review 65: 65–125.Google Scholar
1996. “The economics of networks,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 14: 673–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “The economics of the Internet backbone,” in Majumdar et al. (eds.), pp. 375–413.
, , and 1996. “Regulatory pricing rules to neutralize network dominance,” Industrial and Corporate Change 5: 1013–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 1999. Competition, innovation and the Microsoft monopoly: Antitrust in the digital marketplace. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
and 2001. Regulatory behavior and competitive entry. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Western Conference, Center for Research in Regulated Industries, http://www.aestudies.com/library/elpaper.pdf.
1995. The chief justiceship of Melville W. Fuller, 1888–1910. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
, “Exchange point information,” http://www.ep.net/ep-main.html.
1985. Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1997. “Takings, exclusivity and speech: The legacy of PruneYard v. Robins,” University of Chicago Law Review 64: 21–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telecom AB and Telia AB 1997. Understanding telecommunications. Vol. 1. Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.Google Scholar
and 1983. “Multiproduct cost function estimates and natural monopoly tests for the Bell system,” in Breaking up Bell: Essays on industrial organization and regulation, (ed.). New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 253–82.Google Scholar
and 1984. “A test for subadditivity of the cost function with an application to the Bell system,” American Economic Review 74: 615–23.Google Scholar
2006. “Open access arguments: Why confidence is misplaced,” in Lenard and May (eds.), pp. 195–214.
and 1985. “Standardization, compatibility, and innovation,” RAND Journal of Economics 16: 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1986. “Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation,” American Economic Review 76: 940–55.Google Scholar
and 2003. “Modularity, vertical integration, and open access policies: Towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the Internet age,” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 17: 85–134.Google Scholar
2003. “Policy-induced competition: The telecommunications experiments,” Information Economics and Policy 15: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “Bottlenecks and bandwagons: Access policy in the new telecommunications,” in Majumdar et al. (eds.), pp. 488–517.
and 2000. “The market structure of broadband telecommunications,” Journal of Industrial Economics 48: 305–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[FCC] 1958. “Frontier Broadcasting Co.,” Memorandum opinion and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports 24: 251–6.Google Scholar
1959. “Impact of community antenna systems, TV translators, TV ‘satellite’ stations and TV ‘repeaters’ on the orderly development of television broadcasting,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports 26: 403–59.Google Scholar
1962. “Carter Mountain Transmission Corp.,” Decision, Federal Communications Commission Reports 32: 459–86.Google Scholar
1965a. “Amendment of subpart L, part 11, to adopt rules and regulations to govern the grant of authorizations in the business radio service for microwave stations to relay television signals to community antenna systems,” First report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports 38: 683–760.Google Scholar
1965b. “Amendment of parts 21, 74 (proposed subpart J), and 91 to adopt rules and regulations relating to the distribution of television broadcast signals by community antenna television systems,” Notice of inquiry and notice of proposed rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 1: 453–95.Google Scholar
1965c. “AT&T Co., charges for interstate and foreign communications,” Memorandum opinion and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 2: 871–5.Google Scholar
1966. “Amendment of subpart L, part 91, to adopt rules and regulations to govern the grant of authorizations in the business radio service for microwave stations to relay television signals to community antenna systems,” Second report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 2: 725–820.Google Scholar
1968. “Use of the Carterfone device in message toll telephone services,” Decision, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 13: 420–41.Google Scholar
1970a. “Multiple ownership of standard, FM and TV broadcast stations,” First report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 22: 306–51.Google Scholar
1970b. “Amendment of part 74, subpart K of the Commission's rules and regulations relative to the federal-state or local relationships in the community antenna television systems fields,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 25: 50–55.Google Scholar
1971. “Regulatory and policy problems presented by the interdependence of computer and communications services and facilities,” Final decision, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 28: 267–308.Google Scholar
1972. “Amendment of part 74, subpart K, of the Commission's rules and regulations relative to community antenna television systems,” Cable television report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 36: 143–325.Google Scholar
1975. “Proposals for new or revised classes of interstate and foreign message toll telephone service (MTS) and wide area telephone service (WATS),” First report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 56: 593–625.Google Scholar
1976a. “Amendment of part 76 of the Commission's rules and regulations concerning the cable television channel capacity and access channel requirements of Section 76.251,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 59: 294–331.Google Scholar
1976b. “Amendment of subpart C of part 76 of the Commission's rules and regulations regarding the regulation of cable television system regular subscriber rates,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 60: 672–86.Google Scholar
1977. “Amendment of Subparts B and C of Part 76 of the Commission's rules pertaining to applications for certificates of compliance and federal–state/local regulatory relationships,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 66: 380–416.Google Scholar
1979. “Policies and rules concerning rates for competitive common carrier services and facilities authorizations therefor,” Notice of inquiry and proposed rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 77: 308–80.Google Scholar
1980a. “Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's rules and regulations (second computer inquiry),” Order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 77: 384–522.Google Scholar
1980b. “MTS and WATS market structure,” Report and third supplemental notice of inquiry and proposed rulemaking, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 81: 177–218.Google Scholar
1980c. “Regulatory policies concerning resale and shared use of common carrier domestic public switched network services,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 83: 167–98.Google Scholar
1980d. “Policy and rules concerning rates for competitive common carrier services and facilities authorizations therefor,” First report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 85: 1–56.Google Scholar
1981. “Inquiry into the use of the bands 825–845 MHz & 870–890 MHz for cellular communications systems,” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 86: 469–644.Google Scholar
1982. “Policy and rules concerning rates for competitive common carrier services and facilities authorizations therefor,” Second report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 91: 59–75.Google Scholar
1983a. “Policy and rules concerning rates for competitive common carrier services and facilities authorizations therefor,” Fourth report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 95: 554–83.Google Scholar
1983b. “Communications protocols under Section 64.702 of the Commission's rules and regulations,” Memorandum opinion, order and statement of principles, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 95: 584–604.Google Scholar
1983c. “MTS and WATS market structure,” Memorandum opinion and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 97: 682–899.Google Scholar
1984. “Petitions for waiver of Section 64.702 of the Commission's rules and regulations to provide certain types of protocol conversion with their basic network,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC84–561.Google Scholar
1985a. “Policy and rules concerning rates for competitive common carrier services and facilities authorizations therefor,” Sixth report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 99: 1020–39.Google Scholar
1985b. “Petitions for waiver of Section 64.702 of the Commission's rules (Computer II),” Memorandum opinion and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 100: 1057–1117.Google Scholar
1985c. “Petition of AT&T Co. for limited and temporary waiver of 47 CFR §64.702 regarding its provision of unregulated services externally to the AT&T-C network,” Memorandum opinion and order, Radio Regulation, 2d Series 59: 505–17.Google Scholar
1986a. “Amendment of Sections 64.702 of Commission's rules and regulations (third computer inquiry),” Report and order, Federal Communications Commission Reports, 2d Series 104: 958–1131.Google Scholar
1986b. “Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's rules concerning carriage of television broadcast signals by cable television systems,” Report and order, FCC Record 1: 864–917.Google Scholar
1988. “Filing and review of open network architecture plans,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 4: 1–302.Google Scholar
1990. “Fox Broadcasting Co. request for temporary waiver of certain provisions of 47 C. F. R. § 73.658,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 5: 3211–17.Google Scholar
1991a. “Reexamination of the effective competition standard for the regulation of cable television service rates,” Report and order and second further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 6: 4545–76.Google Scholar
1991b. “Computer III remand proceedings: Bell Operating Co. safeguards & tier 1 local exchange co. safeguards,” Report and order, FCC Record 6: 7571–701.Google Scholar
1992a. “Bundling of cellular customer premises equipment and cellular service,” Report and order, FCC Record 7: 4028–36.Google Scholar
1992b. “Expanded interconnection with local telephone company facilities,” Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 7: 7369–517.Google Scholar
1993a. “Expanded interconnection with local telephone company facilities,” Second report and order and third notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 8: 7374–473.Google Scholar
1993b. “Amendment of the Commission's rules to establish new personal communications services,” Second report and order, FCC Record 8: 7700–875.Google Scholar
1994. “Expanded interconnection with local telephone company facilities,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 9: 5154–221.Google Scholar
1995a. “Bell Operating Cos.' joint petition for waiver of Computer II rules,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 10: 1724–31.Google Scholar
1995c. “Computer III further remand proceedings: Bell Operating Co. provision of enhanced services,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 10: 8360–89.Google Scholar
1995d. “Review of the syndication and financial interest rules, Sections 73.659–73.663 of the Commission's rules,” Report and order, FCC Record 10: 12165–73.Google Scholar
1995e. “Motion of AT&T Corp. to be reclassified as a non-dominant carrier,” Report and order, FCC Record 11: 3271–376.Google Scholar
1996a. “Interconnection between local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 11: 5020–90.Google Scholar
1996b. “Implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 11: 14171–269.Google Scholar
1996c. “Implementation of local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” First report and order, FCC Record 11: 15499–16253.Google Scholar
1996d. “Policy and rules concerning the interstate, interexchange marketplace,” Second report and order, FCC Record 11: 20730–822.Google Scholar
1996e. “Implementation of the non-accounting safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,” First report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 11: 21905–22097.Google Scholar
1998a. “Computer III further remand proceedings: Bell Operating Co. provision of enhanced services,” Report and order, FCC Record 13: 6040–121.Google Scholar
1998b. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Memorandum opinion and order and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 13: 15280–319.Google Scholar
1998c. “Application of WorldCom, Inc. and MCI Communications Corp. for transfer of control of MCI Communications Corp. to WorldCom, Inc.,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 13: 18025–173.Google Scholar
1998d. “Application of BellSouth Corp., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc., for provision of in-region, interLATA services in Louisiana,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 13: 20599–830.Google Scholar
1998e. “GTE Telephone Operating Cos.,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 13: 22466–488.Google Scholar
1998f. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Memorandum opinion and order, and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 13: 24012–124.Google Scholar
1999a. “Inquiry concerning deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Report, FCC Record 14: 2398–2649.Google Scholar
1999b. “Applications for consent to transfer of control of licenses and Section 214 authorizations from Tele-Communications, Inc., transferor, to AT&T Corp., transferee,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 14: 3160–3243.Google Scholar
1999c. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” First report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 14: 4761–4842.Google Scholar
1999d. “Access charge reform,” Fifth report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 14: 14221–307.Google Scholar
1999e. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Third report and order in CC Docket No. 98–147 and fourth report and order in CC Docket No. 96–98, FCC Record 14: 20912–1039.Google Scholar
1999f. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Order on remand, FCC Record 15: 385–413.Google Scholar
1999g. “Implementation of the local competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Third report and order and fourth further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 15: 3696–952.Google Scholar
1999h. “Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,” Second report and order, FCC Record 15: 7105–50.Google Scholar
2000a. “Applications for consent to transfer of control of licenses and Section 214 authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., transferor, to AT&T Corp., transferee,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 15: 9816–915.Google Scholar
2000b. “Interconnection and resale obligations pertaining to commercial mobile radio services,” Fourth report and order, FCC Record 15: 13523–38.Google Scholar
2000c. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Order on reconsideration and second further notice of proposed rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98–147 and fifth further notice of proposed rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96–98, FCC Record 15: 17806–91.
2000d. “Inquiry concerning high-speed access to Internet over cable and other facilities,” Notice of inquiry, FCC Record 15: 19287–310.Google Scholar
2000e. “Inquiry considering the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Second report, FCC Record 15: 20913–1065.Google Scholar
2000f. “2000 biennial regulatory review of Part 68 of the Commission's rules and regulations,” Report and order, FCC Record 15: 24944–5019.Google Scholar
2001a. “Applications for consent to transfer of control of licenses and Section 214 authorizations by Time Warner, Inc. and America Online, Inc., transferors, to AOL Time Warner Inc., transferee,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 16: 6547–726.Google Scholar
2001b. “Policy and rules concerning the interstate, interexchange marketplace,” Report and order, FCC Record 16: 7418–56.Google Scholar
2001c. “Developing a unified intercarrier compensation regime,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 16: 9610–79.Google Scholar
2001d. “Access charge reform,” Seventh report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 16: 9923–89.Google Scholar
2001e. “Deployment of wireline services offering advanced telecommunications capability,” Fourth report and order, FCC Record 16: 15435–508.Google Scholar
2002a. “Inquiry considering the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Third report, FCC Record 17: 2844–930.Google Scholar
2002b. “Appropriate framework for broadband access to the Internet over wireline facilities,” Notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 17: 3019–76.Google Scholar
2002c. “Inquiry concerning high-speed access to Internet over cable and other facilities,” Declaratory ruling and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 17: 4798–872.Google Scholar
2002d. “Applications for consent to transfer of control of licenses from Comcast Corp. and AT&T Corp., transferors, to AT&T Comcast Corp.,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 17: 23246–353.Google Scholar
2002e. “Review of regulatory requirements for incumbent LEC broadband services,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 17: 27000–27.Google Scholar
2003a. “Application by SBC Communications, Inc., Nevada Bell Telephone Co., and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., for authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services in Nevada,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 18: 7196–324.Google Scholar
2003b. “Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc., for authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services in New Mexico, Oregon and South Dakota,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 18: 7325–564.Google Scholar
2003c. “2002 biennial regulatory review – Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Report, order and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 18: 13620–4013.Google Scholar
2003d. “Review of the Section 251 unbundled obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers,” Report and order and order on remand and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 18: 16978–7552.Google Scholar
2003e. “Review of the Section 251 unbundling obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers,” Report and order and order on remand and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 18: 19020–23.Google Scholar
2005a. “Unbundled access to network elements,” Order on remand, FCC Record 20: 2533–717.Google Scholar
2005c. “Developing a unified intercarrier compensation regime,” Further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 20: 4685–799.Google Scholar
2005d. “Appropriate framework for broadband access to the Internet over wireline facilities,” Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 20: 14853–985.Google Scholar
2005e. “Appropriate framework for broadband access to the Internet over wireline facilities,” Policy statement, FCC Record 20: 14986–88.Google Scholar
2005f. “Petition for waiver of pricing flexibility rules for fast pack services,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 20: 16840–53.Google Scholar
2005g. “SBC Communications, Inc. and AT&T Corp. applications for approval of transfer of control,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 20: 18290–432.Google Scholar
2005h. “Verizon Communications, Inc. and MCI, Inc. applications for approval of transfer of control,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 20: 18433–580.Google Scholar
2005i. “Local telephone competition: Status as of December 31, 2004,” http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/lcom0705.pdf.
2006a. “Applications for consent to the assignment and/or transfer of control of licenses: Adelphia Communications Corporation (and subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession), assignors, to Time Warner Cable Inc. (subsidiaries), assignees, et al.,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 21: 8203–378.Google Scholar
2006b. “Implementation of Section 6002(b) of Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Annual report and analysis of competitive market conditions with respect to commercial mobile services,” Eleventh report, FCC Record 21: 10947–1064.Google Scholar
2006c. “Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Statistical report on average rates for basic service, cable programming service, and equipment,” Report on cable industry prices, FCC Record 21: 15087–131.Google Scholar
2006d. “Verizon Telephone Companies' petition for forbearance from Title II and Computer Inquiry rules with respect to their broadband services is granted by operation of law,” News release, March 20. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264436A1.pdf.
2007a. “AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. application for transfer of control,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 22: 5662–841.Google Scholar
2007b. “SBC Communications Inc. petition for wavier of Section 61.42 of the Commission's rules,” Order, FCC Record 22: 7224–32.Google Scholar
2007c. “Qwest petition for waiver of pricing flexibility rules for advanced communications networks services,” Order, FCC Record 22: 7482–88.Google Scholar
2007e. “Petition of AT&T Inc. for forbearance under 47 U. S. C. § 160(c) from Title II and Computer Inquiry rules with respect to its broadband services,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 22: 18705–50.Google Scholar
2008a. “Development of nationwide broadband data to evaluate reasonable and timely deployment of advanced services to all Americans, improvement of wireless broadband subscribership data, and development of data on interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) subscribership,” Report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC Record 23: 9691–771.Google Scholar
2008b. “High-speed services for Internet access: Status as of June 30, 2007,” http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287962A1.pdf.
2008c. “Formal complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge against Comcast Corp. for secretly degrading peer-to-peer applications,” Memorandum opinion and order, FCC Record 23: 13028–61.Google Scholar
2008d. “BOC authorization to provide in-region, interLATA services under Sections 271 and 272,” http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/.
[FTC] 2000. “America Online, Inc.,” No. C-3989, Decision and order, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/12/aoldando.pdf.
2007. Internet Access Task Force, Broadband connectivity competition policy: A Federal Trade Commission staff report. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
2004. “Minimum cost flows,” in Gross and Yellen (eds.), pp. 1087–102.
1981. “The modernization of antitrust: A new equilibrium,” Cornell Law Review 66: 1140–92.Google Scholar
2005. “Is there life in Aspen after Trinko: The silent revolution of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” Antitrust Law Journal 73: 153–70.Google Scholar
2000. “Creating holdup through vertical integration: Fisher Body revisited,” Journal of Law and Economics 43: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2007. “Network neutrality and the economics of an information superhighway: A reply to Professor Yoo,” Jurimetrics 47: 383–428.Google Scholar
and 1994. “Economies of scope in the local telephone exchange market,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 6: 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1969. “The early competitive era in telephone communication, 1893–1920,” Law and Contemporary Problems 34: 340–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. Competition in the natural gas pipeline industry: An economic policy analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
, , and 2003. “Standards in wireless telephone networks,” Telecommunications Policy 27: 325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “International broadband deployment: The impact of unbundling,” Communications and Strategies 57: 83–105.Google Scholar
, , , and 2002. Cost proxy models and telecommunications policy: A new empirical approach to regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
, , and 2002. “The natural monopoly test reconsidered: An engineering process-based approach to empirical analysis in telecommunications,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 20: 435–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2005. “The concurrent application of competition law and regulation: The case of margin squeeze abuses in the telecommunications sector,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 1: 355–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. “Rethinking the monopolist's duty to deal: A legal and economic critique of the doctrine of ‘essential facilities,’” Virginia Law Review 74: 1069–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. “Why fair market value fails as just compensation,” Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 14: 181–202.Google Scholar
1988. “A micro-microeconomic approach to antitrust-law: Games managers play,” Michigan Law Review 86: 892–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1976. “Regulation and administered contracts,” Bell Journal of Economics 7: 426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1985. “Economic-action and social-structure: The problem of embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. “Industrial economics and strategy: Computing platforms,” IEEE Micro 18: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1987. “The welfare gain from efficient pricing of local telephone services,” Journal of Law and Economics 30: 465–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. and (eds.) 2004. Handbook of graph theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
, , and 1997. “A stochastic equilibrium model of Internet pricing,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21: 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1940. The concept of a business affected with a public interest. Bloomington, IN: Principia Press.Google Scholar
1973. “Specification of technology with several kinds of output,” Journal of Political Economy 81: 878–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1981. “A theory of monopoly pricing schemes with demand uncertainty,” American Economic Review 71: 347–65.Google Scholar
and 1990. “Vertical integration and market foreclosure,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1990: 205–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. “Competition in long-distance and telecommunications equipment markets: Effects of the MFJ,” Managerial and Decision Economics 16: 365–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. “Valuing the effect of regulation on new services in telecommunications,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 28: 1–54.Google Scholar
and 1999. “A consumer-welfare approach to the mandatory unbundling of telecommunications networks,” Yale Law Journal 109: 417–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2005. “Did mandatory unbundling achieve its purpose? Empirical evidence from five countries,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 1: 173–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2001. “Residential demand for broadband telecommunications and consumer access to unaffiliated Internet content providers,” Yale Journal on Regulation 18: 129–73.Google Scholar
1973. “An economic analysis of vertical integration,” Industrial Organization Review 1: 188–98.Google Scholar
1989. The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism, (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1986. “Private monopoly and the public interest: An economic analysis of the cable television franchise,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 134: 1335–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1990. “Duopolistic competition in cable television: Implications for public policy,” Yale Journal on Regulation 7: 65–120.Google Scholar
2006. “Rivalrous telecommunications networks with and without mandatory sharing,” Federal Communications Law Journal 58: 477–510.Google Scholar
and 1997. Public policy towards cable television: The economics of rate controls. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
1998. “The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets,” Harvard Law Review 111: 621–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1991. “Exclusion and the theory of clubs,” Canadian Journal of Economics–Revue Canadienne d'Économique 24: 888–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1996. “Traffic-based cost allocation in a network,” RAND Journal of Economics 27: 332–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. Comments submitted in FCC (2002e), http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513198026.
1992, “Contract networks for electric power transmission,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 4: 211–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. “Regulatory conflict in the gilded age: Federalism and the railroad problem,” Yale Law Journal 97: 1017–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “The antitrust movement and the rise of industrial organization,” Texas Law Review 68: 105–68.Google Scholar
1991. Enterprise and American law, 1836–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. “The marginalist revolution in legal thought,” Vanderbilt Law Review 46: 305–59.Google Scholar
2004. “Antitrust and the regulatory enterprise,” Columbia Business Law Review 2004: 335–78.Google Scholar
2002. “Infrastructure regulation and the demand for broadband services: Evidence from the OECD countries,” Communications and Strategies 47: 33–62.Google Scholar
1987. The geodesic network: 1987 report on competition in the telephone industry. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
1997. “Thinking about why some communications mergers are unthinkable,” Address before the Brookings Institution, http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh735.html.
1991. “Economic rents and essential facilities,” Brigham Young University Law Review 1991: 1243–84.Google Scholar
Idaho Public Utilities Commission 2003. “Qwest Corp.,” Order No. 29360, 2003 WL 22417269.
InformationWeek 2006. “Former FCC Chairman Powell: Net neutrality ‘doing great,’” 20 February, http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/ebusiness/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180205365.
and 1997. “Making sense of the antitrust state-action doctrine: Balancing political participation and economic efficiency in regulatory federalism,” Texas Law Review 75: 1203–1300.Google Scholar
1937. Interstate Commerce Commission Activities 1887–1937. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
. “WebPro Forums: Operations Support Systems (OSSs),” http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/oss/topic01.html and http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/oss/topic02.html.
2007. Interstate Pipeline Deskbook, Washington, D.C.: INGAA, www.ingaa.org/cms/28/5928.aspx, accessed January 22, 2009.Google Scholar
1995. “An essay on the normative foundations of antitrust economics,” North Carolina Law Review 74: 219–66.Google Scholar
, , , , and 2000. “The large-scale organization of metabolic networks,” Nature 407: 651–4.Google ScholarPubMed
and 1974. “Single versus multiple-system cable television,” Journal of Broadcasting 18: 323–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2000. “Innovation, investment, and unbundling,” Yale Journal on Regulation 17: 1–38.Google Scholar
and 1999. “The Bell doctrine: Applications in telecommunications, electricity, and other network industries,” Stanford Law Review 51: 1249–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1990. “The effects of regulation and competition on the price of AT&T intrastate telephone service,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 2: 363–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1971. The economics of regulation: Principles and institutions, 2 vols. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
and 1987. “Current issues in telecommunications regulation: Pricing,” Yale Journal on Regulation 4: 191–256.Google Scholar
and 1994. “Cross-subsidies in telecommunications: Roadblocks on the road to more intelligent telephone pricing,” Yale Journal on Regulation 11: 119–48.Google Scholar
and 2002. “Competition in the long-distance market,” in Cave et al. (eds.), pp. 510–63.
and 1985. “Network externalities, competition, and compatibility,” American Economic Review 75: 424–40.Google Scholar
and 1986. “Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities,” Journal of Political Economy 94: 822–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1992. “Product introduction with network externalities,” Journal of Industrial Economics 40: 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. “Systems competition and network effects,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “Section Two of the Sherman Act: The search for standards,” Georgetown Law Journal 93: 1623–44.Google Scholar
and 1959. Antitrust policy: An economic and legal analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1998. “The great transformation of regulated industries law,” Columbia Law Review 98: 1323–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1995. Supplement to Federal Telecommunications Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
2000. The digital handshake: Connecting Internet backbones. Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 32, Federal Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp32.pdf.
and 2003. “Optimal pricing for multiple services in telecommunications networks offering quality-of-service guarantees,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11: 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “The ripple effects of Trinko: How it is affecting Section 2 analysis,” Antitrust 20 (Fall): 44–50.Google Scholar
, , and 2003. Broadband uptake in OECD countries: Policy lessons from comparative statistical analysis. Paper presented at the 31st Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, Arlington, VA, http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2003/203/Kim-Bauer-Wildman.pdf.
and 2003. “Regulation on the horizon: Are regulators poised to address the status of IP telephony?” CommLaw Conspectus 11: 19–44.Google Scholar
and 1995. “Do new theories of vertical foreclosure provide sound guidance for consent agreements in vertical merger cases?” Antitrust Bulletin 40: 667–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. “Vertical integration as organizational ownership: The Fisher Body–General Motors relationship revisited,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 4: 199–213.Google Scholar
2000. “Fisher–General Motors and the nature of the firm,” Journal of Law and Economics 43: 105–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1978. “Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process,” Journal of Law and Economics 21: 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1921a. “Cost of production and price over long and short periods,” Journal of Political Economy 29: 304–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. “Regulatory restructuring and incumbent price dynamics: The case of U.S. local telephone markets,” Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 614–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1981. “Product differentiation, monopolistic competition, and public-policy,” Bell Journal of Economics 12: 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1986. “Anticompetitive exclusion: Raising rivals' costs to achieve power over price,” Yale Law Journal 96: 209–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1997. “Competition between telecommunications operators,” European Economic Review 41: 701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1998. “Network competition. I. Overview and nondiscriminatory pricing,” RAND Journal of Economics 29: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2008. “Exclusive contracts and vertical restraints: Empirical evidence and public policy,” in Handbook in antitrust economics, (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 391–414.Google Scholar
1975. “Socially optimal product differentiation,” American Economic Review 65: 567–85.Google Scholar
1990. “Implications of Professor Scherer's research for the future of antitrust,” Washburn Law Journal 29: 256–63.Google Scholar
1960. Report on regulatory agencies to the President-Elect. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
1978. “The growth of long-distance telephony in the Bell system: 1875–1907,” Journal of Historical Geography 4: 145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. “Wholesale pricing and the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Guidelines for compliance with the avoided cost rule,” University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 8: 243–60.Google Scholar
and 1999. “The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and competition policy: An economic view in hindsight,” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology4: article 1, http://www.vjolt.net/vol4/issue/home_artl.html.Google Scholar
1999. “Broadband today: A staff report to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,” http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/broadbandtoday.pdf.
1888. “Recherches expérimentales et théoriques sur les équilibres chimiques,” Annales des Mines 13: 157–82.Google Scholar
1991. “Transaction costs and equilibrium pricing of congested public goods with imperfect information,” Journal of Public Economics 45: 337–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1950. “Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumer's demand,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 64: 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. “Antitrust and the Internet standardization problem,” Connecticut Law Review 28: 1041–94.Google Scholar
and 2001. “The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era,” UCLA Law Review 48: 925–72.Google Scholar
and 1998. “Legal implications of network economic effects,” California Law Review 86: 479–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 2006. Net neutrality or net neutering: Should broadband Internet services be regulated?New York: Springer.CrossRef
2005. “Reply: Re-marking the progress in Frischmann,” Minnesota Law Review 89: 1031–43.Google Scholar
and 1991. “Cable television and competition: Theory, evidence and policy,” Telecommunications Policy 15: 519–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. “Network externality: An uncommon tragedy,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995. “Are network externalities a new source of market failure?” Research in Law and Economics 17: 1–22.Google Scholar
and 1996. “Should technology choice be a concern of antitrust policy?” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 9: 283–318.Google Scholar
and 2001. Winners, losers and Microsoft, revised ed. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute.Google Scholar
1989. The Bell system and regional business: The telephone in the South, 1877–1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
and 2001. “Devising a Microsoft remedy that serves consumers,” George Mason Law Review 9: 691–726.Google Scholar
and 2001. “Internet regulation and consumer welfare: Innovation, speculation, and cable bundling,” Hastings Law Journal 52: 891–928.Google Scholar
and 2005. “Bargaining and monopolization: In search of the ‘boundary of Section 2 liability’ between Aspen and Trinko,” Antitrust Law Journal 73: 115–52.Google Scholar
and 2001. “Business-to-business electronic commerce,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. “Compensation for takings: How much is just?” Catholic University Law Review 42: 721–70.Google Scholar
1996. The failure of antitrust and regulation to establish competition in long-distance telephone service. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and 1983. “Winning by losing: The AT&T settlement and its impact on telecommunication,” Yale Journal on Regulation 1: 1–42.Google Scholar
and 1960. “Bilateral monopoly, successive monopoly, and vertical integration,” Economica 27: 101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1994. “Economic FAQs about the Internet,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995a. “Pricing congestible network resources,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 13: 1141–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995b. “Some FAQs about usage-based pricing,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 28: 257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. Federal Trade Commission in the online world – Promoting competition and protecting consumers. Luncheon Address at the Progress & Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit, Aspen, CO.
, , and (eds.) 2005. Handbook of telecommunications economics. Vol. 2. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
and 1980. “Theory of vertical control with variable proportions,” Journal of Political Economy 88: 1009–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1987. “Antitrust and regulation in cable television: Federal policy at war with itself,” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 6: 75–100.Google Scholar
1970. “Tie-ins, leverage, and American antitrust laws,” Yale Law Journal 80: 195–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. “Comments on commission policy statement,” news release, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A2.pdf.
and 1972. “Metering costs and marginal cost pricing in public utilities,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3: 335–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1984. “An economic theory of vertical restraints,” RAND Journal of Economics 15: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1997. “Buyer groups,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 15: 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1989. “The impact of alternative forms of state regulation of AT&T on direct-dial, long-distance telephone rates,” RAND Journal of Economics 20: 437–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1995. “Be true to your school: Chicago's contradictory views of antitrust and regulation,” in The causes and consequences of antitrust, and (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 323–40.Google Scholar
2002. “The marriage of optical switching and electronic routing,” Lightwave, May, http://lw.pennnet.com/display_article/143017/13/ARTCL/none/none/1/The-marriage-of-optical-switching-and-electronic-routing/.Google Scholar
1996. “Regulating competition in the information age: Computer software as an essential facility under the Sherman Act,” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 18: 771–852.Google Scholar
1974. “Group segregation and optimal jurisdictions,” Journal of Political Economy 82: 112–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1951. “Ideal output and the interdependence of firms,” Economic Journal 61: 785–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. “Farewell to the quick look: Redefining the scope and content of the rule of reason,” Antitrust Law Journal 68: 461–98.Google Scholar
2002. “Building the regulatory foundations for growth in network economies,” WDR Discussion Paper No. 0201, http://www.regulateonline.org/content/view/217/64/.
, , and 2000. “Competitive effects of Internet peering policies,” in The Internet Upheaval, and (eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 175–95.Google Scholar
and 1992. Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
1961. Principles of political economy. Ed. by . New York: Augustus M. Kelley. [Originally published 1848.]Google Scholar
1978. “Optimal pricing of local telephone service,” American Economic Review 68: 517–37.Google Scholar
and 1991. Telecommunications pricing: Theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “The switchboard problem: Scale, signaling, and organization in manual telephone switching, 1877–1897,” Technology and Culture 30: 534–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. “GTE Sylvania and the empirical foundations of antitrust,” Antitrust Law Journal 68: 899–912.Google Scholar
1977. “Graphs and cooperation in games,” Mathematics of Operations Research 2: 225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. “Regulating information platforms: The challenge of rewriting communications regulation from the bottom up,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 1: 95–142.Google Scholar
1979. Report to the President and the Attorney General.
National Journal's Insider Update 2006. “FCC chief opens door to tiered, high-speed Internet,” 6 January.
1960. The antitrust laws of the United States of America, 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1970. The antitrust laws of the United States, 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[NYPSC] 1994. “Petition of Rochester Tel. Corp. for approval of proposed restructuring plan,” Opinion and order. Public Utilities Reports, 4th series 160: 554–617.Google Scholar
1998. “Joint complaint of AT&T Communications of New York, Inc., MCI Telecommunications Corporation, WorldCom, Inc. d/b/a LDDS WorldCom and the Empire Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies, Inc. against New York Telephone Company concerning wholesale provisioning of local exchange service by New York Telephone Company and sections of New York Telephone Company's Tariff No. 900,” Notice inviting comments on staff report, Case 95-C-0657, 1998 WL 744059.
New York Times 2006. Editorial, “Tollbooths on the Internet highway,” 20 February.
New York Times 2007. “Cellphone-only homes hit a milestone,” 27 August.
Newsweek 2006. “When the net goes from free to fee,” 27 February.
1983. “Local distribution monopolies in cable television and telephone service: The scope for competition,” in Telecommunications regulation today and tomorrow, (ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 351–416.Google Scholar
1985. “Economies of scale in cable television: A multiproduct analysis,” in Video media competition: Regulation, economics, and technology, (ed.). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 93–120.Google Scholar
1997. “Will universal service and common carriage survive the Telecommunications Act of 1996?” Columbia Law Review 97: 955–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “Economic perspectives on the politics of regulation,” in Schmalensee and Willig (eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 1253–87.
and 1989. “The anticompetitive uses of regulation: United States v. AT&T,” in The Antitrust Revolution, and (eds.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, pp. 291–4.Google Scholar
. 2007. “High-voltage transmission circuit miles (230kV and above) – 2005,” http://www.nerc.com/files/High-Voltage_Transmission_Circuit_Miles_2005.doc.
1976. “The divestiture remedy in Sherman Act § 2,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 13: 687–775.Google Scholar
2004. “The evolution of price discrimination in transportation and its implications for the Internet,” Review of Network Economics 3: 323–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1997. “Online, past, present and future: Repetition, reinvention, or reincarnation?” Online 21: 63–6.Google Scholar
Omaha World-Herald 2007. “Big phone carriers say small firms bleed them,” 16 May.
, and 1988. “Antitrust policy and high-technology industries,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 4(4): 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1990. “Equilibrium vertical foreclosure,” American Economic Review 80: 127–42.Google Scholar
and 1986. “Competitive considerations in cable television franchising,” Contemporary Economic Policy 4: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2006. “Local broadband access: Primum non nocere or primum processi? A property rights approach,” in Lenard and May (eds.), pp. 163–94.
1989. “The Chicago school and the evolution of antitrust: Characterization, antitrust injury, and evidentiary sufficiency,” Virginia Law Review 75: 1221–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1976. “A neoclassical approach to peak load pricing,” Bell Journal of Economics 7: 521–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1977. “Free entry and sustainability of natural monopoly,” Bell Journal of Economics 8: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1987. “Optimal peak-load pricing for local telephone calls,” Rand Paper No. R-3404-1-RC.
1996. “The economic necessity of an increased subscriber line charge (SLC) in telecommunications,” Administrative Law Review 48: 227–50.Google Scholar
1967. “Clubs, commonality and the core: An integration of game theory and the theory of public goods,” Economica 34: 314–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1969. “Issues in vertical integration policy,” in Public policy towards mergers, and (eds.). Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co., pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
1976. “Toward a more general theory of regulation,” Journal of Law and Economics 19: 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 2000. Deregulation of network industries: What's next?Washington, DC: AEI–Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
2001. “Verizon, Pennsylvania, Inc.,” Order, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Reports 95: 301–30.Google Scholar
1989. “Vertical integration: Determinants and effects,” in Schmalensee and Willig (eds.), vol. 1, pp. 183–255.
2004. “Mandatory unbundling and irreversible investment in telecom networks,” Working Paper No. 10287, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w10287.pdf.
2000. “Identifying monopolists' illegal conduct under the Sherman Act,” New York University Law Review 75: 809–92.Google Scholar
, , and 2002. “The essential facilities doctrine under U.S. antitrust law,” Antitrust Law Journal 70: 443–62.Google Scholar
1944. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
1969. “Natural monopoly and its regulation,” Stanford Law Review 21(Feb): 548–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1970. “Statistical study of antitrust enforcement,” Journal of Law and Economics 13: 365–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1972. “The appropriate scope of regulation in the cable television industry,” Bell Journal of Economics 3: 98–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1981. Antitrust cases, economic notes, and other materials, 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
2004. “Preserving Internet freedom: Guiding principles for the industry,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 3: 5–22.Google Scholar
1957. “Shortest connection networks and some generalizations,” Bell System Technical Journal 36: 1389–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008. “Did federal regulation discourage facilities-based entry into US local telecommunications markets?” Telecommunications Policy 32: 572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1986. “Federal regulation in historical perspective,” Stanford Law Review 38: 1189–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988. “Should there be an essential facility doctrine?” U.C. Davis Law Review 21: 327–82.Google Scholar
1999. “Networks versus markets in international trade,” Journal of International Economics 48: 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2001. “Business and social networks in international trade,” Journal of Economic Literature 39: 1177–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reason Online 2006. “A neutral panic: Why there's no need for new laws to keep the Internet open,” 10 April.
, , and 1998. “Commentaries on ‘Active networking and end-to-end arguments,’” IEEE Network 12: 69–71.Google Scholar
and 1990. “Terminal Railroad revisited: Foreclosure of an essential facility or simple horizontal monopoly?” Journal of Law and Economics 33: 419–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995. “Is there new thinking on vertical mergers?” Antitrust Law Journal 63: 917–42.Google Scholar
1998. “Anticompetitive vertical integration by a dominant firm,” American Economic Review 88: 1232–48.Google Scholar
and 1995. “Evaluating vertical mergers: A post-Chicago approach,” Antitrust Law Journal 63: 513–68.Google Scholar
1985. “Direct damages: The lost key to constitutional just compensation when business premises are condemned,” Seton Hall Law Review 15: 483–540.Google Scholar
1988. “The Titanic remembered: AT&T and the changing world of telecommunications,” Yale Journal on Regulation 5: 517–45.Google Scholar
1989. “The Federal Communications Act: An essay on origins and regulatory purpose,” in A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934, (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
and 2003. “Platform competition in two-sided markets,” Journal of European Economic Association 1: 990–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000a. “New economic perspectives on telecommunication regulations,” University of Chicago Law Review 67: 1489–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000b. “The regulation of broadband telecommunications, the principle of regulating narrowly defined input bottlenecks, and incentives for investment and innovation,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2000: 119–48.Google Scholar
1974. “A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 5: 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1990a. “Modeling cost structure: The Bell system revisited,” Applied Economics 22: 1661–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1990b. “Proper quadratic cost functions with an application to the Bell system,” Review of Economics and Statistics 72: 202–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. “Are residential local exchange prices too low?” in Expanding Competition in Regulated Industries, (ed.). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. “Disentangling deregulatory takings,” Virginia Law Review 86: 1435–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2002. “The economics of the Supreme Court's decision on forward looking costs,” Review of Network Economics 1: 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1995. “Costs of delay and rent-seeking under the modification of final judgment,” Managerial and Decision Economics 16: 385–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and with 1994. Fundamentals of telecommunication networks. New York: Wiley–Interscience.Google Scholar
1988. “Vertical mergers and market foreclosure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 103: 345–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1991. “Vertical mergers in multi-product industries and Edgeworth's paradox of taxation,” Journal of Industrial Economics 39: 545–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1979. “Monopolistic competition with outside goods,” Bell Journal of Economics 10: 141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. “Exclusionary conduct: Effect on consumers, and the flawed profit-sacrifice standard,” Antitrust Law Journal 73: 311–74.Google Scholar
1999. “‘Open access’ is just the tip of the iceberg,” http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/openaccess.html.
, , and 1984. “End-to-end arguments in system-design,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2: 277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1948. “Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference,” Economica 15: 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Francisco Chronicle 2006. Editorial, “Don't undercut Internet access,” 17 April.
San Jose Mercury News 2005. “Google offers free WiFi net for S. F.,” 1 October.
San Jose Mercury News 2006. Editorial, “Congress turns a deaf ear to need for Internet neutrality,” 7 April.
and 1990. Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
1973. “A note on the theory of vertical integration,” Journal of Political Economy 81: 442–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) 1989. The handbook of industrial organization, 2 vols. New York: North-Holland Publishing Co.
1997. “Regulating competition in the interexchange telecommunications market: The dominant/nondominant carrier approach and the evolution of forbearance,” Federal Communications Law Journal 49: 369–456.Google Scholar
1985. “Two-tier pricing of shared facilities in a free-entry equilibrium,” RAND Journal of Economics 16: 453–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1994. “Public goods and the invisible hand,” in Modern public finance, and (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 93–125.Google Scholar
and 1987. “Competitive-equilibrium and the core in club economies with anonymous crowding,” Journal of Public Economics 34: 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seattle Times (2007). “Comcast blocks some file sharing,” Oct. 20.
(ed.) 1918. Decrees and judgments in federal anti-trust cases, July 2, 1890–January 1, 1918. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
1995. “Aftermarkets and consumer welfare: Making sense of Kodak,” Antitrust Law Journal 63: 483–512.Google Scholar
, , and 1983. Cablespeech: The case for First Amendment protection. New York: Law and Business, Inc.Google Scholar
1995. “Network models in economics,” in Network routing. Vol. 8 of The handbook of operations research and management science, , , , and (eds.). New York: North-Holland Publishing Co., pp. 713–65.Google Scholar
2007. “Adjusting regulation to competition: Toward a new model for U. S. telecommunications policy,” Yale Journal on Regulation 24: 55–106.Google Scholar
and 2001. “Antitrust divestiture in network industries,” University of Chicago Law Review 68: 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1992. “Unnatural monopolies in local telephone,” RAND Journal of Economics 23: 171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1997a. Deregulatory takings and the regulatory contract. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1997b. “Givings, takings, and the fallacy of forward-looking costs,” New York University Law Review 72: 1068–1164.Google Scholar
and 1998. “Cyberjam: The law and economics of Internet congestion of the telephone network,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 21: 327–94.Google Scholar
1984. “Understanding the Lochner era: Lessons from the controversy over railroad and utility rate regulation,” Virginia Law Review 70: 187–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. Direct competition among cable television systems. Economic Analysis Group Paper No. 86-9, U.S. Department of Justice.
1776. An inquiry into the nature and causes of wealth of nations. Reprinted 1998, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2004. “The layers principle: Internet architecture and the law,” Notre Dame Law Review 79: 815–948.Google Scholar
, , and 1998. “The essential facilities doctrine in the deregulated telecommunications industry,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 13: 565–614.Google Scholar
1976. “Product selection, fixed costs, and monopolistic competition,” Review of Economic Studies 43: 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1950. “Vertical integration and antitrust policy,” Journal of Political Economy 58: 347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. “Handicapping the race for the last mile: A critique of open access rules for broadband platforms,” Yale Journal on Regulation 17: 39–92.Google Scholar
2002. “A common carrier approach to Internet interconnection,” Federal Communications Law Journal 54: 225–80.Google Scholar
2004. “Deregulating telecommunications in Internet time,” Washington and Lee Law Review 61: 1063–1158.Google Scholar
2006. “Resale requirements and the intersection of antitrust and regulated industries,” Journal of Corporation Law 31: 307–22.Google Scholar
1988. “Antitrust federalism and rational choice political economy: A critique of capture theory,” Southern California Law Review 61: 1293–1326.Google Scholar
1992. “Capacity-contingent nonlinear pricing by regulated firms,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 4: 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993b. “Monopoly pricing of capacity usage under asymmetric information,” Journal of Industrial Economics 41: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. “Market microstructure and intermediation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10: 135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1998. The market makers: How leading companies create and win markets. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
1999. Market microstructure: Intermediaries and the theory of the firm. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002a. “Competition policy in telecommunications,” in et al. (eds.), pp. 478–509.
2002b. “Market microstructure and incentives to invest,” Journal of Political Economy 110: 352–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. “Firms and networks in two-sided markets,” in The handbook of economics and information systems, (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 137–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008a. “Consumer coordination in the small and in the large: Implications for antitrust in markets with network effects,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 4: 207–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008b. “Unlocking technology: Innovation and antitrust,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 4: 915–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statutes at Large 1910. Vol. 36, pp. 539–57. Mann–Elkins Act.
Statutes at Large 1921. Vol. 42, pp. 27–28. Willis–Graham Act.
Statutes at Large 1934. Vol. 48, pp. 1064–105. Communications Act of 1934.
Statutes at Large 1978. Vol. 92, pp. 33–36. Communications Act Amendments of 1978.
Statutes at Large 1984. Vol. 98, pp. 2779–806. Communications Policy Act of 1984.
Statutes at Large 1992. Vol. 106, pp. 1460–504. Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
Statutes at Large 1993. Vol. 107, pp. 312–685. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Statutes at Large 1996. Vol. 110, pp. 56–161. Telecommunications Act of 1996.
1925. The financial history of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
2004. “Maximum flows,” in Gross and Yellen (eds.), pp. 1075–86.
1952. “Program patterns and preferences, and the workability of competition in radio broadcasting,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 66: 194–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1957. “Peak loads and efficient pricing,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 71: 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1971. “Theory of economic regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. “Elusive goals under the Telecommunications Act: Preserving long distance competition upon baby Bell entry and attaining local exchange competition: We'll not preserve the one unless we attain the other,” Southwestern University Law Review 25: 487–534.Google Scholar
and 2006. The law of antitrust: An integrated handbook, 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. “Changes in industry structure and technological convergence: Implications for competition policy and regulation in telecommunications,” International Economics and Economic Policy 4: 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
techFAQ 2009. “What is SCADA?” http://www.tech-faq.com/scada.shtml. (accessed January 22, 2009).
Telecommunications Reports 1998a. “MCI abandons reselling residential local service to focus on facilities-based business offerings,” 26 January.
Telecommunications Reports 1998b. “AT&T's Armstrong says Bells' discounts delay competition,” 16 February.
Telepath 1998. “Billing systems market reaps huge growth: How telecom carriers handle phone bills can make or break their customer base,” 5 January.
Telephony 1975. “Usage sensitive pricing: Studies of a new trend,” 10 February.
Telephony 2005. “Intel gets behind BPL,” 5 September.
Telephony 2006. “Point of no return,” 3 April.
1990. “Why should manufacturers want fair trade?” Journal of Law and Economics 33: 409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 1996. Chemical reaction networks: A graph-theoretical approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
2005. “Are dumb pipe mandates smart public policy: Vertical integration, net neutrality, and the network layers model,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 3: 275–308.Google Scholar
1954. “Intercompany technical standardization in the early American automobile industry,” Journal of Economic History 14: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1956. “A pure theory of local expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. Final report on the August 14th blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and recommendations, https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf.
, Economics and Statistics Administration 2003. Digital economy 2003, https://www.esa.doc.gov/2003.cfm.
, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2008. “Annual industry accounts: Advance estimates for 2007,” Survey of Current Business, May 2007, http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2008/05%20May/0508_indy_acct.pdf.Google Scholar
1968. “Merger guidelines,” 4 Trade Reg. Rep. [CCH] ¶13,101.
2007. “Ex parte filing,” filed in FCC (2007d), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/225767.pdf.
, Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2008. National transportation statistics 2008, http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/pdf/entire.pdf.
1921. Consolidation of telephone systems. 67th Congress, 1st sess. H. R. Rep. No. 109.
1934. Federal Communications Commission: Hearings on H. R. 8301 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Congress, 2d sess.
1939. Investigation of the telephone industry in the United States, 76th Congress, 1st sess. H. R. Doc. No. 76–340.
1984. Congressional Record 130, no. 20 (1 October): p. 27975.
1995. Communications Act of 1995. 104th Congress, 1st sess. H. R. Rep. No. 204.
1996. Telecommunications Act of 1995. 104th Congress, 2d sess. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 458.
1968. Report of the White House Task Force on Antitrust Policy. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
1934a. Study of communications by an interdepartmental committee. 73d Congress, 2d sess. Committee print.
1934b. Federal Communications Commission: Hearings on S. 2910 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 73d Congress, 2d sess.
1983. Congressional Record129, no. 12 (13 June): p. 15459.
2006a. Net neutrality: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, 109th Congress, 2d sess.
2006b. Reconsidering our communications laws: Ensuring competition and innovation: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 109th Congress, 2d sess.
2007. Internet Freedom Preservation Act. 110th Congress, 1st sess. S. 215.
. 2001. “Monopoly power and the problem of CLEC access charges,” Telecommunications Policy 25: 611–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1986. “Nonjoint production and the cost function: Some refinements,” Journal of Economics 46: 283–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1993. “The lessons of the lighthouse: ‘Government’ or ‘private’ provision of goods,” Journal of Legal Studies 22: 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “Price discrimination,” in Schmalensee and Willig (eds.), pp. 597–654.
. 2007. “All about Verizon FiOS–Fact sheet,” http://newscenter.verizon.com/kit/fios-symmetrical-internet-service/all-about-fios.html.
and 1971. “Profitability of monopolization by vertical integration,” Journal of Political Economy 79: 924–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1961. “Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders,” Journal of Finance 16: 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. “Cap-sized: How the promise of the price cap voyage to competition was lost in a sea of good intentions,” Federal Communications Law Journal 51: 351–401.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal 2002. “Washington created WorldCom,” 1 July.
Wall Street Journal 2004. “Rules change could alter the fate of long-distance giants,” 11 June.
Wall Street Journal 2005a. “Disney to enter cellphone market, with kids in mind,” 6 July.
Wall Street Journal 2005b. “Neutral ground: As Web providers' clout grows, fears over access take focus,” 8 August.
Wall Street Journal 2006. Editorial, “Stuck in neutral,” 8 March.
1936. Études d'économie sociale: Théorie de la repartition de la richesse sociale. Lausanne: F. Rouge et cie.Google Scholar
1954. Elements of pure economics. Trans. by . Homewood, IL: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
1974. “Vertical control with variable proportions,” Journal of Political Economy 82: 783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington Post 2006. Editorial, “The Eden illusion,” 13 March.
Washington Technology 2005. “Slimming from 170 to one: DHS wants to consolidate portals and Web sites, now it's looking for the right tools,” June 6.
and 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1982. “Vertical integration, variable proportions and oligopoly,” Economic Journal 92: 129–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1999. Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1983. The economics of cable television. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
1959. “Toward neutral principles of constitutional law,” Harvard Law Review 73: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. “Preying for monopoly? The case of Southern Bell Telephone Company, 1894–1912,” Journal of Political Economy 102: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003a. “The Internet, innovation, and intellectual property policy,” Columbia Law Review 103: 534–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003b. “Toward a next generation regulatory strategy,” Loyola University Chicago Law Review 35: 41–86.Google Scholar
2005. “The relationship of antitrust and regulation in a deregulatory era,” Antitrust Bulletin 50: 549–88.Google Scholar
2002. “A layered model for Internet policy,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 1: 42–67.Google Scholar
2005. “Breaking the ice: Rethinking telecommunications law for the digital age,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 4: 59–96.Google Scholar
1987. “The law and economics of the essential facility doctrine,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 32: 433–80.Google Scholar
1981. “Vertical integration: Does product price rise or fall?” American Economic Review 71: 334–46.Google Scholar
2004. “A horizontal leap forward: Formulating a new communications public policy framework based on the network layers model,” Federal Communications Law Journal 56: 587–672.Google Scholar
1986a. “A capture theory of antitrust federalism,” Harvard Law Review 99: 713–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1986b. “After Chicago: An exaggerated demise?” Duke Law Journal 1986: 1003–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004. Open networks: The roles of regulation and competition. Paper presented at the Silicon Flatirons Conference on the Digital Broadband Migration: Towards a Regulatory Regime.
1966. “Peak-load pricing and optimal capacity under indivisibility constraints,” American Economic Review 56: 810–27.Google Scholar
1972. “Dominant firms and the monopoly problem: Market failure considerations,” Harvard Law Review 85: 1512–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1976. “Franchise building for natural monopolies: In general and with respect to CATV,” Bell Journal of Economics 7: 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) 1991. The Nature of the Firm: Origin, Meaning, Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1979. “The theory of network access pricing,” in Issues in public utility regulation, (ed.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, pp. 109–52.Google Scholar
and (eds.) 1979. Applications of graph theory. New York: Academic Press.
and 2001. “Telecommunications deregulation and subadditive costs: Are local telephone monopolies unnatural?” International Journal of Industrial Organization 19: 909–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1980. “The Tiebout hypothesis: Near optimality in local public goods economies,” Econometrica 48: 1467–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002a. “Local network competition,” in Cave et al. (eds.), pp. 642–719.
2002b. “Open access rules and the broadband race,” Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law 2002: 719–42.Google Scholar
1999. “Application-centered Internet analysis,” Virginia Law Review 85: 1163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: 141–76.Google Scholar
2004. “The broadband debate, a user's guide,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 3: 69–96.Google Scholar
and 2003. “Ex parte letter,” submitted in FCC (2002e), http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514683884.
1996. “Dealing with social obligations in telecoms,” in Regulating utilities: A time for change?, , and (eds.). London: Institute of Economic Affairs, pp. 60–68.Google Scholar
2002. “Vertical integration and media regulation in the new economy,” Yale Journal on Regulation 19: 171–300.Google Scholar
2003a. “New models of regulation and interagency governance,” Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law 2003: 701–16.Google Scholar
2003b. “Rethinking the commitment to free, local television,” Emory Law Journal 52: 1579–1718.Google Scholar
2003c. “The rise and demise of the technology-specific approach to the First Amendment,” Georgetown Law Journal 91: 245–356.Google Scholar
2004a. “Copyright and product differentiation,” New York University Law Review 79: 212–80.Google Scholar
2004b. “Would mandating broadband network neutrality help or hurt competition? A comment on the end-to-end debate,” Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 3: 23–68.Google Scholar
2006. “Network neutrality and the economics of congestion,” Georgetown Law Journal 94: 1847–1908.Google Scholar
2007a. “What can antitrust contribute to the network neutrality debate?” International Journal of Communication 1: 493–530.Google Scholar
2007b. Innovation in wireless telephony: A case study in network diversity. Paper presented at the Free State Foundation Conference on the “Federal Unbundling Commission,” Washington, D.C.
, , and 2008. “Network neutrality, consumers, and innovation,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2008: 179–262.Google Scholar
1988. “Repaving the Brandeis way: The decline of developmental property,” Northwestern University Law Review 82: 596–645.Google Scholar
, , and 2001. “An empirical examination of entry patterns in local telephone markets,” Journal of Regulatory Economics 19: 143–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “The efficacy of franchise bidding schemes in the case of cable television: Some systemic evidence,” Journal of Law and Economics 32: 401–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar