Suchergebnisse

In allen EU-Ländern sind die ehemals monopolistischen Breitbandanbieter im Rahmen einer Open-Access-Politik verpflichtet, neuen Anbietern über sogenannten Bitstrom oder die Entbündelung der TeilnehmerInnenanschlussleitung (Local Loop Unbundling, LLU) Zugang zu ihren Netzen zu gewähren. Diese Art der Regulierung soll für mehr Wettbewerb zwischen den Breitbandanbietern sorgen und wird besonders in Märkten wie der Telekommunikationsbranche empfohlen, in denen die hohen Kosten für die Errichtung eines Verteilnetzes die Konzentration der Marktmacht in den Händen weniger, wenn nicht sogar nur eines Marktteilnehmers begünstigen. Die vorliegende Analyse untersucht anhand von Daten aus Großbritannien, ob eine solche Politik stimulierend auf den Markteintritt, die Breitbandverbreitung und die Breitbandqualität wirkt. Anders als allgemein angenommen wird die Internetverbreitung durch Local Loop Unbundling nicht signifikant und nachhaltig erhöht. LLU fördert jedoch den Markteintritt und Investitionen, die die Qualität der Dienste erheblich verbessern. Somit trägt die Entbündelung der Anschlussleitungen nicht zu einer digitalen Kluft beim Internetzugang bei. Auch wenn die Ergebnisse auf den Erfahrungen in Großbritannien basieren, weisen sie auf den allgemeinen Vorteil hin, den ein infrastrukturbasierter Wettbewerb (LLU) im Vergleich zu einem dienstbasierten Wettbewerb (auf Grundlage von Bitstrom) haben kann. ; Under an open access policy, incumbent broadband providers in all EU countries are required to let new market entrants access their networks through bitstream or local loop unbundling (LLU). This type of regulatory provision aims to increase competition among all broadband providers, and is strongly recommended in markets where the prohibitively high cost of setting up a distribution network means that market power is concentrated in the hands of a few players - or even one single player (such as in the case of telecommunications). This analysis uses data from the UK to investigate whether such a policy stimulates market entry and broadband penetration and/or leads to an increase in broadband quality. In contrast to what is commonly believed LLU does not increase internet penetration significantly or sustainably. It does, however, stimulate market entry as well as investments that substantially increase service quality. Thus while this open access policy does not contribute to a digital divide in access, it does clearly contribute to a divide in broadband quality. Although these results are based solely on experiences in the UK, they do point to the general advantages of infrastructure-based competition over service-based competition.

Under an open access policy, incumbent broadband providers in all EU countries are required to let new market entrants access their networks through bitstream or local loop unbundling (LLU). This type of regulatory provision aims to increase competition among all broadband providers, and is strongly recommended in markets where the prohibitively high cost of setting up a distribution network means that market power is concentrated in the hands of a few players - or even one single player (such as in the case of telecommunications). This analysis uses data from the UK to investigate whether such a policy stimulates market entry and broadband penetration and/or leads to an increase in broadband quality. In contrast to what is commonly believed LLU does not increase internet penetration significantly or sustainably. It does, however, stimulate market entry as well as investments that substantially increase service quality. Thus this open access policy does not contribute to a digital divide in access. Although these results are based solely on experiences in the UK, they do point to the general advantages of infrastructure-based competition (based on LLU) over service-based competition (based on bitstream).

We empirically study the effects of broadband internet diffusion on local election outcomes and on local government policies using rich data from the U.K. Our analysis suggests that the internet has displaced other media with greater news content (i.e., radio and newspapers), thereby decreasing voter turnout, most notably among less-educated and younger individuals. In turn, we find suggestive evidence that local government expenditures and taxes are lower in areas with greater broadband diffusion, particularly expenditures targeted at less-educated voters. Our findings are consistent with the idea that voters' information plays a key role in determining electoral participation, government policies and government size.

We empirically study the effects of broadband internet diffusion on local election outcomes and on local government policies using rich data from the U.K. Our analysis suggests that the internet has displaced other media with greater news content (i.e., radio and newspapers), thereby decreasing voter turnout, most notably among less-educated and younger individuals. In turn, we find suggestive evidence that local government expenditures and taxes are lower in areas with greater broadband diffusion, particularly expenditures targeted at less-educated voters. Our findings are consistent with the idea that voters' information plays a key role in determining electoral participation, government policies and government size.

We study the impact of broadband penetration on social capital in the UK. Our empirical strategy exploits a technological feature of the telecommunication infrastructure that generated substantial variation in the quality of Internet access across households. The speed of a domestic connection rapidly decays with the distance of a user's line from the network's node serving the area. Merging information on the topology of the network with geocoded longitudinal data about individual social capital from 1997 to 2017, we show that access to fast Internet caused a significant decline in civic and political engagement. Overall, our results suggest that broadband penetration crowded out several dimensions of social capital.

This paper assesses the effect of two stylized and antithetic non-monetary incentive schemes on students' effort. We collect data from a field experiment where incentives are exogenously imposed, performance is monitored and individual characteristics are observed. Students are randomly assigned to a tournament scheme that fosters competition between coupled students, a cooperative scheme that promotes information sharing and collaboration between students and a control treatment in which students can neither compete, nor cooperate. In line with theoretical predictions, we find that competition induces higher effort with respect to cooperation and cooperation does not increase effort with respect to the baseline. However, this is true only for men, while women do not seem to react to non-monetary incentives.