IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v31y2000iautumnp422-450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of the 1992 Cable Act on Household Demand and Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory S. Crawford

Abstract

I measure the benefit to households of the 1992 Cable Act in light of strategic responses by cable systems to the regulations mandated by the act. A discrete-choice differentiated-product model of household demand for all offered cable television services forms the basis of the analysis. Aggregation over households and service combinations to the level of the data permits estimation on a cross-section of cable markets from before and after the act. The results indicate that while the regulations mandated price reductions of 10-17% for cable services, observed system responses yielded no change in household welfare. Post-act changes in cable prices are responsible for most of the difference.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory S. Crawford, 2000. "The Impact of the 1992 Cable Act on Household Demand and Welfare," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 422-450, Autumn.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:31:y:2000:i:autumn:p:422-450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mary T Kelly & John S Ying, 2014. "Testing the Effectiveness of Regulation and Competition on Cable Television Rates," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 387-404, June.
    2. Anderson, Simon P. & Gabszewicz, Jean J., 2006. "The Media and Advertising: A Tale of Two-Sided Markets," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 567-614, Elsevier.
    3. Robert C. Seamans, 2012. "Fighting City Hall: Entry Deterrence and Technology Upgrades in Cable TV Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 461-475, March.
    4. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2024. "Price customization and targeting in matching markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 55(2), pages 230-265, June.
    5. Kim Kyoo il & Petrin Amil, 2015. "Tests for Price Endogeneity in Differentiated Product Models," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 47-69, January.
    6. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2007:i:16:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David P. Byrne, 2015. "Testing Models Of Differentiated Products Markets: Consolidation In The Cable Tv Industry," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(3), pages 805-850, August.
    8. Mariuzzo, Franco & Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2010. "Coverage of retail stores and discrete choice models of demand: Estimating price elasticities and welfare effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 555-578, September.
    9. Gregory S. Crawford, 2015. "The economics of television and online video markets," ECON - Working Papers 197, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Victor Ginsburgh & Israel Zang, 2007. "Bundling by Competitors and the Sharing of Profits," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(16), pages 1-9.
    11. Chou, Yuntsai, 2014. "The stalemate of cable digital switchover: A study of competition effects and deregulation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 393-405.
    12. Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-685, April.
    13. Sutirtha Bagchi & Jagadeesh Sivadasan, 2017. "Barriers to Entry and Competitive Behavior: Evidence from Reforms of Cable Franchising Regulations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 510-558, September.
    14. Gregory S. Crawford & Oleksandr Shcherbakov & Matthew Shum, 2015. "The welfare effects of endogenous quality choice in cable television markets," ECON - Working Papers 202, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Yasuji Otsuka & Bradley Braun, 2003. "Price Cap Regulation in the Cable Television Industry: Why was the Demand Stagnant?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 41-55, March.
    16. Anja Lambrecht & Katja Seim & Naufel Vilcassim & Amar Cheema & Yuxin Chen & Gregory Crawford & Kartik Hosanagar & Raghuram Iyengar & Oded Koenigsberg & Robin Lee & Eugenio Miravete & Ozge Sahin, 2012. "Price discrimination in service industries," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 423-438, June.
    17. Crawford, Gregory S & Shum, Matthew, 2007. "Monopoly Quality Degradation and Regulation in Cable Television," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 181-219, February.
    18. Crawford, Gregory & Shcherbakov, Oleksandr & Shum, Matthew, 2015. "The Welfare E ects of Endogenous Quality Choice in Cable Television Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 10793, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Crawford, Gregory, 2015. "The Economics of Television and Online Video Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 10676, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Savage, Scott James & Waldman, Donald M., 2009. "Ability, location and household demand for Internet bandwidth," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 166-174, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:31:y:2000:i:autumn:p:422-450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy