Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:10:57.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AT&T's Strategic Response to Competition: Why Not Preempt Entry?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Joan Nix  and
David Gabel
Joan Nix
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Economics, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367.
David Gabel
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The idea that a monopolist would adopt a pricing strategy to deter entry is found in a wide body of research. We explore why the monopolist in the American telephone industry, AT&T, did not pursue such a strategy when its initial patents expired.

Type
Papers Presented at the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 377 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1993

References

REFERENCES

American Telephone and Telegraph, “Brief and Argument for Appellant,” in Read v. Central Union Telephone Company, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Gen. No. 23664, 03 1918, at 2.Google Scholar
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 1901 Annual Report.Google Scholar
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Relation Between Bell Telephones and Population in Cities of Over 50,000 Population (New York, 1913).Google Scholar
American Telephone and Telegraph Corporate Archive (AT&TCA), Warren, NJ.Google Scholar
Aronson, Sidney, “Bell's Electrical Toy: What's the Use? The Sociology of Early Telephone Usage,” in de Sola Pool, Ithiel, ed., The Social Impact of the Telephone (Cambridge, MA, 1977), pp. 15–39.Google Scholar
Bain, Joe, Industrial Organization (New York, 1956).Google Scholar
Baumol, William, Panzar, John, and Willig, Robert, Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure (New York, 1982).Google Scholar
Brock, Gerald W., The Telecommunications Industry: The Dynamics of Market Structure (Cambridge, MA, 1981).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission, Investigation of the Telephone Industry in the United States (Washington, DC, 1939).Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude S., “Touch Someone: The Telephone Industry Discovers Sociability, 1876–1940,” Technology and Culture, 29 (01 1988), pp. 32–61.Google Scholar
Gabel, David, “The Evolution of a Market: The Emergence of Regulation in the Telephone Industry of Wisconsin, 1893–1917” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1987).Google Scholar
Garnet, Robert W., The Telephone Enterprise: The Evolution of the Bell System's Horizontal Structure, 1876–1909 (Baltimore, 1985).Google Scholar
Kahn, Alfred, The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions, 2 vols. (New York, 1971).Google Scholar
MacMeal, Harry, The Story of Independent Telephony (Chicago, 1934).Google Scholar
March, James G., “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” Bell Journal of Economics, 9 (Autumn 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James G., and Shapira, Zur, “Behavioral Decision Theory and Organizational Decision Theory,” in Ungson, Gerardo and Braunstein, Daniel, eds., Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry (Boston, 1982).Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul, and Roberts, John, “Limit Pricing and Entry under Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 50 (03 1982), pp. 443–59.Google Scholar
Milwaukee Daily News, 11 4, 1895; and 12 21, 1905.Google Scholar
Milwaukee Journal, 10 27, 1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milwaukee Sentinel, 10 27, 1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modigliani, Franco, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” Journal of Political Economy, 66 (06 1958), pp. 215–32.Google Scholar
Mulgan, G. J., Communications and Control (New York, 1991).Google Scholar
Roby, William, “History and Development of Plant and Rates of the Telephone Industry” (Paper presented at the June 1947 Conference of State Utilities Commission Engineers).Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1955), pp. 99–118.Google Scholar
Simpson, Floyd, “Monopoly Building Techniques, Costs, Prices and Market Structure in the Telephone Industry” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1944).Google Scholar
Telephony, 11 (01 1906).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Telephone and Telegraphs: 1902 (Washington, DC, 1906).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, vol. 2 (Washington, DC, 1975).Google Scholar
Western Electrician, 03 16 and 03 30, 1895.Google Scholar
Wisconsin State Journal, 12 31, 1895.Google Scholar
Wenders, John T., “Two Views of Applied Welfare Analysis: The Case of Local Telephone Service Pricing,” Southern Economic Journal, 57 (10 1990), pp. 340–48.Google Scholar