What makes a market workably competitive? That might not be a tough question in the abstract. Most people would probably agree that multiple competitors in any market are good for competition, and therefore good for consumer welfare. Matters are tougher when looking at capital-intensive industries.
Most people, and most economists, might agree that dams, highways, electrical and water systems tend to be so capital intensive that they are "natural monopolies." In such cases, competition from other firms likely is unworkable because there simply is no way as few as two providers could make money over the long term.
Typically, such firms are allowed to operate as highly-regulated monopolies.
At the other end of the spectrum, most people might agree that consumer goods tend to be wildly competitive, and do not typically require much reguluation as such, though other "product safety" regulations might be appropriate. Where markets are robust and can function, most people likely tend to believe there is no fundamental need for price and other forms of "monopoly provider" regulation, as consumer choice leads to restraint on predatory supplier behavior.
But there are some industries in between these relatively clear cases. Airlines once were highly regulated, though perhaps the airline industry has not had perceived monopoly characteristics as did the telephone industry. Many are too young to remember it, but there once was no choice in telecom services. Everybody bought from one supplier, AT&T, in about 85 percent to 90 percent of cases (there always have been some areas served by other providers, on a monopoly basis).
The point is that the number of firms that a market can sustain is directly related to the size of potential addressable market and the cost of entering that market. In fact, says Ford, "having only a few providers does not imply poor economic performance, but might indicate intense competition."
The point is that the number of firms that a market can sustain is directly related to the size of potential addressable market and the cost of entering that market. In fact, says Ford, "having only a few providers does not imply poor economic performance, but might indicate intense competition."
Neither regulators nor most people likely believe anymore that telecommunications actually is a natural monopoly.
But the industry is hugely capital intensive, so the question does arise: how many competitors in a single market are required so that most of the benefits of competition are reaped?
There are subsidiary questions such as what the relevant "market" is, but the key question is the number of sustainable competitors a given telecom market can support. Some people used to debate whether services provided by wireless networks were, in fact, part of the same market as the wireline segment of the market.
The point is that it is possible, perhaps likely, that telecommunications markets cannot sustain acilities-based competition by more than a smallish number of viable competitors. If that is the case, then a small number of competitors is not, by itself, evidence of an uncompetitive market.
In voice services, this already has proven to be true. There now are three times as many mobile "voice" accounts in service as there are fixed voice lines, and the disparity is growing. In the multi-channel video markets, fixed providers now see the satellite firms eating away at fixed-network market share as well.
And the next question is the extent to which wireless will likewise expand and displace significant portions of the fixed broadband market as well. The point is that wireless and wireline contestants are in the same market, though not each contender competes in every segment of the market.
Lots of people appear to believe two competitors is too few. Such views tend to point to cable versus telco competition as the salient example. But recent pricing and product trends in the high-speed broadband and voice markets suggest there is a clear trend of price declines in both markets, as well as a continual "price per megabit per second" as well. The former is important as it suggests competition is working; the latter is important because it suggests competition is forcing providers to upgrade the quality and features of the product over time.
That is not to say everyone is happy with the level of competition, which is workable, if not "complete." But it also remains the case that the number of competitors in either the wired or wireline business "always" will be limited to a relatively small number of competitors, because of the capital intensity of the business and the startling impact of just a few competitors in the market on achieveable business results.
Simply put, beyond several competitors in a single market, it might not be possible for any firm to sustain a business in either the wireless or fixed portions of the market.
And a normal Pareto distribution would have 80 percent of the profits earned by the first two players, with the typical long tail of profit for the remaining players.
The point is that it is not unusual for a Pareto distribution to exist, though not in "idealized" form, in most markets, including telecommunications, which is a scale business. In fact, if one looks at a single retailers sales of products over a month's time, what one sees is another Pareto distribution. Most of the revenue comes from the sale of just seven percent of products. The point is that highly-uneven and highly-unequal Pareto distributions are commonplace.
So are two players enough to create workable competition? Maybe, though not always. That arguably is true for the consumer high-speed access market.
But one might argue from history that the U.S. wireless market was somewhat competitive in the 1970s when a duopoly essentially existed, but become vigorously competitive when additional spectrum was granted to other players with the "Personal Communications Service" spectrum awards. Since then, the U.S. market has shown strong signs of being robustly competititve on virtually all consumer metrics. In the U.S. wireless market, a two-player market does not seem to have produced as much competition as a three-player or four-player market. Still, returns are unequal and uneven.
Some will point to the dominance of two firms, but that would simply confirm that the wireless market is a typical market, with a Pareto distribution. If one looks at developer interest in creating apps for smartphones, the distribution of interest is a classic Pareto distribution, with the most interest clustered around just a few devices, and then dropping off in a classic "long tail" distribution.
In fact, outsized returns for two firms with outsized market share is the normal and expected state of affairs in any market, especially a market with high capital investment barriers to entry, such as telecommunications. The point is that in a perfectly-competitive scenario, what we now see is what we would expect to see. The normal Pareto distribution would suggest something on the order of 80 percent of revenue, profit or market share to be held by just two firms.
