Postal Service and the Telecommunications Analogy

  • Carl R. Danner
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 31)


Recent legislation introduced in the United States Congress (H.R. 22, McHugh, RNY) has made an analogy between regulatory reforms in the telecommunications industry and those that might be applied to the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service or USPS). This paper considers how the telecommunications analogy (and its regulatory reform experience) may or may not be applicable to the Postal Service.


Federal Communication Commission Incentive Regulation Postal Service Regulatory Reform Access Charge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumol, William J., and J. Gregory Sidak. 1994. Toward Competition in Local Telephony ( The M.I.T. Press and the AEI Press).Google Scholar
  2. Braeutigam, Ronald, and John Panzar 1989. “Diversification Incentives Under ‘Price-Based’ and ‘Cost-Based’ Regulation. Rand Journal of Economics 20: 373–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Public Utilities Commission. 1987. “In the Matter of Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers,” Investigation (I.) 87–11–033.Google Scholar
  4. California Public Utilities Commission. 1989. “In the Matter of Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers,” Decision (D.) 89–10–031.Google Scholar
  5. California Public Utilities Commission. 1996. “Opinion on the Franchise Impacts on Pacific Bell and GTE California, Inc. Resulting From The Authorization of Local Exchange Competition,” D.96–09–089.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, Dianne C., Laurits R. Christensen, Charles E. Guy, and Donald J. O’Hara. 1993. “U.S. Postal Service Productivity: Measurement and Performance.” In Regulation and the Nature of Postal Delivery Services, edited by Michael A. Crew and Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, Laurits R., Phillip E. Schoech, and Mark E. Meitzen. 1995. “Productivity of the Local Operating Telephone Companies Subject to Price Cap Regulation: 1993 Update.” Madison, WI, Christensen Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Crew, Michael A., and Paul R. Kleindorfer. 1997. “The Postal Service in Transition: H.R. 22 - The Postal Reform Act of 1997. ” Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House on Representatives (April 16, 1997 ).Google Scholar
  9. Davis, Vivian Witkind. 1994. Breaking Away from Franchises and Rate Cases: A Perspective on the Evolution of State Telecommunications Policy (National Regulatory Research Institute).Google Scholar
  10. Donald, Stephen G., and David E.M. Sappington. 1997. “Choosing Among Regulatory Options in the United States Telecommunications Industry.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 12: 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Communications Commission. 1987. Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Common Carrier Docket No. 87–313, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 F.C.C. Rcd. 5208.Google Scholar
  12. Federal Communications Commission. 1996. First Report and Order: “In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96–98) and Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers” (CC Docket No. 95–185).Google Scholar
  13. Federal Communications Commission. 1998. FCC Releases New Telephone Subscribership Report.“ Federal Communications Commission press release (July 27, 1998 ).Google Scholar
  14. Furman Selz. 1991. “U S West Regulatory Update.” Furman Selz, Inc. (December 9, 1991 ).Google Scholar
  15. Furman Selz. 1992. “Regulatory Roundup: Telecommunications.” Furman Selz, Incorporated (April 1, 1992), pages NYN-19–21.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, Robert G. 1998. “Comments of Dr. Robert G. Harris.” Prepared for Pacific Bell, filed in California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking (R.) 98–03–040 (May 29, 1998 ).Google Scholar
  17. Hausman, Jerry, Tardiff, Timothy and Alexander Belinfante. 1993. “The Effects of the Breakup of ATT on Telephone Penetration in the United States.” American Economic Review 83 (2): 178–183.Google Scholar
  18. Idaho Public Utilities Commission. 1994. Order No.25826 in Case No. USW-S-94–3 (December 13, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  19. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. 1997. Final Order on Interim Relief in Cause No. 40849 (December 30, 1997).Google Scholar
  20. Kaserman, David L., and John W. Mayo. 1994. “Cross-Subsidies in Telecommunications:Roadblocks on the Road to More Intelligent Telephone Pricing,” Yale Journal on Regulation 11 (1): 149–170.Google Scholar
  21. Kridel, Donald J., David E.M. Sappington, and Dennis L. Weisman. 1996. “The Effects of Incentive Regulation in the Telecommunications Industry: A Survey.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 9 (3): 269–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacAvoy, Paul W. 1995. “Tacit Collusion Under Regulation in the Pricing of Interstate Long-Distance Telephone Services.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 4 (2): 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merrill Lynch. 1998. Merrill Lynch Global Securities Research & Economics Group. “Comment: Qwest Communications International, Inc.,” March 11, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri. 1993. Report and Order issued December 17, 1993 in Case No. TC-93–224 and Case No. TO-93–192Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, Bridger M. 1995. Direct Testimony of Bridger M. M.tchell. Application of Roseville Telephone Company To Restructure Intrastate Rates and Charges and to Implement A New Regulatory Framework (California Public Utilties Commission A.9505–030), May 15, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 1996. Utility Regulatory Policy in the United States and Canada (Compilation 1995–96).Google Scholar
  27. Schmalensee, Richard L., Timothy J. Tardiff, and William E. Taylor. 1995. Incentive Regulation and Competition: Issues for the 1995 Incentive Regulation Review. California Public Utilities Commission I.95–05–047 (September 8, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  28. State Telephone Regulation Report. 1997a. “Price Cap Regulation Has Become The Norm In Eastern States.” State Telephone Regulation Report 15 (6): 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. State Telephone Regulation Report. 1997b. “Price Caps Struggle in Western States, But ‘87 May See Major Changes.” State Telephone Regulation Report 15 (7): 1–6.Google Scholar
  30. State Telephone Regulation Report. 1998. “Earnings Regulation For Big Incumbent Telcos Just About Extinct in Eastern U.S.,” State Telephone Regulation Report 16(7):1–4 and appendix.Google Scholar
  31. Telecommunications Reports. 1 996a. “IXCs Push FCC to Implement Cost-Based Pricing.” Telecommunications Reports 62(13):12.Google Scholar
  32. Telecommunications Reports. 1996b. “Bellcore Warns of Internet Congestion on Public Nets.” Telecommunications Reports 62 (36): 18–19.Google Scholar
  33. Telecommunications Reports. 1996c. “SBC Considering Flat-Rate Pricing For Future Long Distance Services.” Telecommunications Reports 62 (36): 39.Google Scholar
  34. Telecommunications Reports. 1997a. “FCC Overhauls Access Charge System, Raising ‘X-factor,’ Some SLCs, Many Questions Remain.” Telecommunications Reports 63 (19): 1–4.Google Scholar
  35. Telecommunications Reports. 1997b. “FCC Justifies Price Cap Factor Hike With Its Own LEC Productivity Factor Estimate.” Telecommunications Reports 63 (21): 4–5.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1996. Communications Act of 1934 As Amended By The Telecommunications Act of 1996.Google Scholar
  37. United States Postal Service. 1997. USPS Cost and Revenue Analysis, Fiscal Year 1996.Google Scholar
  38. Vogelsang, Ingo, and Bridger M. Mitchell. 1997. Telecommunications Competition: The Last Ten Miles ( The M.I.T. Press and the AEI Press).Google Scholar
  39. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 1993. “Nineteenth Supplemental Order Modifying the Alternative Form of Regulation” Docket No. U-89–3245-P (September 3, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  40. The WEFA Group. 1993. Economic Impact of Eliminating the Line-of-Business Restrictions on the Bell Companies. Bala Cynwyd, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl R. Danner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations