Muñoz Hernández, Israel J.Huergo, Elena2023-06-202023-06-202004-Amstrong M. y Vickers J. (2001). “Competitive price discrimination”. Rand of Journal Economics 32, 4, pp. 579-605. - Amstrong M. (1998). “Network interconnection in telecommunications”. The Economic Journal 108, pp. 545-564. - Carter M. y Wright J. (1999a). “Interconnection in network industries”. Review of Industrial Organization 14, pp. 1-25. - Carter M. y Wright J. (1999b). “Local and long distance network competition”. Social Science Research Network. - Dasgupta P. y Maskin E. (1986,a). “The existence of equilibrium in discontinuous economic games: Theory”. Review of Economic Studies 53,1, pp. 1-26. - Dasgupta P. y Maskin E. (1986,b). “The existence of equilibrium in discontinuous economic games: Applications”. Review of Economic Studies 53,1, pp. 27-41. - Dasgupta P. y Stiglitz J. (1988). “Potential competition, actual competition and economic welfare”. European Economic Review 32, pp. 569-577. - Dessein W. (2001). “Network competition in nonlinear pricing”. Social Science Research Network. - Elberfeld W. y Wolfstetter E. (1999). “A dynamic model of Bertrand competition with entry”. International Journal of Industrial Organization 17, pp. 513-525. - Götz G. (2002). “Sunk costs, windows of profit opportunities, and the dynamics of entry”. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20, pp. 1409-1436. - Hahn J.H. (2001). “Nonlinear pricing of telecommunications with call and network externalities”. Social Science Research Network. - Hahn J.H. (2002). “Network competition and interconnection with heterogeneous subscribers”. Social Science Research Network. - Klepper S. y Simons K. (2000). “Dominance by birthright: Entry if prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry”. Strategic Management Journal 21, pp. 997-1016. - Klepper S. (1996). “Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle”. American Economic Review 86(3), pp. 562-583. - Klepper S. y Graddy E. (1990). “The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure”. Rand of Journal Economics 21, pp. 27-47. - Laffont J.-J. y Tirole J. (2000). “Competition in telecommunications”. The MIT Press. - Laffont J.-J. y Tirole J. (1994). “Access pricing and competition”. European Economic Review 38, pp. 1673-1710. - Laffont J.-J., Rey P. y Tirole J. (1998,a). “Network competition: I Overview and non-discriminatory pricing”. Rand of Journal Economics 29, pp. 1-37. - Laffont J.-J., Rey P. y Tirole J. (1998,b). “Network competition: II Price discrimination”. Rand of Journal Economics 29, pp. 38-56. - Lang K. y Rosenthal R.W. (1991). “The contractors game”. Rand Journal of Economics 22(3), pp. 329-338. - Levin D. y Smith J.L. (1994). “Equilibrium in auctions with entry”. The American Economic Review 44(3), pp. 585-599. - Marquez R. (1997). “A note on Bertrand competition with asymmetric fixed costs”. Economic Letters 57, pp. 87-96. - Peitz M. (2002). “The pro-competitive effect of higher entry costs”. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20, pp. 353-364. - Poletti S. y Wright J. (2000). “Network interconnection with participation constrains”. Social Science Research Network. - Rochet J.C. (2002). “Nonlinear pricing with random participation”. Review of Economic Studies 69, pp. 277-311. - Sharkey W.W. y Sibley D.S. (1993). “A Bertrand model of pricing and entry”. Economic Letters 41, pp. 199-206. - Stiglitz J. (1981). “Potential competition may reduce welfare”. European Economic Review 71, pp. 184-189. - Thomas, C.J. (2002). “The effect of asymmetric entry costs on Bertrand competition”. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20, pp. 589-609. - Taylor, L.D. (1994). “Telecommunications demand in theory and practice”. Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers. - Wright J. (2000). “Competition and termination in cellular networks”. Social Science Research Network.https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/56606Clasificación JEL: L1, L11, L96Este trabajo analiza la entrada y la competencia en servicios de telecomunicaciones, en los que las empresas se diferencian por sus costes hundidos y por la valoración que reciben de los consumidores. En este marco de análisis desaparece el problema de coordinación presente en la literatura sobre entrada con costes hundidos, debido a que ahora la competencia en precios se ve modificada por el parámetro de valoración. Cuando se introduce heterogeneidad en los consumidores, la entrada queda definida por la combinación de costes y valoración, mientras los consumidores dirigen su demanda hacia la empresa que mejor se adapta a su tipo.spatechnical reporthttps://www.ucm.es/icaeopen accessEntradaTelecomunicacionesCostes hundidosElección discretaValoración de los consumidoresEconomía industrial