Holding the line: the CRTC and the pricing of Canadian basic cable television services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper pricing behaviour of cable television (CATV) firms under rules established by the CRTC in 1986 is examined. Estimation of a system of equations for cost, input shares, and revenue reveals that while the rules held CATV firms to less than monopoly pricing, the price structure can be distinguished from marginal-cost pricing, even for larger systems operating under constant returns to scale. Although there was some improvement in efficiency following 1989, estimates of market power and its associated marginal efficiency cost suggests that any improvement resulted from non-rule-based sources such as reallocation of licensed areas or cost shocks. JEL Classification: L5, L9 Tenir bon: le CRTC et la tarification des services de base de la telMvision par cable. Ce m6moire examine la tarification des entreprises de t6l6diffusion par cable dans le cadre des regles 6tablies par le CRTC en 1986. La calibration d'un systeme d'equations pour les couts, les portions des intrants, les revenus montre que meme si les regles ont force les entreprises a tarifier a un niveau plus bas que le prix de monopole, la structure de tarification differe de celle que sugg6rerait une strat6gie de tarification au cout marginal, et ce meme pour des grands systemes op6rant en r6gime de rendements constants a l'6chelle. Meme s'il y a eu des am6liorations d'efficacit6 en 1989, les mesures de pouvoir de marche (et du coat marginal d'efficacit6 qui lui est associ6) suggerent que toute am6lioration est attribuable a des sources qui n'ont rien a voir avec les regles comme par exemple la r6allocation de zones ou des chocs en provenance des couts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".