Türkiye'de Telekomunikasyon Teknolojilerinin Yayılımı ve İkame Etkisi

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 496 - 506, 28.09.2019

Gülhan Toğa , Mehmet Toğa

https://doi.org/10.21541/apjes.432190

Abstract

Telekomünikasyon
teknolojileri tüm dünyada büyük bir değişim içerisindedir. Yeni nesil
teknolojiler eski teknolojilerin yerini almaktadır. Alternatif teknolojilerin
varlığı, kullanıcıları teknolojiler arasında tercih yapmaya zorlamaktadır.
Genellikle, aynı sektörde rekabet eden yeni bir teknoloji piyasaya sunulduğunda
eski teknolojilerin kullanımında olumsuz bir etki gözlenmektedir.

 

Bu
çalışmada, Türkiye'deki sabit-mobil ikamesi ve gelecek nesil mobil
teknolojilerinin yayılımı incelenmiştir. Çalışmada, her bir durum için Lojistik
İkame modeli ve Gompertz Difüzyon modeli kullanılmıştır. Klasik difüzyon modeli
ve ikame modeli RMSE ve MAD açısından karşılaştırılmıştır ve öncelikli olarak,
sabit hat ve mobil telekomünikasyon teknolojileri, mobil telekomünikasyonun
sabit hat üzerinde oluşturduğu ikame etkisini görmek için birlikte ele
alınmıştır. İkinci adımda, Türkiye’deki mobil telekomünikasyon teknolojisinde
yaşanan hızlı teknolojik değişimler ele alınmaktadır. Bu teknolojilerin difüzyon
ve ikame etkilerini görmek için 2G, 3G ve 4.5G teknolojileri analiz edilmiştir.
Tüm sonuçlar, Lojistik İkame modelinin rekabetçi ortamları simüle etmekte daha
başarılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Diğer taraftan 2G teknolojisi ikame
etkisinden en çok etkilenen teknoloji olarak bulmuştur.

Keywords

Gompertz Model, Telekomunikasyon Teknolojileri, Lojistik İkame Modeli, İkame Etkisi

Diffusion and Substitution Effect on Telecommunication Technologies in Turkey

Abstract

Telecommunication
technologies show great changes all over the world. Next generation
technologies replace older ones. Alternatives of the technologies force the
users to make a choice between the competing technologies. Generally, an
adverse effect is shown on the usage of older technologies when a new
competitor is introduced to the market.

 

In this paper, substitution effect on
telecommunication technologies in Turkey is examined from the perspective of
fixed-mobile substitution and next generation mobile technologies. The study uses two
different technology diffusion models for each case: Logistic Substitution
models and Gompertz model. Generic diffusion model and substitution model are
compared in terms of RMSE and MAD. Fixed-line and mobile telecommunication
technologies are inspected together to see substitution effect of mobile telecommunication on fixed-line,
firstly. In the second step, fast technological change in the mobile
telecommunication technology is handled for Turkey. 2G, 3G and 4.5 G technologies are analyzed to see
diffusion and substitution process of these technologies. All the results
indicate that; Logistic Substitution model is better to simulate the systems in
competitive environments. On the other hand, 2G technology is found the most
affected technology by the substitution.

Keywords

Logistic Substitution Model, Gompertz Model, Telecommunication Technologies, Substitution Effect

References

• [1] Statista, “Number of mobile phone users worldwide 2013-2019,” Statista, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/274774/forecast-of-mobile-phone-users-worldwide/. [Accessed: 26-Feb-2018].
• [2] S. Massini, “The diffusion of mobile telephony in Italy and the UK: an empirical investigation,” Econ. Innov. New Technol., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 251–277, Apr. 2004.
• [3] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, 5th edition. New York: Free Press, 2003.
• [4] N. Meade and T. Islam, “Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation – A 25-year review,” Int. J. Forecast., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 519–545, 2006.
• [5] P. . Geroski, “Models of technology diffusion,” Res. Policy, vol. 29, no. 4–5, pp. 603–625, Apr. 2000.
• [6] W. C. Johnson and K. Bhatia, “Technological substitution in mobile communications,” J. Bus. Ind. Mark., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 383–399, Dec. 1997.
• [7] P. P. Barros and N. Cadima, The impact of mobile phone diffusion on the fixed-link network, vol. 2598. Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2000.
• [8] L. Grzybowski, “Fixed-to-mobile substitution in the European Union,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 601–612, Aug. 2014.
• [9] J. Liikanen, P. Stoneman, and O. Toivanen, “Intergenerational effects in the diffusion of new technology: the case of mobile phones,” 2004.
• [10] B.-Y. Chang, X. Li, and Y. B. Kim, “Performance comparison of two diffusion models in a saturated mobile phone market,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 86, pp. 41–48, Jul. 2014.
• [11] N. Sung and Y.-H. Lee, “Substitution between Mobile and Fixed Telephones in Korea,” Rev. Ind. Organ., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 367–374, Jun. 2002.
• [12] J. Hamilton, “Are main lines and mobile phones substitutes or complements? Evidence from Africa,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 27, no. 1–2, pp. 109–133, Feb. 2003.
• [13] M. Rodini, M. R. Ward, and G. A. Woroch, “Going mobile: substitutability between fixed and mobile access,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 27, no. 5–6, pp. 457–476, Jun. 2003.
• [14] M. Vagliasindi, I. Güney, and C. Taubman, “Fixed and mobile competition in transition economies,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 349–367, Aug. 2006.
• [15] W. Briglauer, A. Schwarz, and C. Zulehner, “Is fixed-mobile substitution strong enough to de-regulate fixed voice telephony? Evidence from the Austrian markets,” J. Regul. Econ., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 50–67, Feb. 2011.
• [16] P. Srinuan, C. Srinuan, and E. Bohlin, “Fixed and mobile broadband substitution in Sweden,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 237–251, Apr. 2012.
• [17] M. R. Ward and S. Zheng, “Mobile and fixed substitution for telephone service in China,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 301–310, May 2012.
• [18] A.-K. Barth and U. Heimeshoff, “What is the magnitude of fixed–mobile call substitution? Empirical evidence from 16 European countries,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 38, no. 8–9, pp. 771–782, Sep. 2014.
• [19] L. Grzybowski and F. Verboven, “Substitution between fixed-line and mobile access: the role of complementarities,” J. Regul. Econ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 113–151, 2016.
• [20] M. R. J. Lange and A. Saric, “Substitution between fixed, mobile, and voice over IP telephony – Evidence from the European Union,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1007–1019, Oct. 2016.
• [21] S. Leurcharusmee, J. Sirisrisakulchai, K. Suriya, C. Keesookpun, and P. Srinuan, “Fixed-to-Mobile Substitution: Effects of Mobile Broadband Subscription on Fixed Broadband Termination,” 2017.
• [22] A. Botelho and L. C. Pinto, “The diffusion of cellular phones in Portugal,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 28, no. 5–6, pp. 427–437, Jun. 2004.
• [23] “Information and Communication Technologies Authority - Establishment,” btk.gov.tr. [Online]. Available: http://eng.btk.gov.tr/en-US/Pages/Establishment. [Accessed: 16-Nov-2015].
• [24] J. B. Burnham, “Telecommunications policy in Turkey: Dismantling barriers to growth,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 31, no. 3–4, pp. 197–208, Apr. 2007.
• [25] I. Atiyas, “Regulation and Competition in the Turkish Telecommunications Industry,” in The Political Economy of Regulation in Turkey, T. Çetin and F. Oğuz, Eds. Springer New York, 2011, pp. 177–191.
• [26] B. Gompertz, “On the Nature of the Function Expressive of the Law of Human Mortality, and on a New Mode of Determining the Value of Life Contingencies,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., vol. 115, pp. 513–583, 1825.
• [27] D. Fekedulegn, M. P. Mac Siúrtáin, and J. J. Colbert, “Parameter Estimation of Nonlinear Models in Forestry.,” vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 327–336, Nov. 1999.
• [28] L. F. Gamboa and J. Otero, “An estimation of the pattern of diffusion of mobile phones: The case of Colombia,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 33, no. 10–11, pp. 611–620, Nov. 2009.
• [29] J. Tidd, Gaining Momentum: Managing the Diffusion of Innovations. World Scientific, 2010.
• [30] N. Meade and T. Islam, “Technological Forecasting—Model Selection, Model Stability, and Combining Models,” Manag. Sci., vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1115–1130, Aug. 1998.
• [31] J. C. Fisher and R. H. Pry, “A simple substitution model of technological change,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 3, pp. 75–88, Jan. 1971.
• [32] D. Kucharavy and R. De Guio, “Logistic substitution model and technological forecasting,” Procedia Eng., vol. 9, pp. 402–416, Jan. 2011.
• [33] N. Nakicenovic, “Software Package for the Logistic Substitution Model,” Dec-1979.
• [34] M. Karacuka, J. Haucap, and U. Heimeshoff, “Competition in Turkish mobile telecommunications markets: Price elasticities and network substitution,” Telecommun. Policy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 202–210, Mar. 2011.
• [35] “Electronic_Communications_Law_Turkey.pdf.”
• [36] J. W. Yung, P. S. Meyer, and J. H. Ausubel, “The Loglet Lab Software: A Tutorial,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 273–295, Jul. 1999.
• [37] P. Young and J. K. Ord, “Model selection and estimation for technological growth curves,” Int. J. Forecast., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 501–513, Jan. 1989.
• [38] D. C. Schmittlein and V. Mahajan, “Maximum Likelihood Estimation for an Innovation Diffusion Model of New Product Acceptance,” Mark. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57–78, 1982.
• [39] V. Srinivasan and C. H. Mason, “Technical Note—Nonlinear Least Squares Estimation of New Product Diffusion Models,” Mark. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 169–178, May 1986.
• [40] F.-K. Wang and K.-K. Chang, “Modified diffusion model with multiple products using a hybrid GA approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 12613–12620, Dec. 2009.
• [41] D. Satoh, “A discrete bass model and its parameter estimation,” J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn.-Keiei Kagaku, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2001.