Manage updates with the Download App
January 23, 2008 4:00 AM PST
Perspective: Quit fooling with wireless-spectrum auction
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Google versus the telecoms
November 30, 2007 -
FCC approves some open wireless requirements
July 31, 2007 -
Early 2009 set for end of analog TV
February 1, 2006 - Related Blogs
-
FCC auction bidders named
December 19, 2007 -
Verizon Wireless drops 'open access' challenge
October 24, 2007
Through a complex and convoluted process, ignoring any rational economic input, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin determined how to slice and dice the spectrum, put all sorts of uneconomic conditions on the spectrum blocks, tweak the auction rules against the advice of world-renowned auction experts, and set unrealistically high reserve prices in the face of obvious credit market problems.
The FCC set reserve prices on various blocks totaling over $10 billion, but may well not reach that level because of the change in the credit market and asset valuations throughout the economy, including wireless assets.
Now, with the closure of Frontline Wireless, Martin is indicating that he may change some crucial rules after all the potential bidders decided whether to participate in the auction. If he changes the rules, it would threaten the whole FCC auction process, and possibly any government auction.
FCC auctions have worked because they are fair, open, transparent, and efficient. Changing the rules midstream to benefit one or two firms and shut out all competitive firms would not be any of those things--instead it would be bad for consumers and bad government. In the future, firms would bet on being able to get rules changed and put even more pressure on the FCC to do so. The reputation for committing to announced rules is very important in designing markets and auctions in particular; with one bad move the FCC can tarnish its reputation.
The FCC set up the "D block" in the upcoming auction as a public-private partnership band to help build out much-needed wireless service for public safety agencies. But instead of only requiring a "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) clause for public safety and an interoperability requirement, leaving the rest to open commercial negotiations, the FCC set forth potentially draconian and unknown requirements on the D-block licensee.
The D-block licensee is required to come to an agreement with public safety or face loss of the license and $128 million. But the parameters of the agreement and costs are unknown. I would love to negotiate with someone who stands to lose $128 million if they don't reach an agreement with me! And for this chance, the FCC set a reserve price of $1.33 billion on the D block alone.
Contrary to all of the advice it got from auction experts, the FCC decided to allow bids below the reserve price. Now, it is rumored that the FCC might ignore the reserve price and sell the license for less than it promised, changing the rules of the game at the 11th hour when firms that thought the rules would be enforced have no chance to compete.
While I think that the $1.33 billion reserve price for the D block is far too high, accepting bids below it is a bad idea in this case and a dangerous precedent for all future auctions. Instead of compounding the errors that have been made to date for the D block, the FCC should either "stay the course" and maintain its announced reserve price or restart the D block completely (which may occur if it stays the course).
If the FCC does stay the course, it may be the case that a bidder will decide to meet the reserve price and the agency will be alright. However, the FCC's indications that it might accept a lower price for the D block means that it is much less likely that a bidder will meet the reserve price.
The FCC has the chance to minimize some of the damage by continuing with the rest of the 700MHz auction and delaying the D-block auction while it rewrites the rules to be economically rational. Given the auction rules, there is limited benefit to having the D block sold at the same time as the other licenses as bidders cannot readily shift between the D-block and other licenses. So, the cost of pulling the D block and selling it a couple of months later is low. However, the benefits could be high as the FCC could put in place a much better system for providing certainty for licensees and a firm, market-based system for public safety entities to benefit from commercial competition for the prices they will face for service.
If the FCC wants to use the D block to promote a public-private partnership, it could simply mandate MFN pricing for public safety on the D block in exchange for some usage of the public safety spectrum when capacity is available. The D block would have to be interoperable and allow public safety to use the D block in times of emergency (to be determined in advance of the auction). Finally, the FCC should reduce or eliminate the reserve price to ensure a timely sale of the license.
Biography
Gregory L. Rosston is deputy director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and previously served as deputy chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. He provided auction advice to Frontline Wireless.
See more CNET content tagged:
auction, firm, rule, wireless service, agreement
14 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
They knew how to do a good IPO!
They knew how to do a good IPO!
"Through a complex and convoluted process, ignoring any rational economic input, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin determined how to slice and dice the spectrum"
I don't see why there should have been any economic input when dividing up the spectrum. Technological and physical constraints on bandwidth and noise limits the amount of options one would have in splitting up the 700MHz Spectrum. If Chairman Martin started arbitrairly splitting up the spectrum by the best economic adivce, There would be very few devices that could be used. If that's too complex and convoluted for economists, then perhaps they should go back to colledge.
"Through a complex and convoluted process, ignoring any rational economic input, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin determined how to slice and dice the spectrum"
I don't see why there should have been any economic input when dividing up the spectrum. Technological and physical constraints on bandwidth and noise limits the amount of options one would have in splitting up the 700MHz Spectrum. If Chairman Martin started arbitrairly splitting up the spectrum by the best economic adivce, There would be very few devices that could be used. If that's too complex and convoluted for economists, then perhaps they should go back to colledge.
Depending on the auction results, USA will shrink to a white dwarf or evolve into a super nova.
The FCC could solve all of their problems make make management of the spectrum infinitely simpler if the would establish a device specification and protocol for using the spectrum, such that OEM's could produce devices that will comply (through programming) with the specific restrictions of the RF bands it is using. If the specification included position awareness (Read as GPS, or equivalent) then it could dynamically adjust its spectrum usage based upon location, and adjust its power level based upon the type of device and its proximity to other devices.
Routing of wireless digital information by physical location, eliminates the issue that the Internet has today (finite addresses) and the needed for NAT Tables, and hierarchial structure. Routing by physical location also brings a significant level of security, since you can not reasonably fake a broadcast GPS signal, and it is assured to be globally unique.
A device and protocol standard such as this could be dynamic, fault tolerant, and then easily managed by the FCC. They could reallocate whole blocks of spectrum in relatively short order, by geographic region without disabling or disrupting anyones services or devices. The devices would simply update their frequency/power tables and change their operation accordingly without the user even noticing a change in functionality.
Be assured that if this auction does occur you will have to pay for the propganda that gets spewed over the spectrum in the following years, because your government (the FCC) sold you, the consumer, out to big telco once again. No one should own the airwaves, make lisences apply to devices not to corperations. Freedom of speech needs to be expanded to freedom of communication, and wireless communication is the one that can truely be free. Free for all to use, free of service charges, free of taxes, and free of rigid infrastructure, free of limits.
Depending on the auction results, USA will shrink to a white dwarf or evolve into a super nova.
The FCC could solve all of their problems make make management of the spectrum infinitely simpler if the would establish a device specification and protocol for using the spectrum, such that OEM's could produce devices that will comply (through programming) with the specific restrictions of the RF bands it is using. If the specification included position awareness (Read as GPS, or equivalent) then it could dynamically adjust its spectrum usage based upon location, and adjust its power level based upon the type of device and its proximity to other devices.
Routing of wireless digital information by physical location, eliminates the issue that the Internet has today (finite addresses) and the needed for NAT Tables, and hierarchial structure. Routing by physical location also brings a significant level of security, since you can not reasonably fake a broadcast GPS signal, and it is assured to be globally unique.
A device and protocol standard such as this could be dynamic, fault tolerant, and then easily managed by the FCC. They could reallocate whole blocks of spectrum in relatively short order, by geographic region without disabling or disrupting anyones services or devices. The devices would simply update their frequency/power tables and change their operation accordingly without the user even noticing a change in functionality.
Be assured that if this auction does occur you will have to pay for the propganda that gets spewed over the spectrum in the following years, because your government (the FCC) sold you, the consumer, out to big telco once again. No one should own the airwaves, make lisences apply to devices not to corperations. Freedom of speech needs to be expanded to freedom of communication, and wireless communication is the one that can truely be free. Free for all to use, free of service charges, free of taxes, and free of rigid infrastructure, free of limits.
New Zealand moved in the late 1980s to take bureaucrats out of the picture and their success since the reform has been dramatic. That only makes sense. A free market in wireless spectrum would allow the dynamism of the market to work its magic on wireless communication.
Rather than dealing with last minute changes, like those from Chairman Martin, let's remove the airwaves from the political sphere. This way, no it would be impossible to impose rules that hurt consumers and competition at the benefit of a few, politically connected companies.
Communications technology has change a lot since the FCC start in the 1930s, but allocation of the spectrum has changed little since then. While radios have shrunk from refrigerator-sized devices to postage-stamp miniatures, federal regulation has only grown.
Until we remove the bureaucrats from the process, we can expect companies to continue gaming the system while regulations pile up. It's time to change this broken system.
New Zealand moved in the late 1980s to take bureaucrats out of the picture and their success since the reform has been dramatic. That only makes sense. A free market in wireless spectrum would allow the dynamism of the market to work its magic on wireless communication.
Rather than dealing with last minute changes, like those from Chairman Martin, let's remove the airwaves from the political sphere. This way, no it would be impossible to impose rules that hurt consumers and competition at the benefit of a few, politically connected companies.
Communications technology has change a lot since the FCC start in the 1930s, but allocation of the spectrum has changed little since then. While radios have shrunk from refrigerator-sized devices to postage-stamp miniatures, federal regulation has only grown.
Until we remove the bureaucrats from the process, we can expect companies to continue gaming the system while regulations pile up. It's time to change this broken system.