Optimal Spectrum Allocation
Transcript of Optimal Spectrum Allocation
![Page 1: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Optimal Spectrum Allocation
Thomas W. HazlettProfessor of Law & EconomicsGeorge Mason [email protected]
CIDEMexico City, Mexico
Oct. 27, 2008
![Page 2: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 2
Easy Overview
mobile nets are immensely productive no other wireless application close
opportunity cost of liberal licenses ~ $0
spectrum for liberal licenses highly valuable more competition more capacity (with or without extra nets)
consumer gains swamp auction revenues restricting spectrum a welfare loser
delays, reserve prices, bidder credits, etc.
![Page 3: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Take the U.S. Example
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 3
![Page 4: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Total U.S.A. License Auction Revs authorized 1993, began July 1994 1994 – 2005: $45.1 billion bid 1994 – 2005: only ~ $20 billion paid
bidding credits defaults (PCS C, F) Sept. 2006 (AWS): $13.7 billion Mar. 2008 (700 MHz): $19.4 billion ~ $53 billion total, 1994-2008
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 4
![Page 5: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
As of 2006, Value/MHz = $150 mil. U.S. mobile market allocated ~ 190 MHz Imputed national value between
$28.5 billion - AWS ($13.7B/90MHz in 2006) $71.0 billion – 700 MHz ($19.4B/52 MHz in 2008)
Consumer surplus easily exceeds $150 billion annually (see 2006 data)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 5
![Page 6: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Mobile Price Per Minute, Minutes of Use: U.S.A. 1991-2006
Trendline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
700
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
20012000
1999
1998
19961997
1995
1991
19941993
Aver
age
Rev
enu
e p
er M
inu
te o
f U
se
(cen
ts p
er m
inu
te)
Total Minutes of Use (in billions)
![Page 7: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Consumer Surplus an Order of Magnitude (or two) Above License Values
Trendline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
700
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
20012000
1999
1998
19961997
1995
1991
19941993
Aver
age
Rev
enu
e p
er M
inu
te o
f U
se
(cen
ts p
er m
inu
te)
Total Minutes of Use (in billions)
Minimum bound estimate of 2006 CS = $150 billion (integrating trend line – seven cents per MOU)
![Page 8: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 8
No ‘Tragedy’ with Private Spectrum Rights
liberally licensed spectrum (i.e., cellular) hosts vast, productive economic activity
technology upgrades, new apps intense spectrum sharing
millions of subscribers, hundreds of apps voice and data network overlays third party network overlays
Blackberry (RIM), OnStar, iPhone, Android MVNOs (Virgin Mobile, Tracfone)
investment in WWANs dominates wireless
![Page 9: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
9
Policy Impediments
Liberal licenses controversial Rent seeking
some incumbents threatened some interests pressure for political allocations more bandwidth (via auctions or other methods)
can reduce revenues via supply expansion Academic argument for case-by-case licensed
smart radios asserted to obviate band ownership unlicensed bands assertedly more efficient as asserted, these assertions are wrong
CIDE, Mexico City
![Page 10: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Social Value + Radio Spectrum Primary objective
distribute rights increase wireless capacity, competition
Ancillary objective efficiently raise public funds perhaps a 33% public finance bonus
raise $1 billion, save society $0.33 billion in tax-induced distortions
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 10
![Page 11: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Caveat don’t let ancillary trump primary benefits of more spectrum extremely large public finance dividend small potatoes
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 20008
CIDE, Mexico City 11
![Page 12: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Hazlett-Munoz Estimates: extra MHz for Mexican Market
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CITE, Mexico City 12
![Page 13: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hazlett-Munoz Estimates: extra MHz for Argentine Market
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CITE, Mexico City 13
![Page 14: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
General Outcome across Latin America UK – delays in 3G USA – delays in 2G (PCS C)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 14
![Page 15: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
General Outcome across Latin America UK – 140 MHz for 3G w/ $35B license sale USA – delays in 2G (PCS C) Greece, Belgium 2001 3G
reserve prices blocked extra 35 MHz
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 15
![Page 16: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
U.S.A. ‘3G’ Delays Good news: 1988 liberalization removes
license restrictions (1G = 2G = 3G) Bad news: no new spectrum beyond PCS
allocation (1989-1994) 2001: Bush Admin delayed new auctions
‘win win’ situation incumbents and govt. revenue authority excluded U.S. consumers, American Economy
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 16
![Page 17: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Lack of Spectrum Delayed 3G 6 U.S. national carriers in 2001-04 Verizon invested in EV DO network Others spectrum constrained, frozen Cingular bought A&T (2004) Sprint bought Nextel (2005) Six goes to four T Mobile left without sufficient bandwidth
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 17
![Page 18: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Wireless Broadband Networks Wireless broadband: from 0 to 35 million
USA subscribers (June 2004 – June 2007) Lack of spectrum ‘remedied’ by mergers
190 MHz much below EU average T-Mobile left out until AWS (90 MHz) 9.06
T-M largest winner - $4.2B, immediately announced $2.7B 3G network build-out
Google phone (Android) just debuted… on T-Mobile 3G network
Google paradox?
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 18
![Page 19: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 19
Asymmetric Triumphalism Wireless generally “disruptive”
Smart technologies in licensed and unlicensed Exclusive spectrum rights host intense ‘non-
exclusive’ wireless use Coordinated by delegating mgt. to market
competitor, as opposed to regulation of radios Mobile networks far more deployed
4 billion+ subscribers 2005 global data, WWAN v. WLAN
$200 bil. vs. $3 bil excludes service revenues
![Page 20: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Date: Feb. 5, 2007 (http://www.cellular-news.com/story/21779.php)
Merrill Lynch Global Handset Estimates
![Page 21: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Under Utilized ISM (unlic.) Bands?
Source: McHenry & McCloskey (2004, p. 95)
Start Freq (MHZ)
Stop Freq (MHZ)
Bandwidth (MHz) Allocation
Average Occupancy
2500 2686 186 ITFS, MMDS 0.1043
2390 2500 110U-PCS, ISM (Unlicensed) 0.1449
2300 2360 60Amateur, WCS, DARS 0.2038
470 512 42 TV 14-20 0.2107
902 928 26 Unlicensed 0.2287
928 960 32
Paging, SMS, Fixed, BX Aux, and FMS 0.2401
1850 1990 140 PCS, Asyn, Iso 0.3376
806 902 96Cell phone and SMR 0.4632
![Page 22: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CITE, Mexico City 22
Unlicensed regime – state allocation – is inefficient
state determines sharing rules decides case by case regulatory hold up ‘unlicensed’ apps do not need unlicensed
bands private property offers extreme flexibility
![Page 23: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Oct. 27, 2008
CIDE, Mexico City 23
Liberalization
Liberal License regime More spectrum Competition policy backstop Overlay rights to reallocate encumbered
bands Grandfather existing rights holders Supply adjudicatory institutions – or not
Via auction or other assignment Transparent purchase public “commons
![Page 24: Optimal Spectrum Allocation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022013118/5598a9f71a28abbf3f8b456f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
T.W. Hazlett Nov. 19, 2007
Southern Economics Assoc. 24
THANK YOU.