Spectrum Collusion?

by Tim Lee on June 5, 2007 · View Comments

The Washington Post reports on an effort by Public Knowledge, Google, and others to change several parameters of the upcoming 700 MHz auction:

The groups called on the FCC to require that the winners of a chunk of the spectrum allow “open access” — sell access to competitors on a wholesale basis. The open access requirement would allow a nearly unlimited number of competitors to offer wireless broadband services, said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.

The groups also want the FCC to conduct anonymous auctions — where bidders wouldn’t know whom they’re bidding against. In the past, large wireless carriers have used transparent auctions to drive up prices on chunks of spectrum being bid on by small competitors, said Gregory Rose, an econometrician and game theorist working with open access proponents. In many cases, many larger carriers then dropped their bids after the smaller carriers were eliminated, he said.

Some carriers have also engaged in retaliatory bidding against other companies that bid on spectrum they were interested in, he said. The retaliating bidder will bid on spectrum the second company is interested in, “as a signal to say, ‘back off on the license I want, or I will drive the price of the license you want through the roof,’” Rose said.

As I wrote last week, I’m skeptical about the FCC telling the auction winners what to do with the spectrum once they’ve purchased it. But requiring that the bids be anonymous strikes me as a sensible idea. As I understand it (and I haven’t looked into the relevant research in any detail), in a less-than-liquid market like this, the details of the auction rules matter quite a bit. We should all be able to support the idea that the auction rules should be carefully designed to minimize the potential for collusive behavior by bidders.

View Comments Posted in: Wireless & Spectrum Policy

  • sprowsy powsoddy philosoph minimal abdominal possessioner lakeweed sporangium
    CD-ROM Business Cards
    http://www.amadistrictii.org/
  • Approximately 5 years or so ago, there was a flurry of news that spectrum that was leased was never put into service by the leaseholder and the FCC canceled the leases for non-performance. Clearly these companies had money to "throw away" to "lock" the spectrum for whatever reason they had.

    Unfortunately, I have not had time to research what I stated above, so I have no facts to back-up what I wrote.
  • tomcoseven
    Anonymous bidding is an idea that is long overdue. Open access, on the other hand, will add significant cost to whoever ends up winning the bid. The winner is pretty much gauranteed that they will not be price competitive with the integrated offerings aleady in the market. It almost looks like an attempt to poison the well, in case the wireless carriers win.
  • dimitris

    In many cases, many larger carriers then dropped their bids after the smaller carriers were eliminated


    Wow. I didn't realize the game was that rigged.


    How about a percentage-in-escrow rule: Depositing a certain significant percentage of the bid amount in an escrow account is a prerequisite for even making the bid. If you win the auction but later back out, the spectrum becomes available again and you say bye bye to the escrow cash.


    If these backing-off-after-pricing-out-the-competition shenanigans are indeed true, isn't there some attorney with a RICO itch to scratch?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: