Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 187–210 | Cite as

Economics at the FCC: 2007–2008

Article

Abstract

In any given year, the Federal Communications Commission confronts many issues of interest to economists. This paper summarizes four issues of interest during the last year: Spectrum Auctions, Media Ownership, Quality-Adjusted Cable Prices, and Leased Access. It highlights the role that economic analysis played in each and identifies areas where further research would be fruitful.

Keywords

Federal communication commission (FCC) Spectrum auctions Media ownership Quality-adjusted cable television prices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anstine D. (2001) How much will consumers pay? A hedonic analysis of the cable television industry. Review of Industrial Organization 19: 129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein Research. (2007). Weekend media blast: Death, taxes... and cable rate increases. A look beneath the headlines. Discussion paper, Bernstein Research, 7 December 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Brown K., Uri N. (2004) Cable service and its implicit marginal valuation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 16(4): 539–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brusco S., Lopomo G. (2002) Collusion via signaling in simultaneous ascending bid auctions with multiple objects and complementarities. Review of Economic Studies 69(2): 407–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brusco, S., Lopomo, G., & Marx, L. (2008). The economics of contingent re-auctions. Working Paper, Duke Universtiy.Google Scholar
  6. Bykowsky, M., Olson, M., & Sharkey, W. (2008). A market-based approach to establishing licensing rules: Licensed versus unlicensed use of spectrum. Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis Working Paper 43.Google Scholar
  7. Connolly M., Kwerel E. (2007) Economics at the Federal Communications Commission: 2006–2007. Review of Industrial Organization 31: 107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramton P. (1997) The FCC spectrum auctions: An early assessment. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6(3): 431–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramton P., Schwartz J. (2000) Collusive bidding: Lessons from the FCC spectrum auctions. Journal of Regulatory Economics 17(3): 229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford, G. (1998). Demand, pricing, and bundling: An economic analysis of the cable television industry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, G. (2006). Cable television regulation in the satellite era. Working Paper, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, G. (2007). Television station ownership structure and the quantity and quality of television programming. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/mbpapers.html..
  13. Crawford G. (2008a). Cable television prices. Working Paper, Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford G. (2008b) The discriminatory incentives to bundle in the cable television industry. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 6(1): 41–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, G., & Yurukoglu, A. (2008). The welfare effects of bundling in multi-channel television markets. Mimeo: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  16. FCC. (2000). 1999 Report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  17. FCC. (2001). 2000 Report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  18. FCC. (2003). Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket 02-277.Google Scholar
  19. FCC. (2004a). 2003 Report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  20. FCC. (2004b). Report on the packaging and sale of video programming to the public. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, 18 November 2004. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  21. FCC. (2005a). 2004 Report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  22. FCC. (2005b). Eleventh Annual Report on the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming (2004 Report). Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  23. FCC. (2006a). 2005 Report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  24. FCC. (2006b). Further report on the packaging and sale of video programming to the public. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, February, 2006. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/csrptpg.html..
  25. FCC. (2007a). 2006 report on cable industry prices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Draft internal FCC report.Google Scholar
  26. FCC. (2007b). Notice of proposed rulemaking. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, FCC 07-18.Google Scholar
  27. FCC. (2007c). Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, FCC 06-180.Google Scholar
  28. FCC. (2007d). Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, FCC 07-169.Google Scholar
  29. FCC. (2008a). Commission orders comcast to and discriminatory network management practices. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, Press Release, August 1, 2008.Google Scholar
  30. FCC. (2008b). Report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, FCC 07-208.Google Scholar
  31. Froeb L., Pautler P., Roeller H. (2008) The economics of organizing economists. Vanderbilt University, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansell, S. (2007). Verizon wireless says ’Bring Your Own Device’. New York Times, November 27, 2007.Google Scholar
  33. Kagan World Media. (2008). Economics of basic cable television networks. Discussion paper, Kagan World Media.Google Scholar
  34. Kwerel E., Rosston G. (2000) An insiders’ view of FCC spectrum auctions. Journal of Regulatory Economics 17(3): 253–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall R., Marx L. (2007) Bidder collusion. Journal of Economic Theory 133(1): 374–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marx L. (2006) Economics at the Federal Communications Commission. Review of Industrial Organization 29: 349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marx, L. (2008). Comment to the FCC on contingent re-auctions. Discussion paper, Duke University.Google Scholar
  38. McAfee R., McMillan J. (1996) Analyzing the airwaves auctions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(1): 159–175Google Scholar
  39. Milyo, J. (2007). The effects of cross-ownership on the local content and political slant of local television news. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/mbpapers.html..
  40. NCTA. (2008). Talking points on cable pricing. Discussion paper, National Cable Television Association, Available at http://www.ncta.com/PublicationType/TalkingPoint/CablePricing.aspx. Accessed 4 March 2008.
  41. Nielsen Media Research. (2004). National television activity report. Discussion paper, Nielsen Media Research.Google Scholar
  42. Pakes A., Berry S., Levinsohn J. (1993) American Economic Review 83(2): 240–246Google Scholar
  43. Petrin A. (2003) Quantifying the benefits of new products: The case of the Minivan. Journal of Political Economy 110(4): 705–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shiman, D. (2007). The impact of ownership structure on television stations’ news and public affairs programming. Discussion paper, Federal Communications Commission, Media Ownership Study #4, Section 1. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/mbpapers.html..
  45. Shultze C. (2003) The consumer price index: Conceptual issues and practical suggestions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Justice. (2006). Ex parte commenets. Discussion paper, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  47. Wildman, S. (2003). Assessing quality-adjusted changes in the real price of basic cable service. Discussion paper, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  48. Yurukoglu A. (2008) Bundling and vertical relationships in multichannel television. Mimeo, NYU SternGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory S. Crawford
    • 1
  • Evan Kwerel
    • 2
  • Jonathan Levy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Federal Communications CommissionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations