Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 345–378 | Cite as

Economics at the FCC, 2013–2014

  • Allison Baker
  • Timothy Brennan
  • Jack Erb
  • Omar Nayeem
  • Aleksandr Yankelevich
Article

Abstract

We present a sample of recent FCC matters of economic interest. These include nonstructural remedies in a number of wireless telecommunications transactions, econometric attempts to identify which schools are likely to have access to fiber broadband, and the implementation of “rural broadband experiments” to improve the effectiveness of subsidy programs to promote universal service. We close with some observations regarding the prominence of vertical concerns in FCC policy assessments.

Keywords

Communications policy Wireless telecommunications Mergers Universal service Vertical integration Bargaining 

References

  1. Aguelakakis, N., & Yankelevich, A. (2014). Collaborate or consolidate: Assessing the competitive effects of production joint ventures. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  2. Albanese, M. T., & Knott, M. (1994). Bootstrapping latent variable models for binary response. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bork, R. (1978). The antitrust paradox. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, T. (1987). Why regulated firms should be kept out of unregulated markets: Understanding the divestiture in U.S. v. AT&T. Antitrust Bulletin, 32, 741–793.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, T. (2001). Do easy cases make bad law? Antitrust innovation or missed opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft. George Washington Law Review, 69, 1042–1102.Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, T. (2008). Bundled rebates as exclusion rather than predation. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4, 335–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bresnahan, T. F., & Salop, S. C. (1986). Quantifying the competitive effects of production joint ventures. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 4, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlton, D., & Heyer, K. (2009). Extraction vs. extension: The basis for formulating antitrust policy towards single-firm conduct. Competition Policy International, 4, 285–305.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, Z., & Ross, T. W. (2003). Cooperating upstream while competing downstream: A theory of input joint ventures. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, J. P., & Kim, B. (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. RAND Journal of Economics, 41, 446–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coase, R. (1972). Durability and monopoly. Journal of Law and Economics, 15, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elhauge, E. (2009). Tying, bundled discounts, and the death of the single monopoly profit theory. Harvard Law Review, 123, 397–481.Google Scholar
  15. Farrell, J., & Weiser, P. (2003). Modularity, vertical integration, and open access policies: Towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the internet age. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17, 85–134.Google Scholar
  16. Federal Communications Commission. (2008). Memorandum opinion and order and declaratory ruling. Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Atlantis Holdings LLC For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Manager and De Facto Transfer Leasing Arrangements and Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the Transaction is Consistent with Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, WT Docket No. 08–95, released November 10, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. Federal Communications Commission. (2009). Memorandum opinion and order. Applications of AT&T Inc. and Centennial Communications Corp. For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Leasing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 08–246, released November 05, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. Federal Communications Commission. (2010). Memorandum opinion and order. Applications of Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, WT Docket No. 09–119, released April 20, 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Federal Communications Commission. (2011a). Report and order and further notice of proposed rulemaking. Connect America Fund. (2011 Order), WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., 26 FCC Rcd 17663, adopted Oct. 27, 2011, released Nov. 19, 2011.Google Scholar
  20. Federal Communications Commission. (2011b). Memorandum opinion and order. Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company, and NBC Universal, Inc. for Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, MB Docket No. 10–56, released January 20, 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Federal Communications Commission. (2012). Memorandum opinion and order and declaratory ruling. Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC and Cox TMI, LLC For Consent To Assign AWS-1 Licenses, WT Docket No. 12–4. Applications of Verizon Wireless and Leap for Consent To Exchange Lower 700 MHz, AWS-1, and PCS Licenses, ULS File Nos 0004942973, 0004942992, 0004952444, 0004949596, and 0004949598. Applications of T-Mobile License LLC and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Consent to Assign Licenses, WC Docket 12–175. Released August 23, 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Federal Communications Commission. (2013a). Memorandum opinion and order and declaratory ruling. Applications of Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile USA Inc, and MetroPCS Communications, Inc., For Consent To Transfer of Control of Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 12–301, released March 12, 2013.Google Scholar
  23. Federal Communications Commission. (2013b). Sixteenth report. Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 11–186, released March 21, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Federal Communications Commission. (2013c). Memorandum opinion and order, declaratory ruling, and order of reconsideration. Applications of SoftBank Corp., Starburst II Inc, Sprint Nextel Corporation, and Clearwire Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations. Petition for Reconsideration of Applications of Clearwire Corporation for Pro Forma Transfer of Control, IB Docket No. 12–343, released July 5, 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Federal Communications Commission. (2013d). Memorandum opinion and order and declaratory ruling. Applications of GCI Communication Corp., ACS Wireless License Sub Inc, ACS of Anchorage License Sub Inc, and Unicom, Inc., For Consent to Assign Licenses to the Alaska Wireless Network, LLC., WT Docket 12–187, WC Docket 09–197, released July 16, 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Federal Communications Commission. (2013e). Notice of proposed rulemaking. Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13–184, released July 23, 2013.Google Scholar
  27. Federal Communications Commission. (2013f). Memorandum opinion and order. Applications of AT&T Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Grain Spectrum, LLC, and Grain Spectrum II, LLC For Consent To Assign and Lease AWS-1 and Lower 700 MHz Licenses, WT Docket No. 13–56, released September 3, 2013.Google Scholar
  28. Federal Communications Commission. (2013g). Memorandum opinion and order. Application of AT&T Inc. and Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc., For Consent to Transfer of and Assign Licenses and Authorizations. WT Docket 13–54, released September 20, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Federal Communications Commission. (2014a). Memorandum opinion and order. Application of Cricket License Company, LLC, et al., Leap Wireless International Inc, and AT&T Inc. for Consent To Transfer Control of Authorizations, Application of Cricket License Company, LLC and Leap Licenseco Inc. for Consent to Assignment of Authorization. WT Docket 13–193, released March 13, 2014. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-349A1_Rcd.pdf
  30. Federal Communications Commission. (2014b). Further notice of proposed rulemaking. Connect America Fund. (FNPRM), WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., adopted Jan. 30, 2014, released Jan. 31, 2014.Google Scholar
  31. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1996). Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order 888 (Apr. 24, 1996).Google Scholar
  32. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1999). Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000 (Dec. 20, 1999).Google Scholar
  33. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Antitrust guidelines for collaborations among competitors.Google Scholar
  34. Fox, C., Waters, J., Fletcher, G. & Levin, D. (2012). The broadband imperative: Recommendations to address K-12 education infrastructure needs. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA).Google Scholar
  35. Keaton, P. (2012). Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2010–11 (NCES 2012–338rev). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  36. Klein, B., Crawford, R., & Alchian, A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics, 21, 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leap Wireless International Inc. (2014). LLC, SEC Form 10-K (filed March 6, 2014).Google Scholar
  38. McAfee, P., & Schwartz, M. (1994). Opportunism in multilateral vertical contracting: Nondiscrimination, exclusivity, and uniformity. American Economic Review, 84, 210–230.Google Scholar
  39. Milgrom, P. & Eilat, A. (2011). The CAF auction: Design proposal. WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., filed July 29, 2011.Google Scholar
  40. O’Brien, D. P., & Salop, S. C. (2000). Competitive effects of partial ownership: Financial interest and corporate control. Antitrust Law Journal, 67, 559–614.Google Scholar
  41. O’Brien, D., & Shaffer, G. (1992). Vertical control with bilateral contracts. RAND Journal of Economics, 23, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ordover, J., Saloner, G., & Salop, S. C. (1990). Equilibrium vertical foreclosure. American Economic Review, 80, 127–142.Google Scholar
  43. Perry, M. (1980). Forward integration by Alcoa: 1888–1930. Journal of Industrial Economics, 29, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ralph, E., Singer, S., & Wildman, S. (2013). Economic analysis at the Federal Communications Commission, 2012–13. Review of Industrial Organization, 43(4), 327–348.Google Scholar
  45. Reder, M. (1982). Chicago economics: Permanence and change. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 1–38.Google Scholar
  46. Reynolds, R. J., & Snapp, B. R. (1986). The competitive effects of partial equity interests and joint ventures. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 4, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Universal Service Administrative Company. (2014). Annual Reports.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2013). National Telecommunication and Information Administration (June 30, 2013). State Broadband Initiative.Google Scholar
  49. U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Antitrust division policy guide to merger remedies.Google Scholar
  50. Varian, H. (2014). Big data: New tricks for econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whinston, M. (1990). Tying, foreclosure and exclusion. American Economic Review, 80, 837–859.Google Scholar
  52. Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA)  2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Baker
    • 1
  • Timothy Brennan
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jack Erb
    • 1
  • Omar Nayeem
    • 1
  • Aleksandr Yankelevich
    • 2
  1. 1.Office of Strategic Planning and Policy AnalysisFederal Communications CommissionWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Wireless Telecommunications BureauChief Economists, Federal Communications CommissionWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Chief EconomistFederal Communications CommissionWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Public Policy and EconomicsUMBCBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations