Spectrum Allocation and the Internet

  • Bruce M. Owen
  • Gregory L. Rosston
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 43)


The Internet is transforming communications around the world, even with the downturn in the technology market that we saw at the start of this century. This transformation permeates all forms of communications, but its success at realizing maximum consumer benefits depends, at least in part, on the flexibility of communications regulation. Regulation must not constrain firms responding to competitive incentives.


Reserve Price Federal Communication Commission Spectrum Allocation Spectrum License Additional Flexibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benkler, Y. 1998. Overcoming Agoraphobia: Building the Commons of the Digitally Networked Environment. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 11: 287. <>.Google Scholar
  2. Coase, R. 1959. The Federal Communications Commission. 2 J.L. & Econ. 1.Google Scholar
  3. Comments of 37 Concerned Economists. 2001. In the Matter of Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets (7 February).Google Scholar
  4. Farrell, J., and M. Topper. 1998. Economic White Paper on National Third Generation Wireless Standards. Cornerstone Research Staff Working paper.Google Scholar
  5. Federal Communications Commission. 1945. Allocation of Frequencies to the Various Classes of Non-Governmental Services in the Radio Spectrum from 10 Kilocycles to 30,000,000 Kilocycles. Docket No. 6651. Report of Proposed Allocation from 25,000 Kilocycles to 30,000,000 Kilocycles at 18–20 (released 15 January, 1945).Google Scholar
  6. Federal Communications Commission. 2000. In the Matter of Principles for Promoting the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Encouraging the Development of Secondary Markets (released 1 December, 2000).Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, R., and D. Newberry. 1982. Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly. 72 Am. Econ. Rev. 514 (June).Google Scholar
  8. Hazlett, T. 2001. The Wireless Craze, The Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, The Spectrum Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase’s “Big Joke”: An Essay on Airwave Allocation Policy. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Working Paper 01–02 (January). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (Spring).Google Scholar
  9. Hausman, J. 1997. Valuing the Effect of Regulation on New Services in Telecommunications. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics.Google Scholar
  10. Lessig, L. 2001. The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  11. Rosston, G. 2001. The Long and Winding Road: The FCC Paves the Path with Good Intentions. SIEPR Policy Paper No. 01–008, < papers/pdf/01-08.html>.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce M. Owen
    • 1
  • Gregory L. Rosston
    • 2
  1. 1.Economists IncorporatedUSA
  2. 2.Stanford Institute for Economic Policy ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations