Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T10:27:16.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Hierarchical Package Bidding: A Paper & Pencil Combinatorial Auction

from Part III - Alternative Auction Designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
School of Economics, UNSW Business School
Charles A. Holt
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Virginia
Martin Bichler
Affiliation:
Technische Universität München
Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Auctions with multiple items are typically conducted in an environment in which bidders’ values depend on acquiring combinations, e.g. networks of broadcast licenses or timber rights for adjacent tracts of land. Concerns for economic efficiency and revenue enhancement have led the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to run auctions simultaneously for large numbers of licenses in a series of bidding rounds, with provisional winners being announced after each round. Under the simultaneous multiround auction format (SMR), the highest bid on each license becomes the provisional price that must be topped in a subsequent round. This approach has been copied in other countries with considerable success, but experimental evidence indicates that efficiency and revenue may be reduced when bidders hesitate to incorporate synergy values into their bids for fear that they will end up winning only part of a desired package (see, for instance, the references in Brunner et al., 2010).

The “exposure problem” is a major concern in what is arguably the auction of a lifetime, i.e. the upcoming FCC 700 MHz spectrum auction. This spectrum has better propagation and penetration properties than any spectrum sold before and is extremely valuable for wireless applications (the FCC has set minimum prices at over 10 billion). More importantly, the wireless industry is concentrated and the 700 MHz auction provides the last opportunity for a new firm to enter the market. For an entrant to be successful in the wireless market, however, it has to acquire a nationwide footprint, which is virtually impossible with the current SMR format because of exposure risk.

Some pre-packaging of licenses into larger groups may help solve the exposure problem. In FCC Auction 65, for example, bids were proportionally higher for large blocks of bandwidth for air-to-ground communications; a block with 3 times as much bandwidth as a smaller block sold for about 4.5 times as much.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks, J.S., J. O., Ledyard, and D. P., Porter (1989) “Allocating Uncertain and Unresponsive Resources: An Experimental Approach,” Rand Journal of Economics, 20 (1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, C., J. K., Goeree, C. A., Holt, and J. O., Ledyard (2010) “An Experimental Test of Combinatorial FCC Spectrum Auctions,” American Economic Journal: Micro-Economics, 2 (1), February, 39–57.Google Scholar
Bykowsky, M.M., R. J., Cull, and J. O., Ledyard (2000) “Mutually Destructive Bidding: The FCC Auction Design Problem,” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 17 (3), May, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FCC Public Notice (August 17, 2007) “Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled for January 16, 2007: Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 73,” AU Docket No. 07-157. See http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3415A1.pdf.
FCC Procedures Public Notice (October 5, 2007) “Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled For January 24, 2008,” AU Docket No. 07-157. See http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4171A1.pdf.
Kwasnica, A.M., J. O., Ledyard, D. P., Porter, and C. DeMartini (2005) “A New and Improved Design for Multi-Object Iterative Auctions,” Management Science, 51 (3), March, 419–434.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. (2007) “Simplified Mechanisms with Applications to Sponsored Search and Package Auctions,” Working Paper, Stanford University.
Rassenti, S.J., V. L., Smith, and R. L., Bulfin (1982) “A Combinatorial AuctionMechanism for Airport Slot Allocation,” Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 402–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, M., A., Pekec, and R., Harstad (1998) “Computationally Manageable Combinatorial Auctions,” Management Science, 44, 1131–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×