Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: TK
Wireless communications are experiencing an unprecedented expansion. The\ud increasing mobility of the communication society and the pace of\ud technological change are growing pressure for more spectrum to support\ud more users, more uses and more capacity. Thus, spectrum management has\ud become an extremely important part of wireless communications. A few\ud regulators are changing their traditional ‘command and control’ approach.\ud Nevertheless, many features of optimal spectrum management are still\ud widely discussed. This work is aimed at contributing to that discussion.\ud The key insight is that spectrum management can benefit from more\ud liberal spectrum sharing. This work set out to answer three main research\ud questions: (i) whether there is a theoretical framework which can be used to\ud analyze and guide spectrum policy reform, when moving from a traditional\ud ‘command and control’ regime to a market-inspired one; (ii) whether it is\ud possible to design a plausible mechanism which can promote efficient\ud allocation and assignment of spectrum commons; (iii) whether (and how)\ud technological developments could enable band sharing methods outside the\ud traditional management framework and without harmful interference.\ud The literature on transition economics and policy was used to help\ud answer the first research question. Evidence from liberalizing countries was\ud positively analyzed to discuss reforms of spectrum allocation and\ud assignment methods. Most countries have adopted strategies that gradually\ud change their spectrum policies and started by using more liberal methods to\ud assign spectrum. It is also argued that future spectrum reforms might benefit\ud from insights presented in the transition economics literature.\ud A translation of a model on cartel quotas under majority rule is\ud proposed to answer the second research question. The work verifies, firstly,\ud that an analogous set of properties is satisfied under our assumptions and\ud that the median-index theorem applies, mutatis mutandis, to our setting.\ud Thus firms bidding to acquire spectrum commons contribute a minimum\ud amount of their wealth; the sum of contributions offered is then compared to\ud other bids for the same spectrum, which is allocated to the highest bidder.\ud The last research question considers novel ways of spectrum sharing\ud that might be enabled by technological developments. The work explores\ud contributions, from various research areas, regarding management of scarce\ud resources. Those contributions are discussed with respect to shared spectrum\ud access. It is suggested that spectrum management might benefit from\ud methods which enable the management of pooled (intermittent) demands for\ud access, especially methods in line with fair sojourn protocols.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abbott, A. (1992), What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis, in C.C. Ragin and H.S. Becker (eds.), What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, 53-82, Cambridge, Cambridge U.P.
    • ACMA - Australian Communications and Media Authority (2009a), Five-year Spectrum Outlook 2009-2013, Canberra.
    • Adda, J. and M. Ottaviani (2005), The Transition to Digital Television, Economic Policy, 20(41), 160-209.
    • Benkler, Y. (2002), Some Economics of Wireless Communications, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 16(1), 25-83.
    • Berlemann, L. and S. Mangold (2009), Cognitive Radio and Dynamic Spectrum Access, Chichester, UK, Wiley.
    • Best, M.L. (2006), A Global Survey of Spectrum License Exemptions, available at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/.
    • Binmore, K. and P. Kemplerer (2002), The Biggest Auction Ever: The Sale of the British 3G Telecom Licences, Economic Journal, vol. 112(478), C74-96.
    • Blaxter, L., C. Hughes and M. Tight (2001), How to Research (2nd edn), Buckingham, Open U. P.
    • Bracht, J., C. Figuières and M. Ratto (2008), Relative Performance of Two Simple Incentive Mechanisms in a Public Goods Experiment, Journal of Public Economics, 92(1), 54-90.
    • Brito, J. (2007), The Spectrum Commons in Theory and Practice, Stanford Technology Law Review, 1, available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/britocommons.pdf.
    • Bryman, A. and R.G. Burgess (1994), Reflections on Qualitative Data Analysis, in A. Bryman and R.G. Burgess (eds), Analyzing Qualitative Data, 216-26, London, Routledge.
    • BTCE - Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (1990), Management of the Radio Frequency Spectrum: An Economic Analysis, occasional paper no. 102, Canberra.
    • Buchanan, J.M. and Y.J. Yoon (2000), Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons, Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1), 1-13.
    • Buck, S. (2002), Replacing Spectrum Auctions with a Spectrum Commons, available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/02_STLR_2/.
    • Burgess, R.G., C.J. Pole, K. Evans and C. Priestley (1994), Four Studies from One or One Study from Four?, in A. Bryman and R.G. Burgess (eds), Analyzing Qualitative Data, 129-45, London, Routledge.
    • Bykowsky, M. (2003), A Secondary Market for the Trading of Spectrum: Promoting Market Liquidity, Telecommunications Policy, 27(7), 533-41.
    • Cave, M. and T. Valletti (2000), Are Spectrum Auctions Ruining our Grandchildren's Future?, Info, 2 (4), 347-50.
    • Cave, M. and W. Webb (2003a), Band Managers: The Policies and Incentives Needed to Make Them Succeed, Papers in Spectrum Trading, no. 3, Coventry, University of Warwick, WBS, mimeo.
    • Cave, M. and W. Webb (2003b), Designing Property Rights for the Operation of Spectrum Markets, Papers in Spectrum Trading, no. 1, Coventry, University of Warwick, WBS, mimeo.
    • Cave, M. and W. Webb (2003c), Spectrum Licensing and Spectrum Commons: Where to Draw the Line, Papers in Spectrum Trading, no. 2, Coventry, University of Warwick, WBS, mimeo.
    • Chaduc, J.-M. and G. Pogorel (2008), The Radio Spectrum: Managing a Strategic Resource, London, ISTE and Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.
    • Chapin, J.M. and W.H. Lehr (2007), Cognitive Radio for Dynamic Spectrum Access: The Path to Market Success for Dynamic Spectrum Access Technology, IEEE Communications Magazine, 45(5), 96-103.
    • Chen, Y.-J. and J. Zhang (2010), Design of Price Mechanisms for Network Resource Allocation via Price of Anarchy, mimeo, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1603447 .
    • Crès, H. and H. Moulin (2001), Scheduling with Opting out: Improving upon Random Priority, Operations Research, 49(4), 565-77.
    • Crès, H. and H. Moulin (2003), Commons with Increasing Marginal Costs: Random Priority versus Average Cost, International Economic Review, 44(3), 1097-115.
    • Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn), London, Sage.
    • Danziger, L. and A. Schnytzer (1991), Implementing the Lindahl VoluntaryExchange Mechanism, European Journal of Political Economy, 7(1), 55-64.
    • De Vany, A.S., R.D. Eckert, C.J. Meyers, D.J. O'Hara and R.C. Scott (1969), A Property System for Market Allocation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum: A Legal-Economic-Engineering Study, Stanford Law Review, 21(7), 1499- 561.
    • Dewatripont, M. and G. Roland (1995), The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty, American Economic Review, 85 (5), 1207-23.
    • Faulhaber, G.R. and D. Farber (2003), Spectrum Management: Property Rights, Markets, and the Commons, in L. F. Cranor and S. S. Wildman (eds), Rethinking Rights and Regulations: Institutional Responses to New Communication Technologies, 193-226, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
    • FCC - Federal Communications Commission (2002a), Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group, Spectrum Policy Task Force, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html .
    • FCC - Federal Communications Commission (2002b), Spectrum Policy Task Force Report, ET Docket 02-135, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html
    • Groves, T. (1973), Incentives in Teams, Econometrica, 41(4), 617-31.
    • Groves, T. and J. Ledyard (1987), Incentive Compatibility since 1972, in T. Groves, R. Radner and S. Reiter (eds), Information, Incentives, and Economic Mechanisms: Essays in Honor of Leonid Hurwicz, 48-111, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
    • Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln (1994), Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 105-117, London, Sage.
    • Guttman, J.M. (1978), Understanding Collective Action: Matching Behavior, American Economic Review, 68(2), 251-55.
    • Guttman, J.M (1986), Matching Behavior and Collective Action: Some Experimental Evidence, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7(2), 171-98.
    • Guttman, J.M. (1987), A Non-Cournot Model of Voluntary Collective Action, Economica, 54(1), 1-19.
    • Hammersley, M. (1992), What's Wrong with Ethnography?, London, Routledge.
    • Hantrais, L. (2009), International Comparative Research: Theory, Methods and Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Hassin, R. and M. Haviv (2003), To Queue or Not to Queue: Equilibrium Behaviour in Queuing Systems, London, Kluwer A.P.
    • Hatfield, D.N. (2003), Spectrum Management Reform and the Notion of the 'Spectrum Commons', Southern African Journal of Information and Communication, no. 4, 1-12.
    • Hausman, D.M. (1989), Economic Methodology in a Nutshell, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 115-27.
    • Hazlett, T.W. (1998), Assigning Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why Did FCC License Auctions Take 67 Years?, Journal of Law and Economics, 41(2), 529-76.
    • Johari, R. and N. Tsitsiklis (2004), Efficiency Loss in a Network Resource Allocation Game, Mathematics of Operations Research, 29(3), 407-35.
    • Levin, H.J. (1966), New Technologies and the Old Regulation in Radio Spectrum Management, American Economic Review, 56(1-2), 339-49.
    • Nsouli, S.M., M. Rached and N. Funke (2005), The Speed of Adjustment and the Sequencing of Economic Reforms: Issues and Guidelines for Policymakers, International Journal of Social Economics, 32(9), 740-66.
    • Wallsten, S. (2002), Does Sequencing Matter? Regulation and Privatization in Telecommunications Reforms, World Bank working paper No. 2817, available at
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article