Paul Milgrom et al. on the incentive auction--two recent papers, and two pictures

Two new papers and two recent pictures on the FCC incentive auction, and the cornucopia of related results (including to auctions as knapsack problems) that Paul Milgrom and his colleagues have developed:

Incentive Auction Design Alternatives: A Simulation Study
KEVIN LEYTON-BROWN, University of British Columbia
PAUL MILGROM, Stanford University
NEIL NEWMAN, University of British Columbia
ILYA SEGAL, Stanford University
February 21, 2020,
Manuscript submitted for review to the 21st ACM Conference on Economics & Computation (EC’20)

Abstract: Over 13 months in 2016–17 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducted an “incentive auction” to repurpose radio spectrum from broadcast television to wireless internet. This paper revisits from a computational perspective the descending clock “reverse” auction used to procure broadcast rights. We investigate the quantitative significance of various aspects of the design by running extensive simulations, leveraging a reverse auction simulator and realistic models of bidder values.
************

Investment Incentives in Near-Optimal Mechanisms
Mohammad Akbarpour, Scott Duke Kominers, Shengwu Li and Paul Milgrom
February 25, 2020

Abstract: In a Vickrey auction, if one bidder has an option to invest to increase his value, the combined mechanism including investments is still fully optimal. In contrast, for any β < 1, we find that there exist monotone allocation rules that guarantee a fraction β of the allocative optimum in the worst case but such that the associated mechanism with investments by one bidder can lead to arbitrarily small fractions of the full optimum being achieved. We show that if a monotone allocation rule satisfies a new property called ARNIE and guarantees a fraction β of the allocative optimum, then in the equilibrium of the threshold auction game with investments, at least a fraction β of the full optimum is achieved. We also establish generalizations and a partial converse, and show that some well-known approximation algorithms satisfy the ARNIE property.

"ARNIE (“avoiding relevant negative investment externalities”)
...
"The definition of ARNIE is as follows: Given any value profile and feasibility constraints, an algorithm outputs some set of packed bidders. Suppose we raise the value of a packed bidder, or lower the value of an unpacked bidder, and then run the algorithm at the new value profile. The algorithm is ARNIE if the new packing, assessed at the new values, yields at least as much welfare as the old packing, assessed at the new values."

*********

And here are two photos I snapped during a seminar Paul gave two weeks ago...

See my previous posts containing "incentive auction".

Paul Milgrom's Marshall Lectures are now available on video

Auctions are ancient, but the linked auctions Paul talks about in his lectures are stunningly modern, and depend on high powered, thoughtfully deployed, state of the art computation.

"Market Design When Resource Allocation is NP-Hard," in two lectures.
Here they are:

Lecture 1

and Lecture 2:

Milgrom Marshall Lectures at University of Cambridge

Paul Milgrom will be giving the 2019-2020 Marshall Lectures at Cambridge today and tomorrow.  Here's a video abstract by Paul:

2019-20 Marshall Lecture by Professor Paul Milgrom

Paul Milgrom is best known for his contributions to the microeconomic theory, his pioneering innovations in the practical design of multi-item auctions, and the extraordinary successes of his students and academic advisees. According to his BBVA Award citation: “Paul Milgrom has made seminal contributions to an unusually wide range of fields of economics including auctions, market design, contracts and incentives, industrial economics, economics of organizations, finance, and game theory.” According to a count by Google Scholar, Milgrom’s books and articles have received more than 90,000 citations. - Professor Milgrom's Personal Site >>

 Professor Paul Milgrom
(Stanford Department of Economics)
will give two lectures on,
"Market Design When Resource Allocation is NP-Hard"

Venue: Lady Mitchell Hall

Tuesday 19th November 2019
5.00pm to 6.00pm
and
Wednesday 20th November 2019
5.00pm to 6.30pm
*********
I'll update when Paul's lectures are available.
(In the meantime, here are my 2013-2014 Marshall Lectures on "Matching Markets and Market Design"  )
************
Update: Both lectures are now available at the Marshall Lectures site.

Stanford celebrates Paul Milgrom

Paul Milgrom on challenging the status quo to solve real-world problems

"The author of more than 100 seminal research papers and three books, Milgrom is most admired for his role in 1993 in designing, along with Stanford Professor Robert Wilson, the format used by governments to lease airwaves to mobile phone carriers. To date, "the U.S. Treasury has received more than $100 billion from these spectrum auctions, in which Milgrom and Wilson developed a way for bidders to see prices as they change and adjust the types of licenses they seek. Countries around the world use the format.

In 2017, the U.S. government undertook a novel spectrum auction that may prove to be Milgrom's greatest professional achievement to date. Leading a small team of economists and computer scientists, Milgrom created a simple bidding format for a highly complex problem in which the rights to TV broadcasting airwaves were, for the first time, converted and sold to mobile carriers and broadband providers. The feat was remarkable, not just because it led to $19.8 billion in licenses, but because its success depended on the ability to conduct enormously complex computations instantaneously.

"This [was] by far the most complicated resource allocation ever attempted, anywhere in the world," says Milgrom. It was also his first real encounter with artificial intelligence — and the power of it to transform his work and the entire field of economics has Milgrom thinking about radically new ways of constructing markets in coming decades.

Thanks in part to the team’s work, the FCC received the 2018 Franz Edelman Award for Achievement in Advanced Analytics, Operations Research, and Management Science.

FCC receives Edelman award for incentive spectrum auction

Advancing wireless communication: FCC awarded the 2018 INFORMS Edelman Award, the leading award in analytics and operations research

"The FCC conducted the world’s first two-sided “Incentive Auction” to meet the exploding demand for wireless services by reclaiming valuable low-band electromagnetic spectrum from TV broadcasters. By purchasing spectrum from TV broadcasters and reselling it to wireless providers, the auction repurposed 84 MHz of TV spectrum for mobile broadband, next-generation “5-G,” and other wireless uses, raised nearly $20 billion in revenue, and contributed over $7 billion to reduce the federal deficit. In addition, operations research enabled many TV stations to remain on their original channels, saving an estimated $200 million in relocation costs.  "
*************

I have written quite a number of posts focusing on the incentive auction, and on the dream team led by Paul Milgrom; here's one of the first:

Monday, April 21, 2014

The FCC's upcoming incentive auction, and I propose a new adjective (Milgromesque)

Appreciations of Paul Milgrom from the CME-MSRI prize ceremony

Here is a link if you can't activate the video above.

I blogged about the prize here.

Congratulations to Paul Milgrom: 2017 CME Group-MSRI Prize

The award ceremony is today:  2017 CME Group-MSRI Prize

The 12th annual CME Group-MSRI Prize in Innovative Quantitative Applications will be awarded to PAUL MILGROM, Shirley and Leonard Ely professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Economics and professor, by courtesy, at both the Department of Management Science and Engineering and the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, at a luncheon in Chicago on February 12, 2018.

The CME Group-MSRI Prize is awarded to an individual or a group to recognize originality and innovation in the use of mathematical, statistical or computational methods for the study of the behavior of markets, and more broadly of economics.

About Paul Milgrom

Paul Milgrom's primary research is directed to designing auctions for multiple unique but related items. Along with Robert Wilson, he introduced the initial design for sales of radio spectrum licenses in the United States. He has designed new auctions for Internet advertising and for procuring complex services. Research on incentives and complexity are combined to create auctions that are simple and straightforward for bidders, yet which dramatically improve resource allocation compared to traditional auction designs.

After earning his PhD at the GSB, Milgrom taught at Northwestern University and Yale before returning to Stanford. He has made well-known contributions to many areas of economics, including auctions, incentive theory, industrial economics, economic history, economics of manufacturing, economics of organizations, and game theory. His book coauthored with John Roberts, Economics, Organization and Management, opened a new area to economic research.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and winner of the 2008 Nemmers Prize in Economics and the 2012 BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge award.

About the event

Prior to the lunch and award presentation, a panel discussion on Frontiers of Research in Market Design will be held with the following panelists:

• Mohammad Akbarpour, Assistant Professor of Economics, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
• Piotr Dworczak, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, University of Chicago
• Shengwu Li, Junior Fellow of the Society of Fellows, Department of Economics, Harvard University
• Ellen Muir, Research Fellow, School of Mathematics & Statistics, The University of Melbourne

Luncheon remarks, an appreciation of the life and work of Paul Milgrom:

• Roger Myerson, Glen A. Lloyd Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago

Paul Milgrom will present at talk on A Market Process to Reallocate Radio Spectrum.

2017 CME Group-MSRI Prize Selection Committee: David Eisenbud (chair), Director, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Lars Peter Hansen, Homer J. Livingston Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Economics and Statistics at the University of Chicago. 2008 CME-MSRI Prize. 2013 Nobel Prize Winner Bengt Holmström, the Paul A. Samuelson Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 2013 recipient of the CME-MSRI Prize. 2016 Nobel Prize Winner. R. Preston McAfee, Chief Economist & Corp VP, Microsoft Leo Melamed, Chairman Emeritus, CME Group Roger Myerson, Glen A. Lloyd Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University of Chicago. 2007 Nobel Prize Winner Maureen O'Hara, Robert W. Purcell Professorship of Management; and Professor of Finance, SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University Myron Scholes, Frank E. Buck Professor of Finance, Emeritus, Stanford Graduate School of Business Hugo Sonnenschein, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago Jean Tirole, Scientific Director of Industrial Economics Institute (IDEI) and Member of the Toulouse School of Economics and 2010 recipient of the CME-MSRI Prize

******************
Here's an earlier announcement, of this prize and some others. Paul is deservedly a prize magnet, and this year he won three notable prizes.
Paul wins CME-MSRI Prize

Update:  and here's today's story from the CME
WHY PAUL MILGROM IS AN ECONOMIST YOU SHOULD KNOW

Bob Wilson, Paul Milgrom and Dave Kreps win the Carty Award

Game theory at Stanford:)

Here's the press release from the National Academy of Science

David M. Kreps, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Paul R. Milgrom, Stanford University Department of Economics, and Robert B. Wilson, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, will receive the 2018 John J. Carty Award for the Advancement of Science.

"Kreps and Wilson provided a framework, known as sequential equilibrium, for modeling dynamic effects in economics. All three of the award winners, together with other collaborators and in particular D. John Roberts, employed these techniques to model and study reputation and collusion, both of which have broad applications in macroeconomics, industrial organization, and labor economics.

Later, the entire modern telecommunications industry arose out of an auction format developed by Milgrom and Wilson, along with Preston McAfee, for the 1994 radio spectrum auctions by the Federal Communications Commission. The simultaneous ascending auction format, in which each bidder can bid for multiple licenses over a series of rounds so long as it remains “sufficiently active,” has since been used around the world to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of wireless licenses. Variations of the format have also been applied to numerous other industries, including electricity markets and various commodity markets.  

The three award winners, with collaborators and alone, have contributed broadly to other topics in economics: Kreps has done foundational work in choice theory and financial market theory; Milgrom, in the theories of market microstructure and the principal-agent problem; and Wilson, in nonlinear pricing and utility regulation, as well as the foundations of dynamic equilibria.

The John J. Carty Award for the Advancement of Science is awarded every two years, to recognize noteworthy and distinguished accomplishments. In 2018 the award is presented in the field of economics. The award is presented with a medal and a $25,000 prize."

Economics and computer science of a radio spectrum reallocation in the PNAS

A PNAS article on the recent incentive auction, by its design team.

Economics and computer science of a radio spectrum reallocation
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Paul Milgrom, and Ilya Segal
 Early Edition >  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701997114

Abstract
The recent “incentive auction” of the US Federal Communications Commission was the first auction to reallocate radio frequencies between two different kinds of uses: from broadcast television to wireless Internet access. The design challenge was not just to choose market rules to govern a fixed set of potential trades but also, to determine the broadcasters’ property rights, the goods to be exchanged, the quantities to be traded, the computational procedures, and even some of the performance objectives. An essential and unusual challenge was to make the auction simple enough for human participants while still ensuring that the computations would be tractable and capable of delivering nearly efficient outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement: P.M. led the team of consultants on behalf of Auctionomics, which was responsible for advising the Federal Communications Commission on the design of the incentive auction. K.L.-B. and I.S. were the two other members of the Auctionomics consulting team.

Discovering Prices, by Paul Milgrom

Just published and well worth reading (here's a link at which you can discover its price:)
Discovering Prices  -- Auction Design in Markets with Complex Constraints
Paul Milgrom
Columbia University Press

Paul Milgrom on the history of spectrum auctions

How obscure science led to spectrum auctions that connected the world
BY PAUL MILGROM,  04/30/17 07:00 AM EDT

"The incentive auction I helped design is an innovation building on decades of economic theory research on auctions dating back to the Nobel-prize winning work of William Vickrey and to work by my own research advisor, Robert Wilson, in the 1960s with funding from the Atomic Energy Commission. What interest did this Cold War era agency have in theoretical auctions? Well, nothing, but they were highly interested in advancing the field of game theory – a then obscure branch of mathematics used in economics that aims to understand how individuals strategize and act in competitive situations.


Over more than 30 years, Wilson, I, and others continued to advance this seemingly esoteric field, until the FCC issued its first proposed rulemaking on developing a spectrum auction that referenced our work. Together with Preston McAfee, who had independently been developing similar ideas, we worked with the FCC to design the first spectrum auction in 1994. The simultaneous multiple round auction we invented has since been used for dozens of spectrum auctions here and around the world. Collectively, these have been called the greatest auction in history, delivering more than $60 billion for the federal government since the early 1990s and enabling the robust wireless communications we enjoy today.

In 2014, the three of us received a Golden Goose Award for our work in this obscure field of social science and its unexpected application to spectrum auctions. None of us envisioned such an auction when we began our study, we were driven by a curiosity in human behavior and markets, not data flying around the country. But the auctions we designed have nonetheless helped change the way we all communicate, consume media, and do our work.

The auction that closed last month was the first of its kind, both because it was two-sided, engaging both TV broadcasters as sellers and mobile operators as buyers, bidding in a single auction, and because the choices of which TV broadcast rights to buy and how to reassign continuing broadcasters needed to respect more than a million constraints to avoid interference among uses. Designing such a complex process brought together a new generation of researchers in both economic and computer science.

When the dust had settled, we were able to repurpose channels 38-51 from broadcast TV uses to free 70 megahertz of spectrum for the growing mobile broadband sector (plus 14 megahertz for wireless microphones). This will enable continuing innovation in broadband and bring better coverage to rural communities. The auction also raised nearly $20 billion in revenue, with more than $7 billion to federal coffers to be used for debt reduction.

Our work on auction design is just one example of how research that may sound obscure or even silly has often benefited society. The Golden Goose Award was founded five years ago to celebrate stories like ours, and it has recognized colleagues of mine like Al Roth whose studies of how to make perfect marriage matches now informs medical residency assignments and kidney exchanges, among many other researchers. In each case, a small investment of federal money returned huge benefits to our nation. And all led to outcomes the researchers never would have predicted when they started."

Stanford celebrates Paul Milgrom and the Incentive Auction "Dream Team"

New on the SIEPR webpage, by Krysten Crawford: To secure a mobile future, Stanford expert creates an auction like no other (the url is more informative than the headline: http://siepr.stanford.edu/highlights/secure-mobile-future-stanford-expert-paul-milgrom-creates-auction).

"More than two decades ago, Stanford economist Paul Milgrom played a key role in the design of the first wireless spectrum auction. Since then, the framework he helped create has been used in more than 80 auctions in the United States, generated billions of dollars in government licensing fees — and been replicated around the world.

"So it made sense for the Federal Communications Commission to tap Milgrom in 2011 when the agency needed a new way to free up more broadband for mobile devices. It took him and a small band of fellow economists and computer scientists 18 months to design the auction, which finally opened last month after years of regulatory procedures, software development and presentations to potential bidders.

"When the auction ends later this year, the country’s wireless landscape will never look the same.
...
"For help, Milgrom pulled together an interdisciplinary “dream team” of top experts in economics and computer science: Jonathan Levin, also a SIEPR senior fellow and faculty member in economics; Ilya Segal, a professor of economics at Stanford; and Kevin Leyton-Brown, a computer scientist at the University of British Columbia who earned his PhD from Stanford."

The FCC's upcoming 2016 Incentive Auction: SIEPR policy brief by Greg Rosston and Addrzej Skrzpacz

Moving from Broadcast Television to Mobile Broadband: The FCC’s 2016 Incentive Auction

Gregory Rosston, Andrzej Skrzypacz

 Download publication PolicyBrief-Dec16.pdf (143.25 KB)

Golden Goose Award to Preston McAfee, Paul Milgrom and Bob Wilson

One of the 2014 Golden Goose Awards recognizes the spectrum auction work of Preston, Paul and Bob.

Of Geese and Game Theory: Auctions, Airwaves – and Applications

By Golden Goose Award | Published: July 17, 2014

---

Social scientists and now Golden Goose awardees: Preston McAfee, left, Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson

What’s the connection between social sciences research on game theory and your ability to make calls from your cellphone anywhere in the country, watch your favorite cable TV show, find a good restaurant anywhere in the world, or live stream the “big game” on your smartphone? Meet Robert Wilson, Paul Milgrom, and Preston McAfee, whose basic theoretical research on game theory and auctions, much of it federally funded, eventually helped the Federal Communications Commission figure out how to allocate the nation’s telecommunications spectrum through sophisticated, enormously complex auctions.

The story begins with Robert Wilson, a Stanford University economics professor who earned his undergraduate degree and his Ph.D. at Harvard University. Wilson has always had a strong interest in game theory, including how it applies to formulating auctions for maximum results. Game theory uses mathematical models to study how people and organizations make decisions. It is highly theoretical but over time has had significant applications. Early in his career, in the 1960s, Wilson’s research was supported by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The AEC cared little about the specific topic of Wilson’s research – auctions. As he notes today, few people did. What the AEC really cared about was advancing the field of game theory. At the time, this was obscure, curiosity-inspired basic research, supported by the federal government.

Wilson also conducted research in the 1970s for the Office of Naval Research, which wanted to improve the bidding process for contractors to construct naval ships. Eventually, in the 1980s and 1990s, Wilson’s continuing game theory research on auctions and other economic transactions would be supported by the National Science Foundation.

---

Robert Wilson, Paul Milgrom and Preston McAfee are the second set of Golden Goose winners announced this year. Sponsored by a coalition of academic, business, and scientific groups, with the active encouragement of some members of Congress, the Golden Goose Awards honor scientific researchers whose U.S. government-funded studies might have seemed strange, odd, impractical or wasteful at the time but which paid solid dividends — “major economic or other benefits to society” — in subsequent applications. Recipients are selected by a panel of scientists and researchers.The third annual Golden Goose Awards ceremony takes place in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18. For more on the the Gooseys and this year’s earlier winner, click here.

---

As an undergraduate mathematics major at the University of Michigan, Paul Milgrom was inspired by the work of Nobel Prize winner William Vickrey, a pioneer in fundamental auction theory, who conducted his research in this area at Columbia University.

After several years of working as an actuary, Milgrom attended graduate school at Stanford where Robert Wilson served as his faculty adviser. The subject of Milgrom’s Ph.D. dissertation in economics was, no surprise, auction theory. Milgrom went on to conduct further research on auction theory at Northwestern University, where his work addressing the unique, but still highly speculative and theoretical, issues arising from simultaneous auctions of multiple items was supported by the National Science Foundation. A 1982 Milgrom paper on single-item auctions is still considered the state of the art. Ironically, a 1981 paper on multi-item auctions was not accepted for publication until 1999.

In 1993, in part to raise additional revenue, Congress granted the Federal Communications Commission authority to conduct auctions to allocate portions of the “spectrum,” which is the range of electromagnetic radio frequencies used to transmit sound, data, and video across the country. It carries voice between cell phones, programing from broadcasters to your TV, and all types of data wirelessly over the Internet. The FCC’s goal was to create market efficiency to ensure the most effective possible development of consumer markets for communications and media.

Auctions may seem fairly straightforward, but they are far from it. Government auctions in particular need to account both for bidders’ varying needs and for their gaming strategies. And this was an extremely complex undertaking, as some companies would want to create large interstate networks, while some wished to serve smaller regional markets. The process needed to ensure both fairness and efficiency, and ensure competitive markets for consumers. And it would be very difficult to estimate the actual value of what was being sold. It was a simultaneous auction of multiple items (multiple frequency bands in different geographic locations), the kind of auction Milgrom had studied in theory. In this instance, however, the policy and economic stakes were large and not at all theoretical.

The FCC issued a “notice of proposed rulemaking” that suggested a process for the first auction. To ensure efficient allocation, the auction would need to be designed to ensure that bidder behavior revealed the worth and value of individual elements or a “package” of the spectrum.  The FCC notice was intended to provide that framework.

It contained considerable information about auctions, including scholarly work. Among the likely bidders was Pacific Bell, the telephone company serving California. When PacBell attorneys saw that Paul Milgrom’s work was cited as a basis for the impending auction, they contacted him to ask for his advice about bidding. When Milgrom saw the FCC’s proposal, he told PacBell that he could design a far better auction that would be both fair and improve efficiency. He went to his old thesis adviser, Robert Wilson, and together they developed an auction process called a simultaneous multiple round, or SMR, auction, also known as a simultaneous ascending-bid auction.

A similar idea was independently proposed by Preston McAfee, at the time an economics professor at the University of Texas and currently chief economist of Microsoft, who was consulting for Pacific Telesis. While McAfee is an American, his early work on auctions, much of it conducted with John McMillan of Stanford and the University of California at San Diego, had been funded by the Canadian government. This work was also highly theoretical, but McAfee was a strong advocate that economic theory should be applied to solving practical problems.

The FCC, knowing that this was uncharted territory, welcomed academic proposals for improving the auction. The FCC asked the three economists to work together, and they designed the first auction. While Wilson and Milgrom contributed the fundamental idea that all of the individual auctions should conclude simultaneously, McAfee’s work was especially important for dealing with other practical issues, such as how to address defaults by bidders and how to ensure participation by women- and minority-owned businesses. (Interestingly, PacBell and Pacific Telesis were in the midst of a corporate “divorce,” so McAfee and the other two economists could communicate with each other only through the FCC.)

Designing and implementing a novel auction method in the given time frame would have been nearly impossible without the foundation laid by the research conducted over the years by Wilson, Milgrom, McAfee and others. That first auction, which occurred in 1994, was a success and SMR auctions have been the method used for dozens of spectrum auctions in the U.S. and around the world, many supported by a company formed by Wilson, Milgrom, McAfee, and McMillan. Indeed, Paul Milgrom is working with the FCC on what will likely be its most complex auction yet – an “incentive” auction, planned for 2015, designed to meet the nation’s changing communications needs and technologies by encouraging the repurposing of spectrum currently controlled by television broadcast networks.

In addition to the FCC auctions, SMR auctions have been used to auction commodities as diverse as gas stations, airport slots, telephone numbers, fishing quotas, emissions permits, and electricity and natural gas contracts.

The FCC has conducted 87 spectrum auctions and has raised over $60 billion for the federal government, while also providing a diverse offering of wireless communication services to the public. These auctions have been called collectively the greatest auction in history.

The economic activity they have made possible, and the changes they have made in the way Americans live, seem incalculable – and not at all theoretical. Game theory has come a very long way indeed.

Here's my golden goose post from before the ceremony last year (and here from after, with a video), when I shared the award with David Gale and Lloyd Shapley, and here's a picture of the goose itself (you have to figure out which one is the goose).

The FCC's upcoming incentive auction, and I propose a new adjective (Milgromesque)

I've blogged before (here) about the FCC's incentive auction being designed by Paul Milgrom and the team he's assembled at Auctionomics. Now it's on the FCC blog, in a post that makes me think we may need to introduce a new adjective into market design. But first, here's the FCC post:

 Getting the Incentive Auction Right, by: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman

"Few FCC policies have generated more attention than the Incentive Auction. “Groundbreaking,” “revolutionary,” and “first-in-the-world” are just a few common descriptions of this innovative approach to making efficient, market-driven use of our spectrum resources.

Such attention is warranted. The Incentive Auction is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand the benefits of mobile wireless coverage and competition to consumers across the Nation – particularly consumers in rural areas – offering more choices of wireless providers, lower prices, and higher quality mobile services.

Spectrum is a finite public resource, and refers to the public airwaves that carry all forms of wireless communication Americans use every day. Twenty-first century consumers in both rural and urban areas of our country have a seemingly insatiable appetite for wireless services, and thus, for spectrum.

Getting the Incentive Auction right will revolutionize how spectrum is allocated. By marrying the economics of demand (think wireless providers) with the economics of current spectrum holders (think television broadcasters), the Incentive Auction will allow market forces to determine the highest and best use of spectrum.

More immediately, the Incentive Auction will deliver tremendous benefits for U.S. consumers across the country.

In developing such an auction, we must also be guided by the rules of physics. Not all spectrum frequencies are created equal. Spectrum below 1 GHz – such as the Incentive Auction spectrum – has physical properties that increase the reach of mobile networks over long distances. The effect of such properties is that fewer base stations and other infrastructure are required to build out a mobile network. This makes low-band particularly important in rural areas. A legacy of earlier spectrum assignments, however, is that two national carriers control the vast majority of low-band spectrum. As a result, rural consumers are denied the competition and choice that would be available if more wireless competitors also had access to low-band spectrum.

Low-band physics also makes this slice of spectrum essential in urban areas, since it permeates into buildings better than does high-band spectrum. With more and more Americans opting for wireless-only connectivity, they should not run the risk of being unable to place a 911 call from the interior of a building just because their wireless company has the wrong spectrum.

While many factors go into determining the quality of wireless service, access to a sufficient amount of low-band spectrum is a threshold requirement for extending and improving service in both rural and urban areas.

As part of the Incentive Auction process, we will also make available on a nationwide basis spectrum for unlicensed use (think Wi-Fi). With the increased use of Wi-Fi, this spectrum has also become congested. Opening up more spectrum for unlicensed use provides economic value to businesses and consumers alike.

Whether television broadcasters participate in the Incentive Auction will be purely voluntary, but participation in the Incentive Auction does not mean they have to leave the TV business. New channel-sharing technologies offer broadcasters a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for an infusion of cash to expand their business model and explore new innovations, while continuing to provide their traditional services to consumers. We will ensure that broadcasters have all of the information they need to make informed business decisions about whether and how to participate.

Yesterday, I provided my fellow Commissioners a draft Report and Order that will determine many significant issues and policy decisions related to the Incentive Auction. The Commission will also make additional decisions to implement details pertaining to the Incentive Auction in the coming months.

Reaching this stage is a major accomplishment, and was only possible thanks to outstanding work of public servants from across the FCC.

A policy that has never been tried before comes with the perception of risk. We all know, however, that risk is the partner of reward. I will continue working with my fellow Commissioners, FCC staff, and all other interested parties to minimize the risk and maximize the reward of the Incentive Auction. I am confident we will get this right, and the rewards will be great for all Americans."
*********

Now for that new adjective, prompted by the first sentence of chairman Wheeler's post:

Mil·grom·esque: adjective. of or related to market design. “Groundbreaking,” “revolutionary,” and “first-in-the-world.”

First Known Use of MILGROMESQE

2014

Rhymes with MILGROMESQE

arabesque, Bunyanesque, copydesk, gigantesque,

*****************
Update: Paul Milgrom writes (in an email whose subject line is "Evan Kwerel"):

Hi Al:

Thanks for your friendly review of the incentive auction, but while I am excited about my role as the consulting team leader, you give me far too big a share of the credit. And, I don't even mean the contributions of the amazing professors on my Auctionomics team -- Jon Levin, Ilya Segal and Kevin Leyton-Brown -- without their huge contributions, our part of this project would not be possible. What they have done is very important, but among the many folks in and out of the FCC who have contributed to this enormous project, the biggest economics hero is Evan Kwerel, who not only had the vision and chutzpah to push for a full market solution to the problem of spectrum reallocation, but also the insight to get the property rights settled in a way that enables competition among broadcasters who offer to relinquish their their broadcast licenses for cash.

The property rights are an absolutely essential and widely under-appreciated part of this story! Until 2012, there was disagreement and confusion about what rights the broadcasters had to their licenses: Did they own them? Could the FCC cancel the licenses or allow them to expire? What rights did the licensees have? In that situation, endless legal and political battles could have delayed the urgently needed spectrum reallocation for years or even decades. Instead, Evan Kwerel's vision included a political solution by which broadcasters would get the right to SOME channel in their home band (UHF or VHF), but not to their particular channel. That way, if the FCC eventually clears channels from Y to Z nationwide for wireless broadband, it can do so either by buying those rights or by buying broadcast rights from broadcasters in lower numbered channel from X to Y-1 and and retuning the broadcasters in the higher channels to use the newly available lower channels. There are lots more details to this because the engineering problems are hard ones, but the core fact is that this definition of rights makes an auction possible, and creates the possibility of a Pareto improvement with voluntary transfers of licenses. Nothing in the whole design is more important than this!

Incidentally, the political deal built into the 2012 legislation also provides a retuning fund of up to $1.75 billion to pay broadcasters who must change to another channel, plus protection to ensure that the new channel is as good for reaching viewers as the old one. The whole structure sets the stage for a Pareto improvement. If we can solve the challenges that this auction poses, I'm hopeful that it may eventually live up to the hype it is getting.

Paul Milgrom's Wikipedia page (and 65th birthday present)

Today is Paul Milgrom's 65th birthday, and is the second day of a conference in his honor that has brought his students and other admirers from all over the world. Joshua Gans led the creation of the birthday present, which involved bringing  Paul Milgrom's Wikipedia page up to snuff. As Joshua announced at the dinner last night, it is presently the longest Wikipedia page for any living economist (maybe for any economist, I didn't get that clear...). Here's a picture of it being presented to Paul in scroll form, held up by those of his students who were present:

Paul' Milgrom's Wikipedia page, printed out for his birthday

 It's a great celebration of Paul's remarkable career, at its midpoint.

Happy birthday, Paul.

Paul Milgrom, rebutting all the toasts in his honor

Conference in Honor of Paul Milgrom's 65th Birthday

Paul Milgrom is a giant, not just in market design, and at 65 he's still going full blast. Here's the program for his birthday party:

Program: Conference in Honor of Paul Milgrom's 65th Birthday

Location: Landau economics, first floor

Friday, April 19

Introduction to Conference

10:30-10:45                 Susan Athey, Yeon-Koo Che and Joshua Gans

Session 1: Market Design Methods in Matching and Auctions

10:45-10:55 a.m.         Al Roth: Introduction

10:55-11:25 a.m.         John Hatfield: “Matching with Contracts”

11:25-11:35 a.m.         coffee break

11:35-12:05 p.m.         Yeon-Koo Che: “Generalized Reduced Form Auctions: A Network-Flow Approach,” with Jinwoo Kim and Konrad Mierendorff

12:05-12:35 p.m.         Paul Klemperer: “Geometry, Auctions, and Matching”

Lunch

12:35-1:35 p.m.

Session 2: Auctions and Market Design

1:35-1:45 p.m.             Preston McAfee: Introduction

1:45-2:15 p.m.             Lixin Ye: "Efficient and Optimal Mechanisms with Private Information Acquisition Costs," with Jingfeng Lu

2:15-2:45 p.m.             Daniel Quint:  Indicative Bidding in Auctions with Costly Entry,” with Ken Hendricks

2:45-3:00 p.m.             Coffee Break

3:00-3:30 p.m.             David McAdams, "Secrecy in the First-Price Auction". 

3:30-4:00 p.m.             Ilya Segal, “U.S. Spectrum Reallocation and Heuristic Auctions,” with Paul Milgrom.

4:00-4:15 p.m.             Coffee Break

Panel Discussion: Market Design in Practice

4:15-5:00 p.m.             Panel Discussion

                                   

Dinner

Vidalakis Dining Room, Schwab Center

6:30 p.m.                     Appetizers

7:15 p.m.                     Seated dinner begins serving 

Saturday, April 20

Breakfast

9 a.m.                          at conference site

Session 3: Organizations and Complementarity

9:30-9:40 a.m.             John Roberts: Introduction

9:40-10:10 a.m.           Nick Bloom: Management and Organizations

10:10-10:40 a.m.         Bruno Strulovici: "The Supermodular Stochastic Ordering," with Margaret Meyer

10:40-11:00 a.m.         Coffee Break

Session 4: Incentives and Games

11:00-11:15 a.m.         Bengt Holmstrom: Introduction and Retrospective on Static and Multitask Incentive Theory

11:15-11:45 a.m.         Andy Skrzypacz: Repeated games and incentives 

11:45-12:15 p.m.         Michi Kandori: How to cooperate under private monitoring

12:15-1:15 p.m.           Lunch

Time/Location TBD    Afternoon Hike

6:30 p.m.                     Informal Dinner