Archive for category wireless
Today the Senate will convene a distinguished panel of experts to discuss the state of wireless competition in America. Although it is trendy among the cognoscenti to complain about the wireless industry, the reality is that wireless competition is vibrant here, and U.S. carriers are leaving their European counterparts in the dust.
A common refrain among those calling for regulators to “level the playing field” is that two carriers—AT&T T +1.8% and Verizon—are running away from the pack, due to their allegedly superior spectrum holdings. The resulting imbalance in competition can be remedied, they claim, by capping the spectrum holdings of the larger carriers and steering newly available spectrum to smaller carriers. Any relative improvement in the smaller carriers’ networks would attract more customers, which would reduce wireless concentration.
One problem with this story is that wireless concentration—a very fuzzy indicator of competition when it comes to wireless services—is not climbing as predicted. In fact, U.S. wireless concentration as measured by the FCC has held steady since 2008, indicating that Sprint and T-Mobile are not losing ground. Indeed, 2012 was a particularly good year for these carriers, as both enjoyed significant subscriber gains. T-Mobile recently completed its merger with MetroPCS, giving the combined company access to more subscribers and more spectrum.
Perhaps the best indicator of the smaller carriers’ prospects is the bidding war for Sprint that has erupted between Softbank and Dish Network. If Sprint stood no chance to compete with AT&T and Verizon due to its allegedly inferior spectrum, then these savvy investors would not be so bullish about Sprint’s future. Put differently, Sprint’s spectrum holdings are valued dearly in the marketplace despite their “high-frequency” nature.
The same voices calling for intervention will likely cite lower wireless prices in Europe as proof that reducing concentration will bring lower prices. But a new study by GSMA, a trade association representing 800 of the world’s mobile operators, concludes that “Europe now lags far behind the United States in the deployment of next-generation mobile technologies and the advanced services made possible through mobile,” rendering any straight-up price comparison unreliable. The study found that U.S. mobile customers consume five times more voice minutes and nearly twice as much data as their European counterparts, and average mobile data connection speeds in the United States are now 75 percent faster than those in Europe.
By convening a panel on the state of wireless competition, the Senate must be careful not to miss the forest for the trees. The phrase “wireless competition” implies incorrectly that wireless carriers compete exclusively among themselves. New data suggests that wireless competes increasingly with wireline connections such as cable modem and DSL for broadband customers. According to a consumer survey by Leichtman Research Group, hundreds of thousands of Americans canceled their home Internet service in 2012, taking advantage of the proliferation of Wi-Fi hot spots and fast new wireless networks accessible to smartphones and tablets. Indeed, more U.S. households stopped paying for home Internet subscriptions (and relied on wireless access instead) than cancelled their pay-television subscriptions (and relied on video over Internet services).
How quickly will wireless overtake wireline broadband connections? Dish’s chairman is projecting that as many as a third of all Americans one day could find it more efficient to get their home Internet service wirelessly; Cisco IBSG recently projected that up to 15 percent of U.S. consumers could “cut their cord” in favor of a mobile data connection by 2016; and Samsung recently predicted that mobile networks could supplant wireline broadband by 2020.
The oncoming battle between wireless and wireline Internet providers suggests a more permissive attitude toward wireless concentration. For those who can’t (or won’t) recognize this “inter-modal competition,” any increase in wireless concentration is mistakenly perceived as bad news for consumers. The quest to promote wireless competition via spectrum policy could result in less competition where it matters most.
Since the publication of Susan Crawford’s book on the alleged failings of U.S. Internet policy, several mainstream outlets have run stories repeating her mantra that Internet speeds are too slow, coverage is shoddy, there is a growing “digital divide” among rich and poor, and broadband prices are too high.
Consider the barrage of “bad news” in just one week:
- The Wall Street Journal reported that six percent of Americans “lack high-speed service” in a story provocatively titled “Gaps Persist in High-Speed Web Access”;
- The Financial Times reported that the United States ranks 16th in Internet speeds, and that U.S. prices on a per-megabit-per-second basis (Mbps) are more than double those in Europe; and
- Digital Trends ran an article touting Ms. Crawford’s policies titled “Admit It: U.S. Internet Service Sucks.”
Are things as gloomy as the naysayers claim? A close look at the facts suggests otherwise. (Yes, that is a link to Need for Speed, my new e-book on Internet policy from Brookings Press; if Bob Woodward can shamelessly promote his book in the Washington Post when reporting the origins of the sequester, surely I can do the same.)
Let’s start with connection speeds. According to Akamai, a global provider of Internet services, the United States ranked ninth in average connection speeds (7.7 Mbps) in the third quarter of 2012, and seventh in percent of Internet connections with speeds above 10 Mbps (18 percent). South Korea leads both categories (average speed of 14.7 Mbps, 52 percent above 10 Mbps). It’s a bit misleading to compare our speeds with those of the fastest country in the world; a seven-minute-per-mile runner looks shoddy compared to the fastest runner in the world. And like any average, our nationwide average speed combines fast connections with slow ones. For example, the average connection speed in eight states (mostly along the densely populated Northeast corridor) exceeds 9 Mbps; any of those states would rank third fastest in the world on Akamai’s list. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that we are the tortoise among rabbits; the United States is more like Danica Patrick, who finished eighth at Daytona on Sunday.
Moving on to coverage gaps. The empirical basis for the share of Americans without “high-speed service” is the FCC’s annual report on the state of broadband deployment. There are two important caveats to keep in mind when assessing these data: The FCC counts wireline connections only, and only those wireline connections that exceed 4 Mbps. Thus, a wireline connection of say 3 Mbps (such as DSL) would not be counted in the FCC’s tally, and a wireless connection of say 10 Mbps (such as 4G LTE) would also be ignored. As of 2011, the latest year for which the FCC has reliable data, only about 7 million U.S. households did not have broadband access; if wireless broadband technologies are counted, the number of households without access to broadband at the FCC’s minimum speed is in the range of 2 to 5 million. It is hyperbole to suggest that broadband operators have ignored large swaths of the country.
And what about that growing “digital divide”? Once again, the naysayers ignore speedy wireless connections to create the appearance of a problem. It is not surprising that wealthier people have greater access to the Internet; they likely have greater access to most goods in the U.S. economy. A 2012 Pew survey shows that the same percentage of white, black, and Hispanic adults (roughly 62 percent) go online wirelessly with a laptop or a cellphone; that slightly more blacks and Hispanics own a smartphone than do whites (49 versus 45 percent); and that twice as many blacks and Hispanics go online mostly using their cell phone compared to whites (38 versus 17 percent).
The third statistic may indicate that blacks and Hispanics lack wireline access relative to whites or that blacks and Hispanics simply have stronger preferences for wireless connections relative to whites; if the latter, there is no problem to be solved. And if income differences explain the differences in broadband choices, income-based subsidies are the logical policy instrument.
Broadband price comparisons. There is a lot of casual empiricism in this area. International price comparisons of a differentiated product such as Internet connectivity should be taken with a grain of salt because the quality of Internet service might not be comparable. Moreover, if you put a gun to a provider’s head (as regulators do in Europe), and require it to make its services available to resellers at incremental costs, you are going to get cheap service—and destroy investment incentives as a nasty byproduct. Citing “harsher rules that have sapped profitability,” Reuters reported that European telco stocks were trading at roughly 9.9 times earnings compared to 17.6 times for their U.S. peers.
In large swaths of this country, the incumbent cable operator faces a fiber-based telco offering triple-play packages. Unless you think that cable operators are colluding with the telcos—a position espoused by Ms. Crawford—Internet prices are less than monopoly levels where telco-based fiber is available. And help is on the way for the rest of us in the form of wireless 4G LTE offerings, satellite broadband connections, and further telco deployment.
This is not to say that market forces and a largely hands-off Internet policy have delivered the ideal state of competition. In a market with large fixed costs, when consumers are reluctant to switch providers, and when certain must-have video programming is controlled by the incumbent cable operator, we shouldn’t expect ten broadband providers in each zip code.
The United States appears to being doing just fine in the broadband race; perhaps not in first place, but certainly deserving of a cameo on the next GoDaddy commercial. Any efforts to stimulate greater deployment should be targeted, and they should respect the incentives of broadband operators to continually upgrade their networks. The naysayers have misdiagnosed the state of broadband competition.
Before Washingtonians could fully digest the election results in early November, there was a mild tremor in the tele-cosmos that could have a significant impact on broadband deployment and hence the U.S. economy. AT&T announced that it planned to upgrade its copper network to an IP-based technology and replace some rural lines with wireless connections. It also petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to commence a proceeding in which market trials would be conducted to determine the policy implications associated with its IP transition. According to one consumer advocate, the news was the “single most important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.”
To understand why, one needs a bit of history. A century ago, voice services were provided by a single firm (also named AT&T) based on a social compact struck in 1913 that has lost its relevance due the advance of technology. In exchange for monopoly privileges, AT&T submitted (over the course of the next decade) to rate regulation and a universal service obligation. And the compact delivered on universality: By the early 1980s, over 90 percent of American households had basic telephone service.
But a funny thing happened since the technological era of the Commodore 64 and the Walkman. Our nation was rewired for a second time by cable plant, a third time by wireless networks, and a fourth time by satellite networks. By 2012, high-speed Internet over a cable connection—which supports voice as one of several IP-based applications—was available to 93 percent of U.S. households. By 2010, 99.8 percent of the U.S. population was covered by at least one wireless voice network. And in September 2012, Dish Network launched a nationwide satellite broadband service, targeting customers in rural areas that are underserved with a $40 per month offer that supports, among other IP-based applications, voice services.
Competitive entry puts telecom regulators in a pickle. Anyone following the recent spat between D.C. taxi drivers and Uber services, or the decade-old spat between cable operators and telco-based video providers, understands that when regulators can no longer provider monopoly protection to an incumbent, their basis for imposing monopoly-related fees or obligations washes away. Why should I pay you for the privilege of driving a cab in your city, the taxi driver asks, when my competitor is free from such obligations?
When it comes to voice services, the regulatory obligation that is now under scrutiny is the duty to provide universal telephone service over the old copper network. Based on the original social compact, that duty falls uniquely (and thus perversely) on the telcos. Cable, wireless and satellite providers are free to provide voice service (or not) over the network of their choosing, and they are free to pick and choose which homes to serve. In contrast, telcos must operate two networks at once—an outdated, copper-based legacy network that provides service to a shrinking customer base and a modern, IP-based network that supports data, video, and voice applications.
To understand how onerous these rules are, consider the decision of Google, a recent entrant to the broadband space, not to offer voice service as part of its Google Fiber offering in Kansas City. After studying state and federal regulations for voice services, the vice president of Google Access Services concluded: “We looked at doing that [VoIP]. The cost of actually delivering telephone services is almost nothing. However, in the United States, there are all of these special rules that apply.” It makes little sense to have the telcos abide by those same rules when cable operators and wireless providers (typically five in a city) are direct competitors for voice services.
If supporting two separate networks imposed trivial costs on the telcos, then consumers would be held harmless. Alas, telcos invest a significant amount of resources to maintain the legacy network. One study by the Columbia Institute for Tele-Informations estimated that nearly half of telcos’ capital expenditures are tied up in this rut. Freed from these obligations, telcos could deploy these resources to higher value services, including expanding the reach of their IP-based networks. Broadband consumers, particular those living in areas served by a single wireline provider of broadband services, would benefit from the enhanced competition with cable operators.
There appears to be a growing consensus on the need for reform. Indeed, Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group typically adverse to the telcos, acknowledged that the petition for deregulation “raises a valid point of concern if the rules for the [legacy] to IP [conversion] apply only to it and other Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) upgrading their networks.”
Of course, there are still voices who advocate continued monopoly-era obligations, regardless of how many distinct technologies cover or nearly cover the entire nation for voice service. A recent op-ed in the New York Times fantastically asserted the existence of a telco-cable “cartel.” These incessant calls for a public-utility-style approach are outliers in the policy arena, as rational voices from both the left and right seem to be coalescing around the proper idea for how to transition to the modern telecom era.
Although the elections were polarizing for many policy matters, at least broadband policy seems to be bringing folks to the middle for constructive debate and problem solving. It’s time to bring communications policy into alignment with the modern era.
The New York Times just ran a provocative story titled “Americans Paying More for LTE Service,” suggesting that prices charged by U.S. wireless operators for access to their new 4G networks are triple what they would be were our wireless markets more competitive. In support of this claim, they compare the price per gigabyte charged by Verizon Wireless for its bundled voice-data plan ($7.50) to the “European average” LTE price for data-only plans ($2.50), as calculated by the consultancy Wireless Intelligence. Time to call in the trust busters? Hardly.
As any first-year economic student understands, prices are determined by supply and demand conditions. When performing international price comparisons, one should account for these differences before proclaiming that U.S. consumers spend “too much” on a particular service. Of course, it is much easier to generate readership (and hence advertising dollars) with fantastic claims that our wireless markets are not competitive.
Let’s start with differences in demand that could affect the value of wireless data services and thus relative prices. While it makes sense for The Economist to compute a Big Mac Index for a product that is basically the same wherever it is sold, price comparisons of services that are highly differentiated across countries are less revealing. And the quality of wireless LTE networks varies significantly. Verizon’s LTE network covered two-thirds of the U.S. population in April 2012. In contrast, the geographic coverage of European carriers’ LTE networks is anemic, prompting the European Commissioner Neelie Kroes to proclaim this month that the absence of LTE across the continent was proving to be a major problem in Europe. No wonder it is hard to get Europeans to pay dearly for LTE services!
Turning to the supply-side of the equation, while the surface area of the U.S. LTE “coverage blanket” is relatively larger, the European coverage blanket is thicker than ours. U.S. wireless carriers don’t have as much spectrum, the key ingredient in delivering wireless service, as their European counterparts. As pointed out by wireless analyst Roger Entner, U.S. carriers have only one-third of the spectrum available in Italy (on a MHz-per-million-subscribers basis), and one-fifth of the spectrum as France, Germany, and the UK. Given this relative scarcity of spectrum, U.S. carriers must prevent overuse of their LTE networks through the price mechanism—else their data networks would be worthless. As more spectrum comes online, basic economic theory predicts that U.S. data prices will fall.
The staggered LTE offerings by U.S. carriers are another factor affecting the supply-side of the equation. As the New York Times article notes, Verizon was the first to market LTE in the United States in December 2010. AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile unveiled LTE offerings at a later date and are playing catch up. To compete for LTE customers, these latecomers are undercutting Verizon, which in turn, will lead to lower prices. By offering unlimited LTE data plans, Sprint charges $0 on a per-gigabyte basis at the margin. T-Mobile also offers an “Unlimited Nationwide 4G” plan at $90 per month (including unlimited voice minutes) that sets the marginal price on a per-gigabyte basis to zero. Although AT&T does not offer unlimited data plans, one can compute the “imputed” price per gigabyte for its bundled voice-data plans by subtracting the price of a comparable unlimited voice plan and then dividing by the gigabytes permitted. The result? A lower price per gigabyte than the European average. (Interested readers can email me for the math.)
Thus, even if you think U.S. wireless data prices are “too high” today, the competitive process should be given more than one year to work its magic. Consider the competition for wireless voice services, which has played out over a decade. According to Merrill Lynch, the United States enjoyed a lower price for voice services on a per-minute-of-use basis ($0.03) than France ($0.10), Germany ($0.08), or the UK ($0.08) in the fourth quarter of 2011. How can the New York Times say, on the one hand, that these European countries serve as a competitive benchmark for wireless data services in the United States, but that the prices for voice services in these same countries should be ignored? Are we to mimic European policies with respect to data services and shun their policies with respect to voice services?
The lesson here is that what’s happening to European prices for wireless voice, wireless data, healthcare, or any differentiated product for that matter depends on several things, none of which is controlled for when making these simplistic international price comparisons. I know, I know. We need to sell Internet advertising. Can you imagine the headline: “Difference-in-difference regression shows that U.S. data prices are just right?”
Two dominant schools of thought have emerged in the broadband policy arena. The first, represented by the views of Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, is that there is not enough competition to cable modem service and thus government must intervene to prevent a likely abuse of market power. A second camp believes that there is no basis for proactive policies designed to increase the number of broadband providers, even in local markets served by a single provider. The high margins enjoyed by the first provider, they claim, rewards risk-taking behavior and will induce further entry.
A third perspective gaining some traction and to which I and hopefully a few others subscribe posits that there is still a limited role for policy so long as improving consumer welfare is the objective. After penning this blog, I might be disinvited to the Christmas parties of camps one and two this year.
Camp three is agnostic as to the “right” number of broadband providers, but believes that “more than one” will likely increase consumer welfare. Although government should not subsidize entry by rivals—this is tantamount to appropriating the returns of first movers, which decreases consumer welfare in the long run—it should remove any barriers that prevent more robust competition. Whereas my camp has a healthy respect for investment incentives on a going-forward basis, camp one sees investments by cable operators as sunk and thus ripe for the taking.
The role of wireless 4G networks likely separates those with at least some faith in market forces and those without any (camp one). Ms. Crawford and her ilk relegate wireless to somewhere less relevant than pink elephants when it comes to broadband competition. At a Brookings event last week, she referred to wireless as a “complementary product” for most Americans, the insinuation being that wireless is not to be taken seriously as a solution to Internet connectivity.
Although wireless might be perceived as a complement to wireline connections today, the new 4G mobile connections will afford consumers roughly seven times more speedy downloads as compared to the experience on prior generations (3G) of smartphones. With sufficient spectrum to provide endurance (another dimension of network quality), 4G operators could offer broadband consumers the full suite of services to which they have become accustomed on wireline connections in the near future.
If you don’t believe in wireless, and if you think that no amount of tinkering with the rules will get fiber deployed in more areas, then you have what Ms. Crawford refers to as a “natural monopoly” in homes served by cable modem providers but not fiber. What to do then?
In these cases, says Ms. Crawford, government “has a very important role to play.” In particular, government should “provide assistance to people who don’t have fiber access;” it should “make sure pricing is fair;” and it should provide “equal facilities to all Americans.” This is scary stuff. Although I have been critical of certain cable practices, it is a step too far to suggest that cable companies should be subject to price regulation or government-subsidized overbuilding because they invested in neighborhoods where no else has been willing to follow.
So what policies are being peddled by camp three? When it comes to broadband competition, the FCC should remove barriers to entry for wireless broadband operators seeking to deploy 4G wireless technologies, and eliminate the disincentives facing telcos for deploying fiber beyond the 55 million U.S. homes that were served as of March 2012.
Two FCC Commissioners recently sent signals to the marketplace along these lines. In a speech at the Wharton business school, Chairman Genachowski discussed the need for additional spectrum: “In addition to promoting competition, reducing barriers to broadband build-out and driving broadband investment, we of course need to keep clearing inefficiently used spectrum and reallocating it for licensed flexible use.” Can I get an Amen?
On C-SPAN’s The Communicators, Commission Ajit Pai was asked about how to spur additional fiber investment: “For one, we shouldn’t extend legacy regulations of copper wire telephone monopoly era to next generation networks. The Title II docket remains open to this day. To the extent we wanted to send a signal to the private sector that we weren’t going to take a heavy handed approach, we should close that docket.” Translation: The FCC should clarify its rules towards IP networks so that telcos understand the implications of making fiber investments; if those investments are subject to onerous requirements, then telcos will be less inclined to invest.
Dare I count the Chairman of the FCC and FCC Commissioner Pai as honorary members of my third camp? I’ll let you know if I get any Christmas invitations.
Today the commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are meeting to vote on two issues that will be pivotal to the future of the wireless industry: (1) whether to impose a “spectrum cap” on wireless providers, and (2) how to design the “incentive auction” of the broadcasters’ spectrum. There is a lot at stake for the U.S. economy in getting these policies right: A new analysis by Deloitte estimates that mobile broadband network investments over the period 2012–2016 could expand U.S. GDP between $73 and $151 billion, and account for up to 771,000 jobs.
A spectrum cap would prevent a single provider (say, Verizon) from acquiring more than a certain amount of the airwaves or “spectrum rights” in a given geographic area (say, Washington, D.C.). Spectrum is the most important input in the supply of wireless services—without it, a provider literally can’t compete. The objective of a spectrum cap is to prevent any single carrier from monopolizing a key input in the production process; more wireless entry means greater competition, which means lower wireless prices. So why is this idea so controversial?
The reason is that even carriers with significant spectrum holdings need more of it to survive. To make things concrete, compare the spectrum holdings of Verizon with those of Sprint and T-Mobile. According to Deutsche Bank, Verizon has about 18 percent of all available spectrum on a population-weighted basis (including the spectrum recently obtained from SpectrumCo), compared to about nine percent each for Sprint and T-Mobile. Yet Verizon is desperate for more spectrum because its subscriber base is larger than that of its rivals, and because today’s wireless customers are finding cool (and bandwidth-intensive) things to do with their new 4G phones, straining the capacity of its wireless network. According to one noted wireless analyst, the demand for mobile broadband will surpass the spectrum available to meet it in mid-2013. Even the Chairman of the FCC recognizes that “biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is the looming spectrum crisis.”
Reinserting the spectrum cap—it was sent to the regulatory dustbin several years ago—and setting it at say one-fifth of all available spectrum would effectively bar Verizon from acquiring any more spectrum, whether in an auction or through the secondary markets. And that means that Verizon’s customers would suffer a serious degradation in their wireless connections relative to a world in which Verizon could augment its spectrum capacity. As one Nobel laureate economist famously said, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Taking away from Verizon to give to smaller carriers entails serious tradeoffs.
And to understand those tradeoffs, the FCC must think hard about what the ideal market structure of the wireless industry should look like. A spectrum cap equal to one-fifth of all spectrum implies that the ideal market structure is five national carriers. But even five might be too many given the evolving wireless technology: With the enhanced download speeds made available by 4G networks—Verizon’s 4G network is seven times as fast as its 3G network according to PC World—wireless consumers will be streaming high-definition movies and FaceTiming with their friends, placing even greater pressure for more spectrum. The FCC needs to come to grips with the fact that its policies are in conflict with these technological trends and the associated economies of scale in the supply of wireless services.
Five carriers might also be the wrong number when one considers the role of mobile broadband in the larger broadband market. According to the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, as of mid-2011, 55 percent of all U.S. households relied on a single wireline broadband provider capable of meeting the FCC’s definition of broadband. This means that wireless 4G connections could serve as the second broadband pipeline in over half of U.S. homes. Given the competitive implications of moving from one to two broadband providers—cable modem prices have been shown to fall significantly in the face of competitive entry—the right number of wireless carriers might be closer to three.
But who really knows? The market should decide whether the optimal number of wireless carriers is three or four or five, not the regulators. If the FCC is worried about a single carrier buying up the entirety of the spectrum in the forthcoming broadcast spectrum auction, then a simple rule forbidding such an outcome in that auction is more efficacious than a clumsy spectrum cap. By micro-managing the structure of the wireless industry, the commission tasked with overseeing the communications industry risks making the wrong call.
Economists recognize that the source of sustainable, private-sector jobs is investment. Due to measurement problems with investment data, however, it is sometimes easier to link a byproduct of investment—namely, adoption of the technology made possible by the investment—to job creation. This is precisely what economists Rob Shapiro and Kevin Hassett have done in their new study on the employment effects of wireless investments.
Shapiro and Hassett credit the nation’s upgrade of wireless broadband infrastructure from second-generation (2G) to third-generation (3G) technology with generating over one million jobs between 2006 and 2011. To demonstrate that adoption of 3G handsets “caused” job creation in an econometric sense, the authors studied the relationship between the change in a state’s employment and the cumulative penetration of cell phone technologies. According to their econometric model, every 10 percentage point increase in the penetration of a new generation of cell phones in a given quarter causes between a 0.05 and 0.07 percentage point increase in employment growth in the following three quarters.
How reasonable are these results? In 2010, Bob Crandall and I estimated that investment in second-generation broadband infrastructure of roughly $30 billion per year, including wireless infrastructure, sustained roughly 500,000 jobs between 2006 and 2009. We further estimated that spillover effects in other industries that exploit broadband technology could sustain another 500,000, bringing the total job effect close to one million jobs per year. Although Shapiro’s and Hassett’s estimates (based on wireless deployment only) significantly exceed ours (based on all broadband deployment), their estimate is not outside the realm of the possibility.
Crandall, Lehr, and Litan (2007) also conducted a regression analysis using state-level broadband penetration data from 2003-2005 to estimate job effects. They projected that for every one percentage point increase in broadband penetration in a state, employment increases by 0.2 to 0.3 percent per year. On a national level, their results imply an increase of approximately 300,000 jobs per year per one-percentage-point increase in broadband penetration. Once again, Shapiro’s and Hassett’s estimates are consistent with this prior work.
Scholars may differ on the precise way to measure the employment effects, but that debate misses the more important policy point—namely, that broadband technologies generally and wireless broadband in particular have become a vital engine of job creation. The observed correlation between wireless adoption and employment is not accidental: To induce customers to adopt the coolest handset, firms must continuously invest in the next generation of network and device technologies. And these costly investments sustain jobs.
Moreover, contrary to the FCC’s opinion in its 15th annual wireless competition report, private industry’s sustained and widespread investment in new wireless broadband technologies is consistent with the sector being intensely competitive. Industry critics have decried such evidence, arguing instead that the industry is in the death grip of monopolists. Although a monopolist may have an incentive to innovate to protect against a future threat, firms in a competitive industry have incentives to invest and innovate as a way to protect against losing market share today.
Policymakers should ask themselves this question: Why would wireless carriers continually invest billions of dollars on next-generation technologies if they could sit back and exploit their alleged monopoly rents? Experience and common sense tell us that in fact, companies in this space are not behaving like monopolists. Rather, wireless providers of all stripes are desperately trying to distinguish themselves from their rivals. Wireless tablets and phones are driving demand for more and faster wireless broadband, while spectrum-devouring apps like Siri have captured the imagination of millions. The wireless arms race is on, and the U.S. economy stands to benefit directly as wireless companies try to outmaneuver one another with the fastest networks, coolest devices, and deepest array of killer apps.