> Cellphone service has markedly improved the lives of the very poor something most economists did not predict. In fact when India deregulated rates from some of the highest in the world (voice was around $.10 to $.20/min) most economists argued against it saying cellphones were a thing of the rich and the tax-losses to the govt from telecom revenue were not worth it. Deregulation was called a give-away to the telco companies and the rich etc. Instead, what came about was the biggest uptake in cellular and data usage and one of the cheapest rates in the world.
Hard to believe and irrelevant to this discussion.
> Poorly designed top-down auctions bankrupts companies and causes under-investment in infrastructure do directly cause suffering to hundreds of millions of very poor people.
What is a top-down auction? Are there also bottom-up auctions?
That auctions bankrupt companies - why are they are participating if they can't afford to? - and that they cause under-investment - is a spectrum that's been bought in an auction less profitable? - sounds like propaganda from corporations that want spectrums for free. It neither makes economic sense, nor am I aware of any empirical evidence for it.
Hard to believe and irrelevant to this discussion.
> Poorly designed top-down auctions bankrupts companies and causes under-investment in infrastructure do directly cause suffering to hundreds of millions of very poor people.
What is a top-down auction? Are there also bottom-up auctions?
That auctions bankrupt companies - why are they are participating if they can't afford to? - and that they cause under-investment - is a spectrum that's been bought in an auction less profitable? - sounds like propaganda from corporations that want spectrums for free. It neither makes economic sense, nor am I aware of any empirical evidence for it.