Reverse Auctions and Universal Telecommunications Service: Lessons from Global Experience

Reverse Auctions and Universal Telecommunications Service: Lessons from Global Experience

The United States now spends around $7 billion on universal service programs—subsidies intended to ensure that the entire country has access to telecommunications services. Most of this money supports telecommunications service in “high cost” (primarily rural) areas, and the High Cost fund is growing quickly. In response to this growth, policymakers are considering using reverse auctions, or bids for the minimum subsidy, as a way to reduce expenditures. While the U.S. has not yet distributed funds for universal service programs using reverse auctions, the method has been used widely.

First, reverse auctions are akin to standard government procurement procedures, which call for firms to bid on government contracts to keep prices down. Sending contracts out for bid is common in both simple and complex government contracting. Second, many countries around the world have used reverse auctions for distributing universal funds. This paper reviews global experiences with reverse auctions and discusses their implications for the U.S. In particular, I review reverse auctions in Australia, Chile, Colombia, India, Nepal, and Peru. Not all of the auctions were successful, but they clearly demonstrate that reverse auctions can be an effective tool for revealing information about the true cost of providing universal coverage and for reducing expenditures on subsidies.

Attachments
+ posts

Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute and also a senior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. He is an economist with expertise in industrial organization and public policy, and his research focuses on competition, regulation, telecommunications, the economics of digitization, and technology policy. He was the economics director for the FCC's National Broadband Plan and has been a lecturer in Stanford University’s public policy program, director of communications policy studies and senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a senior fellow at the AEI – Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an economist at The World Bank, a scholar at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a staff economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He holds a PhD in economics from Stanford University.

Share This Article

Communications

View More Publications by

Recommended Reads

TPI Comments Warn FCC Space Licensing Reforms May Worsen Congestion Without Market Mechanisms

Press Releases

TPI Proposes Market-Based Auction to Consolidate Rural Carriers and Reduce USF Costs

Press Releases

Comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission in the Matter of Space Modernization for the 21st Century

Testimony and Filings

Explore More Topics

Antitrust and Competition 182
Artificial Intelligence 36
Big Data 21
Blockchain 29
Broadband 387
China 2
Content Moderation 15
Economics and Methods 37
Economics of Digitization 15
Evidence-Based Policy 18
Free Speech 20
Infrastructure 1
Innovation 2
Intellectual Property 56
Miscellaneous 334
Privacy and Security 137
Regulation 14
Trade 2
Uncategorized 4

Related Articles

Preparing for WRC-27 Panel Recap

Why Policy Experiments Never End: Constituencies Form Faster Than Evidence

CBRS in 2026: What Have We Learned? Panel Recap

Ambassador Steve Lang on WRC-27 and International Telecom Diplomacy

The Direct-to-Device Era: Panel Recap

2026 TPI Winter Spectrum Series: The Direct to Device Era

TPI Comments Warn FCC Space Licensing Reforms May Worsen Congestion Without Market Mechanisms

TPI Proposes Market-Based Auction to Consolidate Rural Carriers and Reduce USF Costs

Sign Up for Updates

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.