IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will 5G lead to more spectrum sharing? Discussing recent developments of the LSA and the CBRS spectrum sharing frameworks


  • Massaro, Maria
  • Beltrán, Fernando


This paper discusses two recent spectrum management frameworks, the Licensed Shared Access (LSA) developed in Europe and the Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS) developed in the United States (US), which build their management approach on spectrum sharing. The importance of these two frameworks, besides their leading normative roles, is that recent debates have shaped them as cases to consider in the adoption of the upcoming fifth generation (5G) of mobile communications technology, in particular in the C-band. A discussion on these two frameworks is organised by following the four-step decision-making guide for spectrum management developed by Pogorel (2007), which requires spectrum authorities to make decisions in four areas of spectrum management: frequency harmonization, technology standardization, type of usage rights and assignment procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Massaro, Maria & Beltrán, Fernando, 2020. "Will 5G lead to more spectrum sharing? Discussing recent developments of the LSA and the CBRS spectrum sharing frameworks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:7:s0308596120300653
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101973

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Thomas W. Hazlett & Roberto E. Muñoz, 2009. "A welfare analysis of spectrum allocation policies," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 424-454, September.
    2. Gérard Pogorel, 2007. "Nine Regimes of Radio Spectrum Management: A 4-Step Decision Guide," Post-Print hal-00269888, HAL.
    3. Peter Cramton & Evan Kwerel & Gregory Rosston & Andrzej Skrzypacz, 2011. "Using Spectrum Auctions to Enhance Competition in Wireless Services," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 167-188.
    4. Erik Bohlin & Gary Madden & Aaron Morey, 2010. "An Econometric Analysis of 3G Auction Spectrum Valuations," RSCAS Working Papers 2010/55, European University Institute.
    5. Cave, Martin & Nicholls, Rob, 2017. "The use of spectrum auctions to attain multiple objectives: Policy implications," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 367-378.
    6. Stango Victor, 2004. "The Economics of Standards Wars," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Gary Madden & Erik Bohlin & Paitoon Kraipornsak & Thien Tran, 2014. "The determinants of prices in the FCC's 700 MHz spectrum auction," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(17), pages 1953-1960, June.
    8. Freyens, Benoît, 2009. "A policy spectrum for spectrum economics," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 128-144, June.
    9. Mustonen, Miia & Matinmikko, Marja & Holland, Oliver & Roberson, Dennis, 2017. "Process model for recent spectrum sharing concepts in policy making," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 391-404.
    10. Massaro, Maria, 2017. "Next generation of radio spectrum management: Licensed shared access for 5G," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 422-433.
    11. Bichler, Martin & Goeree, Jacob K., 2017. "Frontiers in spectrum auction design," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 372-391.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beltrán, Fernando & Massaro, Maria, 2018. "Spectrum management for 5G: assignment methods for spectrum sharing," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184932, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Gary Madden & Erik Bohlin & Thien Tran & Aaron Morey, 2014. "Spectrum Licensing, Policy Instruments and Market Entry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(3), pages 277-298, May.
    3. Benoît Pierre Freyens & Chris Jones, 2014. "Efficient Allocation of Radio Spectrum," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2017. "Allocating essential inputs," TSE Working Papers 17-820, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2019.
    5. Thaw Tar Min & Fife, Elizabeth & Bohlin, Erik, 2014. "Myanmar national spectrum management policy: Is it best practice?," 25th European Regional ITS Conference, Brussels 2014 101431, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    6. Zaber, Moinul & Sirbu, Marvin, 2012. "Impact of spectrum management policy on the penetration of 3G technology," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 762-782.
    7. Glenn A. Woroch, 2020. "Spectrum Concentration and Performance of the U.S. Wireless Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(1), pages 73-105, February.
    8. Grønnevet, Gorm A. & Hansen, Bjørn & Reme, Bjørn-Atle, 2016. "Spectrum policy and competition in mobile data," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 34-41.
    9. Mochon, Asuncion & Saez, Yago, 2017. "A review of radio spectrum combinatorial clock auctions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 303-324.
    10. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    11. Shimaa A. Abdel Hakeem & Anar A. Hady & HyungWon Kim, 2020. "Current and future developments to improve 5G-NewRadio performance in vehicle-to-everything communications," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 331-353, November.
    12. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    13. Harrison, Rodrigo & Hernandez, Gonzalo & Muñoz, Roberto, 2019. "A discrete model of market interaction in the presence of social networks and price discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 48-58.
    14. Diego Ponte & Alessandro Rossi & Marco Zamarian, 2008. "The role of competencies and interests in developing complex IT-artefacts: the case of a metering system," DISA Working Papers 0804, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 07 Jul 2008.
    15. Basaure, Arturo & Casey, Thomas R. & Hämmäinen, Heikki, 2012. "Different regulation paths towards cognitive radio technologies: Cases of Finland and Chile," 23rd European Regional ITS Conference, Vienna 2012 60373, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Marcus, J. Scott & Gantumur, Tseveen, 2015. "Economic implications of further harmonisation of electronic communications regulation in the EU," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127167, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    17. Thomas W. Hazlett & David Porter & Vernon Smith, 2011. "Radio Spectrum and the Disruptive Clarity of Ronald Coase," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 125-165.
    18. Edward J. Oughton & Ashutosh Jha, 2021. "Supportive 5G infrastructure policies are essential for universal 6G: Evidence from an open-source techno-economic simulation model using remote sensing," Papers 2102.08086,, revised Feb 2021.
    19. Jungmittag, Andre, 2014. "Der Trade-off zwischen deutschen Direktinvestitionen und Exporten: Wie wichtig sind die verschiedenen Dimensionen der Distanz?," Working Paper Series 04, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business and Law.
    20. Vogelsang Ingo, 2013. "The Endgame of Telecommunications Policy? A Survey," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 64(3), pages 193-270, December.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:44:y:2020:i:7:s0308596120300653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nithya Sathishkumar). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.