Slashdot Mirror
Selling Off The Airwaves
Lone Owl points to a Jeremy Rifkin piece published yesterday in The Guardian about a plan gathering steam to privatize ownership of the radio spectrum currently licensed in the U.S. by the FCC. "37 leading US economists have signed a joint letter asking the FCC to allow broadcasters to lease spectrum they currently license, from the government in secondary markets. Read it here." I wonder what the future of microbroadcasting would be like were this to happen. What would you do if you could buy a little slice of your local spectrum?
The land mobile industry has been drooling for years about getting their hands on the frequency spectrum in the amateur radio service. So far, they've been only partly successful, mainly in their stealing of part of the 220 Mhz band. If this proposal passes, I believe that we can kiss The Amateur Radio Service goodbye. THIS service is microbroadcasting at it's finest and also has proven it's value time and time again by providing free communications, especially during emergencies. Once again, the only thing that seems to matter is the almighty buck!
For me that letter starts alarm bells ringing in the very first paragraph. If they think what they're doing is in the public interest, why do they put "public interest" in quotes. If they're not happy with the phrase why do they use it? Do they think this would be in the public interest or not? The quotes suggest maybe no, or at least they want to avoid being held to thier word. It's just a weird way of expressing themselves.
Please give an example of a successful boycott of a major corporation in the last 20 years. A Fortune 100 corp. I doubt you'll find one. If you do, I'd love to know how it worked.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
a) People would suddenly accept tax rates higher than they have grown used to.
b) We would have less government.
For extra credit: Do you think most people actually trust the government not to waste money from non-tax sources?
The problem is that voting citizens do not get to see this money. It is hidden from them. That makes it susceptible to abuse. Spectrum is just one example. Water, mineral, grazing land, etc. are all chock full of wasteful sweetheart deals and hidden subsidies.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Corporations and the governments are both, in theory, organizations consisting of individuals. Why should some corporation's shareholders benefit through my share in a national resource without me getting paid for the priviledge? If you permit these deals to go on between unaccountable bureaucrats and managements at large companies that are themselves well-insulated against shreholder scrutiny, you will get deals that cut you out. Put some money on the table, and see how quick people get up to speed on maximizing the return on spectrum.
The problem is not "public" versus "private." The problem is that there is no sense of ownership by the people who should feel like they own the airwaves. Consequently, you get all kinds of sweetheart deals and good-for-the-nation drivel that masks that this stuff is being given away or traded for favors. You own it. Ask your congressman for your dividend check.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Really long cables, perhaps?
Satellite transmission (over the airwaves) does not make us "less dependent on those airwaves". Nor does the internet, really; I look forward to the day when I can have high speed access without a cat 5 umbilical cord.
Oddly enough - the internet WAS originally regulated. Before the government gave up nominal control and sponsorship, you couldn't do business over the net. Back then it was only the domain of academics.
Maybe we should revert??
Have you compiled your kernel today??
You won't, of course, be able to buy anything. You may, if you're very wealthy, be able to lease a small portion of the spectrum, over which you can transmit a small wattage to a localized area.
Forget about a protected band of public communications being used by hackers or do-gooders to provide a public internet to everyone. Such projects are only possible because the government has set aside those bands for the public good.
If such bands are owned by corporations, which have the choice between selling your entire city wireless internet access on their own terms, and leasing you a bandwidth license so that you can provide the net for free, which do you think they will prefer? How long do you think your lease will last?
And even if you do get a lease, do you honestly think it won't include terms like "lessee agrees that no illegal information shall be transmitted across the leased spectrum, including but not limited to MP3s whose copyright cannot be verified, pirated software, all digitally encoded movies, other intellectual property not owned by the transmittor, nor any decryption programs which are illegal under the DMCA. No access to FreeNet or other encrypted piracy havens shall be allowed, and the license shall be revoked if any unauthorized data transmission is detected."
I mean, we're talking about selling off the internet of the future to companies like Viacom, who owns both MTV and its "competitor" VH1, to Sony and other record labels, to Disney who owns Touchstone, Miramax, and Buena Vista Films. These are the companies that own all the good data. Why would you want to let them set up tollbooths and checkpoints at the on-ramps of the information superhighway?
I'm being silly, of course, because no sane company would lessen its stranglehold of control anyway, unless forced to by the government, but even if they did, do you honestly think that Sony would not bother to park a van outside your home office, monitoring your wireless communications to make sure you aren't trading encrypted MP3s?
Natural monopolies demand regulation.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Well, Rifkin *is* a twit (although finally he seems to have found a less annoying hobby than harrassing geneticists, which was his previous schtick, cf. Algeny, etc).
However, the old rhetoric of "central planning equals communism" is pretty mindless. There are quite a few countries that have more central planning than the US (Canada and Sweden come to mind), and far from being Stalinistic hellholes, they tend to beat the US in the UN's quality of life index, even if they have fewer billionares per capita
However, MP3.com is not as big a threat to RIAA as people make it out to be. That's why they're still around, despite the legal issues of the MyMP3.com music storage service.
MP3.com aims its audience specfically at lesser-known bands that haven't been tied to the major record labels. It's a great way to introduce people to new and promising musicians.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
One of the things that Alvin Toffler talked about in The Third Wave was that if a media distribution medium shows up that can drastically reduce the cost of distributing information on a vast scale, it would literally change the world. That medium now exists--the public Internet. I mean look at the absolutely amazing amount of things you get get off the Internet--the so-called 500-channel cable TV promised back in the 1980's has nothing compared to what you can get off the Internet.
Political groups of every persuasion now have a voice where none existed before; you can read newspapers, magazines, etc. from literally world-wide, where this was impossible before.
We are right now in the middle of the greatest information revolution since the invention of the low-cost hot-metal type printing press by Johann Gutenberg in the 1450's.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
After reading the article, I think Mr. Rifkin forgot one thing: he should have read the book The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler.
A major salient point from Toffler is the so-called demassification of the media, meaning that many more people can disseminate information than in the past. Despite the arrival of the media superconglomerates like AOL Time Warner (an entity I have lots of qualms about because of their reach in both media content creation and distribution), the commercialization of the Internet has allowed entities of all political, racial, gender, etc. persuasions to have a voice that can be read by potentially billions of people.
Why do you think ever since the Internet has become commercial that TV viewership and newspaper readership has gone down? Or the fact that only now has the RIAA realized the threat of things like Napster bypassing all the middlemen in terms of music distribution?
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
The internet has made radio passe. Let it go.
It has?
You mean I can listen to internet broadcasting while in my car, or at the gym?
I can buy a cheap $20 wireless internet terminal to take with me when I go camping?
I think you'd best re-examine your preconceptions before you go making such a silly statement.
Jay (=
There is a problem with the current system of spectrum allocation. It is slow, inefficient and highly politicized. This has lead to a system where many frequency allocations are poorly utilized and use archaic technology. It also allows current license holders to shield themselves from competition by lobbying the Congress and the FCC. Mindless knee-jerk rants about "bad corporations" do not solve the problem. Making some spectrum allocations into "private property" or resellable leases could solve many of these problems.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It sounds like they're asking for the existing allocations to simply be made permanent. If the un-named economists in the story really believe that making it commercial property is the way to go, they should be asking to *BUY* it.
"Want to keep those cell phones that you service operating? Better buy up that spectrum before somone else does. Oh, sorry... Somone else outbid you."
The problem is, a lot of commercial ventures have asked for and received huge pieces of the spectrum. UPS has a large chunk of the spectrum that they don't seem to use (the home office uses regular pagers and waits for drivers to call them back).
It also leads to situations like the TV broadcasters saying "Hey, we need X of the spectrum because we're going to be broadcasting HDTV at max resolution." Then once they realize that they can commercialize that spectrum they suddenly start talking about broadcasting in half that resolution and selling the remaining 75% of the spectrum to others.
Yeah, if they want to own the spectrum, they can buy it from we the people -- it's rightful owners.
Oh, and we realize they're valuable now. Be sure to bring your Master Card.
Mp3.com is targeting what ANY startup in that business would target, unsigned artists, these tend to be small time bands. However, that does not by any means mean that that is their sole objective. In fact, I don't think that investment would make much sense if it were just that. Napster, on the other hand, has very little to offer an artist in terms of distribution. How can they possibly be stronger? (Not that I think either is particularly viable even, soley, as a distributor..)
Why does everyone on slashdot automatically assume that just because both mp3.com and napster were sued by the labels that their sole reason must be because they represent competition, despite the fact that both were very certainly treading on their copyrights. This, also, despite the fact that OTHER supposed potential distributors exist and have not yet been threatened. I would argue that the reason they are free from lawsuits is because they aren't getting stepping on the labels' copyrights.
No, my logic is not flawed. First, that would be a flaw in my premise, not in the structure of my logic. Second, I already know the labels sued over my.mp3.com and I stated that too. However, that issue is now largely resolved and was confined EXCLUSIVELY to my.mp3.com, not their entire business. mp3.com was operating for a long time before they started the my. service.
All of your arguments are totally unsubstantiated. You assume the labels' reasoning must be because both mp3.com and napster are possibly competing distributors. What's worse, you assume that no one can reasonably have a view point that differs since you assume it follows logically. Meanwhile you must ignore some simple and well established facts to make this assertion (you presume it naturally follows logically, when it does not):
a) The labels are primarily about capital and marketing, not about distribution. In other words, being distribution alone (assuming either Napster or mp3.com are even capable of assuming this role) is not enough to compete by a long shot. This is why the labels continue to succeed today and why no pure (or virtually pure) distribution scheme is going to takeover.
b) Both mp3.com and Napster gave the labels OTHER reason to file lawsuits, they stepped all over the labels' copyrights. (The ethics of these arguments are besides the point)
c) The existence of other potential and existing distributors, online and offline that are just as, if not more, viable that have NEVER been sued by the labels.
d) A minor point, mp3.com was operating a long time before my.mp3.com started and before they got sued. Besides the fact that the labels chose not to sue during that time, which is relevant to your assertion, it strongly implies that mp3.com needs something more than hype to succeed and carry their name. They knowingly took a big risk by employing copyrighted material, one does not take risks unless there is reward. If this kind of distribution has so much potential, why risk a supposedly lucractive distribution enterprise over something external and relatively small (compared to their supposed potentiality)?
If you really want to convince a skeptic, then show the previous 3 statements to be false. Otherwise, you're asking for nothing less than a leap from logic and reason to pure faith and paranoia.
Second, if the labels are attacking Napster because it threatens their distribution channels, why not attack mp3.com (yes, I know about my.mp3.com, but that's a seperate issue) and the numerous other online services? Mp3.com represents a vastly more viable competitive threat than Napster does. Napster as a mainstream distribution channel is, at best, theoretical, at worst, a simply ridiculous theory.
Third, the very emphasis that you give raw distribution (ala Napster) implies that you do not fully understand the role of the major labels. The real unique value that the labels offer, over and above all these pure distribution arrangements (e.g., Napster, mp3.com, indy labels, direct mailing, etc.) is capital and marketing, not raw distribution. When I say raw distribution, I mean, the ability to get music from point A (the artist) to point B (the interested public). Sure, these other methods can do that, the problem is that selling records is a lot more involved than that, first consumers must be aware of the artists offering and they must want it. Put simply, the alternatives do not truely offer this. Hence, emerging artists and existing artists continue, by and large, to sign with established labels, not the trendy theories.
Let's be a little more precise here. The National Science Foundation ran the NSFnet, which was the primary backbone network for the Internet for years. NSF's acceptable use policies restricted commercial use of NSFnet, and this effectively translated to no commercial use of the Internet at large, simply because it was generally difficult to tell if the traffic might cross NSFnet. In many cases, it did.
In theory, there was nothing to stop systems on the Internet from sending commercial traffic, as long as it didn't cross NSFnet or other providers with similar policies. In practice, I seem to recall UUNet offering a commercial-oriented service that could (1) connect you to the Internet and (2) allow you to send commercial traffic to similarly-connected UUNet customers. Of course, I might be misremembering. (Does anyone know for sure?)
Eventually, NSF relaxed the rules about the same time as other backbone providers started to come to the forefront. NSF later got out of the business of providing a backbone network for the Internet, but they had been marginalized by the emergence of other commercial providers by that time anyhow...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Here's the crux of the debate: what does the invisible hand do well, and what doesn't it do well?
That's the policy question we really should be asking. Do we know if the invisible hand uses the radio spectrum better than the FCC -- or average citizen -- would? Nope.
Here's my plan for an experiement: let's take the existing spectrum, and carve it up into 3 areas. One portion of the spectrum is administered by the FCC as it is now. One portion is leased to commerical entities for a period of something like 10-20 years. They can trade those leases as they like. One last portion is given out to the public to do whatever they please with. All three groups (anyone using or leasing a portion of the spectrum) are required to report what they've done with it -- both in terms of services provided and gross/net returns.
Then we review each method for results on best services....
--
Tweet, tweet.
Since this is an opinion piece (and a fairly baised one) about a letter, where's the link to the letter? What did it actually say?
The FCC has been using auctions for the last few years to insure that small business can't clutter up the spectrum. A few more years of auctions and it will only be large, multi-billion dollar corporations and the FCC's job will be much easier because the will just do what those few corporations tell them to do.
Small time guys like me who want to make a buck in communications will have only one choice: pimp services for the big corporations. We won't be allowed to run our own systems nor will our customers. We won't be allowed any spectrum to create and develop new services either because their auctioning off the amateur spectrum as well.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
So now the government for the people, will have to PAY private corporations to talk to ....itself? This ties in greatly with campaign reform, now politicians will have to have major $$$ behind them to air commercials on the air to run for office. Who is going to supply them with the money? Major corporations of course. (Oil anyone?)
Considering you can't really "own" the land you live on (the minute you don't pay tax, it's not yours anymore) how can they just outright sell the airwaves to private corporations...they belong to US...the people!
I'm sorry, the FTAA and the WTO pale in comparison to this issue. Workers can always unite, unions can always sprout up in the most deplorable conditions, but when you sell the most important means of communication in the 21st century from the people, I think we have a problem.
I can't wait to see the protests on this one.
Goodbye PBS, goodbye public access television, goodbye CBC and the BBC, goodbye.
I can live on a piece of land. I can't do that with air. Of course you could say that I could rent out the air and get some land, but then I'd be using money, not the actual product.
Then there's the whole "what is this thing used for?" question. Air frequencies will by used to transmit communication services. They don't get used up, this is the only infinite characteristic they exhibit. There are most definitely a limited number of usable ones in any particular geography. This was industry's argument againt Low-Power FM radio, that it would interfere with their commercial signals and degrade service. Both sides submitted conflicting studies, the industry's later turned out to be "extrapolations on lab data". But going back to the differences between air frequencies and land.
You can't corrupt air frequencies. No matter how much Howard Stern or Radio Free Europe comes across the airwaves, you can switch it over the next day. Try that with industrial real estate.
I like my government having a trump card over the media industry. I've seen too many examples of the power of communication abused, it's so close to that right now anyway. I don't think we need to go the rest of the way. I'm not really sure exactly how things are right now as far as licences go, but I like to think that abuses have some form of punishment. Remove a central authority that represent the interests of the public and you lose that. In 10 years 2 or 3 companies would decide what gets transmitted, anywhere, anytime. And charge you a pretty penny for it.
--
+&x
Feel free to argue that nobody should own the airwaves, and that anybody should be able to transmit on a frequency that nobody else is currently using. That's not what Jeremy is arguing. He's arguing that central planning is smarter than the market. Well, Jeremy, get a clue: the failure of the Soviet Union buried that corpse of an idea.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
No, you'll be forced to buy a tuner. You can bet there will be 1,001 set-top products available that receive and rebroadcast on channel 2/3/whatever.
---
My opinions are mine.
Don't worry, the media conglomerates likely won't leave any little slice for you and I to buy, and on the off chance they do, it'll come with a seven figure price tag.
The spectrum shouldn't be sold (to the highest bidder, or any private entity)--if this is allowed, then the U.S. government will have again abdicated its rightful role as steward of the airwaves for the less lofty role of plundering profiteer.
I can't red the actual plan since it's slasdotted, but it sounds like part of it is to give the ownership of presently used spectrum to the current users.
If so, these frequences would be handed over to whatever organisation(s) there is for hamradio.
Having these frequences as property would ensure their continued existance much more than the present system where they can be revoked at the whim of any lobbyist greasing the right wheels at the FCC and their bosses.
It helps to define what the word "own" means.
Basically, to own X is the same as having the right to do what you want with X, without anyone else interfering with it. You also have the right to transfer ownership to others. If someone uses X without your permission, they are stealing or trespassing on it, and you can get the legal system to help defend your property rights.
This is perfectly applicable to the electro-magnetic spectrum. And clearly, right now the FCC owns it all. That is why you have beg and protest to them to be able to continue to use your part of it.
If these frequences were your property you would not have to beg or grovel for anyone. They would be yours, as they rightfully are, to do with what you please, asking permission from no one.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the entire frequency spectrum will be given/sold to one monopolistic entity you call "corporations".
There is of course no such proposal and no such entity. If frequencies were treated as property, it would behave just like any other tradable commodity, with a huge variety of owners and usages.
The current system is a government monopoly run by the FCC, which for most purposes act as a proxy for the major media companies through the normal ways that the governenment is controlled by big money and special interest. Rest assured that they are very happy that people believe the current system is run in the interests of the people and that chaos would ensue were the government's power to be relinquished.
The arguments heard here against frequency ownership are the same as the standard ones against land ownership. "What if somebody bought all the land" etc.
Yet experience shows very clearly that private ownership of land is one of the key factors in the prosperity and freedom of nations and people. Not only is private land ownership the basis for economic well being, there is no recorded example of political freedom without it.
So you need to explain what makes radio frequencies work the opposite way. I've yet to see any such example.
One difference that would seem to make frequencies even less likely to be monopolized is that there is an infinite number (in theory, in practice at least several thousand) of frequencies in every geographical location, so you can have many different owners in one location, as opposed to land where there can only be one.
I think we can all agree that in the present system the FCC has a monopolistic control of the airwaives. And I would argue that the FCC in turn is controlled by the major media corporations through lobbying and contributions and through the usual symbiosis between the regulator and the regulated. Moving to a property based system would actually break the grip the media giants have.
The big boys acquire their frequency allocations through their political connections and political appeals to ideas like "the people's airwaves", then they want to lease "their" airwaves out? Why don't they lease their air-waves from the government? After all, without the government defending their legal entitlements to the air-waves, there would be little value in owning the air waves.
Rifkin is right to be concerned about the double-standards, injustices and dangers of this situation, but the same problem exists with all real estate and, indeed, wealth in general -- it is just called out in stark relief by frequency spectrum allocations.
As one of the key players in obtaining the first Ka-band allocation from the FCC, I am here to tell you the system of allocations is rigged to hand power over to the politically connected. I won't go into all the stuff we had to do to get a new spectrum licensed, but it wasn't pretty. I'll just stay this: Had it not been for the fact that I volunteered as a get-out-the-vote phone coordinator for Rep. George Brown, chairman of the House committee on Space and Science, I wouldn't have been able to contribute much to the opening of that new spectrum.
It was largely as a result of that experience in trying to advance technological frontiers with the US Federal Government that I came up with a white paper on a net asset tax to not only offload tax burdens from capital gains, income and sales, but also to open up all undefined assets to private claims without government intervention, except as defender of the legal system under which claims to those rights were made valuable assets.
The Telecommunications Act of 1934 got government into the business of handing out "the people's airwaves" to the politically connected media giants (a pattern that is continuing to this day with Reston, VA-based AOL/Time-Warner enjoying a government assist against Microsoft), as well as establishing a state-backed monopoly on wire communications. I'm actually of the opinion that the banking panic of 1907, the great stock market crash of 1929 and the New Economy Crash of 2000 were, all, part of a pattern in which new media technologies are created, social controls are being threatened and capital manipulations occur in such a way as to depress prices of newly emerging media companies enabling them to be bought on the cheap. Such social controls need not, of course, be consciously planned since they may be evolutionary emergent controls and evolution is, almost by definition, not a conscious process. Nevertheless, if this theory is correct, then just as cinema came under the control of a few giants after 1907 and broadcast came under the control of those same giants after 1929 (via the TCA of 1934), the NASDAQ crash of 2000 may allow giants to buy up and centralize Web/Internet media assets on the cheap. This sort of nonsense is profoundly destructive to culture, itself the basis of human social organization including technological advances, given the key role media companies play in defining culture.
Ultimately, this gets back to the true nature of "fiat" money and how otherwise worthless assets acquire value with the assurance of rights by warriors.
Seastead this.
They had hippies in 1949, when Pacifica was founded?
I personally find that Pacifica is in line with the social teachings of the Catholic Church, except, unfortunately, on the issue of abortion. In particular, Pacifica reflects the anti-government anti-corporate anti-globalism attitude shared by many Slashdotters. The slogan for their flagship program Democracy Now! is "the exception to the rulers."
You must not live in an area that has a Pacifica station, which is better than NPR. But even Pacifica is being infiltrated now.
Why not have the US government mandate that all frequencies in the next 10 years or so be used soly for digital/internet broadcasts so that way all of those internet radio stations can become real radio stations. Just think you'll be able to tune into mp3.com and more.
If the goverment didn't controll the airwaves who would? The huge megacorps, that's who. Radio stations run by the public now are very few, but if huge companies are allowed to buy up the airwaves then they will become extinct.\ =\=\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Had I been moderating your comment, I would have given you a +1, insightful. Anywho, I agree with your post. I am currently studying to get a HAM license some time in the future, as I know that if the sh*t hit the proverbial fan, which is indeed possible looking at the writing on the wall of the world today, amateur radio would indeed keep a line of communications open in communities hard-hit with a natural disaster or a war. They don't talk much in the media about how helpful amateur radio has been in the past, in places like Croatia, or other places where a natural disaster or war has hit and amateur radio was able to get the real stories out. Art Bell, a radio talk show host on the nighttime airwaves has spoken about amateur radio a bit, but only because he is also a ham himself. Cheers.
.
But ignoring that, can you tell me how deregulating the allocation on radio bandwidth would significantly harm the state of radio today?
I ask because most of the criticism I was seeing had to do with "corporations evil, deregulation bad", despite the fact that the airwaves are 99% corporation-controlled, anyway.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
I mean, seriously. With maybe the exception of NPR, it's all one corporation-controlled, homogenized, music-industry record promotion tool.
The gov't puts some restrictions on how much of the airwaves one company can broadcast on in a given market, but all that really means is that the conglomerates trade stations between themselves in order to maximize their market share up to the current limit.
The internet has made radio passe. Let it go.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Government could probably make more money leasing out spectrum on an annual basis. That way, the rates could go up every year, and it would be a real moneymaker. A TV channel in a major metropolitan market might bring in a billion a year. This could lead to a tax cut.
"Maybe, but doesn't that power-seeking also apply to the government?" Frankly I'd rather see the government control the airwaves than a corporation. I can elect people to control the government, I can't elect people to control a corporation. It's not like the spectrum is a renewable resource. Once it's sold you can't get it back. Police/Fire/Ambulance services would have to pay through the nose to use radios, ham radio would be completely eliminated since it's not profitable, local radio stations would have no use anymore. I can't see any benefit whatsoever to money-hungry corporations controlling the spectrum any more than I can see benefit to them controlling the roads.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Oh, SUUUURE. That explains why nobody owns their own house in the US. Oh, wait they do... See, one of the better analogies of the spectrum is land. It too is a valuable comodity, there's a fixed supply, although we can use less of it if neccesary (high-rises), and only one person can use it at a time (in any given location, that is). Now, what your arguing is that the goverment should own ALL land in the US, because only that would stop corporations from owning all the land. It hasn't worked that way--nor have experiments where the goverment HAS owned all the land... Or to put it another way, the reasons that a mythical "Land Corporation" doesn't own every scrap of real estate in the US is the same has why a mythical "Broadcast Corporation" won't own every scrap of airwaves. Oh, and recall that the profits to be made from land are MUCH higher than airwaves, since housing is a much more vital need than wireless networks. Just look at housing prices in Silicon Valley. Honestly, do you corporate conspiracy people even put your brains in gear? And as for the poor deluded fools who think the GOVERMENT is a good "steward"... Heh. Just look at who the FCC has divied up all the current bandwidth to! At least privatization would put bandwidth in the hands of them that have something to DO with it (and thus will pay money for it). It might not help you and me get any bandwidth (although it might) but it'd certainly help. And if the privatization was smart, they'd leave the current public use sections OUT of the mix, and sell bandwith in TINY TINY chunks. And in any case, my vote is that wireless networks will ALWAYS be a side show. They might cover the "last 5 feet" from your comp to the nearest ground station on the fibre optic network...but that's probably it. There just isn't enough bandwidth for anything more, even if the spectrum IS privatized. You think any reasonable chunk of spectrum can cover a whole cities demand for Britney Spears music video clips? :-)
my much longer reply just got wiped out by a segfault, so this one is shorter for my own sanity and that of the reader ;)
... oh, Albania, North Korea, etc? Not that the FCC has dominion there ;) but they demonstrate why the government ought not be the real owner ("steward" isn't how I'd describe them) of the airwaves. Radio should be as unregulated as practical in the U.S. and other relatively free places for the same reason it should be but isn't in the obviously un-free places. *That's* where there are actual strangleholds on content that go beyond priggishness and artifical "two sides of story" dichotomies.
... Tibet, say, or Havana? I think so, but I may be crazy.
... shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits ... and 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list!", smile, and say "now you can say them on the radio!"
- jamie mccarthy said "no sane company would lessen its stranglehold of control anyway, unless forced to by the government."
Maybe, but doesn't that power-seeking also apply to the government? The U.S. govt. is one of the most liberal (old sense) on earth, in fact the U.S. govt in fact probably comes closer than any other I can think of as perhaps an adequate / worthwhile one to regulate broadcasting. But consider that this government (no not a monolith, but enough of a coherent whole I think it bears this abuse fairly) loves to spy on its own citizens at several levels (and always pushes to expand this little privilege), violently apprehends the use and users of *certain* recreational substances, and speaking of radio, threatens stations whose content the FCC doesn't like with license withdrawal, fines, etc.
In effect, the big corporations already own the airwaves (since they can afford lawyers, licenses, transmitters) with some small and carefully allowed exceptions, because the FCC is establishmentarian as any govt agency. Despite a few years of softer talk on it, the FCC still raids and confiscates the equipement of even tiny stations transmitting in local dead air and thus not interfering with anyone else's broadcast. (that's maybe my favorite illustrative evil deed of the FCC -- not only pointless, but destructive of liberty and a great discouragement to involvement.) Authority likes to assert itself and grow, the arrogance of power, etc etc.
More important -- But what about in countries like
Wouldn't it be nice if one (or better, two or three!) of the horrible corporations would start broadcasting news, music and weather on the eights with updates on the hour in
And there are anti-monopoly laws, total-power output rules etc that there's no reason to think would be changed by this (whatever you think of those laws, heh); Basically this little privatization plan sounds like trading one form of govt/private radio system (the current one) for a slightly more free market one, rather than declaring radio anarchy outright, gutting small children who stand in the way, etc.
simon
p.s. secondary motivation would be to wake up, turn on radio, hear "
"Hey Carlito, r'membah me? Benny Blanco from the Bronx!"
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
for some strange reason this has been opposed by the bigger interests.
So I see this, and I think that this is somethng that the "big boys" would like only so long as they have their fingers in the pie. In this regard, this is compatible with the business aims of entities similar to the RIAA, MPAA, the Microsoft Monopoly, etc.
The little fellow is not allowed direct ownership, just to hand over money on a continuing basis. This has interesting imnplications for political speech.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
And according to this article, there is a way to embed the digital signal into unused portions of the standarg analog signal.
Now why do you want to forcibly obsolete analog TV again?
You must be:
(1) a MPAA/RIAA/WIPO control freak salivating at encrypted, unrecordable, pay per view everything or
(2) in the electronics inustry salivating at being able to sell everyone another couple of TV sets for more money.
You mean Howard Stern is in the public good? Howard Stern is in the good of Infinity Broadcasting, a former part of CBS which was split from CBS (although CBS is a major stockholder) so CBS could own more stations in major markets. It's all out of hand. Local broadcasting is dead, 80% of the stations are owned by 4 large corporations. Outside of broadcasting, three major telcos own almost all of the cellular and PCS spectrum allocations, and anyone who wants to compete in the wireless Internet game needs to use unlicensed 2.4 and 5 gig spread spectrum bands. Let's face it, the FCC has sold out a long time ago. Simply calling it a lease is admitting to the current state of affairs. And courtesy of the NAB, some of those leaseholders paid nothing for their leases.
LPFM is dead. NPR and the NAB went to congress and got them to pass a bill that gutted the original LPFM provisions, reducing the number of available licenses from hundreds, to a handful. I think there are only something like 10 LPFM slots left now. They convinced a technically ignorant congress that the FCC engineers were wrong.
Even as LPFM was written before it was gutted, it would have been of little use to most people. An individual could not get a LPFM license, only community groups. This community group must have a local presence, within something like 10 miles of the transmitter. Former radio pirates would not be allowed to get LPFM licenses under any circumstances. One also had to get type-certified equipment, running in the thousands of dollars for a 100 watt transmitter, in addition to an Emergency Alert System reciever.
I know, because I was going to apply on behalf of a group I belong to. The hundreds of pages of red tape made it nearly impossible, and now congress has nearly killed it.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Oh goodie goodie I would like this!
--
--hongpong.com
What most people would do is figure out they could sell it to the big players for big bucks, thus killing off microbroadcasting. Hell, the corps could even buy the spectrum just to remove competition.
Anyway, the US gov is slowly selling off more and more of the public good to big corporations to make a profit. The communications corporations were licensed the spectrum in order to serve the public good, not themselves.
I can give three important examples: Cable, Satellite, and most importantly, Internet. Cable came first, and let some of our content be off of the air. Then came satellite, which took our content, and made it possible to send just about anywhere. Finally came the Internet, which is toplling the old line structure altogether.
The only reason the government licensed the airwaves was because of scarcity of spectrum space. However, it is quite obvious that with the Internet, there is no scarcity. Any Joe can make a website. (or even start a website company) THe Internet is still, realistically, in its infancy compared with other media. THe unique thing about the Internet however, is that it IS all media. Print, video, film, audio, music, art, and everything else come together to form the MULTImedia experience that is the Internet.
The Airwaves just might not be needed anymore.
(Although I'm opposed to broadcasters selling off what they LICENSE, since the airwaves are PUBLIC DOMAIN)
-Digitizer
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually make my website for other people to look at.
You're wrong in your first, second, and third sentences.
1. I am part of the market, and I am not voluntarily taking myself to digital TV/radio.
2. They're stopping the analog TV transmission to raise license revenue from mobile communications use of the auctioned spectrum.
3. Analog TVs represent over 90% of the UK market -- not exactly a minority!
Scroogle
No, it's not exactly what you were talking about. You said,
Either you don't understand the issue or you are being economical with the truth. Unfortunately if you want to watch TV in the UK after 2005, you will be forced to buy into digital TV because analog TV transmission will cease in 2005.
Scroogle
Why should I want technological restrictions on the manner of my viewing and listening with digital TV/radio?
Scroogle
Actually the analog TV spectrum will cease to exist in the UK from 2005, thus disabling all analog TV reception. It's not a question of cost or of Luddism. Simply I do not need digital TV/radio because I'm happy with what I've got.
Scroogle
Digital TV/radio is supposedly the thing. But for me all I want is a picture on screen and sound from the speakers. Digital TV/radio is simply a technology I don't need or want. Not for me the feature-bloated digital receiver units with time-shift recording/copy lock-out technology. I say this because there is nothing wrong with my analog TV and analog radio. I get an adequate picture and sound. I can record any program without technological restriction. The times and manner of my viewing and listening are under my control. In short, analog is enough for me.
Unfortunately in the UK, the government announced this week that the entire analog TV spectrum will be sold by auction in 2005, meaning that millions of people who are happy with their analog TV sets will be forced in 2005 to spend $200-300 per set on a forced upgrade to a proprietary adapter unit (or else sign up to a restrictive rental agreement) in order to be able to receive digital TV broadcasts. This will affect all TV channels including the UK's national public television service BBC TV. I and millions of others will be forced to go digital from 2005, enforcing the various unwanted usage lock-out technologies that come with digital TV/radio.
Scroogle
I don't think you could do much with the airwaves except express your point of view. You couldnt play any music, the RIAA would beat you with a law stick. You could not report the sports, lest the different sports agencies beat you with their law sticks, or bats depending on the agency. You would be able to express your view. A view that the place we now live in is getting more and more fucked up by the day. A place where you might get sued if you reveal how you broke a copy-protection scheme, by the people who ASKED you do break it. You cannot post your own guitar tablature for others to view. You cannot like dark music, dress gothic and go to school lest people think you might SNAP! and start shooting people. You cannot imagine when the last time you did not get spam was. You cannot talk about your gun collection and knife and sword collection at work because you will be labeled off and fired for being a threat to safety. All these and more you can say on the radio, not many people will listen to you as they do not care about such things as privacy. Most dont care about how many databases contain their address, name, phone numbers for every place they have lived in the last 15 years. For the most part people will say "If it does not affect me, why should I care." they, of course, do not realize that by the time it does affect them it will be too late.
So tell me, what would YOU do with your airtime. I for one would not spend a single dime on something that I can do for free. I can post my views, I can talk to people and I can say whatever I damn well please. I would not pay to say it because The Bill of Rights says I DO NOT HAVE TO!
Arathres
I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
stainless steel
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Yes, the FCC sold out some time ago, but what did they sell? How can anyone "own" the electro-magnetic spectrum? What's next, taxing gravity?
Every time the FCC threatens to encroach on our air space, we flood them with mail and protests. Rest assured that there will always be people who can operate radio transmitters for personal purposes or the common good. They'll have to confiscate all the equipment from every HAM shack on the planet and lobotomize each and every one of us and keep us from getting our hands on any source of wire and electricity (with which can be made crude radio transmitters).
As for digital.. heck ya, I love digital technology, but in an emergency when the computers and satellites are all down, I want a trusty CW rig so I can still communicate.
KB9KEJ
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Sadly, I have to agree. This is just one step towards the deregulation of 'Corporate America' out of many. In terms of radio and TV, it dates back to at least 1996, with the Telecommunications Act.
But now powerful commercial media are seeking to gain total control over the airwaves. Imagine a world in which a handful of global media conglomerates like Vivendi, Sony, BskyB, Disney, and News Corporation own literally all the airwaves all over the planet and trade them back and forth as `private electronic real estate'. A strategy is beginning to unfold in Washington DC to make that happen.
At my intial thought I was someone excited, not thinking about the obvious... AM/FM filled with nothing but companies gloating over their products. Its bad enough in radio now an hours worth of time means 25 minutes of music, 5 minutes of rootarded deejays, 29 minutes of commercials, and sometimes a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.
Ironic is the name of the site and the corresponding issue "CommonDreams.org" posting about the FCC giving up control. *stops, thinks, laughs*
Lets get realistic for a second here, gov is hard pressed to retain control of most things in the country, and when you think about this deeply you know it won't happen.
Picture some mid west gun hippy cult crew spewing all day talk of guns, and "Big Brother cominuh git me" talk. Or other forms of media government has worked hard to surpress, imagine a non stop Cypherpunk channel where Bruce Shneier, and others called in to talk about the latest Elliptical Theories to protect data.
Man politicians in DC would shit in their pants coming up with reversed/conspiracy theory factors to block this from happening.
Didn't a company sort of do this with Real Player, set up a sort of 100 channel Real Player server where you could watch whatever, whenever? Just think about that for a second anyway, (because I remember watching Parse about 2-3 years ago) if it didn't work on the net where technology is cheaper than buying huge arrays of antennas to send out signals (then hoping your neighbors don't sue for fscking up their lives with it), getting permits for equipment, yadda yadda, I see it as a corporation only like benefit, not meant for the little guy.
coming soon
360 degrees of Karma
You know those auctions where the police sell off cars and property seized from drug dealers? The ones where, if you're lucky, you might be able to pick up a car for pennies on the dollar? Auctions are not necessarily a great way to get the best price; really, auction pricing is entirely dependent on who else is participating, and what they're willing to pay. Not necessarily on what the property is worth.
Now that's all well and good if we're talking about a few cars with bullet holes in them. But in this case, we're talking about granting permanent, inheritable rights to entire areas of spectrum. There's only so much useful spectrum, and as the population and technology increases, the value of that spectrum is going to increase beyond anything we can imagine. Not only are we creating the world's largest property speculator's market, we're also handing out property at a price guaranteed to be a tiny fraction of what the spectrum will be worth. There isn't a corporation in the world rich enough to pay what a few choice Mhz will be worth in thirty years, if technology continues at even a shadow of its current pace. Worst of all, this is property that we the people might want to use someday, that we won't be able to touch because Rupert Murdoch's grandson owns it.
What also worries me is that with the sale of spectrum, we're creating an entirely new type of property out of whole cloth. Think about what it means to own airwaves. They're nothing tangible that you can point to and say "I own this." Essentially, when buying spectrum, you're making a contract with the government whereby only you can ever broadcast on those frequencies-- for the rest of human history (or as long as law and society as we know it holds together.) This means that the government will use our tax money to fund the FCC's policing of the airwaves, long after the money from these auctions is used up. It will certainly mean that the use of the airwaves is no longer based any assignment of need, and instead we'll probably see even more of the leasing we see today. Only, the people receiving the profits will be the lucky corporations who happened to exist and have adequate resources to get in on the biggest, most exclusive auction in history. If you're unlucky enough to be born after these transactions take place, or if you don't happen to own a multi-billion dollar corporation, you're really screwed. People will look back and wonder what sort of shortsighted government handed over control of all the broadcast frequencies in the United States to a bunch of random corporations back in the eary 21st century.
The truth is, nobody could realistically afford to purchase the airwaves today if the purchase price took into account the future revenues they will generate (even over a limited timespan, like 100 years.) The fact that these corporations think that they have a chance to buy the spectrum implies that they certainly aren't going to pay a fair price for it.
Of course it does: that's the whole point. Without government regulation, the market wouldn't tolerate those inefficiencies, and it would fail to deliver social and policy goals that we hold important as a society.
Delivering trinkets at the lowest possible price is ultimately not what modern economics and social policy should be about. We have an abundance of resources (food, information, etc.), and we now have the luxury of looking beyond the old imperatives of scarcity and optimal efficiency. Yet, mainstream economists are still behaving as if we didn't have enough bread or bandwidth.
My view of mainstream US economics is pretty dim. I don't view it as a science but as a morass of simplistic mathematical models, academic pressure, opportunism, corporate influence taking, lack of deep thinking, and political ambition. To be sure, there is some good, solid work in economics, some of it even recognized more widely, but it doesn't seem to be listened to by policy makers. Perhaps that is because it doesn't give any simple answers and instead forces policy makers to actually set their own goals that go beyond bigger SUVs and bigger burgers.
The mechanism for stopping this kind of economic insanity is simple: politics. Unless there is scarcity in something as basic as food or housing, politics trumps economics. We can decide to use tax dollars to finance public television, we can decide to keep open radio frequencies for micropowered radio and amateur radio, we can decide to keep open spectrum for telecommunications technologies that may look like a long-shot in the market but seem promising 10-20 years down the road. So, go out and vote against politicians that think the whole world is to be measured in dollars and cents. And punch those cards all the way through next time.
Think about domains. By the time half of us got interested in buying a domain, all the obvious words or abbreveations/letter combonations where already taken by bigger companies (or just someone else). I think the same will occur here: someone will scoop up all the radio spectrum available before anyone else even has a chance to.
Get a clear computer case, then mess with the airwaves real good.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.