Shirky on Spectrum Ownership

scubacuda writes "When engineering assumptions change, shouldn't the laws that govern technology reflect those changing assumptions? Perhaps Clay Shirky puts it best: 'Things like shoes, cars, and houses are all property. Property is excludable -- it is easy to prevent others from using it -- and rival -- meaning that one person's use of it will interfere with another person's use of it. Spectrum has neither characteristic. Spectrum is purely descriptive -- a frequency is just a particular number of waves a second -- so no one can own a particular frequency of spectrum in the same way no one can own a particular color of light. Instead, when an organization 'owns' spectrum, what they really have is a contract guaranteeing Federal prosecution if someone else broadcasts on their frequency in their area. The regulatory costs of forcing spectrum to emulate property are enormous, but worthwhile so long as it leads to better use of spectrum than other methods can. That used to be true. No longer.'"

Comments

2.4GHz WIFI is good, but... ?

[shoppa]

So what's the point? New technologies (actually spread-spectrum has been around since WWII, and Hedy Lamarr of all people has her name on the patent) make 2.4GHz useful to the average Joe. That's great. But not all services (and therefore not all chunks of spectrum) can follow those rules quite yet. So what are we supposed to do? There's a fundamental tradeoff: let people broadcast more power, then they get more bandwidth, but they crowd out other users. It works exactly the same for spread-spectrum as it does for more traditional modulations.

Net Asset Tax

[Baldrson]

Spectrum is purely descriptive...

All property rights are described by law otherwise they are uneforceable by law. Indeed, it is their very enforceability by law that makes the case for a net asset tax being the only proper basis for government revenue.

From the Net Asset Tax white paper:

One of the greatest strengths of Henry George's land tax was that it would have promoted a much more rapid development of the American frontier by allowing the government to simply open more of its territories to private claim, without worrying about unproductive hoarding of those territories.

Because of this fear of hoarding, the government resorted to a highly political system of land grants which created the rail road trusts that became a persistent blight on society.

Similar blights are now being created in the bureaucratic allocation of frequency spectrum by the Federal Communications Commission and geostationary orbits for communications satellites.

In reality, we are surrounded by "frontiers" in many dimensions. Few have the profound implications of a physical frontier such as the American west or space, but all share in common the attribute that proprietary access to them is restricted by government so as to prevent unproductive hoarding.

In the case of technological frontiers, this problem is solved by limiting the patent claims to 17 years. An inventor can sit on an invention doing nothing with it for up to 17 years, but beyond that time, its use cannot be inhibited by the inventor. In practice, most inventors are so eager to see their invention brought into widespread use, they endanger their own claim. The patented technique is unique among frontier claims in that it's use is not inherently limited -- techniques are not "resources", and in that it is truly the creation of the inventor -- not an emergent phenomenon of civilization and nature.

But in other areas, such as radio frequency and orbital slots, the analogy with frontier "land" is almost perfect.

The NAT, unlike George's land tax, makes it possible for the government to open up all frontiers to private claim and development. Claimants must simply define and register the nature of the property rights that they wish to claim so that others can avoid overlapping claims or negotiate easements.

Naturally, there are many such abstract property rights which are now in use by people, although unclaimed. The principle of first use, like first to invent in patent law, should be the criteria for priority on a claim. "Use" should include not only direct physical utilization, but declaration of intent to use the property right via claim.

NAT liability begins with the date that the claim is protected under law.

...

THE NET ASSET TAX

The existence of pervasive capital welfare discussed above provides the basis for a system of taxation.

The principles of freedom upon which our country was founded provide the basis for exemptions from taxation.

These insights yield the following proposal for a Net Asset Tax (NAT) reform:

The government should tax net assets, in excess of levels typically protected under personal bankruptcy, at a rate equal to the rate of interest on the national debt, thereby eliminating other forms of taxation. Creator-owned intellectual property should be exempt.

The levels typically protected by personal bankruptcy can be approximated by the median price of housing an individual added to the median capitalization of a job in the economy. Together, these exemptions add up to between $50,000 and $100,000. Additional but smaller exemptions may be added to represent the lower levels of bankruptcy protection typically extended to children within families.

The NAT is a self-adjusting system that seeks an equilibrium between government debt levels, current tax rates and private wealth distribution, without attempting to achieve an outright balanced budget or direct intervention in the economy.

Under current (1992) asset distribution and government debt the NAT would generate between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion in revenue, thus totally displacing other forms of taxation.