UK to Privatize Radio Spectrum?

judgecorp writes "The UK regulator, Ofcom, has decided that managing spectrum is a drag, and there are other people around that might do a better job. It is going to open up 73 percent of the radio spectrum to market forces, and make it technology-neutral and tradeable. So if one technology gets superseded, another one can get rolled out instead (subject to broadcast power limits) without Ofcom having to define what spectrum it should use. Radio was first regulated here 100 years ago this year, and a new regime is needed to fit new radio technology. Ofcom is quite proud to be ahead of the US on this one, because we have a recent Communications Act, and the FCC is 'hamstrung' by old laws - at least that's what the head of research at Ofcom said."

Comments

Natural Resource Tax

[WalterDGeranios]

This is a good idea, as long as there will be a natural resource tax to reduce hoarding and speculation.

potential money is everywhere

[SoupGuru]

Just remember everyone, just because you *can* make money off it means you *should*, right?

Re:potential money is everywhere

[KingOfTheNerds]

You should definitely make money off of the spectrum just because you can. But mainly this article is about better managing the spectrum for the rollout of new technology. The united states FCC is quite crappy at it, and they need to revise it as they have.

Ham radio

[Sygiinu]

I hope they make provision for the amateur bands and we (radio enthusiasts) don't have to club together to buy them. I wonder if licenses will be required still?

About time

[Kohath]

It's about time someone did this. There's no reason for the airwaves to be publicly owned. "Public ownership" of a resource means that all decisions about a resouce have to occur in the context of politics. All decisions are political decisions.

If the group that wants censorship has more votes than the group that doesn't want censorship, then there'll be censorship.

When a private entity owns something, decisions are made based on the ideals of the private entity. If you don't like the decisions made about the resource, you can buy your own.

It works for land. It'll work for the airwaves. Nice job UK.

Re:About time

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It's about time someone did this. There's no reason for the airwaves to be publicly owned.

You HAVE to be joking...

Public ownership of the airwave exists because, in reality, no-one can own it in the first place. In fact, it's not owned at all, just regulated (i.e. Big Brother slaps you on the fingers if you annoy your radio neighbours).

It's just like air and oceans, you know. You can't really own it, just manage it, because it's everybody's and nobody's at the same time.

Re:About time

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm not sure privatization of LAND was a good idea (I have a great many ancestors on one side of the family that would consider the privatization of land to be the single stupidest idea that the White Man brought to America). It has lead to hoarding and a large number of homeless people. Why do you think the privatization of the airwaves will be any different?

Re:About time

[k4_pacific]

At least with "public ownership" you can vote, hold office, campaign, and otherwise affect policy. With private ownership, you are pretty much SOL if things aren't going your way and you don't have the purchasing power to make a difference.

Re:About time

[Xiph]

Because private ownership is so much better?
The problem with private ownership of the bandwidths will in my opinion be that it hampers innovation by anyone else but those who own the bandwidth. And you will rely on that one vendor for producing anything within the bandwidths they own.
This does not pose a problem in itself though, but my guess is that a few big companies will obtain ownership of an unproportionally large portion of the bandwidth(s) to monopolize certain types of services.
Remember we're not just talking the transistor radio frequencies but the entire non-military range of frequencies.

soon in the news: Berlusconi's Italy follows ofcom example and ...

Re:About time

[Lodragandraoidh]

Kohath quoth:

...you can buy your own.

Not bloody likely given the billions (with a 'B') probably needed to control a block of spectrum at a high power output(see sales of wireless spectrum that occurred in U.S. earlier this year).

I doubt they will let Joe Blow buy a particular range of spectrum for low-power use in the few miles surrounding his abode. Low power spectrum, as established recently in the U.S. is having problems due to bleed over from nearby stations - endangering business models for the small guys.

Privatization is no panacea.

Over here

[ch-chuck]

I'm sure Clear Channel would make a great replacement for the FCC.

But seriously - how do you create a fair competitive market environment for all while treading the line between fascist govt control and private industry monopolization. As much as our politico's thump the podium about 'free markets' they simply allow single entities to get away with abuse of an advantage to corner entire winner-take-all markets that's anything but free.

Applause

[ggeezz]

I think we have to applaud them on this move. The current regulations and allotments of the FCC are severely holding back wireless technology in the US. If only a few antiquated technologies were put out to pasture we could have high-speed wireless connections that weren't line-of-site and whose ranges weren't severely hampered. Not to mention a slew of other ideas that can't make it off the ground because existing (mis)uses of spectrum don't allow enough bandwidth for innovation.

By the way, the existing telephone and media companies love the fact that this situation is hampering new innovations. Only time will tell if the UK's decision is a step in the right direction, but at least it's a step.

Re:Great idea...

[Snart Barfunz]

Exactly - just look at the BBC still broadcasting in mono to steam powered bakelite radios. Privatising them would force them to embrace new technology like TV, digital radio and the web.

Re:Great idea...

[gcaseye6677]

Why is the BBC interested in keeping up with the times? Ah competition, that would be it. There are other stations which everyone would watch if BBC wasn't interesting enough (in a relative sense. I know, it's British TV we're talking about here.) Anyway, a publicly owned BT would be a monopoly, since it's hard enough to have a competing phone company even without a government owned monopoly. I highly doubt they would realistically allow for a competitor, so they would have every excuse to stagnate and become someone's political empire where they could hire their friends into cushy guaranteed government jobs.

Re:Private = Better, More Expensive

[t_allardyce]

I'd disagree, if its a vital system (eg the London Underground) then i'd rather know that every penny of my overpriced ticket and taxes went into either the wages of someone who actually did a useful job there or just back into the system. Why would I want anyone making a profit off of that when the government could do it without paying for someones yacht? Why would a private company be able to do any better? if the government is doing a crap job its because they have crap people managing the system: fire them and get someone who has a clue. Plus who is more likely to cut corners so they can get more money? a) someone who owns the private company and only has to answer to a few government quotas or b) someone who has been apointed by the government and gets a fixed salary to get the bloody system working and doesnt get to keep the profit. I really don't understand what a private company can do to any system that the government, with properly apointed people can't?