Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK to Privatize Radio Spectrum?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the going-going-gone dept.

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 So if one technology gets superseded, another one can get rolled out instead (subject to broadcast power limits) without Ofcom having to define what spectrum it should use.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."

10 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. stagnate by LordMyren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    technology consortiums will buy spectrum for their technology
    and when the technology grows old and die
    what corporate shareholder would sever the last limb propping up a technology?

  2. Thatcher lives! by drwho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The undead Thatcher moves again, strinking out with lines of great opportunities for corruption and hate. Oh yes, the poll tax, and now the spectrum wholesaling. What will happen to ham radio? what will happen to public broadcasting? what will happen to unlicensed spectrum?

  3. Like a third world dictator... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this will end up like IP blocks where some behemoths buy up huge blocks but only use a fraction. I suspect the companies that buy up all the spectrum will rule over it like a third world dictator.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  4. So goodbye... by Snart+Barfunz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In this order...
    Ham radio
    Community radio stations
    BBC local stations
    Ad-free radio
    BBC national stations
    Leaving -
    ClearChannel
    Pirate radio

    I can't wait

    --
    --- Yx3 = Delilah ---
  5. What kind of privatization? by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It wasn't clear from the article what the process of privatization would be. The US originally granted (free of charge) large blocks of spectrum to private companies that had done nothing much in the way of the R&D that had made the spectrum valuable-that was a classic case of corporate welfare.


    Now, it would be rather different if there is an _auction_ of the spectrum. The other issue is how long the licenses last(I favor shorter term licenses)-and what is done with the revenue from the auction. I personally think part of the revenue from the auction of spectrum should be used to reward the inventors that make spectrum more useful-and the rest should help lower the worst taxes.


    The last thing we need is another boondoggle to make the rich richer.

  6. Hoarding & speculation by WalterDGeranios · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If by hoarding, you mean people buying up spectrum and not actually using it, I don't think its possible. Assuming prices are allowed to float freely, spectrum will be expensive. If you buy it and don't use it, it's like buying an expensive piece of real estate and not building anything there.

    There are two reasons that I can think of that someone would buy up a natural resource (like land or spectrum) and not use it to its full potential (as opposed to merely "not actually using it"). Both are mentioned in my original post.

    A real estate speculator (to use your example) might buy land only to sell when he thinks it will be more valuable, without trying to improve it or make productive use out of it.

    Hoarding can make a resource more valuable by creating scarcity. It can also make poor use of a resource more profitable by eliminating competition.

    There's also an ethical question about natural resources not subject to taxes. Theoretically, future members of a society with full property rights and no taxes could legally be excluded from owning anything, and used as de facto slaves.

  7. Re:Private = Better, More Expensive by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    The actual problem here is poor management, with possible embezzelment. Which is something which can happen with either public or private ownership.
    Possibly the worst situation would be privatisation whilst keeping the same incompetent (even criminal) management...

  8. Re:Great idea... by eetiiyupy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The BT privatisation came in when all of its assets were analogue and mainly electro mechanical. The capital price of digital switches - which cost less to maintain - were about to fall of a cliff. With 100% control of local loop (outside the city of Hull!) the competative forces on them were zero for years and the regulator measured price reductions against retail inflation not the falling cost of technology. BT used its monopolistic anti-competative pressure for as long as possible.

    Now there is real competition, spot BT making huge mistakes, particularly the bungled merger with MCI and over-extension over third generation mobiles. They lost their mobile business over that.

    This privatisation was successful, but the drivers were technology change. The lesson that private sector management is brilliant is not without challenge.

  9. Re:Great idea... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They would have no incentive to update technology since there would be no competition.

    You're confusing "state-owned" and "monopolistic".

    France Telecom is still a state owned company, yet broadband is more developed in France than in the UK.

    Note that here we're talking about broadband in general, including cable, on which telcos have no influence. If we only talk about DSL, France simply dwarfs the UK in absolute numbers, percentage and growth, as can be seen on this graph. (France and the UK both have about 60 mlns inhabitants, Germany has 82)

    The mantra according to which state-owned = bad, private corps = good, is just an ideological stance. It's being shoved in your throat by the same people who believe that Scandinavia is a socialist hellhole (I'm not joking, some people really believe that having high taxes and highly developed public services is ethically wrong, regardless of the effect it has on the lives of people)

    Thomas-

  10. Re:Great idea... by gfreeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's all relative. You don't know how good you have it there in the UK. I'm an expat, and top of the list of things I miss: the BBC.

    Attenborough, world perspective news, Grandstand, HIGNFY, The Sky at Night, Top Gear, Mastermind, Shooting Stars - Red Dwarf - Monty Python and other comedy shows, more intelligent documentaries than you can shake a stick at, AND NO AD BREAKS.

    I'm sure there are plenty of others I could reel off, but until my first coffee of a morning I think that list will do without research.

    The point is, regardless of what you might bemoan as a shoddy broadcasting outfit, the BBC is actually the "most respected broadcasting organisation". I've been to Japan, South Africa, across Europe and now I live in North America - there are some good TV outfits around, but none hold a candle to the BBC.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.