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 So if one technology gets superseded, another one can get rolled out instead (subject to broadcast power limits) without Ofcom having to define what spectrum it should use.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

50 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Great idea... by barcodez · · Score: 4, Funny

    because privatising british rail and british telecom went so well.

    --

    ----
    1. Re:Great idea... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But BT? I would say that was a fairly succesful privatisation non?

      Not from the point of view of the telecom engineers- who quickly lost most of their jobs to India.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Great idea... by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're just going to privatise the air traffic control spectrum, police, emergency services, trains and military because 'private companies' are much more efficient at handling it dont you know? what could possibly go wrong?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Great idea... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would a publicly run British Telecom be any better? They would have no incentive to update technology since there would be no competition. You would be stuck with a very reliable big black rotory dial phone.

    4. Re:Great idea... by Snart+Barfunz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      --- Yx3 = Delilah ---
    5. Re:Great idea... by Neophytus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dang.. that daily commute from India to fix Ms. Johnstone's phone line must be a bitch.

    6. Re:Great idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If BT was publicly run we'd still be using the same old telephone lines, paying the same rates for phone calls, and using some horrible hack for our internet access like ADSL. Whereas now it's private it's got competition from all those other major telephone companies. No wait, my mistake, there aren't any other major telephone companies. Still we've got OFTEL to stop them abusing their position to stifle competition. No wait, my bad, they don't.

    7. Re:Great idea... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah- the commute is from the BT-paid for condo where he lives with 56 other technicians in a 4-bedroom flat, and of course any salary he makes after detuctions is paid in Rupees and sent back to feed his 19 kids in India. :-) Come on- we've had ex-BT people in the H-1b forums for three years now.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Great idea... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Great idea... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      BT did have a competitor. Mercury Telecommunications. In the 80s the Government paid Mercury an undisclosed sum of money to put in its 'figure of eight' backbone to cover the entire country, and while it was never as big as BT, it made its mark. Mercury was heavily publically subsidised to setup operations, but it was a 100% privately owned company, and it had preferential access to BTs local loop, a lot more than BTs competitors do now.

    10. Re:Great idea... by Wanderer2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but what incentives (I assume financial) are there to encourage the BBC to chase ratings?

      If the BBC's ratings fall away, it becomes harder and harder to justify the license fee we pay them. Every few years, the government renews the charter that, amongst other things, gives the BBC authority to collect fees. If the BBC was unpopular, the government wouldn't find it hard to alter the charter at the next renewal. One major incentive is their continued existance!

      Of course, they can't go too far. One of the other parts of the charter is their commitment to public service broadcasting. There's no point in us paying the fee if all we get for it is Simpsons repeats. A totally populist schedule might gain big ratings but would draw massive criticism. The BBC is often accused of dumbing down too much.

      The key, as ever, is a balance between ratings-winners and 'worthwhile' programming.

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    11. Re:Great idea... by Syriloth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who the hell moderated this "+5 Insightful?" It's clearly "+5 Funny."

    12. 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.

    13. 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-

    14. 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.
  2. 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?

    1. Re:stagnate by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      The UK government has the ability to seize back the privatised items if they are convinced that the privatisation was not successful longterm. This is what stops private companies from sitting on public resources. For example, British Rail was privatised at the start of the 1990s, with the actual physical rail network being sold to a private company called Railtrack, which the government had a shareholder interest in. In 2001 it was determined that Railtrack was not carrying out its job correctly and seized back the UK rail network after having a UK court agree, placing it in control of a public company called Network Rail. For those of you that think this is 'bad', this _is_ the agreement these companies entered into when they purchased the privatised utilities.

    2. Re:stagnate by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The UK government has the ability to seize back the privatised items if they are convinced that the privatisation was not successful longterm.

      Newsflash: most governments, but especially the US' and the UK's these days, are corrupt and owned by the very corporations they should be controlling and regulating. Didn't you ever ask yourself why the railways are still privatised after all these years when any moron can see it's a certified disaster? Well, that's why...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:stagnate by aslate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Connex [South Eastern] lost the rail franchise for the South East of England, they were a shoddy company and their service was pretty poor. I remember a whole winter of cancelled trains to school. It was so bad, our school just stopped their "4 lates" punishments, as it was just impratical over this period.

      Once their franchise was lost, the Government took over running of the South East railways setting up South Eastern Trains. The service is pretty good, there's a new fleet of trains on the way, the stations are being updated, new ticket services are being introduced and more checks are carried out on tickets. However, as i happened to read in the Private Eye (Today as it happens), the Government seem set to hand over control to another private franchise. Oh well, i'll have stopped going to college by then i hope!

  3. Natural Resource Tax by WalterDGeranios · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. potential money is everywhere by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:potential money is everywhere by KingOfTheNerds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Want to learn about anything sexual? Check out the sex wiki:
  5. Ham radio by Sygiinu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  6. Oh no, not more privatisations :-( by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    Latest news:

    At least seven ham radio operators have died, and over 70 CB operators injured during a routine QSO on 10m between London and Kings Lynn. It is reported that one of the side band of the AM transmission derailled off the airwave and careened into the 11m band, injuring many CB operators. The hams QSOing on 10m were found dead, but one of them managed to write "WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY GOING TO? ARRRRGGHHH I DIE...." with his own blood on his contact map.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. About time by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:About time by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:About time by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:About time by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    4. Re:About time by Xiph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ...

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    5. Re:About time by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:About time by joib · · Score: 2, Informative


      It works for land.

      To an extent. As such, I see no wrong with private ownership, private entities can probably manage their land more efficiently than the government. However, there is certainly the moral case to be made that as land, or natural resources (land, minerals, spectrum, etc.) more generally, was here long before man, no single man has the right to said resource. Thus the government can fairly tax these resources heavily, up to the rental value of the resource (and in the process reduce other, more distorting, taxes).

      And before you go off labeling this as yet another communist conspiracy, consider that this concept has been endorsed by many high brow economists, even right wingers like Milton Friedman.

      Google found the following quotes:

      "Pure ground rent is in the nature of a 'surplus,' which can be taxed
      heavily without distorting production incentives or reducing
      efficiency."
      -- Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in Economics

      "In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved
      value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."
      --Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics

      "It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of
      government revenue."
      -- Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate in Economics

      "For efficiency, for adequate revenue, and for justice, every user of
      land should be required to make an annual payment to the local
      government equal to the current rental value of the land he or she
      prevents others from using."
      -- Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics

      "While the governments of developed nations with market economies
      collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much
      as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of
      taxes that impede their economies -- taxes on such things as incomes,
      sales, and the value of capital goods."
      -- William Vickrey, Nobel laureate in Economics and past
      president of the American Economics Association

    7. Re:About time by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Private corporations are no less political than governments. Indeed it may be a worst situation, since the political positions of corporations may be rather less obvious than those of political parties...

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

      It would probably be fairer to decide issues such as censorship by ballot than by bribary. That would be a change from the status quo anyway, where a minority appear to have great power to censor things regardless of what the majority might think.

  8. British Telecom Lawsuit by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 3, Funny

    BT is going to sue Google because it links to documents about frequencies they own and ways to degrade those frequencies!

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
  9. Over here by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Over here by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is worth noting that Benito Musoulinni (sp?) who invented Fascism described it as the merger of state and corporate power. In this sense, Fascism refers to corporate control of government rather than the other way around. Thus "fascist govt control" and "private industry monopolization" are hardly opposites.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
  10. 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?

  11. Applause by ggeezz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. 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
  13. 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 ---
  14. Re:Wouldn't that be 'UK to Privatise Radio Spectru by IainMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but I have a lower slashdot ID. Ergo I win.

  15. And in related news... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the Environment Agency has announced plans to privatise the air, opening as much as 73 percent of it to market forces to determine how to distribute it throughout the UK, and what it should be used for.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  16. 630nm? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    How much does it cost to buy "RED" (a band around 630nm wavelength)? I want to rent the "X" in the Union Jack to the Queen.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:630nm? by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 2, Funny

      47.5 Terahertz. Good luck to you, but I"ve got dibs on Green. All those plants are gonna pay through the nose to me, oh yeah.

    2. Re:630nm? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since I'm talking about colors, I'm referring to color temperature, which humans typically associate as cool->warm as blue->red. You're talking about energy, in which 400nm (violet) is more energetic than 700nm (red). You'll have to get the other poster to defend and explain their claim to green, destroying the humor of their own joke.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  17. Corporate Superiority by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should let Enron run the spectrum marketplace. They're so efficient, smart and honest, and Enron needs a new mission, what with that Iraq pacification taking so long.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Re:Private = Better, More Expensive by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  21. 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...

  22. HAM Radio Beware!!! by Thecarpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Believe it! What we can count on is that if the bandwidth isn't being used, it is in jeapardy of being taken, or in this case, sold to the highest bidder. Nothing like whoring out your hobby just because you can't replenish your numbers quickly enough. This is:
    1)a wakeup call to amateurs to get active using the bandwidth they have and recruiting new HAMS to the hobby to do the same, and
    2)a wakeup call to radio manufacturers to get their pricing competitive, get their technology out of the vaccuum tube days (I know it's digital, but there is more technology in a PDA than in any radio - how difficult would it be to add flash memory and a basic OS to an HT...honestly) and pursue technology that interacts with today's world.

    Otherwise, we will end up reading about ourselves in history books and crying on each others' shoulders in Denny's because we can no longer freely talk about complete nonsense between storm nets. - W9BSH