Slashdot Mirror
Another View of the FCC and Spectrum Scarcity
Bob_Robertson writes "Tim Swanson on the Ludwig von Mises Institute site is asking, has the FCC put itself out of a job by allowing the 47-49 MHz, 2.4 GHZ and other "open spectrum" frequencies, thus focusing innovation and development into making fantastic use of limited resources? The basis of the FCC's existence is "scarcity", so what happens when there isn't any scarcity any more? LVMI has looked into the FCC before."
Support your local pirate radio, much like http://www.freakradio.org/
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
The article ignores the fact that the FCC is not a business. It is largely a regulatory agency there to ensure that the spectrums don't get abused and misused. As long as people are using the spectrums, the FCC will be there to regulate them.
The FCC might seem like it's putting itself out of business by deregulating some bandwidth but the nature of radio is that those frequencies are scarce. No matter how much digital encoding and adaptive technology that is used there will still be legit uses for wireless analog communications at high power. Therefore there will always be a need for some regulation of the wireless spectrum and a need for some governing body to decide what is allowed where and how much.
Now, the question is, will the FCC become irrelevant. Well, if current governmental trends continue then no. The current feds will NOT give up their current moral valve that the FCC provides. The FCC may become absorbed by the FTC or the Dept of Homeland Defense, or it's responsibilites split between them but be sure that the government will not give up it's eminent domain over the radio spectrum because they want to control availability and content.
Another thing to consider is all the other nations that have not given up their regulations over wireless communications. The brits still license TV recievers and most nations license their Ham Radio operators. The FCC will not disappear until there is no international need for them.
So sez KC2MMW.
73's
Since the spectrum goes to the highest bidder, and basically any commercial operation is given the OK these days... The only thing needed is someone to keep track of who owns what part of the spectrum. It's no longer considered a shared public resource, but more of a leased property. I could see the whole FCC being replaced by a clerk to keep track of ownership and companies buying/selling spectrum as they see fit so long as they notify the clerk. Anyone using the wrong spectrum will naturally be dealt with in the courts. OTOH, the FCC does still pretend to support the public interest by issuing fines for saying certain things or showing a boob on TV.
Do you really think scarcity is going away by assigning a couple megahertz to unlicensed use? Have you ever tried using Wifi in a densely populated area? 12 access points in one spot? Plus Bluetooth, video bridges and microwave ovens? Scarcity is right then and there. Also, longhaul connections are pretty much unavailable due to power limits, which can't be raised by much for unlicensed bands without risking health problems and interference with mission critical (licensed) applications.
If there were no shortage of usable radio frequencies, then the FCC would obviously be pretty much out of a job, except for power regulations perhaps, but the assumption that scarcity is somehow going away is bogus.
It ain't easy though.
Here's a highly recommended book by the way, unfortunately out of print "No Way The Nature of the Impossible" by Philip J. Davis, David Park (ISBN 0716719665). It consists of a series of essays on the concept of "Impossible" in various fields such as physics, mathematics, biology, mountaineering and so forth.
It's relevant because in the essay on public policy, the writer points out that it is impossible to implement any policy a bureaucracy doesn't like, because the bureaucracy is your only means to implement it. One reason that the government grew so much under FDR (other than the war and the surplus of labor during the Depression) was that in order to make changes, he found it easier to create entire new bureaucracies rather than to try to change the old ones, which he left to slowly wither on the vine. It isn't just a liberal phenomenon either: my wife served (in an extremely lowly capacity) in the Reagan administration for a while, and the period was remarkable for the rate at which government and the various private entities that feed off of it grew. DC was busting at the seams after a couple of years. No surprise that deficits are through the roof these days and that we need a whole new cabinet level agency post 9/11 either.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know the sticker about harmful interference on nearly every piece of electronic equipment you own? I doubt that the problems of interference, either purposeful not, are going to go away any time soon.
What happens when someone starts manufacturing some great device that belches out RFI all over your precious WiFi? How about the neighbor with a high power amplifier that screws up all your phones? When Verizon decides that Nextel's phones should be jammed? The new one mile range AP that just happens to cause burns if you stand near it?
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
The biggest step is for government to realize that a natural monopoly exists, and that they need to mandate the sharing of lines. To take one step further and mandate maximum lease prices isn't really a big step after that.
It's true that markets work more efficiently when a natural monopoly doesn't exist. But it's also true that natural monopolies exist in many other circumstances (gas, power, phone, cable tv, cable modem, dsl), and governments HAVE had success in introducing competition into those markerts, so there's no reason to give up on them, and allow the existing monopolies to continue to exploit the market.Don't forget that the Bill of Rights was written to stop the new Federal government from infringing on the powers of the existing States.
The principles of the founding of the United States is one of "federalism". A weak central government of explicitly enumerated powers (article 1 section 8), separate from the several States, with their governments of general powers rather than enumerated.
That there were States with their own constitutions limiting their general powers is a testament to the fact that government at any level must be restrained or it will abuse its citizens.
The fact that certain states did indeed regulate speech, recognize religion(s), restrict firearms and all the other things that the Fed.Gov is prohibitted doing in the Bill Of Rights is just part of what the Founders lived with.
Some states were utterly against restricting the right of free speech, others utterly against having their power to restrict speech infringed upon. The compromise was to simply prohibit the Fed.Gov from interfering with the states one way or another at all.
Sounds like a great compromise to me. I wish we could all compromise by simply abolishing the power of government to make the decision for us. Whatever that decision is.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The author seems to have a decent grasp on the effects of technological innovation on the market, but he has no grasp of the structure of the market itself. Without centralized artificial restrictions on spectrum usage, the military, commercial radio, emergency services and hobbyists would all have had to wait until radio's tools caught up to make use of it. At the time of the establishment of the FCC, radio much less useful without artifically defining spectrum usage. The barrier to entry would have been too high.
The FCC will always be needed to protect spectrum for low-tech communications, which are still needed. As to the FCC's censorship and their handling of pirate radio, they've totally acted in contradiction to their purpose. However, the FCC is a public institution and can be raigned in, but I doubt that's the approach someone writing for the Von Mises Institute would take. The irrational belief in the 'a priori' axiom leads to a logic that makes throwing the baby out with the bathwater appear rational.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Milton Friedman says that during Reagan's reign, government socialist activity dropped. Link here.
What can I say? I can't argue with an Authority like Friedman. All I can say is what my eyes saw, which was DC experiencing massive, explosive growth. Now depending on your definition of "government socialist activity", it may well have been reduced. But unless there was some other major industry exists in DC other than federal government and toadying to the federal government, I'd have to say in my unscientific mind it seems likely that the sum of the activities in those area increased. They can't all have been selling coke to Marion Barry.
By the way, I prefer to think of our presidents as "serving terms" rather than reigning. Small-r republican tastes I guess.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The part you left out is reorganization. Government agencies use reorginazation to create the illusion of change. Often the new organization requires more personnel, thus the increase in the size of the workforce.
Currently at many levels of government it is stylish to hire contractors, to allow the government to crow about reducing the size of the workforce. That leads to paying for work three times: 1) the government employee in charge, 2) the contractor, 3) another government employee to fix what the contractor did. Nobody believed that reducing the size of the workforce would increase costs.