Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Thriving competition indeed. Unfortunately Erick's statement that "Microsoft killed off Netscape with Internet Explorer" perpetuates the myth the regulators are scared about in the...
- It's clear that you need to brush up on the facts before commenting. No, Level3 is not an ILEC. Qwest is, of course. And, no, Internet access is not at all like POTS. We are, most emphatically,...
- I totally agree with you that we all need to put down our pens (or rather our keyboards for this matter), and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other...
- Your issue as I understand it is with Level 3 - are they an ILEC? Isn't Qwest (or a local coop) the ILEC there in Laramie? Two - you provide services a lot like a local exchange - I would guess...
- Yes, I will agree that you are not "getting me." First of all, I do not buy unbundled network elements (UNEs), nor am I a CLEC. I am a wireless ISP -- a true last mile provider and an...
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
A couple of years ago I plugged Jerry Brito’s spectrum commons paper. What I said in that post is still true:it’s a great paper that highlights the central challenge of the commons approach. Specifically, a commons will typically require a controller, that controller wi
... Continue reading »
11 months ago
Well, here goes. In the "traditional" hard-core property model, the land owner owns all the property rights to his/her land. What that means is that they would own the spectrum too. So "selling" (privatizing) the spectrum in favor of those who would use the spectrum would be "stealing" one of the landowners property rights. How is this property "theft" legitimized?
As correctly discussed, RF does not recognize property lines and any privatization scheme would require oversight. Based on what I have read on TLF, the mantra is less government. So how would the oversight occur?
My prediction, (assuming privatization) is that the users of the spectrum would formulate their own industry association as a private "FCC". Unlike the government FCC which, in theory, makes decisions based on the "public trust", a private FCC would not be so constrained. Which leaves me with the following question, would the private FCC simply be a lackey of the big spectrum owners who would use their "power" to squeeze the smaller owners out of existence?
Also with privatization, how would a citizen continue to have an ability to use WiFi in their own home LANs??? The spectrum debate, on this forum, has been regretfully silent on this issue. This looks like the implications of privatization are not being fully disclosed. Currently, WiFi is free for home LAN use, with privatization we could find that we are now obligated to pay a rental fee for a formerly free resource?
I don't think that there is a rationale economic argument that by merely "owning space" that one is entitled to exact a rent. I will agree that if a company is providing a service to customers that they are entitled to derive revenue from that service.