FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Public Airwaves for the Public Good

   
Author Topic: Public Airwaves for the Public Good
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
I just got this letter through myspace:

quote:
Subject: You say you want a revolution...


Hi,

I just learned about a really important issue, and signed a petition about it. The federal government is on the verge of turning over a huge portion of our public airwaves to companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast--who will use them for private enrichment instead of the public good.

These newly available airwaves are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize Internet access -- beaming high-speed signals to every park bench, coffee shop, workplace, and home in America. Phone and cable companies don't want this competition to their Internet service--they'd rather purchase the airwaves at auction and sit on them.

You can sign the petition I signed here - urging the government to make sure the public airwaves are used for the public good:

http://civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?r_by=-8315814-kOsxoD&rc=paste

Thanks!

Is anyone concerned about this? Anyone think the the airwaves should go to the companies? Anyone think this is a load of malarky?

I encourage everyone who agrees with the letter to submit the petition and take any other steps you feel necessary.

Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I got the same e-mail yesterday. From an immediate family member. *facepalm* I don't know all the facts, but wasn't there a big auction of public airwaves a few years ago?

(In my opinion, the federal government sold out to the interests of big telecom companies a long time ago. They'll act in the interests of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc, regardless of a petition.)

Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Given some things Google's batted around, I suspect part of the reason this continues to get attention is their hope to have the use of some of that bandwidth [Wink] .

Current technology essentially requires that frequencies be parceled up somehow or restricted to non-interfering (low power) uses.

Also, I doubt the companies involved are much worried about the competition aspect, at least with some mythical free internet for everyone (provided by who, the federal government? I'm sure wifi service provided by them would be super). They're worried about competition with each other, and are trying to get the frequencies for specific plans they have.

Given the proliferation of businesses offering free wifi on site and subscription services offering low cost wifi in numerous public places, I'm not particularly worried about big businesses stopping the freedom to offer wireless.

I do think some aspects of the government's frequency allocation should be rethought. For a first step, it should be legal to trade rights on a secondary market. That would make it significantly more feasible for people in areas larger corporations don't see reasonable to monetize to acquire the necessary frequency rights and provide access.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
What?! You have no faith in our congressmen's loyalty to their constituents? You think they just go around making decisions all willy nilly, based only on what's best for them?

Well, you're probably right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, right? I mean, what if they make the decision in favor of the companies and announce later that it was because the petition was one signature short? Oh how the blame would fall on your shoulders.

Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and I feel I should comment on the notion of the government having sold out to big telecom.

There are two senses to think that: in the general sense, where the entire idea of frequency allocation (mostly) by auction is criticized, or in the specific sense, where some specific aspect or instance of frequency allocation is criticized.

Some specific criticisms I would wholeheartedly agree with, and far more are arguable.

With the general sense, some facts to consider:

Frequencies must, for technological reasons, be restricted by either who can use or the amount of power one can use. Yes, there are some technologies that maybe could get around such limitations (though I am suspicious, given how quickly we eat up computing power and bandwidth), but they are not mature.

Telecommunications infrastructure is expensive. Are people who can't afford to win an auction for a frequency spectrum going to be able to create a national telecommunications infrastructure?

If we don't use an auction, how shall we allocate frequencies? The ones with the 'best plans'? The ones with the plans that 'benefit the public most'? These are not trivial questions.

Even assuming some more specific agenda for handing out frequencies could be formulated, would that not be even easier to manipulate? At least with an auction, if you can get together enough money you can buy your way in. When the allocation is determined by vaguer qualities, it is much easier to rig the system.

Again, there are many things I would reform about the current system. But the general scheme, of allocating most frequencies via auction, I would not change.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For a first step, it should be legal to trade rights on a secondary market.
I completely agree. Squatting unused spectrum is a practice that only benefits corporations and not the public.

The only thing I would add is that a certain percentage from the price of bandwidth traded on the secondary market should go back to the U.S. Govt.

It's our airwaves. We should get a cut of it, esp. as I believe that it's not always auctioned off at as high of a price as it could be because of certain artificial barriers. But I could be wrong about that.

Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Squatting unused spectrum doesn't benefit the corporations, either; it hurts them.

And there's no need to send a portion of sale money back to the federal government, the entire value of the ability to resell will be included in the auction price the next time the frequencies are re-auctioned (which should still be done periodically). After all, when you're able to resell something, it is more valuable and you are willing to pay more for it. A percentage of resale prices going to the federal government would increase resale prices, making it harder for anyone acquiring frequencies on the secondary market to do so, most hurting the most cash-strapped hoping to do so. In other words, hurting non-profits and other community organizations.

I definitely agree that limitations on who can bid should be removed. Given the right to resell, there's no reason at all not to allow free bidding on the frequency spectrum, as even if the purchaser has no infrastructure to use the frequencies, they'll be selling to people who do (or have enough money to buy some once they've acquired the frequencies). This will help ensure prices are optimal.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
Ah. Yeah, that makes sense, fugu.

I just don't understand how we get in these situations where the government partially deregulates, but not totally, and so we end up with huge companies that have an edge up in a market, but then for a variety of reasons end up limping along.

Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The short answer is: politics.

The long answer takes too much space [Wink]

Seriously, though, the problems with how governments make choices are greatly studied. Some particularly interesting results occur in the field known as Public Choice Theory.

To give you an idea, read up on Arrow's Theorem. Simplistically, Arrow proved that you can't have a voting system based on ranking preferences over three or more options without allowing one of the following:

Dictatorship -- the preferences of one person determining the outcomes.

non-Universality -- some options people want being impossible outcomes.

Irrelevant alternatives influencing the outcome

Pareto inefficiency -- even if everyone prefers one option to another, the voting system might rank them in the other order.

(There are other ways to formulate it)

And this is just talking about the realm of what's possible, much less the sort of foulups that can happen in what people actually do!

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
Wait, let me see if I understand. Airwaves should be auctioned off to big telecom companies because this ensures that the purchaser has enough capital to develop an infrastructure, which is very expensive. The only other way for the airwaves to be made use of for internet or public use would be if there was a federal infrastructure, which fugu13 contends would be of poor quality. Am I correct in that?

Because I'm not sure I agree. I'm also not sure how to some up why I'm not sure I agree. Shouldn't there be another option, possibly multiple options? What about community groups, local gov'ts, private benefactors? I'm not terribly knowledgeable of how these infrastructures work, but can they not be set up by smaller units than fed. gov't or big business? Also, why is it so expensive to set up? Is it because these same companies that want to buy it out set the prices for the infrastructure? If not, who does? Is it all for hardware, and the cost of materials alone make it so expensive?

Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zalmoxis
Member
Member # 2327

 - posted      Profile for Zalmoxis           Edit/Delete Post 
Airwaves are already auctioned off to big telecom companies. A secondary market for bandwidth would quite likely give smaller companies and other institutions the chance to get a piece of the action. And they can either pay to use existing infrastructure to leverage the airwaves or develop their own.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is telecommunications infrastructure so expensive to set up? Consider all that's involved in telecommunications in this nation -- numerous satellites, cell phone towers all over the place, traditional phone lines laid under nearly every street in America, huge fiberoptic and other backbones that take gigantic quantities of data around the country and across oceans, et cetera.

We're not even talking about the cost of thousands of trained engineers and numerous other support personnel.

Furthermore, I contend that large corporations are likely to set up large telecommunications system much more to the benefit of the public than a setup involving a mishmash of thousands of local governments, community groups, and private benefactors, even with the current problems. Consider how miraculous all the cell phone services available are, especially given the cost.

Put simply, governments are rotten at running businesses. Corporations, given competition, tend to do pretty good jobs (unsurprisingly), where good means people are able to buy products at prices that benefit both parties involved.

Of course, there'd be nothing restricting community groups, private benefactors, or the like from buying airwaves on the secondary markets (or the primary, though I doubt they'd get together the dough).

And my argument is much more complex than that airwaves should be auctioned off because you need a lot of money to take advantage of them. That's a small component, and more an appeal to reason. The more basic argument is, I don't think there's a better way to divide them up, and even if there was one that, if it were carried out, would be better, there's good reason to believe it would not be meaningfully carried out and result in worse problems.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
So the infrastructure is already in place then? If the FCC decides to not give these airwaves to the companies, can smaller organizations use the same infrastructure, possible rented, or at a much lower rate than standard internet service? Why would it be necessary for a smaller group to set up the same tower, lines, satellites right next to the already existing ones? Or are the telecom companies not allowing access to their infrastructures in order to keep the business for themselves?

It's like the phone system. Sure, AT&T, or whoever, laid down all the lines and set up the network and linked the coasts together. But any company can use the lines already set up. If telephone lines, in this case, were massive amounts of airwaves, in the original case, are they only undiversified out of greed on the co.s part?

As for the job their doing, I think that like all technologically based companies, telecom companies are doing pretty good jobs because they set the status quo. They could probably be doing a lot better, and know how to do a lot better, and will do a lot better in the future, but that's after a steady rise in prices laid out in a ten year plan on some clever fatcat's desk somewhere. (but that's just my opinion)

Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Infrastructure is not a static thing. Right now is a time of major upgrades, for instance, particularly with regard to television, cell phone, and other wireless technology.

Small organizations certainly can and do use that infrastructure; they pay for it. Creating a principal-agent problem with regard to infrastructure, where there are big corporations renting it just to rent out to small ones, sounds like a horrendously bad plan, though.

Rise in prices laid out in a ten year plan? Can you name a two year period in the past decade or two when, for the same service, there were consistent increases in the price of cell service?

I have more to say, but I must go.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vonk
Member
Member # 9027

 - posted      Profile for vonk   Email vonk         Edit/Delete Post 
1)"for the same service" - That's kinda critical. I specifically meant increasingly better service, but increasing at a rate that matches proposed price increases, not available technology.
2) No I can't. But what about hardware? Cell phones are getting more expensive at a fairly consistent rate, and developing amenities at what seems to me to be a slower rate than technological advances. ie they could have put out a music player/camera/phone years ago, but haven't because they had to have upgrades for each particular advance in order to raise the price each time.

But, ya know, I have no proof of this what-so-ever. It's just my opinion and theory concerning all technology companies and really beside the point of the discussion.

I think that open communication and free/widespread transfering of information is important and should be persued strenuously. It seems to me that should the FCC decide to sell the airwaves to telecom companies, it would be counter to this goal.

What, why, when and where I'm okay on. It's the how that's the problem. But there has got to be a way. Do you (anyone) contend that there is no way to provide free (or minimully priced), quality internet via these unused airwaves? Or that it would be so difficult as to be pointless? Any ideas at all on how it could be done?

Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
You're quite right. Prices have stayed about the same for years as features go up. How horrible of the cell companies. And they keep throwing in free phones with two year contracts that keep having more features!

And yes, they could offer more features/better service by spending more money, but then they would either have to charge more or lose money. Whatever right we might arguably have with regard to the airwaves (and I agree there is one) does not extend to forcing someone else to spend money they don't have so we can have services. And if many people were willing to pay additional money to receive that better service, they'd be offering it already.

As for the general problem, let me put it another way: can you think of any way to allocate frequency other than the simple expedient of price that is not obviously subject to large problems greater than what we have now with frequency allocations, particularly after a modification to allow secondary markets?

I don't contend there is no way to provide free or minimally priced internet using those airwaves. I am, however, not sure that's the best way to use them (after all, minimal internet is already available to almost anyone with $5 a month to spare, and in some places less -- I don't see an untapped pool of people who are dying for basic internet but held back by corporations charging an arm and a leg), and am sure that there would be numerous issues with such an implementation.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
"Whatever right we might arguably have with regard to the airwaves (and I agree there is one) does not extend to forcing someone else to spend money they don't have so we can have services."

That sounds like an argument for lowering taxes. o_O

Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, I definitely think taxes should be lower. However, I carefully chose the words "money they don't have" to not have it be a statement against any taxes [Smile] . I think some taxes are sufficiently important to collect. Of course, so do even most libertarians, the argument is almost always over the degree.

edit: and I have severe disagreement with many about the manner in which taxes should be lowered.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd be interesting in hearing those ideas some time. No snarkiness, I swear. I was of the opinion that you were in the raise taxes camp. But then, I haven't really been here for about two years.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, the basics are pretty simple. Tax breaks should be approached spending-first. That is, reduce spending while/before reducing taxes, not after.

Additionally, surplus revenue is not in and of itself a reason to pursue tax cuts. There is considerable utility in paying down debt with tax surpluses due to business cycle activity. Surplus is not necessarily a sign the government is taking too much, it can be a sign the government is taking a good average amount averaged over the years, and that particular year is a high point while another will be a low point where having paid down that debt will come in handy.

Remove barriers to trade. Freer trade leads to greater prosperity leads to higher tax revenue.

Simplify the tax code; essentially no loopholes and a two-tier system (well, really three: none, some, and more).

And I don't think I've ever really been in the 'raise taxes' camp, but I thought some of the Bush tax cuts were stupid (particularly considered as a part of the overall policy package), and I think the record has almost entirely born me out. I also think some aspects of how they were passed were stupid, and the record has abundantly born me out there (using the tenth year expiration to reduce their apparent impact, and now pillorying anyone refusing to grant the extension as tax raisers, when it was the irresponsible people all around who passed the bill with the expiration date to make it seem cheaper who should be pilloried).

Of course, I liked some parts of the Bush tax cuts, and still do.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2