Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Edward Wesolowski <edwes AT idisplay.com>]

At 10:57 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> Edward Wesolowski wrote:
> > Tom: This has always struck me as tricky and peculiar. Traditionally the 
> > U.S. government has been adverse to control of such things as the 
> > "public" airways. They get into it, but the point of departure has 
> > traditionally been the govment  shouldn't run stuff like television, like 
> > the BBC does. But instead of government control of the public RF 
> > spectrum, television and  radio channels have been controlled by private, 
> > licensee companies.
>
> The spectrum is a natural resource.  Its use transcends political 
> boundaries, so the federal government regulates it.  The FCC doles out the 
> right to use the spectrum to various commercial, nonprofit, educational 
> and government concerns, but with few exceptions isn't really concerned 
> with producing content.  /Regulating/ content is another matter 
> entirely.  Just ask Janet Jackson's breast or Howard Stern's mouth.
>
> The whole point of government regulation of spectrum arises from the 
> notion that spectrum is a /limited/ resource.  You can't have everyone 
> broadcasting at any frequency they want because of the potential for 
> interference.  Because it is a limited resource, holding a license for a 
> given slice of spectrum confers the licensee with a significant degree of 
> monopoly power.  This monopoly power carries a lot of economic 
> strength.  With consolidation of the broadcasting industry, that economic 
> power is enormous and translates into political power as well.
>
> Technology has advanced to the point that RF devices can detect and avoid 
> interference through various mechanisms (that I'm not sophisticated enough 
> to understand).  There are good arguments for the adoption of an "Open 
> Spectrum" policy.  I suspect that some governmental ground rules for Open 
> Spectrum would still be necessary (e.g., you have to use interference 
> avoidant technology).  I also suspect that the government will not back 
> away from regulating content so easily, either.  Even so, Open Spectrum 
> might still be better than the current regime.
>
> Enough rambling for now.  Interesting issues.
>
> Fight the power!
>
> TaB
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
> site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers

Yes, definitely a complex issue. I know that back in the 1920's the 
government got into this business of regulating the natural resource, the 
"public" airways so broadcasters' wouldn't be stepping on each others' 
signals. But, technologically speaking, much has changed since then. 
Nevertheless, I too suspect :
> ...that the government will not back away from regulating content so 
> easily, either.  Even so, Open Spectrum might still be better than the 
> current regime.
...since broadcasters provide the avenue/channels for elected officials to 
reach their constituents, tho,  I don't see much political will for the 
government getting out of this business of regulation. Besides, the 
mythology of the "public" airways is much too strong to be messed with.

But, yes,  makes me dizzy to ponder this stuff.
Ed W.