Slate’s Jack Shafer on “The Case for Killing the FCC”

by on January 24, 2007 · 4 comments

My favorite press critic, Jack Shafer of Slate, penned a fun piece last week entitled “The Case fo Killing the FCC and Selling Off the Spectrum.” The essay builds heavily on the work of Tom Hazlett and Peter Huber, two fine libertarian minds that many of us here at the TLF admire. Here’s some of what Shafer has to say:

“Although today’s FCC is nowhere near as controlling as earlier FCCs, it still treats the radio spectrum like a scarce resource that its bureaucrats must manage for the “public good,” even though the government’s scarcity argument has been a joke for half a century or longer. The almost uniformly accepted modern view is that information-carrying capacity of the airwaves isn’t static, that capacity is a function of technology and design architecture that inventors and entrepreneurs throw at spectrum. To paraphrase this forward-thinking 1994 paper, the old ideas about spectrum capacity are out, and new ones about spectrum efficiency are in. … Technology alone can’t bring the spectrum feast to entrepreneurs and consumers. More capitalism–not less–charts the path to abundance. Hazlett and others, going back to economist Ronald H. Coase in 1959, have advocated the establishment of spectrum property rights and would leave it to the market to reallocate the airwaves to the highest bidders. Such a price system would tend to encourage the further expansion of spectrum capacity.”

Amen brother. Read the whole thing.

SHARE: 4 comments

About Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously served as President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, as Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and as a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation. He is the author or editor of six books on technology and media policy and also writes a weekly column for Forbes called "Technologies of Freedom." Thierer earned his bachelor's degree in political science and journalism at Indiana University and received his master's degree in international business management and trade theory at the University of Maryland. His passions in life (besides technology and liberty, of course) are fast cars, fine cigars, and good beer.

Read more articles by Adam Thierer.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14019452 Steve R.

    Well, we will be on opposite sides of the privatization of the radio spectrum for a long long time to come. One of these days I will get around to “dumpster diving” into the left wing think tanks to see if I can dredge-up some papers opposing privatization.

    1. A fundamental problem that I have with the privatization of the radio spectrum is that it is already in private ownership. That is it is being held by the US government in trust for the people of the United States. Along these lines, the FCC can be viewed as the board of directors the citizens of the United States as the shareholders.

    Jack Shafer wrote: “what the FCC really excelled at was postponing the creation of new technologies.” Let’s assume that this is a true statement. From my point of view, this is a management problem and the “correct” management solution is simply firing those obstructing progress.

    1. Privatization is viewed by many as a panacea to slow sluggish government. I would agree that government is slow. What those advocating privatization seem to overlook is that corporations as they grow into very large companies begin to look and act like government agencies. Microsoft has had increased problems releasing software such as WindowsXP and Vista. I will say that the introduction of HDTV has been delayed by approximately 8 years because of infighting and bickering over technical standards. So the FCC already has competition for slowness.

    2. Jack Shafer wrote, in terms of absurd regulations: “Until the mid-1980s, broadcasters had to obey the “fairness doctrine,” which required them to air opposing views whenever they aired a viewpoint on a controversial issue.” Again, for the sake of argument, I will agree that this regulation is absurd. Both Microsoft and Apple have introduced products such as the Zune and the iPod. By design these devices are not compatible. If the FCC “fairness doctrine” regulation can be considered absurd because it imposes an unfair burden, I would advocate by logical extension that the “regulation” by Microsoft and Apple to control how content is disseminated is also absurd since it places an undue restriction on the dissemination of information. One of the theoretical points of privatization is the elimination of regulation, not simply regulation through different means. The use of DRM technologies is a form of onerous “regulation”, in this case by private companies rather than the government.

    3. Again for the sake of argument, lets assume that the radio spectrum is privatized. What will happen. The various corporate interests will get together and form an association. For example there is the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). According to Wikipedia, the purposed of the RIAA “The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve. This is a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback. The RIAA has continued to participate in creating and administering technical standards for later systems of music recording and reproduction, including magnetic tape, cassette tapes, digital audio tapes, CDs and software-based digital technologies. The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties. Hmmm this sounds very similar to many of the tasks that the FFC does now. In the end, we will simply have a private FCC. I fail to see how dumping the government FCC and replacing it with a private bureaucracy really enhances the free market system.

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    Well, we will be on opposite sides of the privatization of the radio spectrum for a long long time to come. One of these days I will get around to “dumpster diving” into the left wing think tanks to see if I can dredge-up some papers opposing privatization.

    1. A fundamental problem that I have with the privatization of the radio spectrum is that it is already in private ownership. That is it is being held by the US government in trust for the people of the United States. Along these lines, the FCC can be viewed as the board of directors the citizens of the United States as the shareholders.

    Jack Shafer wrote: “what the FCC really excelled at was postponing the creation of new technologies.” Let’s assume that this is a true statement. From my point of view, this is a management problem and the “correct” management solution is simply firing those obstructing progress.

    2. Privatization is viewed by many as a panacea to slow sluggish government. I would agree that government is slow. What those advocating privatization seem to overlook is that corporations as they grow into very large companies begin to look and act like government agencies. Microsoft has had increased problems releasing software such as WindowsXP and Vista. I will say that the introduction of HDTV has been delayed by approximately 8 years because of infighting and bickering over technical standards. So the FCC already has competition for slowness.

    3. Jack Shafer wrote, in terms of absurd regulations: “Until the mid-1980s, broadcasters had to obey the “fairness doctrine,” which required them to air opposing views whenever they aired a viewpoint on a controversial issue.” Again, for the sake of argument, I will agree that this regulation is absurd. Both Microsoft and Apple have introduced products such as the Zune and the iPod. By design these devices are not compatible. If the FCC “fairness doctrine” regulation can be considered absurd because it imposes an unfair burden, I would advocate by logical extension that the “regulation” by Microsoft and Apple to control how content is disseminated is also absurd since it places an undue restriction on the dissemination of information. One of the theoretical points of privatization is the elimination of regulation, not simply regulation through different means. The use of DRM technologies is a form of onerous “regulation”, in this case by private companies rather than the government.

    4. Again for the sake of argument, lets assume that the radio spectrum is privatized. What will happen. The various corporate interests will get together and form an association. For example there is the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). According to Wikipedia, the purposed of the RIAA “The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve. This is a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback. The RIAA has continued to participate in creating and administering technical standards for later systems of music recording and reproduction, including magnetic tape, cassette tapes, digital audio tapes, CDs and software-based digital technologies. The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties. Hmmm this sounds very similar to many of the tasks that the FFC does now. In the end, we will simply have a private FCC. I fail to see how dumping the government FCC and replacing it with a private bureaucracy really enhances the free market system.

  • http://pidmbbgtkd.com pidmbbgtkd

    Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! tiqztlvauj

  • http://pidmbbgtkd.com pidmbbgtkd

    Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! tiqztlvauj

Previous post:

Next post: