The spectrum is used by many players. Some of those players include the military, government agencies, police, fire departments, Emergency services. The public already owns the spectrum, therefore these public agencies are entitled to use the spectrum at no expense since they already own it.

I find that the call for privatizing the spectrum, without directly saying so, implies that the spectrum already owned by the public should be sold into private ownership thereby requiring that these agencies would have to buy it back in order to use it. That is ludicrous.

What about the wireless router (if you have one) in your house? Also business band radios. Currently you can use these devices for free. Again, those who seem to advocate privatization don't disclose if that part of the spectrum would remain in public ownership allowing the public to use it for free, or if it would become privatized forcing the public to pay for it. (That is why I raised the toll booth concept in my first response.)

When you use the term “spectrum owners” do you mean as a lessee or as fee owners? Even CATO, from what I read did not make a call for fee ownership.

One major advantage of the lease approach is that companies that do not use the resource loose their rights to use that resource if it is not put do use within a certain period. It is not uncommon for some lessees (who have no intention of using the resource) to buy a bundle of leases in hopes of selling them to other companies. This would be very similar to what patent trolls are doing today. Nevertheless, as you point out, when you buy a lease you should have a certain entitlement of selling/trading that lease.

The reason I want spectrum to be auctioned off without conditions isn't simply because that's what is best for the bottom line. Profits aren't an an end in themselves, but rather the means by which market economies direct the use of scarce resources such as spectrum.

It is because communications are so important to our national economy that we must ensure the airwaves are used efficiently, which means separating political considerations from the spectrum allocation process. Some people think free wireless broadband is the best use of the AWS3 band, but others have an entirely different idea of how that spectrum could best be used. Open auctions are the best known method of resolving competing proposals for how to use the airwaves. Just as we rely on supply and demand to signal businesses how to use scarce resources when it comes to silicon, oil, or aluminum, the best way to allocate the spectrum is through a bidding process.

The spectrum is used by many players. Some of those players include the military, government agencies, police, fire departments, Emergency services. The public already owns the spectrum, therefore these public agencies are entitled to use the spectrum at no expense since they already own it.

I find that the call for privatizing the spectrum, without directly saying so, implies that the spectrum already owned by the public should be sold into private ownership thereby requiring that these agencies would have to buy it back in order to use it. That is ludicrous.

What about the wireless router (if you have one) in your house? Also business band radios. Currently you can use these devices for free. Again, those who seem to advocate privatization don't disclose if that part of the spectrum would remain in public ownership allowing the public to use it for free, or if it would become privatized forcing the public to pay for it. (That is why I raised the toll booth concept in my first response.)

When you use the term “spectrum owners” do you mean as a lessee or as fee owners? Even CATO, from what I read did not make a call for fee ownership.

One major advantage of the lease approach is that companies that do not use the resource loose their rights to use that resource if it is not put do use within a certain period. It is not uncommon for some lessees (who have no intention of using the resource) to buy a bundle of leases in hopes of selling them to other companies. This would be very similar to what patent trolls are doing today. Nevertheless, as you point out, when you buy a lease you should have a certain entitlement of selling/trading that lease.

The reason I want spectrum to be auctioned off without conditions isn't simply because that's what is best for the bottom line. Profits aren't an an end in themselves, but rather the means by which market economies direct the use of scarce resources such as spectrum.

It is because communications are so important to our national economy that we must ensure the airwaves are used efficiently, which means separating political considerations from the spectrum allocation process. Some people think free wireless broadband is the best use of the AWS3 band, but others have an entirely different idea of how that spectrum could best be used. Open auctions are the best known method of resolving competing proposals for how to use the airwaves. Just as we rely on supply and demand to signal businesses how to use scarce resources when it comes to silicon, oil, or aluminum, the best way to allocate the spectrum is through a bidding process.

The spectrum is used by many players. Some of those players include the military, government agencies, police, fire departments, Emergency services. The public already owns the spectrum, therefore these public agencies are entitled to use the spectrum at no expense since they already own it.

I find that the call for privatizing the spectrum, without directly saying so, implies that the spectrum already owned by the public should be sold into private ownership thereby requiring that these agencies would have to buy it back in order to use it. That is ludicrous.

What about the wireless router (if you have one) in your house? Also business band radios. Currently you can use these devices for free. Again, those who seem to advocate privatization don't disclose if that part of the spectrum would remain in public ownership allowing the public to use it for free, or if it would become privatized forcing the public to pay for it. (That is why I raised the toll booth concept in my first response.)

When you use the term “spectrum owners” do you mean as a lessee or as fee owners? Even CATO, from what I read did not make a call for fee ownership.

One major advantage of the lease approach is that companies that do not use the resource loose their rights to use that resource if it is not put do use within a certain period. It is not uncommon for some lessees (who have no intention of using the resource) to buy a bundle of leases in hopes of selling them to other companies. This would be very similar to what patent trolls are doing today. Nevertheless, as you point out, when you buy a lease you should have a certain entitlement of selling/trading that lease.

The reason I want spectrum to be auctioned off without conditions isn't simply because they are what's best for the bottom line. Profits aren't an an end in themselves, but rather the means by which market economies make efficient use of scarce resources like spectrum.

It is because communications are so important to our national economy that we must ensure the airwaves are used efficiently, which means separating political considerations from the spectrum allocation process. Some people think free wireless broadband is the best use of the AWS3 band, but others have an entirely different idea of how that spectrum could best be used. Open auctions are the best known method of resolving competing proposals for how to use the airwaves. Just as we rely on supply and demand to signal businesses how to use scarce resources when it comes to silicon, oil, or aluminum, the best way to allocate the spectrum is through a bidding process.

The bottom line should not only be about the money but the public service benefit to all the owners of the spectrum — the people of the United States! Imagine if all public parks in the US were instead controlled by companies that bid the most to lease them. And then they charged money for people to access the park. Lots of people would be locked out and that could have very negative social consequences. Sound ridiculous? The private sector interests arguing for the FCC to drop the “free” component of the spectrum argue it would result in the most viable commercial model but sometimes there are multiple bottom lines – it shouldn't just be about he money. Further, since communications technologies are a factor of production that have a far reaching impact into other sectors of society, then from a macro level, the increased competition would drive innovation and result in a more viable and competitive industry to the benefit of the overall US economy.

I say the proposed network wouldn't be as robust because its focus would be on delivering low-cost, high-coverage connectivity. This means slow speeds–768kbps was the figure outlined in the original FCC proposal. Compare this with the speeds offered by WiMax already, and the experimental results from early LTE tests, and it's clear that the proposed free network would be very basic.

The NY Times article, which I linked to in order to illustrate a historical example of public interest rhetoric resulting in the rigging of a spectrum auction, is discussing a separate issue: the open access conditions placed on the 700mhz spectrum auction from earlier this year. Back then, the debate was focused on whether the 700mhz auction winner should be forced to let consumers use devices of their choosing. With the AWS3 spectrum auction, however, the proposed conditions would the winner offer free Internet access to almost everybody in the United States.

I will admit to having an incomplete understanding of how all this goes together. In summary, The New York Times article states: “While the language of the ruling has not been made public, it appears that any company that buys the new spectrum will have to leave it open to devices it does not approve or control. If, for instance, Verizon were to buy spectrum, consumers would have to pay Verizon for access to its network but they could use devices of their own choosing on it.” (Emphasis added). So it isn't free in the concept of fully free, it is simply free in the sense that you are not charged a toll booth fee to enter the property (the radio spectrum).

The post states: “to blanket the nation with free wireless broadband (as defined by the FCC) would mean less spectrum available for more robust services.” I fail to see how the free wireless broadband would be either less or more robust. According to the Times article it would seem that the same equipment would be used, though it would not be designed in a restrictive proprietary manner. Seems to be a bit presumptuous to declare the “free model” approach dead before it has even been tested.

The post states: “That way, all business models will get a fair shake,” If that is the case why not give the “free model” a chance at success? Isn't it a business model too? Nothing like a real experiment to see if it works or not. If it does not work, then you would have a case for re-auctioning the spectrum as you are proposing.

PS: No network managed by either the government or private enterprise should be filtered.