Comments on: Cash-For-TV-Spectrum Scheme vs. A Property Rights Solution

By: Good news from House Energy & Commerce on spectrum

Good news from House Energy & Commerce on spectrum — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:20:03 +0000

[...] the past we’ve commended the FCC and the administration for their support of incentive auctions to move spectrum now held by [...]

By: Techno Information » Blog Archive » Decision Time: Does the Nation Need TV or Mobile Broadband?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:41:08 +0000

[...] Given that unlike the carriers, broadcasters have never paid for their spectrum, some people think this plan is kind of like paying squatters to get off useful land. However, Stifel analysts think any effort to get the spectrum released would require an act of [...]

By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:27:55 +0000

Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum...

Barbara Esbin and I have just released a new paper on discussing the possibility of reallocating a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. As I discussed here before, Blair Levin, the Executive Direc...

By: Let’s Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum — Technology Liberation Front

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:29:25 +0000

[...] a portion of broadcast television spectrum for alternative purposes, namely, mobile broadband. As I discussed here before, Blair Levin, the Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, has been [...]

By: Decision Time: Does the Nation Need TV or Mobile Broadband?

Decision Time: Does the Nation Need TV or Mobile Broadband? — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:48:31 +0000

By: haroldfeld

haroldfeld — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:20:54 +0000

Spectrum is my current obsession, yes, although I am surprised by your tone.

We need more spectrum. While I don't agree with CTIA too often (although surprisingly more these days), I do agree we need to maximize spectrum access. Which is why chasing mirages like broadcast spectrum is problematic because it is counter productive.

But OK, will stop trying to engage you on this. Will simply stick own blog.

By: haroldfeld

haroldfeld — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:20:54 +0000

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:28:41 +0000

Wow, you are obsessed with this, aren't you Harold! Anyway, what a few broadcasters say today versus what they might actually do in the marketplace when presented with (a) declining economic fortunes and (b) cold hard cash to get out of the business, well, those are two very different things. And we'll only know the answer if we allow for such experimentation. The question is: Why stop it?

Even if some broadcasters chose not take such offers or move their spectrum to alternative uses, I have to imagine that many would. Again, we'll never know unless we allow experimentation to happen. Of course, we would likely need more than the FCC's blessing for all this to happen. Congress will need to act, and there's not going to be a lot of political momentum behind this unless there's a kick-back to Congress. But a kick-back to Congress sorta defeats the whole incentive structure since it would lessen the chance of innovative moves / trades from occurring.

So don't worry Harold, nothing will likely change for a long, long time. It's OK, you'll have broadcasters around to micro-manage for many years to come! Just keep your paws off my Internet, thank you very much.

By: haroldfeld

haroldfeld — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:04:54 +0000

And not to beat a dead horse, but: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/10/23/...

Broadcasters aren't interested in doing anything other than broadcast. Whether they own the spectrum or not is unlikely -- IMO -- to change that.

By: haroldfeld

haroldfeld — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:18:15 +0000

Do you believe that simply giving broadcasters title to spectrum will radically change their behavior? Why, when they have not taken advantage of the existing opportunity to do so?

Contrast this with what has gone on in the BRS/EBS spectrum, where EBS licensees given the opportunity to trade away 95% of their spectrum for cash have done so, and the lesees have gotten into a variety of innovative services (Clearwire being the biggest player there).

I argue the difference is that Clearwire got into BRS/EBS spectrum because they wanted to do lots of interesting things with spectrum. So given the opportunity, they have done so. EBS licensees need money and used a minimal amount of spectrum to do certain core things then leased our the rest. Brodcasters, given the same opportunity as EBS licensees, have shown no interest.

Certainly the property-like regime in BRS/EBS enabled innovation. But it didn't in broadcast. The difference is the nature of the licensees.

Now, in 5 years, when lots of hungry telcos have deployed in the 700 MHz band and driven up the value of broadcast spectrum in the secondary market, maybe we will see more interest by broadcasters in secondary market sales.

Bottom line, property does not change the nature of people. It may enable people to do things they have interest in doing that they could not otherwise do, but it does not suddenly change broadcasters into non-broadcasters. Which is why NAB and MSTV are saying that they want to oppose Blair's spectrum plan.

By: Harold Feld

Harold Feld — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:08:58 +0000

Adam:

What I mean by “Private ownership does not confer entrepreneurial spirit” is that you either have it or you don’t. Lack of ownership may frustrate the would be entrepreneur, but plenty of people who own stuff have no desire to experiment with it.

Which is the thrust of my rebuttal , which I blogged over here: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1694

The critical thing missing for innovation in broadcast spectrum is that the folks who “own” it want to do broadcast. Making them owners of the spectrum won’t change that. You’d have to pull a Kelso type relocation to get them to stop doing broadcast and do “more efficient” stuff. As proof, I point out that they have had all the freedom to innovate one could desire. And the big thing they want to do is mobile television.

By: Lewis Baumstark

Lewis Baumstark — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:39:31 +0000

Adam, on the point of allowing spectrum-holders wide, even unrestricted, latitude in how they use that spectrum, we agree.

On the point of “giving” away the spectrum, without renumeration, let's just say you need to explain yourself further. “Occupation of spectrum for a long time” does not, as you suggest, confer any property right — the broadcasters were, after all, contracting to use it and knew the limits. They have no more claim to it than a tenant who rents an apartment “for a long time.” Frankly, as you have presented it here, what you suggest sounds like good old corporate welfare.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:23:30 +0000

Harold… I must say, a sweeping statement like “Private ownership… does not confer entrepreneurial spirit or innovative imagination” is a bit shocking even coming from an old radical like you! But when you say “the virtue (or fault) of private property is that the holder does what he or she wants” and pretend this is what is happening in the broadcast spectrum field today, I’m sorry, but I have to call bullsh*t. That is absolutely NOT the system we have today, and you know it. I know you have covered this field long enough to know that we have rigidly “zoned” that spectrum (and a lot of other swaths) according to top-down, command-and-control regulatory micro-managed guesses as to what the best use of that spectrum should be. In a true property rights system, by contrast, the owners of the allocations would have the right to freely trade AND flexibly use that spectrum for whatever was the most highly-valued use. I have to imagine that if we lived in a world, a great many broadcasters would have long ago set the wheels in motion on a spectrum migration plan to either find a better business or sell that spectrum to someone who had a higher valued use in mind. Of course, if you really do not believe that “Private ownership…” will not spark the “entrepreneurial spirit or innovative imagination,” then I guess this whole discussion is moot. You just don’t believe markets and property rights work, and I do. We can’t have much of constructive debate when we begin from intellectual foundations that are so far apart.

By: haroldfeld

haroldfeld — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:05:05 +0000

Actually, broadcasters can already innovate with 4/5ths of their spectrum. It's called "ancillary services." they can put it in secondary markets, innovate, do whatever they want -- and with only a 5% revenue share to the Treasury to compensate for the fact that the broadcasters got the spectrum for free rather than at auction.

Do they do anything with it? Well, multicast. Some are dabbling in mobile. Some do a bit of datacasting. That's it.

Why? Because they are broadcasters. That is the business they do. they like being broadcasters. They have zero interest in doing anything other than being broadcasters. Which is why the FCC wants to pay them to get off the spectrum. Because they are sitting on a resource they do not particularly care to use efficiently.

Private ownership, which is what they have in all but name as long as they continue to provide one free over the air channel, does not confer entrepreneurial spirit or innovative imagination. People get into broadcasting because they like it. The virtue (or fault) of private property is that the holder does what he or she wants. In this case, they want to broadcast. Maybe they will eventually break down and use existing secondary market mechanisms to start leasing out the spectrum to others with a more innovative vision. But that is already explicitly allowed by statute and the FCC.