Comments on: Will the FCC’s National Broadband Plan Really Be Costless? http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68842 Brett Glass Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:25:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68842 <p>And on the title page of the paper, it says, clearly:<br><br>The views expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the Media Bureau, the Commission, George Mason University School of <br>Law, or other members of their staffs.</p> And on the title page of the paper, it says, clearly:

The views expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the Media Bureau, the Commission, George Mason University School of
Law, or other members of their staffs.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68841 Adam Thierer Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:11:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68841 <p>Instead of wasting my breath refuting that statist tripe about the "people own the airwaves myth," I'll just direct everyone's attention to what not less an authority that THE FCC ITSELF has had to say about this nonsense: <br><br><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-...</a> <br><br>"The premise is incorrect. No law states that the airwaves (to the extent that they exist at all, see pages 8 and 9 above) are owned by “The People.” No law, in fact, states that the airwaves are owned by any person. Section 301 of the Communications Act, to the extent that it mentions ownership of “channels of radio transmission,” explicitly prohibits it. The statute does grant the federal government, to the exclusion of any state government and individual, control over the medium.<br><br>Moreover, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is a dubious basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II. Even if the federal government did own the radio spectrum, that alone should not grant the federal government the kinds of regulatory powers described in Section II. The United States Postal Service is part of the federal government, but is not therefore allowed to license persons before they may send mail or, short of obscenity, regulate the words they write.107 Most likely, some newspapers and musical instruments are made from trees that grew on government land. No one would claim that they are therefore made of The People’s Wood and that the federal government may regulate the content of those newspapers or require that the music played on the instruments address controversial public issues and express differing<br>views. Residents of government housing and employees of public universities do not, because they use public resources, lose their First Amendment rights. Local governments, for their part, control the roads and sidewalks on which newspapers are delivered and sold, but local governments are not therefore authorized to regulate newspapers.108 Indeed, in granting access to public forums such as sidewalks and parks, the Constitution carefully limits government officials’ right to prefer some speakers and some messages over others.109 Finally, even if the airwaves did belong to the people, the same cannot be said of traditional broadcasters’ land, transmitters, buildings, studio equipment, personnel, and audiences gained through years of sending out popular content. Those things belong exclusively to the broadcasters and their shareholders.<br><br>Thus, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is both incorrect as a matter of law and illusory as a rational basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II."</p> Instead of wasting my breath refuting that statist tripe about the “people own the airwaves myth,” I'll just direct everyone's attention to what not less an authority that THE FCC ITSELF has had to say about this nonsense:

http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-…

“The premise is incorrect. No law states that the airwaves (to the extent that they exist at all, see pages 8 and 9 above) are owned by “The People.” No law, in fact, states that the airwaves are owned by any person. Section 301 of the Communications Act, to the extent that it mentions ownership of “channels of radio transmission,” explicitly prohibits it. The statute does grant the federal government, to the exclusion of any state government and individual, control over the medium.

Moreover, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is a dubious basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II. Even if the federal government did own the radio spectrum, that alone should not grant the federal government the kinds of regulatory powers described in Section II. The United States Postal Service is part of the federal government, but is not therefore allowed to license persons before they may send mail or, short of obscenity, regulate the words they write.107 Most likely, some newspapers and musical instruments are made from trees that grew on government land. No one would claim that they are therefore made of The People’s Wood and that the federal government may regulate the content of those newspapers or require that the music played on the instruments address controversial public issues and express differing
views. Residents of government housing and employees of public universities do not, because they use public resources, lose their First Amendment rights. Local governments, for their part, control the roads and sidewalks on which newspapers are delivered and sold, but local governments are not therefore authorized to regulate newspapers.108 Indeed, in granting access to public forums such as sidewalks and parks, the Constitution carefully limits government officials’ right to prefer some speakers and some messages over others.109 Finally, even if the airwaves did belong to the people, the same cannot be said of traditional broadcasters’ land, transmitters, buildings, studio equipment, personnel, and audiences gained through years of sending out popular content. Those things belong exclusively to the broadcasters and their shareholders.

Thus, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is both incorrect as a matter of law and illusory as a rational basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II.”

]]> By: Matt http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68843 Matt Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:46:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68843 <p>The spectrum is public property, licensed out in whatever way our elected representatives deem most in the public interest. It's pathetic cheerleading for the rights of shareholders over the rights of the public to think it anything but an excellent idea to take back public property from licensees who aren't utilizing it in the way that maximizes the public utility and auction off the rights to use it for other activities that maximize said utility. <br><br>If we can use that auction money to fund further improvements in our technology infrastructure instead of just giving it away to the whiniest corporations who can buy the most influence (see TARP, other Wall Street bailouts, Health Care Bill), that again seems just self-evidently the right thing for the public. If the networks' CEOs don't like it, well they can cry all the way to their 8 zeros bank balance about how they don't get to add a 9th zero...</p> The spectrum is public property, licensed out in whatever way our elected representatives deem most in the public interest. It's pathetic cheerleading for the rights of shareholders over the rights of the public to think it anything but an excellent idea to take back public property from licensees who aren't utilizing it in the way that maximizes the public utility and auction off the rights to use it for other activities that maximize said utility.

If we can use that auction money to fund further improvements in our technology infrastructure instead of just giving it away to the whiniest corporations who can buy the most influence (see TARP, other Wall Street bailouts, Health Care Bill), that again seems just self-evidently the right thing for the public. If the networks' CEOs don't like it, well they can cry all the way to their 8 zeros bank balance about how they don't get to add a 9th zero…

]]> By: 5 Regulatory Hot Potatoes That Could Derail the FCC National Broadband Plan http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67479 5 Regulatory Hot Potatoes That Could Derail the FCC National Broadband Plan Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:44:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67479 <p>[...] with the idea of a gargantuan government industrial policy for the broadband sector, and in this essay I noted how, from what we’ve see of the plan thus far [Executive Summary], the FCC appears to [...]</p> [...] with the idea of a gargantuan government industrial policy for the broadband sector, and in this essay I noted how, from what we’ve see of the plan thus far [Executive Summary], the FCC appears to [...]

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68846 Steve R. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:17:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68846 <p>Interesting, Adam you say that the government shouldn't yank the rug out from a company and deprive them of their investment. But what about all those consumers who lose their investment in a product(s) when a company willfully ceases to support a product? So we should feel sorry if a company looses its investment. However, if a consumer looses their investement it is simply a good ethical business practice?</p> Interesting, Adam you say that the government shouldn't yank the rug out from a company and deprive them of their investment. But what about all those consumers who lose their investment in a product(s) when a company willfully ceases to support a product? So we should feel sorry if a company looses its investment. However, if a consumer looses their investement it is simply a good ethical business practice?

]]> By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68847 Brett Glass Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:05:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68847 <p>Adam, taking back unused spectrum would not be "yanking the rug" out from underneath the broadcasters. It would be recovering resources that the broadcasters are not using and do not need to do what they're already doing. And it certainly wouldn't harm their investments in towers, programs, etc.<br><br>What's truly amazing about spectrum is that it's like Tolkien's ring: it makes anyone who acquires a license to use the tiniest sliver of it incredibly, desperately greedy.</p> Adam, taking back unused spectrum would not be “yanking the rug” out from underneath the broadcasters. It would be recovering resources that the broadcasters are not using and do not need to do what they're already doing. And it certainly wouldn't harm their investments in towers, programs, etc.

What's truly amazing about spectrum is that it's like Tolkien's ring: it makes anyone who acquires a license to use the tiniest sliver of it incredibly, desperately greedy.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68845 Adam Thierer Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:16:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68845 <p>Brett... Broadcast entities have invested millions of dollars in their stations, towers, employees, programs, etc, and government cannot simply yank the rug out from underneath them and deprive them of their investment on the theory that "anything goes" in the world of FCC licensing.</p> Brett… Broadcast entities have invested millions of dollars in their stations, towers, employees, programs, etc, and government cannot simply yank the rug out from underneath them and deprive them of their investment on the theory that “anything goes” in the world of FCC licensing.

]]> By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-68844 Brett Glass Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-68844 <p>Spectrum is licensed, not sold. Why should the government have to pay ransom to get it back from licensees to whom it has licensed it for too little and who are wasting it?</p> Spectrum is licensed, not sold. Why should the government have to pay ransom to get it back from licensees to whom it has licensed it for too little and who are wasting it?

]]> By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67469 Brett Glass Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:25:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67469 <p>And on the title page of the paper, it says, clearly:<br><br>The views expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the Media Bureau, the Commission, George Mason University School of <br>Law, or other members of their staffs.</p> And on the title page of the paper, it says, clearly:

The views expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the Media Bureau, the Commission, George Mason University School of
Law, or other members of their staffs.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67468 Adam Thierer Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:11:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67468 <p>Instead of wasting my breath refuting that statist tripe about the "people own the airwaves myth," I'll just direct everyone's attention to what not less an authority that THE FCC ITSELF has had to say about this nonsense: <br><br><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-...</a> <br><br>"The premise is incorrect. No law states that the airwaves (to the extent that they exist at all, see pages 8 and 9 above) are owned by “The People.” No law, in fact, states that the airwaves are owned by any person. Section 301 of the Communications Act, to the extent that it mentions ownership of “channels of radio transmission,” explicitly prohibits it. The statute does grant the federal government, to the exclusion of any state government and individual, control over the medium.<br><br>Moreover, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is a dubious basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II. Even if the federal government did own the radio spectrum, that alone should not grant the federal government the kinds of regulatory powers described in Section II. The United States Postal Service is part of the federal government, but is not therefore allowed to license persons before they may send mail or, short of obscenity, regulate the words they write.107 Most likely, some newspapers and musical instruments are made from trees that grew on government land. No one would claim that they are therefore made of The People’s Wood and that the federal government may regulate the content of those newspapers or require that the music played on the instruments address controversial public issues and express differing<br>views. Residents of government housing and employees of public universities do not, because they use public resources, lose their First Amendment rights. Local governments, for their part, control the roads and sidewalks on which newspapers are delivered and sold, but local governments are not therefore authorized to regulate newspapers.108 Indeed, in granting access to public forums such as sidewalks and parks, the Constitution carefully limits government officials’ right to prefer some speakers and some messages over others.109 Finally, even if the airwaves did belong to the people, the same cannot be said of traditional broadcasters’ land, transmitters, buildings, studio equipment, personnel, and audiences gained through years of sending out popular content. Those things belong exclusively to the broadcasters and their shareholders.<br><br>Thus, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is both incorrect as a matter of law and illusory as a rational basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II."</p> Instead of wasting my breath refuting that statist tripe about the “people own the airwaves myth,” I'll just direct everyone's attention to what not less an authority that THE FCC ITSELF has had to say about this nonsense:

http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-…

“The premise is incorrect. No law states that the airwaves (to the extent that they exist at all, see pages 8 and 9 above) are owned by “The People.” No law, in fact, states that the airwaves are owned by any person. Section 301 of the Communications Act, to the extent that it mentions ownership of “channels of radio transmission,” explicitly prohibits it. The statute does grant the federal government, to the exclusion of any state government and individual, control over the medium.

Moreover, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is a dubious basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II. Even if the federal government did own the radio spectrum, that alone should not grant the federal government the kinds of regulatory powers described in Section II. The United States Postal Service is part of the federal government, but is not therefore allowed to license persons before they may send mail or, short of obscenity, regulate the words they write.107 Most likely, some newspapers and musical instruments are made from trees that grew on government land. No one would claim that they are therefore made of The People’s Wood and that the federal government may regulate the content of those newspapers or require that the music played on the instruments address controversial public issues and express differing
views. Residents of government housing and employees of public universities do not, because they use public resources, lose their First Amendment rights. Local governments, for their part, control the roads and sidewalks on which newspapers are delivered and sold, but local governments are not therefore authorized to regulate newspapers.108 Indeed, in granting access to public forums such as sidewalks and parks, the Constitution carefully limits government officials’ right to prefer some speakers and some messages over others.109 Finally, even if the airwaves did belong to the people, the same cannot be said of traditional broadcasters’ land, transmitters, buildings, studio equipment, personnel, and audiences gained through years of sending out popular content. Those things belong exclusively to the broadcasters and their shareholders.

Thus, The People’s Airwaves Rationale is both incorrect as a matter of law and illusory as a rational basis for the kinds of regulation described in Section II.”

]]> By: Matt http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67467 Matt Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:46:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67467 <p>The spectrum is public property, licensed out in whatever way our elected representatives deem most in the public interest. It's pathetic cheerleading for the rights of shareholders over the rights of the public to think it anything but an excellent idea to take back public property from licensees who aren't utilizing it in the way that maximizes the public utility and auction off the rights to use it for other activities that maximize said utility. <br><br>If we can use that auction money to fund further improvements in our technology infrastructure instead of just giving it away to the whiniest corporations who can buy the most influence (see TARP, other Wall Street bailouts, Health Care Bill), that again seems just self-evidently the right thing for the public. If the networks' CEOs don't like it, well they can cry all the way to their 8 zeros bank balance about how they don't get to add a 9th zero...</p> The spectrum is public property, licensed out in whatever way our elected representatives deem most in the public interest. It's pathetic cheerleading for the rights of shareholders over the rights of the public to think it anything but an excellent idea to take back public property from licensees who aren't utilizing it in the way that maximizes the public utility and auction off the rights to use it for other activities that maximize said utility.

If we can use that auction money to fund further improvements in our technology infrastructure instead of just giving it away to the whiniest corporations who can buy the most influence (see TARP, other Wall Street bailouts, Health Care Bill), that again seems just self-evidently the right thing for the public. If the networks' CEOs don't like it, well they can cry all the way to their 8 zeros bank balance about how they don't get to add a 9th zero…

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67462 Steve R. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:17:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67462 <p>Interesting, Adam you say that the government shouldn't yank the rug out from a company and deprive them of their investment. But what about all those consumers who lose their investment in a product(s) when a company willfully ceases to support a product? I suppose the economic losses to the consumer and the overall economy (because functional products have been made obsolete (non-functional) and are regulated to the dump) mean nothing?</p> Interesting, Adam you say that the government shouldn't yank the rug out from a company and deprive them of their investment. But what about all those consumers who lose their investment in a product(s) when a company willfully ceases to support a product? I suppose the economic losses to the consumer and the overall economy (because functional products have been made obsolete (non-functional) and are regulated to the dump) mean nothing?

]]> By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67463 Brett Glass Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:05:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67463 <p>Adam, taking back unused spectrum would not be "yanking the rug" out from underneath the broadcasters. It would be recovering resources that the broadcasters are not using and do not need to do what they're already doing. And it certainly wouldn't harm their investments in towers, programs, etc.<br><br>What's truly amazing about spectrum is that it's like Tolkien's ring: it makes anyone who acquires a license to use the tiniest sliver of it incredibly, desperately greedy.</p> Adam, taking back unused spectrum would not be “yanking the rug” out from underneath the broadcasters. It would be recovering resources that the broadcasters are not using and do not need to do what they're already doing. And it certainly wouldn't harm their investments in towers, programs, etc.

What's truly amazing about spectrum is that it's like Tolkien's ring: it makes anyone who acquires a license to use the tiniest sliver of it incredibly, desperately greedy.

]]> By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67459 The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:06:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67459 <p><strong>media notice: Tuesday's Diane Rehm Show (NPR) on National Broaband Plan...</strong></p> <p>Just FYI.. Tomorrow's "Diane Rehm Show" on NPRs local affiliate station (WAMU 88.5FM) will feature a debate about the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) National Broadband Plan, which is due out tomorrow. [Here's the executive summary.] The...</p> media notice: Tuesday’s Diane Rehm Show (NPR) on National Broaband Plan…

Just FYI.. Tomorrow’s “Diane Rehm Show” on NPRs local affiliate station (WAMU 88.5FM) will feature a debate about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan, which is due out tomorrow. [Here's the executive summary.] The…

]]> By: media notice: Tuesday’s Diane Rehm Show (NPR) on National Broaband Plan http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67458 media notice: Tuesday’s Diane Rehm Show (NPR) on National Broaband Plan Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:05:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67458 <p>[...] guests who haven’t been announced just yet. (Here are some of my early musings on the plan: 1, [...]</p> [...] guests who haven’t been announced just yet. (Here are some of my early musings on the plan: 1, [...]

]]> By: A Busy Week for Tech Policy: Broadband Plan, Privacy Regulation, .COM Anniversary & FTC Authority http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67453 A Busy Week for Tech Policy: Broadband Plan, Privacy Regulation, .COM Anniversary & FTC Authority Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:36:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67453 <p>[...] will be a busy week for tech policy in Washington! First, tomorrow the FCC is expected to release the National Broadband Plan that it’s been working on since Congress passed the [...]</p> [...] will be a busy week for tech policy in Washington! First, tomorrow the FCC is expected to release the National Broadband Plan that it’s been working on since Congress passed the [...]

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67451 Adam Thierer Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:16:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67451 <p>Brett... Broadcast entities have invested millions of dollars in their stations, towers, employees, programs, etc, and government cannot simply yank the rug out from underneath them and deprive them of their investment on the theory that "anything goes" in the world of FCC licensing.</p> Brett… Broadcast entities have invested millions of dollars in their stations, towers, employees, programs, etc, and government cannot simply yank the rug out from underneath them and deprive them of their investment on the theory that “anything goes” in the world of FCC licensing.

]]> By: FCC Announces Transparency Plans on a Scanned PDF http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67446 FCC Announces Transparency Plans on a Scanned PDF Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:26:12 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67446 <p>[...] and other observations/snark in my recent Cato@Liberty post join Adam’s early comment on the FCC’s incredible cost claims. Undoubtedly, there will be more here at [...]</p> [...] and other observations/snark in my recent Cato@Liberty post join Adam’s early comment on the FCC’s incredible cost claims. Undoubtedly, there will be more here at [...]

]]> By: Brett Glass http://techliberation.com/2010/03/15/will-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan-really-be-costless/comment-page-1/#comment-67445 Brett Glass Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:00:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=27101#comment-67445 <p>Spectrum is licensed, not sold. Why should the government have to pay ransom to get it back from licensees to whom it has licensed it for too little and who are wasting it?</p> Spectrum is licensed, not sold. Why should the government have to pay ransom to get it back from licensees to whom it has licensed it for too little and who are wasting it?

]]>