Comment 6R0N Re: Why the government funding snark?

Story

High spectrum prices force wireless carriers to invest in pico-cells

Preview

Why the government funding snark? (Score: 1)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-04-09 19:29 (#6QZV)

Wireless spectrum assignment can only be done by the government, for the betterment of the people in the country. The government should be well compensated for that limited resource and should apply those funds for the betterment of the people who own that spectrum and allow it to be put to private use. I don't know how insanely libertarian you have to be to think that there isn't a single governmental function that should exist and be funded with these fees. Defense? Border Security? Science Research Funding? Lowering price of admission for the Smithsonian? Library of Congress? Space Travel? Reduced Taxes on individuals? Surely, there must be something that you think the government should do, and maybe these fees can fund that?

We can disagree on how these fees should be spent, but surely they can be put to a good use for all of us.

Re: Why the government funding snark? (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-04-09 19:40 (#6R0N)

No snark was intended. I was even thinking about mentioning how auctions funded the HDTV converter box rebates, but opted not to make it any longer.

But your reply suggests there's no alternative to auctioning spectrum, which isn't true at all. Instead, meritocratically assigning it (as is done with TV, radio, public safety, etc.) without any money changing hands, could be just as effective a way to utilize the available spectrum. After all, it's not money pulled from thin-air, but money the public will have to pay for (in service fees) in the end. And the rules and restriction the FCC puts on the spectrum auctions, in addition to the price, is similarly because pure capitalism doesn't result in ideal distribution of these resources.

While I didn't intend to go down this road, let's not forget that the incentive auctions are a pretty bald-faced money-grab, selling off highly useful broadcast TV spectrum, causes changes which are likely to cost consumers many millions of dollars (to replace existing TV antennas) and will certainly reduce media diversity, local news sources, etc., etc., and disproportionately affecting the poor and minorities.

History

2015-04-09 19:40
No snark was intended. I was even thinking about mentioning how auctions funded the HDTV converter box rebates, but opted not to make it any longer.

But your reply suggests there's no alternative to auctioning spectrum, which isn't true at all. Instead, meritocratically assigning it (as is done with TV, radio, public safety, etc.) without any money changing hands, could be just as effective a way to utilize the available spectrum. After all, it's not money pulled from thin-air, but money the public will have to pay for (in service fees) in the end. And the rules and restriction the FCC puts on the spectrum auctions, in addition to the price, is similarly because pure capitalism doesn't result in ideal distribution of these resources.

While I didn't intend to go down this road, let's not forget that the incentive auctions are a pretty bald-faced money-grab, selling off highly useful broadcast TV spectrum, causes changes which are likely to cost consumers many millions of dollars (to replace existing TV antennas) and will certainly reduce media diversity, local news sources, etc., etc., and disproportionately affecting the poor and minorities.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk