Posted on 01/30/2008 9:06:30 AM PST by ideablitz
Computerworld — After the third day of the auction, bidding reached a total of $6.1 billion for 1,099 licenses in the Federal Communications Commission auction of 700-MHz wireless spectrum.
Where did the idea of govt selling airwaves come from and is this good?
Why doesn't the government institute vision tax. so, if you have a resort and it happens to be in a nice place, govt. charges vision tax for seeing pretty landscape.
Can someone enlighten me the provision of govt charging airwaves?
Thanks in advance..
Actually, there is a “vision tax”—they factor view into property assessments and then they tax you on that value.
The only thing that counts is power!
Naked, merciless power!
And don’t forget ‘corner lots’.
They factor that in too because your property fronts two roads that ‘have to be maintained’..
Ask me how I know.
Because if it were unregulated, NOBODY would be able to use the airwaves, it would be total chaos. Millions of different frequencies and all that.
Therefore, since they regulate it, they can sell it.
lol, ok: how do you know? :)
They should charge more. I want the MSM to pay up the nose for the privlege of spreading their propaganda.
The commerce clause. Look at it.
They have the force of arms to utterly crush anyone who says they can’t.
Any questions, Citizen?
“You are a slave Neo... Born into a life of bondage that you cannot see, taste or smell...”
Bandwidth is money, pure and simple. If you "own" a frequency in a big city, you can make lots of money on it, and no one else can touch it.
I don't know who gets the $6 billion. But the radio and TV stations that buy the frequencies will make billions.
Yeah, it's basically part of the New Deal.
I don’t know. I think it is wrong, as an amateur radio operator, I know the radio spectrum is a very limited resource. OK, so is land, but there is a whole buttload of land out there for anyone to buy but the radio spectrum is different. Depending on what frequency you use, each has it’s own characteristics that make it desireable to use. 700 Megacycles is a huge chunk to sell off and I think it is a big mistake. Come to think of it, that’s why we have the push for HDTV, so we can free up the VHF-TV spectrum for sale.
Airwaves move across state borders, hence it is under the regulation of the Commerce Clause.
It will soon be illegal to fart across state lines without a EPA carbon credit purchase.
Actually, several communications acts, the International Telecommunications Union, and tacitly ignoring this issue is what gives them the right.
The radio spectrum is a renewable natural resource. That is, it doesn’t go away if you use it, but because any slice of it can only be used by one transmitter at a time, in a given region or area (depending on frequencies) there has to be some sort of regulation on how it is used.
UNFORTUNATELY, over the years the use of the spectrum has become crowded and certain services are there TO STAY for a LONG time to come, thus need that spectrum.
That means they are now selling it
As an Amateur Radio Operator I can’t “own” a particular frequency but can USE any of those within my allocated spectrum any time I wish, as long as someone else isn’t already there using it. We do fine... but they’ve taken some of our spectrum and given it away as well (or sold it).
So, what gives them the RIGHT to do it? Nothing, really, but try using something used by someone else and see how fast you get your butt kicked by major FINES.
not exactly. the market drives property assessments. if a ocean view drives prices greater than an interior lot, then prices will go up.
(Government mandated sarcasm warning label!)
Because they’re the government and YOU’RE NOT!!
Get it now???
The government's right to regulate the radio spectrum was established in laws like the Radio Act of 1927, the Communications Act of 1934, etc.
The $6 billion target was set by Congress. The funds raised in the spectrum auction go the the U.S. Treasury.
I know Bob Torricelli still gets a piece of every dollar that runs through the federal government. I'm sure many other politicos have similiarly structured secret deals.
'Cause I think the government would come to answer your question, as soon as they could find you.
I hear Google is buying those frequencies. What are they planning to use them for???
Rephrase your question.
L
Al Gore has plans. Big plans.
The airwaves are a scarce resource; there isn't enough bandwidth for everyone to have all they want. Because of this, some will get bandwidth and others won't.
There should be a fair way to determine who gets some and who doesn't. Just giving away slices at random by some kind of lottery system wouldn't be much better than leaving it open to anarchy. It would be worse for everyone.
Since the bandwidth has commercial value--it will be used by someone to make money--the logical way to determine who gets it is a free market auction.
It's the decision of each individual bidder what that chunk of bandwidth is worth to him.
(Please understand that government only has powers. Citizens have rights. It will be a very dark day when government, or more properly the people in government, think that “government” has rights.)
Answer: The very same reason they have the power to counterfeit private wealth by printing money from nothing and using it to buy goods and services. We have given them a monopoly on the use of deadly force.
If no one controlled it, then none of the spectrum would be useful because you'd have a hundred different people trying to use the same frequencies at the same time, and same area, rendering the spectrum totally useless.
The commerce clause, and general welfare portions of the Constitution provide sufficient authority for the government to do so.
As for the auction itself; the dollars involved make sure the purchaser is qualified [i.e., not Joe sixpack setting up whatever] and has the resources to put it to use. The money should be going into the treasury. Which of course will be spent on things like: useless tax rebates that do nothing to stimulate the economy, but rather help politicians in an election cycle pander to the voters.
The New Deal's "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause is basically an open-ended assumption of authority by the federal government.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "
Joseph Story
Commentaries on the Constitution
RE: “not exactly”
I’m not sure how what you’re saying conflicts with what I’m saying. I said that you are assessed a value and are taxed on that value. That value, whether driven by the market, the assessor, etc. takes your view into account as part of that and you are then taxed, in part, on the view; a better view is going to result in a higher valuation, and a worse (relative) view a lesser one.
M16’s, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters.
Because I tried to build a garage right across from the side door of my house and was told I needed a ‘variance’ because my property has two ‘front yards’.
My tax bill states since I have ‘access’ to two roads, my property value is prorated to an amount equal to 1/4th of the total value of the property + the original property valve of a ‘single access’ property.
Problem is, I don’t have access to both ‘front yards’ and told the town as much. There is a ditch that crosses the yard on that side and a guard rail that would block any access, even if I wanted to put another driveway in.
With a little persuasion and a few pictures, I got them to reduce my taxes with a variance that states I have a ‘single access’ property.
Luckily the town is run by Conservatives..
:0)
New Hampshire does do the “vision tax.” If you have a nice view from your property, they nail you for it.
Did that pic feature you holding a shotgun on your unusable front yard ;)
The MSM isn't going to be using those frequencies, except as just another business user. Those are more likely to be used for short range *two way* communications, including digital links for various purposes, probably including wireless internet type. 700 MHz, while not having as much available bandwidth as 2.4GHz where your 802.11x wireless router and WiFi work now, does have better propagation characterics, such as from inside to outside, and around corners, such as corners of large structures. Takes a bigger antenna too, but still not big.
“Did that pic feature you holding a shotgun on your unusable front yard ;)”
I wanted to include that one, but the wife said no!
:0)
I believe a portion of the money goes to help people transition between analog and digital TVs, which is what this spectrum is used for now.
I’m hoping to get a new 52 inch Sony.
They should sell them a license for exclusive use, but they shouldn’t sell the spectrum.
It does help the government get out of the way, and let free enterprise develop technology for the best (most efficient) use of the spectrum. Regulating what technology to be used “squelches” innovation.
Things used to be better. 3 of my buddies got a stern warning for urinating on the Mississippi-Alabama state line at midnight one night. They were out in the sticks and didn’t think any one was around. They agreed the state line would be a perfect place. They had been drinking and eating polish sausages. The Trooper kept backing away every time they tried to answer one of his questions. It was too cold to drive with the windows down. :0)
The commerce clause grants Congress power to regulate commerce, not engage in it. Or are these just rather steep licenses to engage in using the spectrum. Once bought, are they transferable, without government permission and other equally steep fee, or do they "belong" to the purchaser. If the latter, Congress is engaging in commerce, otherwise they are regulating it. Regulation should be on a first come first served basis. If the licensee wishes to give up the license for whatever reason, it should go back into the pool, not be an "asset" for sale.
Take a look at the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the commerce clause. Then think about how chaotic it would be if the federal government didn’t have the authority to regulate matters pertaining to interstate commerce. The Founders got it right, that’s for sure.
First Congress has no rights, only powers. Second, they cannot give themselves any power just passing a law. See the 10th amendment. They only have the powers granted to them in the Constitution. No more. Regulating something, even in the original sense of "make to work properly, is not the same as being able to buy and sell it.
And the FCC can engage in commerce.
The entire thing is set up in this manner to be perfectly legal. And it is.
A thinker of his time, that Story guy. I wonder if he ever thought Congress would manage to make his nightmare come true, without a Constitutional amendment? He certainly would have known they would try, but probably expected the people sheep to rise up and swat them if they did.
They are bidding on licenses to use the applicable spectrum. If the granting of a license isn’t part of what it means to “regulate commerce”, then I don’t know what is.
I don’t see any issue on this one.
It goes to the government so Bush can throw yet another $30 billion to big pharma for AIDS in Africa (translation: down the drain of African kleptocracies)
That's true, but I hope most people will get past my semantic error to understand the gist of the information.
Everybody seems to say they want SC justices that subscribe to an “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution, but nobody seems to want politicians that practice it.
It can't be less than 50 feet from the curb (utility easement), and it can't be too close to the septic lines, and it can't be within so many feet of school property.
Essentially there is a very narrow stripe across our lawn where a very narrow pool could be. Thank you, gub'mint.
Are you in school somewhere?? It is called representative government!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.