Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can anyone tell me what gives govt right to sell airwave for $6 billion.
http://www.cio.com/article/177151/_MHz_Spectrum_Auction_Bids_Top_B ^

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: airwave; government; regulation; technology; whitespace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Nowhere Man; All

I hear Google is buying those frequencies. What are they planning to use them for???


21 posted on 01/30/2008 9:19:09 AM PST by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
Governments don't have 'rights'. Governments have powers.

Rephrase your question.

L

22 posted on 01/30/2008 9:21:11 AM PST by Lurker (Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ▀udda▀udd
I hear Google is buying those frequencies. What are they planning to use them for???

Al Gore has plans. Big plans.

23 posted on 01/30/2008 9:23:02 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
It's really basic economics here.

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.

24 posted on 01/30/2008 9:23:10 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesnĺt make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
>>
Can anyone tell me what gives govt right to sell airwave for $6 billion.
<<

(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.

25 posted on 01/30/2008 9:24:30 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
Look folks, the radio spectrum is finite. We can't make any more. Someone has to control it, manage it, and provide for a way to assign portions for basic needs, be they public use, governmental, police, fire, emergency, military.

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.

26 posted on 01/30/2008 9:24:30 AM PST by AFreeBird (No Romney, No Rudy, No McLame, No Huck, No Paul! Toss the GOP into the ashcan of History.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Yeah, it's basically part of the New Deal.

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

27 posted on 01/30/2008 9:25:42 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet

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.


28 posted on 01/30/2008 9:25:59 AM PST by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz

M16’s, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters.


29 posted on 01/30/2008 9:26:04 AM PST by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
Can someone enlighten me the provision of govt charging airwaves?
...Fees(/taxes) to ever expanding federal government control....i.e. $$$$/Grea$e to politicians
30 posted on 01/30/2008 9:26:40 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c your paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. :^( FRed was LMSM roadkill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

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)


31 posted on 01/30/2008 9:26:47 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz

New Hampshire does do the “vision tax.” If you have a nice view from your property, they nail you for it.


32 posted on 01/30/2008 9:27:54 AM PST by IYAS9YAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Did that pic feature you holding a shotgun on your unusable front yard ;)


33 posted on 01/30/2008 9:28:51 AM PST by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
They should charge more. I want the MSM to pay up the nose for the privlege of spreading their propaganda.

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.

34 posted on 01/30/2008 9:29:12 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz
Of course I’d prefer that the government keep a bunch of that spectrum for military uses, rather than selling it all off, at bargain prices most likely.
35 posted on 01/30/2008 9:30:12 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

“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)


36 posted on 01/30/2008 9:30:45 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz

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.


37 posted on 01/30/2008 9:32:07 AM PST by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ideablitz

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.


38 posted on 01/30/2008 9:33:00 AM PST by ConservativeByChoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

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)


39 posted on 01/30/2008 9:34:00 AM PST by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
The commerce clause. Look at it.

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.

40 posted on 01/30/2008 9:34:04 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson