Skip to comments.Can anyone tell me what gives govt right to sell airwave for $6 billion.
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.
I hear Google is buying those frequencies. What are they planning to use them for???
Rephrase your question.
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. "
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..
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!
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.