The Spectrum Swindle
On January 24 a strange transaction will take place. At least $4.6 billion dollars will change hands between one or more firms and the FCC. The likely payoff is estimated to be somewhere between $10 and $30 billion.
Up for grabs is the government-granted monopoly for "beach front" radio frequencies, which are being ceded over from analog transmission for digital use (channels 52–69).
So where does all of that money go?
In terms of revenue generation, the FCC is second only perhaps to the IRS in extracting wealth from citizens and businesses. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (23)
Inquisitor
"We are examining the cost-benefit equation and our statutory duties for UWB. "
Ah yes, add in 'cost-benefit' equations to give it the necessary 'scientific' veneer. How exactly do governments calculate though?
Published: December 26, 2007 8:55 AM
Jeff Allenbrand
Top notch article. Agencies like the FCC that seem to operate outside the constitution are a constant threat to liberty. Three cheers for making the case for the abolition of the FCC.
Published: December 26, 2007 9:55 AM
J D
I grow weary of Acronym Overload (AO). Am I the Only One (OO)?
What is USF? (surely not University of San Francisco?)
PCS?
USPTO? (United States Power Take Off?)
UWB? (I guessed Ultra Wide Band)
IEEE?
I understand the use of Acronyms within an area of expertise, but the readers of the Daily Mises Email should not have to wonder about the meaning of "spectrum" jargon.
Published: December 26, 2007 2:49 PM
Andrew Gamble
I wonder if you have considered that, in addition to emergency services, the military and other government entities need spectrum? Using the land use anology the public land you consider within the spectrum will certainly be grabbed up by the government in the name of national defense. If so then I'm not sure how much will be availble for commercial use as everything from aircraft, space craft and network communications, navigation and data linkages use the spectrum and must remain interference free.
This is not conspiracy theory... just the reality that government and military (local, state and national) systems continue to advance technologically and need spectrum to operate. The government will retain what it needs to protect the nation and its people. The scraps will be given to the public to fight over using vast amounts of money in the interest of commercialism.
Published: December 26, 2007 4:11 PM
fusgerm
Very interesting, but not wholly convincing. What if a company laid claim to vast bands of spectrum by developing a new and very greedy form of broadband which hogged a huge range of frequencies, and then rented out some of its spectrum like the FCC? Isn't it like a sheep farmer laying claim to vast tracts of virgin land of low quality pasture, then selling mining concessions?
Published: December 26, 2007 4:17 PM
Tim Swanson
A small note regarding the emergency services 20 Mhz buildout. Some people have asked me where I got the information. Arstechnica noted that:
Published: December 26, 2007 11:11 PM
steve
What a perfect statement describing the government taking property from the public.
"The government (the slave owner) will retain what it needs to "protect"...its people(who are owned by the government). The scraps will be given to the public (slaves) to fight over." Master and slave, the clearest description of what the modern relationship between the government and the governed is all about.
National defense and protection throughout the ages have always been the last, pathetic excuse to strip people of their rights and property. How can those who claim to protect us steal from us at the same time? They can only do this through the lie of government "protection" the poster above writes about.
If more than one person agree to take property from another without their consent then by definition this is a conspiracy whether it is done by the private or public sector.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:03 AM
Kevin B
Where exactly is this "spectrum"? What is it really?
I sincerely doubt the validity of spectrum rights, as the claim appears to be nothing more than a second (repetitive) claim on energy and a medium.
Reminds me of IP rights.
Published: December 27, 2007 12:43 PM
John
Wow, thank you for these two recent excellent articles on the FCC and wireless technology, and thank you for citing so many resources (especially B.K. Marcus's anti-FCC masterpiece).
Kevin B: Where exactly is this "spectrum"? What is it really?
I sincerely doubt the validity of spectrum rights, as the claim appears to be nothing more than a second (repetitive) claim on energy and a medium.
I think they mean the frequencies can be homesteaded like physical property, and that their use at one time in one area precludes the use by another in the same time and area. I think the right of "property" in electromagnetic broadcasting frequencies is legitimate according to Rothbardian just-property theory, as B.K. Marcus discusses in depth in that one article that Mr. Swanson has referenced a few times.
In relation to IP rights, I think you're exactly right: It isn't something for the State to claim dominion over and sell to the highest or even the first bidder; its use should be subject to homesteading and just-property rules as libertarians understand them.
Published: December 27, 2007 5:30 PM
Kevin B
John,
I am just asking readers to question whether we should even ultimately advocate for private ownership of frequencies. I am pointing out that:
A> If I generate an electromagnetic wave, then I own every aspect of it, including its frequency. Right?
B> Whatever medium the wave passes through is either already owned or not.
So, what is left to homestead?
-------
For the record:
I totally agree that, whether genuine property or not, the EM spectrum is not the business of the State (or any other bully for that matter).
I am not calling for public ownership of anything.
I merely have a difficult time agreeing with anyone who says that an imaginary object can be owned.
I would really appreciate it if someone could answer my question as to whether there is actually something physically besides the energy and the medium. If you say "nothing," but still argue for spectrum rights, then I have no idea what to think of it other than a partial claim on the medium. That is why I think it resembles the argument for IP rights: Because IP rights lay partial claim on physical property already claimed in the name of ownership of imaginary property.
Published: December 27, 2007 6:05 PM
John
Kevin: "Whatever medium the wave passes through is either already owned or not.
So, what is left to homestead?"
Well, I don't know that that's the only issue. B.K. Marcus talks about Rothbard's "relevant technological unit," which isn't necessarily a piece of tangible property but also applies to the use of an invisible medium such as electromagnetic energy. If I remember, Marcus and Rothbard concluded that if you can prove you were there, using it first, regardless of its lack of palpability, you have the right to it, and furthermore, that given its lack of palpability, no one can claim trespass if your radio waves pass through their house. So, that's a start to answering your objection.
I would really appreciate it if someone could answer my question as to whether there is actually something physically besides the energy and the medium. If you say "nothing," but still argue for spectrum rights, then I have no idea what to think of it other than a partial claim on the medium.
No, I think there isn't anything physical besides the energy and the medium. But, as Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics remind us, energy and matter are just different forms of the same thing. Don't discriminate because we can't see it or touch it without instruments. Maybe that's relevant, I don't know...
Published: December 27, 2007 8:41 PM
Kevin B
Thank you for your time, John.
I agree with Einstein. Basically, they are just different forms of the same thing.
I do not mean to sound as if the energy cannot be owned. It very well can. What I am trying to get across is that while you can transmit EM energy and claim ownership of it, you do not have the right to transmit it through a geographical area that contains property belonging to others without their permission, unless you have been given the right by them.
We should throw the term "spectrum right" out the window, because it is easily misunderstood to be a right to transmit regardless of whether or not others do not wish to receive the transmission. Do others have the right to transmit radiation through your property without your permission?
As you said, energy and matter are just different forms of the same thing. If I can't park my car in your lawn w/o your permission, then why do I not need your permission to park any other of my atoms/energy there?
*Note to any nit-pickers* I know we can't help parking some stuff in each others lawns, but we have a choice whether to point transmitting satellite dishes at each other. :P
Published: December 27, 2007 9:26 PM
John
Kevin B,
Well, to continue nitpicking (because that's all we libertarians can do amongst ourselves seeing as how we agree on the major issues of rights and freedom!) , I think I'd have to agree with Rothbard and Marcus, that you do have a right to transmit harmless and unnoticeable electromagnetic radiation through someone's property. I base this on (1) common sense, because how could we outlaw radio and TV signals if a few malcontents complained? And (2) Rothbard makes a good argument that the use of the property, not its physical existence or location, is what is important.
Similar to an mp3 track, where my having a replica of yours doesn't deprive you of anything, my sending radio waves through your house to other listeners doesn't affect you in any way. You starting to broadcast on a frequency that I was broadcasting on first in a given locale does interfere with my (first) use of it, and since neither of us has any more right to that frequency than the other, except based on homesteading it, I accept Rothbard's assessment of the whole situation, and the second user would be trespassing against the homesteader.
Published: December 27, 2007 11:29 PM
Person
John, blasting a frequency through my property most certainly does affect me. For example, it makes it hard for me to broadcast on that frequency to people within my property. It all comes down to what is the "relevant purpose" of some resource. If the "relevant purpose" of me writing a book requires exclusivity, your copying of it most certain does affect me.
After reading Kevin_B's derivation of rights, I would have to agree that homesteading land does not automatically homestead the use of a radio frequency right there. Though to be honest, I don't have an a priori derivation of that right now. It just seems absurdly impractical to have to negotiate with every owner of property that the broadcast touches, rather than for ownership of one wavelength. However, if you believe in spectrum rights but not IP, you *must* find a way to reconcile the beliefs.
Published: December 28, 2007 10:03 AM
Kevin B
Person,
Until now I was under the impression that homesteading an object gave the owner total control over its use. Now I am confronted with the idea that full ownership is, for all we know, impossible - that ownership is not based on control but on specific use. If I can find a different use of an object that you are already using, then I have the right to continue using it my way as long as it doesn't impede your right to use it your way. How terribly vague rights can be in that case!
For that matter, why should anyone not be able to use your home when you are not there? As long as they pay the electric bill and do no damage to the furniture, then you are not harmed. If you come home, then they must get right out, or else they will be violating your right to use the home in that way. If others use your home's electrical wiring to transmit signals before you do, and it doesn't prevent you from powering your toaster, then not only do they have the right to, but you cannot ever prevent them from doing so from that point on. They have a sort of easement, a property right to that specific use of the wiring.
Ouch.
Published: December 28, 2007 1:26 PM
Kevin B
John,
As I noted to Person, I was under the impression that ownership encompassed physical existence, not limited only to use. You noted that Rothbard had a good argument for that, do you happen to have a reference?
I must consider both sides of that argument. How different the outcomes would be!
Published: December 28, 2007 1:30 PM
anonymous
Here is my position:
"Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress or grievances."
Translation: shut down the FCC (or at least, severely reduce its power) and sell all (or most) of the frequencies of the EM spectrum to the highest bidder. Each frequency needs to be private property, irrevocable by the government, unregulated, and uncensored. Moreover, broadcasters may be as opinionated as they please, because political expression is especially protected by the First Amendment.
Very interesting, but not wholly convincing. What if a company laid claim to vast bands of spectrum by developing a new and very greedy form of broadband which hogged a huge range of frequencies, and then rented out some of its spectrum like the FCC? Isn't it like a sheep farmer laying claim to vast tracts of virgin land of low quality pasture, then selling mining concessions?
Exactly; allowing "homesteading" of the EM spectrum would only lead to chaos. That is why the frequencies need to be private property sold to the highest bidder. The free market would ensure that the most innovative, competitive, and popular persons and businesses take possession of the most in-demand frequencies.
Do others have the right to transmit radiation through your property without your permission?
The atmosphere is not your property.
When somebody drives down the street, it sends sound waves through my home. I cannot stop this, because I do not own the air. Same concept.
Published: December 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Artisan
Anonymous : "That is why the frequencies need to be private property sold to the highest bidder.The free market would ensure that the most innovative, competitive, and popular persons and businesses take possession of the most in-demand frequencies."
Makes no sense to me...
To whom should one pay the price of such auction? Homesteading is supposed to be FOR FREE! You write about free market as if it was a god or something, but it is a general condition of liberty. Not coercion.
Justice should rule indeed that some random "robotic" homesteading be prevented though...
Published: December 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Peter
Translation: shut down the FCC (or at least, severely reduce its power) and sell all (or most) of the frequencies of the EM spectrum to the highest bidder.
Who gets to do the selling? Because whoever that is, must be the owner, obviously - else they have no right to sell it. But if it has an owner, there's no need to force them to sell it, is there?
Published: December 30, 2007 12:24 AM
Fred Mann
"if you believe in spectrum rights but not IP, you *must* find a way to reconcile the beliefs."
Everyone can use the same idea without destroying or "using up" that idea. Ideas are therefore NOT rivalrous. This is not true for broadcasting. Broadcasting is analagous to occupying a particular space. The "space" (or coordinates) is imaginary in one sense, yet very much rivlarous when it comes to acting (or simply existing in) that space. Done.
Rivalrousness, as always, is KEY for developing a coherent property rights theory.
Published: December 31, 2007 5:38 PM
Kevin B
anonymous,
Me: "Do others have the right to transmit radiation through your property without your permission?"
You: "The atmosphere is not your property. When somebody drives down the street, it sends sound waves through my home. I cannot stop this, because I do not own the air. Same concept."
I was not referring to the atmosphere as my property. I was referring to my home, my furniture, my pets, and myself.
Think about it for a second, Those sound waves you refer to are vibrations of materials. True, the sound travels through the air, but when the wave hits your home it is not vibrating the air - it is vibrating your home. When the wave reaches your ears, it is vibrating your eardrum. Do not your home and eardrum belong to you?
Similarly, an EM wave may travel along a path that includes your property.
As I noted, property rights based on homesteading of use through use seems to lead toward inconsistancy and conflict. I was speaking under the impression that property rights, here, were based on homesteading of physical aspects through manipulation. I have much reading and thinking to do, but so little time.
Regards,
Kevin B
Published: December 31, 2007 7:15 PM
Fred Mann
Kevin B,
SOME radiation of some types (i.e. sound, light, etc.) is always allowable. It goes hand in hand with living in and among groups of people in "these modern times". Courts/judges will be needed to make decisions in the gray areas with respect to quantity and amplitude of EM emissions. Of course, if you have an easement, then your allowable emissions are much greater.
It would also depend on the type EM radiation. Radio, at typical broadcast levels, does not do any harm to your physical property - house, couch, cat, etc. AND ... you can block radio waves if you wish, but that may involve building a metal bubble around your property or lining your walls...
Published: January 2, 2008 2:07 AM
Fred Mann
PS - an example of an easement:
If you, Kevin B, build a new house next to the subwoofer factory, then you can not sue them for making a racket. They have an easement for low Hz emissions. You probably know this, since I've seen your name here fairly often, but if not ... there you go. Rothbard's "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" covers this in a fair amount of detail -- highly recommended.
Of course, there is the question of just how much one can emit in the low Hz part of the spectrum (or any part of the spectrum) -- i.e. can you shake 500 square miles with your latest subwoofers, even if this area is currently not homesteaded?
Published: January 2, 2008 2:16 AM