Spectrum as Property

the economist troll writes "An article in this week's Economist argues that overcautious control of electromagnetic spectrum, on the part of regulatory agencies, has resulted in the sheer waste of up to 95% of available spectrum. The article suggests remedies for this sorry state of affairs, including (but not limited to) various methods of privatization. Peppered with history and interesting facts--for instance, did you know only 2% of America's spectrum allocation is determined by auction?--this is one article you won't want to miss."

One article you don't want to miss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Peppered with history and interesting facts--for instance, did you know only 2% of America's spectrum allocation is determined by auction?--this is one article you won't want to miss.

Yeah, if the rest of the article contains statistics half as fascinating as that one, I'd probably be riddled with regret if I didn't read it. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to find out precisely which frequencies are actually determined by those actions. Thanks for the heads up!

Re:One article you don't want to miss?

[Anonymous Coward]

er, yeah me to I think.

Uh, translation?

I can't help but feel a little responsible...

[lateralus_1024]

...I've been 'regulating' 3 SSIDS from inside my apartment for months now.
Oddly, my neighbor just got a large envelope from the RIAA...

if this goes through

[Anonymous Coward]

i am writing this on
my ipaq from my 1st
floor coat closet in
my house in FORT
MEADE, FLORIDA! i
am being ravished by
hurricane charlie.
the power went out
almost 6 hours ago,
but somehow i can
still reach a wi-fi
access point (must
be on a UPS). if
anyone can read
this -- please send
beer and porn and
wish me luck!!

cheers,
roger

Show me the MONEY!

[Politicus]

The article teases about how the public can benefit:

James Snider at the New America Foundation, a think-tank in Washington, DC, estimates that America's airwaves would have been worth $771 billion in 2001 (when he last did the sums) if every licensee were to use his bandwidth for the service in most demand by the public.

but fails to show how any of this value could be captured? Is this because of who would actually benefit by the proposal?

Michael Powell, the FCC's chairman, has said that he would like to see himself more as a speed cop than as a real-estate agent, and makes clear his penchant for unlicensed bands.

Here it appears that a public resource would be given away for free much like the current road system, but the problem of course is that the public would still pay to regulate a scheme that generates no revenue. Would "speeding tickets" generate the revenue to cover regulation? Would the fed's general fund be used? Who and how would this system pay for it is the bigger question. It sounds like somebody's trying to get something for nothing. Not that that hasn't been tried before, it's just that the public is usually on the losing end of such bargains.