3 ms·
It would be an easier decision if most broadcasters weren't using public property to broadcast with. Long ago it was decided in exchange for the gift of free ai
by valuearb 9y ago
It would be an easier decision if most broadcasters weren't using public property to broadcast with. Long ago it was decided in exchange for the gift of free airwaves they'd accept strict regulation along with the obligation to run "public service" announcements, and to curry favor with powerful politicians.
I say grant the airwaves as property to their current controllers, and stop regulating them altogether. Then it's private property and clearly they can broadcast what they and their customers want. Or they can sell to some data service to use their frequencies for high performance networks. Or find even better uses.
Public control of broadcasting is just a hidden tool for our political organizations to maintain their power.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoSelling part of the spectrum is theft from future generations. At the absolute most there should be leases lasting maybe a decade or two.
- valuearb 9y agoIt's no more theft than allowing you to own the property under your house.
- ninju 9y agoVery different "the property under your house" is very tangible discrete thing that you pay to own The airwaves (and the signal being transmitted over it) are nebulous flowing item and giving perpetual ownership rights to what can be delivered on those airwaves is a very powerful right..maybe leasing is the right way
- valuearb 9y agoThey can treated effectively as property and there are good reasons to do so. TV and radio frequencies are losing value for media broadcast, but can't be repurposed for better uses such as competing with cable monopolies in data transfer. Ownership rights would make that feasible.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoI agree. Land ownership is also theft from future generations.