4 ms·

We "own" the airwaves and networks because they traverse our property, ... We use our agents -- the government -- to negotiate on our behalf Our current concep

We "own" the airwaves and networks because they traverse our property, ... We use our agents -- the government -- to negotiate on our behalf Our current conception of property rights does not recognize any ownership of these resources. This is very similar to resources such as the atmosphere; and rivers, lakes, and oceans. All these things are subject to "tragedy of the commons" issues, as well as market failures due to externalized costs. You're right that there's nothing free about the market in communications spectrum. Because there is no recognized ownership, we must rely, as you note, on the stewardship by our governmental agencies. The problem with this, of course, is the inherent inefficiencies of centralized control, as well as the errors created as a result of public choice economics. The Coase Theorem [1] demonstrates that if we were to recognize an ownership interest in these resources, then we could expect that those problems could be worked out by an actual market, where today there is none in operation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

stinkytaco 15y ago
I've never bought the "tragedy of the commons" theory, though I'm familiar with the argument, mostly because I fail to see a tragedy. A robustly protected public utilities system is one of the reason the US is a first world country and Somalia is not. Hardin’s arguments lack any practical value. Can you imagine what an unregulated wireless spectrum would look like? I've also never accepted the Coase Theorem because it too ignored the practical problem of "whomever builds the tallest tower wins". You simply can't build wireless network (or wired that have any practical use) without government control. Or, if you do, the market will work out a natural monopoly over time because of the need for standardization. It's the same reason it's so hard to break into the social network market, one platform is better and the larger it is, the better it gets. Imagine that extrapolated to something as economically essential as the telecomm system. We enable free markets by providing basic infrastructure (roads, telecom, etc.). But that's getting off the topic of the discussion. The spectrum, in practice, is the property of the government and, by extension, the people. Wired networks are more complicated, but shared ownership is implied by right-of-way agreements, or at least the obligation to operate them in the public interest is implied. As long as that's true, governments are obligated to protect the public's interest in a free and open form of communication over those networks.
wisty 15y ago
> we could expect that those problems could be worked out by an actual market Does that mean it's certain that an actual market will sort things out, or simply that in one specific model (which is a gross simplification of how the real world works), it's theoretically possible that these problems will be solved?

stinkytaco 15y ago

I've never bought the "tragedy of the commons" theory, though I'm familiar with the argument, mostly because I fail to see a tragedy. A robustly protected public utilities system is one of the reason the US is a first world country and Somalia is not. Hardin’s arguments lack any practical value. Can you imagine what an unregulated wireless spectrum would look like? I've also never accepted the Coase Theorem because it too ignored the practical problem of "whomever builds the tallest tower wins". You simply can't build wireless network (or wired that have any practical use) without government control. Or, if you do, the market will work out a natural monopoly over time because of the need for standardization. It's the same reason it's so hard to break into the social network market, one platform is better and the larger it is, the better it gets. Imagine that extrapolated to something as economically essential as the telecomm system. We enable free markets by providing basic infrastructure (roads, telecom, etc.). But that's getting off the topic of the discussion. The spectrum, in practice, is the property of the government and, by extension, the people. Wired networks are more complicated, but shared ownership is implied by right-of-way agreements, or at least the obligation to operate them in the public interest is implied. As long as that's true, governments are obligated to protect the public's interest in a free and open form of communication over those networks.

wisty 15y ago

> we could expect that those problems could be worked out by an actual market Does that mean it's certain that an actual market will sort things out, or simply that in one specific model (which is a gross simplification of how the real world works), it's theoretically possible that these problems will be solved?