5 ms·
> Right now, even though this spectrum is commercial, it still serves as more-or-less a public service that can be consumed for only the cost of a tuner and a T
by xur17 3y ago
> Right now, even though this spectrum is commercial, it still serves as more-or-less a public service that can be consumed for only the cost of a tuner and a TV. Streaming that same content over the Internet then incurs monthly costs for the connection that previously weren't present.
Most people already have an internet connection, so the marginal cost is $0 (arguably it might be a negative cost for these customers since they don't need to buy and setup an antenna). And the service is better because the content providers are no longer limited by the amount of spectrum they own.
> Beyond the added monthly OPEX to consume that content, chances are good that spectrum would be snatched up by telcos for 8G to resell to you rather than for a similar semi-public benefit.
Auction it off to the telcos and use this money to reduce taxes. Potentially use part of it to help people upgrade their tvs, much like we did with converter boxes when moving to atsc.
- akira2501 3y ago> Most people already have an internet connection, This needs qualification. Having a smart phone means you have an "internet connection." Are these people truly going to get "better" service than with broadcast? > And the service is better because the content providers are no longer limited by the amount of spectrum they own. Sure.. now they're just limited by the amount of bandwidth they need to purchase, in the trade they no longer have any obligation to serve you, your community or to provide relevant news and public access. > Auction it off to the telcos and use this money to reduce taxes. This is not how spectrum auctions work. The auction money is used to fund the FCC itself. It's not a type of revenue that can "reduce taxes." > Potentially use part of it to help people upgrade their tvs Perhaps we should just let the free market decide what it wants for itself?