4 ms·

Here's a libertarian argument against government ownership of the airwaves: http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_

Here's a libertarian argument against government ownership of the airwaves: http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf. Essentially the idea is that the frequencies would be treated as private property, with the exact nature of this being worked out in the courts. There's precedent for this from 1926, before the US government officially took up ownership of the airwaves, in Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station. "The Chicago Daily Tribune, calling itself WGN... broadcast entertainment as a means of marketing its publication. WGN filed a complaint in state court against another radio station, Oak Leaves, which had begun broadcasting in an adjacent wavelength. WGN claimed that it was necessary to maintain at least a 50-kilocycle separation between stations located within 100 miles of each other. They accused the Oak Leaves station of injuring their lawfully acquired business property. Chancellor Francis S. Wilson decided the case in the tradition of property rights to common resources. His landmark decision, which established homesteading rights in “the ether,” found precedent in western water rights, among other established property traditions. Wilson concluded the court was "compelled to recognize rights which have been acquired by reason of the outlay and expenditure of money and the investment of time. . . . We are of the further opinion that, under the circumstances in this case, priority of time creates a superiority in right." The Congress responded to Oak Leaves instantly. After years of debate and delay on a radio law, both houses jumped to pass a December 1926 resolution stating that no private rights to ether would be recognized as valid, mandating that broadcasters immediately sign waivers relinquishing all rights, and disclaiming any vested interests." *Edit: This ownership wouldn't necessarily extend to _entire spectrums_ as it does in the case of the government selling spectrum. In Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, for instance, WGN was granted the right to broadcast on a specific frequency within a certain area, which differs immensely from a company being able to 'buy' a series of frequencies from the government such that no other entity in the country may uses this spectrum.

Retric 13y ago
The government has sold the cellphone bands to private companies making your point moot.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Firstly, it's not 'my point'; I was presenting that argument as an answer to the parent post's question of how else interference could be prevented. Secondly, the ownership of entire cellphone bands isn't the only kind of property right over spectrum that could exist. Ownership of entire cellphone bands would actually be somewhat unlikely. For a court following 'Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station' to consider an entire spectrum across the entire nation as property in court, the transmitting organisation would have to show that it was and had been using that entire spectrum to transmit content across every part of the nation. Such a situation would be unlikely, as the organisation would likely have faced competition for spectrum use before it could expand its own spectrum use over the entire country.
  - Retric 13y ago
    First off, by bringing up / presenting "a libertarian argument against government ownership of the airwaves" it becomes your point even if you don't agree with it. Also, so saying their not owned by the government does make your point moot. At a more basic level, before technology improved the high frequency bands where directly worthless but that would not have stopped people squatting them just like with DNS. Secondly, unlike radio cellphones need to broadcast so you need a setup that does not break down as people move around the country thus at least the protocol needs to be national for a given frequency.* Simply giving a free for all to the first people to use a given spectrum is horribly inefficient and effectively just a first come first served auction. *Radio and TV are examples of this where the protocol does not change even if different people are using the same frequency in different areas, but if it's unregulated they could in theory do whatever they want.
    - logicchains 13y ago
      There's a difference between making an argument and presenting an argument; I was doing the latter, but an argument as a 'point' generally refers to the former. The 'point' is analogous to the point of a weapon; the most effective part. But that only makes sense in the context of an offense of some sort. (For reference, I do not in fact support that position, I just find it an interesting argument.) If the high frequency bands were 'directly worthless' then people could not have 'squatted' them under the kind of judicial reasoning behind 'Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station', as property was only granted for use. If someone was 'squatting' an airwave, that implies they're not using it for any significant business activities, and hence they couldn't be granted ownership. There is no international regulation binding all countries in terms cellphone frequency standardisation, but that doesn't stop a phone bought in one country from working in others. A 'first come first served' auction (or at least, 'first use first served') is how much of the property in the US originally came into ownership (excluding that acquired by violent conquest). The first person to strike oil owns it. The first person to discover gold owns it. The first person to patent an idea owns it. While this may not necessarily be efficient, in the current social context it's quite accepted, so if it's okay to acquire ownership of such resources this way then the same could apply to spectrum.

Retric 13y ago

The government has sold the cellphone bands to private companies making your point moot.

logicchains 13y ago
Firstly, it's not 'my point'; I was presenting that argument as an answer to the parent post's question of how else interference could be prevented. Secondly, the ownership of entire cellphone bands isn't the only kind of property right over spectrum that could exist. Ownership of entire cellphone bands would actually be somewhat unlikely. For a court following 'Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station' to consider an entire spectrum across the entire nation as property in court, the transmitting organisation would have to show that it was and had been using that entire spectrum to transmit content across every part of the nation. Such a situation would be unlikely, as the organisation would likely have faced competition for spectrum use before it could expand its own spectrum use over the entire country.
- Retric 13y ago
  First off, by bringing up / presenting "a libertarian argument against government ownership of the airwaves" it becomes your point even if you don't agree with it. Also, so saying their not owned by the government does make your point moot. At a more basic level, before technology improved the high frequency bands where directly worthless but that would not have stopped people squatting them just like with DNS. Secondly, unlike radio cellphones need to broadcast so you need a setup that does not break down as people move around the country thus at least the protocol needs to be national for a given frequency.* Simply giving a free for all to the first people to use a given spectrum is horribly inefficient and effectively just a first come first served auction. *Radio and TV are examples of this where the protocol does not change even if different people are using the same frequency in different areas, but if it's unregulated they could in theory do whatever they want.
  - logicchains 13y ago
    There's a difference between making an argument and presenting an argument; I was doing the latter, but an argument as a 'point' generally refers to the former. The 'point' is analogous to the point of a weapon; the most effective part. But that only makes sense in the context of an offense of some sort. (For reference, I do not in fact support that position, I just find it an interesting argument.) If the high frequency bands were 'directly worthless' then people could not have 'squatted' them under the kind of judicial reasoning behind 'Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station', as property was only granted for use. If someone was 'squatting' an airwave, that implies they're not using it for any significant business activities, and hence they couldn't be granted ownership. There is no international regulation binding all countries in terms cellphone frequency standardisation, but that doesn't stop a phone bought in one country from working in others. A 'first come first served' auction (or at least, 'first use first served') is how much of the property in the US originally came into ownership (excluding that acquired by violent conquest). The first person to strike oil owns it. The first person to discover gold owns it. The first person to patent an idea owns it. While this may not necessarily be efficient, in the current social context it's quite accepted, so if it's okay to acquire ownership of such resources this way then the same could apply to spectrum.