4 ms·

>I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. Eh? Sure it has, in that the radio spectrum w

>I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. Eh? Sure it has, in that the radio spectrum was appropriated as public property, and auctioned off to the highest bidder (or, the one with the most political connections - lot of corruption here to be sure). And you have to do it this way or the technology basically doesn't work, or at least it doesn't work very well with all the noise generated by competing broadcasters on the same frequency.

wpietri 12y ago
I'm using "barrier to distribution" here as from the person I'm replying to, a thing providing a choke point where you can collect revenue. You're using the words in a broader sense. Also, I don't think you're right about the history of licensing. Spectrum auctions are relatively new, at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. See, for example, Coase's 1959 paper, "The Federal Communications Commission"; his proposal of treating spectrum as a tradable property right was considered novel and radical.
- deciplex 12y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. Didn't know that - that's interesting. Still, the spectrum itself was regulated, right? That sounds even worse, IMO. The fees may have been low, but even in the 50s, the right to broadcast on a particular frequency was worth heaps of money. So, if they weren't auctioning to the highest bidder, the frequency would go to whoever knew the right people in government (and paid them or gave them gifts, I would imagine).
  - wpietri 12y ago
    That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd want to see some evidence for it. Public service is an actual thing.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      50 years after the fact? Probably not. When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. I don't think such thinking requires a high level of cynicism, does it? In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        > 50 years after the fact? Probably not. 50 years after the fact is the best time to get evidence. Memoirs, personal files, government files: people are willing to say more, as it would come at no cost to them. > When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. What will come out probably has. No, no it's not. One, Hanlon's Razor. Two, accusing actual people of crime and corruption should take more than your fantasies. And three public service is, as I said, an actual thing. > In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes. No, that's a modern corporatist take on how entities are supposed to function. Revenue maximization is a modern religion. As we already discussed, Coase's suggestion in 1959 that you should auction spectrum was novel and controversial. That you can only see alternatives to that as corruption says more about you than it does about the Federal Radio Commission of a century ago.

wpietri 12y ago

I'm using "barrier to distribution" here as from the person I'm replying to, a thing providing a choke point where you can collect revenue. You're using the words in a broader sense. Also, I don't think you're right about the history of licensing. Spectrum auctions are relatively new, at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. See, for example, Coase's 1959 paper, "The Federal Communications Commission"; his proposal of treating spectrum as a tradable property right was considered novel and radical.

deciplex 12y ago
> I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. Didn't know that - that's interesting. Still, the spectrum itself was regulated, right? That sounds even worse, IMO. The fees may have been low, but even in the 50s, the right to broadcast on a particular frequency was worth heaps of money. So, if they weren't auctioning to the highest bidder, the frequency would go to whoever knew the right people in government (and paid them or gave them gifts, I would imagine).
- wpietri 12y ago
  That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd want to see some evidence for it. Public service is an actual thing.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    50 years after the fact? Probably not. When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. I don't think such thinking requires a high level of cynicism, does it? In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      > 50 years after the fact? Probably not. 50 years after the fact is the best time to get evidence. Memoirs, personal files, government files: people are willing to say more, as it would come at no cost to them. > When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. What will come out probably has. No, no it's not. One, Hanlon's Razor. Two, accusing actual people of crime and corruption should take more than your fantasies. And three public service is, as I said, an actual thing. > In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes. No, that's a modern corporatist take on how entities are supposed to function. Revenue maximization is a modern religion. As we already discussed, Coase's suggestion in 1959 that you should auction spectrum was novel and controversial. That you can only see alternatives to that as corruption says more about you than it does about the Federal Radio Commission of a century ago.