* Should bandwidth be property?
Topics: Technology
29 Apr 2006
From: Ervan Darnell
[ Here is another debate piece between Keith & me for the local LP news. As both were written in parallel with a general theme in hand (rather than rebuttal), I flipped a coin for which is listed first here. ]
-------------------------------------------------
Radio Spectrum Can't Be Owned
By Joe Marconi
I've always been puzzled by Libertarians who insist that intangibles such as the airwaves can be owned. For several reasons, I think this in an untenable position, and trying to pull this off simply generates more big government and large corporate activity.
Control of the radio spectrum began in earnest in the 1920s when the military and big business laid claim to various swaths of the the spectrum, claiming this was the only way to avoid interference from other operators. This control is now theoretically almost total. Today, by international treaty and Federal law, a citizen interested in long-distance communication has to seek an Amateur Radio operator license, and is permitted to use only narrow slices of the spectrum, and only after passing various examinations and registering with the government. Amazingly, especially when compared with the Internet, the radio amateur is expressly prohibited from earning money over the air and may never employ encryption technology. And since the frequencies are bestowed as a privilege, not a right, the government is always tempted to withdraw them and "sell" them to a higher bidder. The goal of this is apparently national security as well as a desire to drive business to telephone c
ompanies. The effect is to make Amateur Radio a dying hobby, as the Internet becomes increasingly pervasive.
There are three reasons why I claim the airwaves cannot be owned:
a) Radio spectrum is intangible.
We can plausibly assert ownership over discrete, tangible things such as our body and by extension, land, because our use of these items by its nature excludes most use by others -- the land my house stands on cannot be used for a freeway without evicting me and probably at least compensating me. They airwaves are quite a bit different -- use by one party most of the time has no effect on others, especially given modern technology. The interference claim is only theoretical in most cases. We have a similar dilemma with cars contending to use intersections, and we solve that by having them take turns at stop signs and traffic lights, not by selling exclusive road rights to those with deep pockets.
b) Technology offers fixes to the interference problem.
Various frequencies are more or less desirable for particular usages. And certainly, large urban populations could conceivably swamp the available space or drown out other users by using more broadcast power. But those problems would be corrected by technology that effectively magnifies the available spectrum by rejecting undesirable broadcasts. In particular, digital modes, do well in this environment, and allow contending users to mostly get what they want, all without licensing or control. By legislating frequency ownership, the government in fact locks in technologically inferior solutions way past their day. Witness the problem with AM radio (1920s technology) and broadcast television (1950s technology) wastefully using frequencies desired by the cell phone operators.
c) Freedom of speech.
If I have the right to speak my mind at vocal frequencies (10 - 15,000 Hz) why can't I do the same at higher frequencies via my modest radio? Since people can't hear radio broadcasts without specifically tuning in, I won't be disturbing anyone not willing to listen. Philosophically, my equal right to the airwaves cannot be taken away by the government to pass on to another user without my consent -- I decline to give it. Moreover, I wasn't even alive in the 1920's and couldn't have consented to the arrangements in existence today -- it was a fait accompli when I showed up on the scene.
For all these reasons, spectrum ownership is yet another swindle of a free people. It converts what is effectively a personal right into a free resource for big business. The Internet gives a strong hint of what radio could have looked like if we had kept big government out of radio spectrum regulation. What a rich, dynamic, decentralized communications world we could have had.
-------------------------------------------------
Broadcast spectrum should be private property
Broadcast spectrum should be treated as private property. The public interest is best served by whatever the market values. Forcing a corporate data frequency worth $10M (ultimately spread to everyone in productive efficiency) to provide local information for which consumers would only pay $10K is simply a government mandated waste. Were someone to invent a better fiber optic cable, would letting the government control the content or insisting everyone owned a piece of this new medium make it more efficiently used? Of course not. Broadcast is no different; the discovery of it as a medium is rather like the discovery of a better cable. Treating both like property will ensure that the most urgent need gets satisfied and the owner will be incentivized to produce as much as possible from it (e.g. better compression), just what markets should do.
The ubiquitous nature of broadcast confuses peoples sense of this. It should not. Properly defined (for frequency, power, and geography) slices of the spectrum are fully internalized goods (all costs and benefits are reflected in the price). Technical issues make this complex, but do not change the basic concept.
The economics are obvious. Then there is the philosophy: discovered natural property (as opposed to labor-generated property) always begs certain questions, (1) who pays for its defense, (2) who provides the defense, and (3) what about the inequity of initial distribution. Whether my home is protected by the city police, a private security company, out of the general tax revenues, or strictly out of my pocket does not change the concept of treating it as property. It might fail to be defended, but that is not an argument for saying it should not be treated as property. So it is with broadcast. The technical means of enforcement should not cloud the notion of its status as property.
The problem of initial ownership: If one felt that land duly belonging to Native Americans from 1700 was now deeded to someone else, that would be an argument for buying it back, or making a cash settlement. It would not be an argument for tearing up all deeds and saying that real estate is a free-for-all (again). The economic utility of property stands even if the initial allocation is unjust. That compensation might be due is not an argument for destroying the property.
Similarly, even if one is a Georgist ( We all own the spectrum ), this is only an argument for long-term leasing of bandwidth as property, not an argument for letting everyone trespass with conflicting signals.
It does not matter who got spectrum first, nor even really who profits from its sale. What matters is that spectrum be treated like property going forward.
---Ervan Darnell
====================================================
Ervan Darnell
ervan@kelvinist.com http://www.kelvinist.com
_______________________________________________
Ragnar mailing list
Ragnar@ragnar.kelvinist.com
http://ragnar.kelvinist.com/mailman/listinfo/ragnar
Home