From: Kevin Bluck (kevin.bluck@mail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 10:30:26 MDT
>The "libertarian" view is that you don't jam someone else's broadcast
>because you thereby have injured them. Technical standards will grow out
>of companies co-operating for thier mutual benefit.
Yes, companies voluntarily cooperate for mutual benefit all the time.
Be that as it may, who gave that "someone else" the right to broadcast on
Channel 3 (or whichever) in the first place? Is a transient who squats in a
public park "injured" when he is escorted off by the police? Is he
"injured" when another transient decides he is hogging the best bench and
drives him away? What exactly is the libertarian view on squatting in
public places? Anybody can occupy any public property they wish for any
purpose they desire as long as they were there first?
Spectrum is almost exactly like real estate. It has "location" and "space".
Some locations are better than others. Some locations are useful for one
purpose and not very useful for others. Various uses require different
amounts of elbow room. It is quite possible to trespass and interfere with
somebody else's activity. In short, a system of rules about who gets to use
what is more or less required to maximize utility and avoid chaos.
It has been decided that the airwaves are public property, much like public
parks, and commercial use must be in the best interest of the public. In
much the same way, Wal-mart can't just come along and decide to build a big
box store right in the middle of Central Park because they like the
location, not without getting appropriate approvals from necessary
authorities. I think it is apparent that Wal-mart would probably never be
granted permission to do this. Certain activities are simply incompatible
with certain public properties. Smaller businesses, on the other hand, like
a coffee kiosk, might well be viewed as appropriate, be awarded the
necessary permissions, and allowed to do business in the public space. If,
however, one day this kiosk decided to expand into the pornography business
along with coffee, I don't think it is an outrage if they are shut down for
violating their license.
Well, the airwaves are public property just like Central Park. Your
libertarian reasoning treats them as *private* property, which they are
not. Now, perhaps you think they *should* be private property. That, of
course, is a completely different question than whether the FCC acted
appropriately to penalize O&A's home station for their on-air conduct.
>As was stated numerous times before in various different ways - no one is
>"supplying megaphones",
Nonsense. That's *exactly* what the FCC does. They provide exclusive
licenses to particular media capable of broadcasting to millions of
audience members. Meanwhile, other parties are not allowed to participate
at all. If anything, the megaphone analogy is an understatement.
Libertarians may claim that nobody *has* to listen, but I don't think it is
a coincidence that controlling the broadcast media is high on all
totalitarian regimes' "to-do" list. Broadcast media really *does* influence
attitudes and views of the general public. Awarding control of the means of
such broadcast is equivalent to handing over a very powerful weapon.
Exclusive access to such power should not be unfettered.
For O&A to be the beneficiary of this enormous FCC-provided megaphone, and
then to whine that they aren't allowed to do absolutely anything they
please on the air that might make them more money, in my opinion insults
those with legitimate free speech issues. There have to be limits to privilege.
>and if someone DID start broadcasting at high volume in the audible range,
>anyone within earshot would have a claim against them for aural pollution
>interfering with their right to enjoy their property in peace. The
>arbitrators would be called in to figure out how much the loudmouth needs
>to pay the unwilling listeners.
Wouldn't this essentially outlaw public speaking? Remember --- we're
talking about *public* property here, like a city park. You seem to be
talking about somebody's back yard. I'm not sure we're arguing from the
same grounds, here.
>Radio waves are entirely a different subject, since there are NO unwilling
>listeners...only people too stupid or lazy to change the channel.
... So, deaf people would have no recourse against the "loudmouth"? Or,
would deaf people have a claim if they could see their lips? What if the
loudmouth wears bright lipstick and uses exaggerated mouth movements?
I'm being a bit facetious, of course. But, in my opinion, you are being
equally irrelevant with your talk about private property rights, when
airwaves are *not* private property. Besides, I'm not talking about
unwilling listeners. I'm talking about other *speakers* who might wish to
have the opportunity to use the same soapbox on *public* property. As I've
already established (hopefully), only one broadcaster can use any
particular bit of spectrum. There are only so many available channels in a
market, and even at that some are better than others. The FCC licensing
system awards *sole* use of a given channel to a commercial entity. Nobody
else, no matter how worthy, gets to use that channel.
The FCC serves the role of cop, knocking down and dragging away any other
speaker who might try to set up their own soapbox within earshot of the
privileged speaker. It simply wouldn't be allowed under the current
regulatory scheme. That first speaker has an unfair advantage, a monopoly.
You can't treat monopolists, government-created or not, the same as you
would treat participants on a level playing field. Their power has to be
constrained, or they will unfairly dominate the market to the detriment of
all concerned. This is particularly true when the monopoly benefits from
privileged use of public resources. In cases where they are consuming
public property, it is right and proper that they be required to serve the
public interest a little while they are reaping their profits. In my
opinion, of course.
Again, perhaps you think it shouldn't be this way. But, that's how it is
right now.
--- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:26 MST