From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@ckent.org)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 16:53:04 MDT
At 09:30 AM 8/27/2002 -0700, you wrote:
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?
The idea of "public" and "private" gets confused depending on your point of
view. I was writing from the view of a Libertarian utopia, not the present USA.
>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.
And, like private property, SOMEONE gets to be there first, and thereby
gains usage rights over others who happen along later.
>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.
Neither do I. The FCC has rules in place to deal with people who violate
broadcast standards of "decency" and the like. They got busted for being
raunchy, and that's not allowed in our system.
I hope someday that the system will change, along with the people who live
here, such that a "nanny" FCC is no longer required, or empowered. People
should be able to understand when they are offending - and voluntarily
quit, if for no other reason that they will be shunned in public by many.
>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.
If the airwaves are "public", then I am justified in setting up a
transmitter on your frequency, just like I am justified in setting out my
picnic blanket right next to where you are attempting to sleep under a
"public" tree.
>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.
Perhaps not, but the fetters should not be controlled by a bureaucracy
without oversight, like the FCC.
>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.
The FCC did not give them the megaphone - the radio station license holders
did.
>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.
Not at all. It would not outlaw anything. It just requires that people
responsible for infringing on your rights pay for the privilege, at a
mutually agreeable rate.
>... 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?
How does anything one does with a media affect a person unable to use that
media? Sight-readers can always look somewhere else. Blind people have
nothing to say about what movies are playing. Quadriplegics have no voice
in bicycle design, past the fact the bike caused their condition, if
applicable. If it does not injure you in a measurable way (and "feelings"
don't count, or all hell breaks loose!) then you have no complaints.
>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.
As long as an entity like the FCC gives out exclusive licenses to
broadcasters, the frequency in question is about as private as you can get.
The licensee paid big bucks for the privilege.
Would you be willing to allow squatters on your private lands? Same idea.
>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.
This is the crux - what does "serving the public interest, a little"
consist of, and who decides?
>Again, perhaps you think it shouldn't be this way. But, that's how it is
>right now.
>
>--- Kevin
Always hoping for change, and doing all I can to further it, personally!
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:26 MST