Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Sell it with no restrictions
There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place. |
|
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Dagda1175  :A government agency should not own this in the first place. I'm about as anti big government as you'll find, but I got to disagree here. A certain level of government is necessary in certain areas. You wouldn't want private companies (or individuals) to own large rivers (like the Mississippi) which everyone around them uses. You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533 | reply to Dagda1175
Considering that companies like AT&T and Verizon buy spectrum and sit on it just so they won't have any competition, your idea is insane. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Netcong, NJ
| reply to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175 :There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. This auction needs to happen as soon as possible. A government agency should not own this in the first place. You know that they are auctioning off something that belongs to you, right? |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude :You wouldn't want a private company to own a certain section of the atmosphere. Some things are just shared by their nature. Spectrum falls into that category. Excellent point. But I'll claim rights to the space over my property up to a height of 250 ft. Any "owned" part of the spectrum that permeates and/or travels through my space is subject to certain access fees. I'll draft some letters tonight and send them out to the wireless carriers. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | reply to Dagda1175
Oddly enough, they aren't "buying" it. They are being licensed to use it. Licenses can expire, be revoked, or even be modified against the holder's wishes.
Big difference. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
edit:
July 10th, @05:35PM
| reply to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175 :There is no reason the government should have ANY say in what a company does with what it buys. Not true.
The seller of an item can choose to put conditions or restrictions on the sale all the time. If a prospective buyer refuses to comply, well, they get told to take a hike.
A classic example is a business that sells off some facilities--- BUT makes the buyer agree that they can't run a competing business in those facilities.
Example: A restaurant chain sells off some locations. As a condition of sale, they prohibit the buyer from opening a competing restaurant, or selling it to someone who would, for xx number of years.
It's perfectly acceptable for the FCC to set rules as to what spectrum is used for/how it is used. This is part of the license they draft. In fact, that's their main job, actually. |
|
