http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18885666 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:44:37 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:44:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18896282 wresnick : If revenue is in the public's best interest, then rev share and bidding are both viable options. The one that has the potential of generating the most revenue is the most viable if that's the goal.

If the goal is to serve the best interest of the public, then the allocation should depend on potential uses and how they benefit the general public. If free WiFi makes sense, then companies should be able to state their case. If all other things are equal, then auctioning things off makes sense, unless a sound financial analysis shows a better potential with revenue sharing.

People lease land from governments. They pay taxes in proportion to profits. Governments make profits from auctions, leases, taxes based on value, taxes based on size or area, and taxes based on revenue. Aside from semantics, isn't the last category a form of revenue sharing? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18896282 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:31:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18886424 chemaupr : Isn't the public best interest to have FREE ACROSS THE US internet access.

Rev Share.... is better than taxing the hell out of your life, if you ask me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18886424 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:44:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18885666 jjoshua : The government should not be involved in a rev share. The government, in the public's best interests, should make the spectrum available to the highest bidder.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18885666 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:53:13 EDT