mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/10/85)
In article <28200031@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>What I want to know is this: if someone controls the distribution of >>television stations, why shouldn't this someone (namely the government) have >>the right to attach stipulations to leasising one? It seems to me that >>there is a double standard here; a government leasing out a limited natural >>reasource is to be denied a right which the critics would gladly give to a >>private business in the same position. >In what sense does the government "own" the spectrum? It certainly >doesn't have first claim and use -- governments seldom broadcast >on TV frequencies. It certainly makes no claim to own the VISUAL >spectrum, perhaps because it is even more obvious that the government >has no claim on it. Well, in any real sense, nowone can "own" the broadcast band-- but someone has to coordinate its use. That coordinating agency essentially owns the broadcast band. Besides, you are avoiding the question: why shouldn't the government, which controls the bands, have the same rights of control as anyone else? >Let us assume that we are foolish enough to allow the government to own >segments of the spectrum. In that case, the government could indeed >sell or lease them on stipulation, and they could indeed include a >stipulation which said (for example) that the definition of obscenity >was whatever the government wanted it to be this week, and that >obscenity was not to be broadcast. >Under those conditions, *I* would not buy a part of the spectrum >without financial guarantees from the government that should they >find against me in such a case they'd have to buy the spectrum-segment >back at a very high premium over whatever market cost was for such >segments. Fine. I guess you don't really want to own a radio station then-- at least not as badly as those that do now. Why is it so terrible when it is done by the government, but O.K. when done by private industry? >In broad outline, the government does roughly this (it licenses people >to use the spectrum) which is why cable is getting REAL popular, and >why the big networks are complaining that they are not allowed to >compete. A reasonable government would probably sell the spectrum-segments >(allowing re-sale) with the only stipulation being that in times of >national emergency, say, the stations would agree to rebroadcast >emergency messages. I think a strong parallel could be draw between the TV and car markets. The american networks simply aren't willing to compete with anyone else except on their terms. If they go under doing it that way, well, I say, tough. I would also add that there are many reasons why cable is expanding so rapidly (along with other "closed" media like HBO); FCC regulations are only a small part of it. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe