nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/07/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe / 7:06 pm Jul 5, 1985 ****/ >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. 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. 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.