A friend forwarded this email to me for an opinion instead of blindly forwarding it to everyone she knows. I will quote most of it here, since it looks like the originator intends for wide public distribution and would not object:
I know some of this is true, about the analog TV signals to cease in Feb. 2009, and I notice Lawrence Lessig’s name is on the web site, so I’m inclined to believe some of this is true, if not all. There appears to be no reference to this on snopes, so it’s not in the urban legend category. Anyone have any opinions about this matter or more info than I have? How truthful are the claims and counter-claims?
I’m especially interested in the claim that the spectrum release, if handled a certain way, could provide wireless Internet access to remote areas. Is that true (technology-wise)? Is it likely (political or investment-wise) to happen?
I’m aware that other countries than the US have more extensive broadband coverage. But is the proper handling of the 2009 analog frequencies reassignment going to change this?
I am assuming there are some facts on one or both sides that can be intelligently debated. If there’s nothing but opinions, I put it in the wrong forum, so sorry.
It’s potentially true, in that the FCC could, in theory, authorize the freed up spectrum to be used for wireless internet, and a company or companies could buy the freed up spectrum in auction and start offering wireless internet service. Here’s a more neutral article regarding the 700MHz spectrum that’s being freed up, along with various suggestions about what to do with it.
Well, I doubt Clear Channel would want this spectrum. They’re own AM/FM radio stations, and this is UHF spectrum. All the broadcast radio spectrum is VHF. The people who’d want it are cellular and SMR. Think Nextel and AT&T, not Clear Channel.
The only way that we’d see this happen is if this spectrum is indeed sold to these telecom companies. They are the ones that are developing new technology and they are the ones that will be the ones building out high-speed access to rural areas (whether through wireline or wireless capabilities).
As opposed to urban areas, where, in a cockle-warming display of bootstrap-pulling entrepreneurship, they are suing to block governmental citywide wireless setups.
As they should be. Goverment-run telecom is the very definition of unfair competition. Using taxpayer money to subsidize a telecom business makes it pretty hard for private businesses to compete. If government-run wireless systems are widely developed, we’ll actually see less innovation and broadband deployment, not more.
As opposed to government-supported railroad buildouts, government-built roads, government-regulated power, government-led Internet research, government-subsidized rural telephony and electricity. All major infrastructure buildouts have been better with government intervention or support.
The downside is, like your post says, using the taxpayers money (or land, in the case of railroads,) to do so.
There is certainly a difference between government-run roads or electricity and Internet service. Perhaps the most glaring is that there are already a variety of companies offering Internet service. There is no reason for the government to duplicate this or compete with these companies.
That is certainly a debatable assertion, but this probably isn’t the place for it.
There are a lot of downsides, but this is one of the major ones. Looking back at government telecom ventures over the past fifteen years or so, one is struck by the fact that pretty much all of them lose a lot of taxpayer money. These ventures have been incredibly bad for the taxpayers of the cities they were tried in.
If we lose Net Neutrality it could potentially be as bad as deregulating electricity.
The Post Office makes money. I don’t see why a government-run network can’t as well. But that’s not necessarily the point. Like the roads, a government-run network can lose money while still helping the economy in general.
In the case of the OP, your argument that there are already networks in place loses value, as they are not already in place (not that you used that argument against the OP.) We should fairly value the spectrum, not hog it all for one use, or practically give it away like we do with public land use and the other emission spectra.
If we were to save some of the spectrum for government use, and sell the rest at a good price, it would benefit all, providing competition and commonweal. But when has that ever happened?
It’s sort of a moot point, because, first, this spectrum is going to be auctioned off, and second, even if part of it is reserved for government use, it’s not going to be to set up a wireless internet service.
There seems to be one very big question that hasn’t been asked…
If wireless internet were to be provided by a government-run broadcast service, wouldn’t that give the FCC the power to regulate its content in the same manner they now regulate broadcast TV?
That would be a major downside to such a proposal, and the fact that the proponents of this scheme don’t mention it at all makes me very uneasy.
It seems to me that the OP can be reduced to two major questions here. [ol][]Will the reallocation of released spectrum result in more wireless Internet/celphone choices and better geographical coverage? []Should the Internet be handled like a public carrier where a neutral pipe is provided at the same price regardless of content carried, pricing enforced by law?[/ol]
And until my Mother-in-law did GPS mapping of the city of Phoenix on a project for ASU they had mislabeled fire hydrant information and recently their sewer systems started to decay. New York City doesn’t have these problems.
That being said, I see your point, New York City is one of the few governments that I am fond of.
Many cities do contract out for this work and find that it saves them quite a bit of money. And in many areas (including the one I live in), private companies do a great job with garbage pickup.
Isn’t it crazy to think about how long it’s been since they’ve added in a new line? At least they’re getting around to the 2nd Ave Subway now. But yeah, I’m all for NYC government. With it you actually get to see the results of taxpayer money, unlike the feds.
Which is a private corporation. And well, it gets me to work on time, most days anyhow. It’s quicker for me to get from Bed-Stuy to Chelsea by train than it would be by car.
Yea, it’s nice to see results. The problem with the subway though is that you have to build under people’s houses. The 2nd Avenue Line will be carved under the condos of a lot of very wealthy people. The G train is funky because it was the first line put in to bring garment workers from Greenpoint to downtown Brooklyn, or so I’m told. It’s annoying that it stops 5 blocks from the biggest subway stop in Brooklyn and 6 blocks from the biggest subway stop in Queens. It’s expensive to carve rock and deal with the people who want to protect their housing investments. We are a long way from Robert Moses and his ilk that made this city what it is today. You can see it in all the new construction too. No one puts pride in what they build, no real vision is applied to new construction. I think that goes for new train systems and actually making pretty apartment buildings.
It’s quicker for me to get from Bed-Stuy to Chelsea by train than it would be by car.