Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Event: A Debate on Spectrum Policy

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:18:22 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Event: A Debate on Spectrum Policy

IMHO, this 'debate' is a sham to endorse and legitimatize conversion of
valuable public property to private interests.

The wireless spectrum in the United States is property of the citizens,
although most citizens don't know it.

I suggest we also have a debate promoting the sale of national parks to
private corporations to turn them into theme parks, hunting lodges,
expensive resorts or hazardous waste dumps.  There is little difference
when yout sell an American birthright for one-time profit or illusionary
gain.

Spectrum MUST remain a public trust because it is a finite resource that
is critical to so many aspects of our life.

Imagine the probable evolution if all spectrum was legally 'property',
sold to the highest bidder;

One company, like Microsoft, could own every television station and
determine what kind of receiver we must use and the price.

Local communities would have to raise enormous amounts of funds to keep
commercial enterprises from acquiring their public safety radio spectrum
and then reselling service back at a marked-up price.

Free, unlicensed spectrum would cease to exist as corporate - political
marriages eroded the spectrum away for instant profit. Free WiFi would
not exist.

Foreign multi-national corporations could control almost any wireless
medium and even compromise our country's security.

Free market competition would degrade like 'deregulated' cable TV, with
service area monopolies and daily price increases. Who would imagine
their old $19.95 monthly fee would soar to $75 or more.  Good intentions
but bad results from poor understanding of the issues and mechanisms.

And why are we having this idiotic uninformed debate?

Simply put, it's an issue fostered by private ownership advocates and
made politically correct by some individuals greed and others egotism.
There is no real necessity or urgency.

Reed Hundt started the FCC down a slippery slope by misguiding the
commission away from the duties of being a neutral steward of a public
owned resource and into so-called 'competitive, free market' activism. 

Under this misnamed banner, the FCC has been trying to be expert in
marketplace dynamics and failed time after time. 

And it is a direct result of wireless spectrum auctions we saw the
unbridled rise in wireless spectrum valuations, followed by our current
stock market collapse.  You can trace some the loss of your savings and
pension directly to spectrum auctions which triggered unimmaginable
specutlations.  

Now we want to debate repeating the same basic mistake again?

It's not the commission employees fault, it's bad leadership. They
should return to their primary charge: administer the spectrum to the
eternal benefit of citizens, not corporations.

Spectrum has always been a limited resource and always will be. No
amount of posturing and debate will change that fact.

The academics forwarding this faulty concept are as inept and ignorant
of real world market dynamics and corporate mentality as Mr. Hundt. 

This debate is another case of the blind leading the blind.

Once the spectrum has been changed to 'property' the public has lost all
future benefit of this priceless and irreplaceable asset. 

The FCC can do a better job, and we should encourage improvements, but
if they have no spectrum to manage there is little need to keep the
agency at it's current size or at all.

The answer is to STOP privatizing spectrum, enforce the fact that
auctions were AUCTIONS, not sales and get the FCC back to their original
charter.

But I may be wrong……..
Jack Daniel
================================================

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/