28
04
Comments
Comment from John Hays @ 2006.04.28 - 14:56
Pete,
I like your thoughts on most issues, but here’s one I would like you to think about a bit more – Under your technology points, you reference an article on “Unchained Spectrum” which among other things states:
“Slowly return all licensed spectrum to a Chicago Board of Trade-like commodities exchange, trading spectrum on a second-by-second basis to entrepreneurs and businesses alike. For each trade, the government could charge a 1% fee. Let supply match demand and variable cost.”
While, on the surface, this seems like a panacea for innovators it has a number of practical implications that need to be considered. A certain amount of “licensed” spectrum is set aside for various uses including some significant slivers for “Amateur (Ham) Radio”. Amateur Radio has multiple purposes including experimentation and public service/emergency communications.
“Amateur radio operators are often overlooked in favor of flashier means of communication. However, as modern technology can be highly vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorism, HAM radios require no cell towers or satellites. They are often the only means of communication attainable in a devastated area. …” Rep. Mike Ross (AR-04) – See http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ar04_ross/pr_042706.html
Turning ALL licensed spectrum over to a commodities exchange would cost America this service, because Amateurs, by definition, use spectrum without a pecunary interest and would not be able to compete with profit oriented organizations for spectrum. The same is true of many non-profit, governmental, and public service organizations.
I am sure that you are not 100% in agreement with all statements in every referenced article on your positions, but I wanted to alert you to this issue.
Good luck in your run against “Let’s destroy their computers…” Hatch, who seems to have lost touch. (A reference to his position on penalties for individuals who’s children might download copyrighted material without paying for licenses.)
Comment from Pete Ashdown @ 2006.04.28 - 15:01
Good point John and one I did not consider. Would a modification to the platform preserving spectrum allotments for amateur use be a good way to circumvent this problem?
Comment from John Hays @ 2006.04.29 - 21:20
Pete,
That would be a great idea. I am sure there are other services that should be protected as well.
— John
Comment from tunalucy @ 2006.07.13 - 01:53
It looks like someone else reads your blog (and wiki) too.
Sorry, but you are not allowed to comment.