Replies

You still haven't said whether you believe government regulation of RF transmission is nescessary or proper. That is the only issue I have addressed or intend to address. Why don't you post to someone addressing the issues you are promoting? You'd probably get a better discussion.

(BTW, cell phones, their frequencies, power, use, etc. are a result of government regulations).

You still haven't said whether you believe government regulation of RF transmission is nescessary or proper.

Your question seems loaded. You mean, do we need law enforcement whether or not the sheriff is a crook?
My answer is that nondiscriminatory regulation which does not create de facto titles of nobility should be instituted. But as to the Janet Jackson question, there is really no question of unconstitutional censorship, even if the FCC pulls the license of every CBS affiliate. Because CBS has no more constitutional right to broadcast at all those locations than I do. If I am not being censored right now, then CBS would not be censored then.

Although we are not talking about the same thing, the other poster and I are, in fact addressing issues:

1. The federal government "renting" or "selling" spectrum is constitutionally dubious. Where are they authorized to "own" it?

2. There are plenty of examples of well-managed shared common resources where the government does not assert bogus claims ov ownership.

3. Abolishing the current structure of spectrum licensing would smash the extremely odious institution of broadcast networks in the U.S. That could possibly be wrong with that?

You examples are weak: ISM band use is, in fact, lightly regulated and unlicensed. AMAZINGLY there is no "chaos." WiFi is one of the most vibrant areas of the high tech economy. Imagine if the whole spectrum were given over to such new technologies.

Weren't broadcasters supposed to hand back some spectrum in return for their HDTV spectrum? Why would you defend a structure that gives away the people's property to leftist scum?