Welcome To Australia's No.1 Media Center Community!
You Are Currently Viewing As A Guest - you'll need to register in order to participate in our community and make this annoying message disappear!
By registering you'll be able to post & reply to questions, set up your own image gallery & blog, communicate privately with other members, create & respond to polls, access downloads and other "members only" features.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not join our community today - you'll be glad you did!
For any problems with the registration process or your account, please contact support.
Attention All Brisbane & Gold Coast Members!
Markc3012 has created a local user group for members living in Brisbane & the Gold Coast with the goal of creating a network of users to assist and support each other through information exchange and direct support.
Please see this post for more information and to join the group.
Why is all airwave spectrum realestate treated as public property and all land not treated as public property? Why do poeple believe it is right that an individual or company can buy and have ownership of a piece of land for their sole use while the same individual or company cannot buy and have ownership of a piece airwave spectrum?
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
Why is all airwave spectrum realestate treated as public property and all land not treated as public property? Why do poeple believe it is right that an individual or company can buy and have ownership of a piece of land for their sole use while the same individual or company cannot buy and have ownership of a piece airwave spectrum?
Very very simple, the owners of both properties (ie airwaves and land) decided to ownership of land to be transferred but not of the airwaves. They decided to allow the use of one of the peices of property (airwaves) in a different way, that way is via a licence to use it under certain conditions. At the end of the licence the right to use it reverts to the owner if the licence is not renewed.
Land can be licenced too, we tend to call it a lease. There was rather a large one for 99 years on a little place called Hong Kong.
Generally intangible property is licenced for use. A an example being software, its a licence to use under certain conditions.
__________________
Too many toys is still not enough.
Mate, I thought you were a techo, but clearly you are not in this field. edit: wow, during typing of this, a huge number of responses, I was answering Extremes original prophecy/crazy train of thought.
Telecommunications and broadcast RF spectrum has strict guidlines to its use for very good reason. If it was open slather (even if "sold off for use by company X"), with anyone doing anything on it (ok, company X doing anything on it), you would not be able to use any of it as there would be all sorts of interference etc.
Controlled licensing of spectrum ensure a number of things, including compatibility between receiver and transmitter, interference reduction to adjacent services, radiation reduction to the human bodies, spectral efficiency etc.
Once it is licensed, it can also be inspected and tested to ensure compliance with the licence.
Here you go, knock yourself out on this quick google to find a typical license to understand the criteria in place to control what can be done on this band, other frequencies obviously have similar controls:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/0BC98086E3103585CA256FDA007F8491/$file/Managing+Interference+from+Non-Spectrum-Licensed+Transmi.pdf
Very very simple, the owners of both properties (ie airwaves and land) decided to ownership of land to be transferred but not of the airwaves. They decided to allow the use of one of the peices of property (airwaves) in a different way, that way is via a licence to use it under certain conditions. At the end of the licence the right to use it reverts to the owner if the licence is not renewed.
Land can be licenced too, we tend to call it a lease. There was rather a large one for 99 years on a little place called Hong Kong.
Generally intangible property is licenced for use. A an example being software, its a licence to use under certain conditions.
Yes, yes, that would be an answer to WHAT was done, I'm asking WHY?
The airwaves or rather spectrum is NOT intangible like software not in the slightest, they are tangible finite resources just like land.
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
Yes, yes, that would be an answer to WHAT was done, I'm asking WHY?
Ultimately we'd need to ask those around at the time ... and I'm not quite that old
I suspect the decision would have been made for the reason of needing to be able to enforce a strong level of control on a scarce intangible resource that is clearly required to enable technological advancement in this, and every other country.
As we know incorrect use of the RF spectrum can cause all sorts of grief, just ask my wife about AV extenders, cordless phones and microwaves! So keeping the licensing very tight makes good sense.
__________________
Too many toys is still not enough.
Ultimately we'd need to ask those around at the time ... and I'm not quite that old
I suspect the decision would have been made for the reason of needing to be able to enforce a strong level of control on a scarce intangible resource that is clearly required to enable technological advancement in this, and every other country.
As we know incorrect use of the RF spectrum can cause all sorts of grief, just ask my wife about AV extenders, cordless phones and microwaves! So keeping the licensing very tight makes good sense.
You do not need licensing to protect owners of RF spectrum from each other, simple recognition and protection of property rights by a government and its legal system is enough to ensure its proper use. this is no different to a scenario where a neighbour tries to move their fence boundary, the police and courts are their to protect property rights NOT licensing.
Even a "code of conduct" is still applicable to a broadcaster that own's their own spectrum since the code of conduct is protection mechanism for viewers rights.
For the government to sell land or spectrum it first needs to declare all land and spectrum as the property of government, that is exactly how it was and is done with land, once you have bought the land its yours to do with as you see fit within the bounds of laws and restrictions, the laws and restrictions for the most part being there to protect all owners equal right to their own property ... its a pretty fair system that we have all come to see as being the right thing to do, we build our mcmansions, gardens, we feel pride and we mostly try to improve our properties because it makes us fell good.
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
Do you live on a farm? Most home improvements require council approval against a number of criteria in city areas.
If I was to use your logic, I should be able to build an explosives storage or crack house on my property.
A license gives a strict set of guidelines for which the license owner can operate in, how is this different to your suggestion of "code of conduct"?
I don't really agree with the govt auctioning spectrum, it should be licensed not sold like this, but there are some good reasons for doing it this way I suppose.
Do you live on a farm? Most home improvements require council approval against a number of criteria in city areas.
If I was to use your logic, I should be able to build an explosives storage or crack house on my property.
A license gives a strict set of guidelines for which the license owner can operate in, how is this different to your suggestion of "code of conduct"?
I don't really agree with the govt auctioning spectrum, it should be licensed not sold like this, but there are some good reasons for doing it this way I suppose.
Regards
An explosives storage or a crack house puts your neighbours lives at risk and is against the laws meant to protect EVERYONES right to life, despite the outcome being the same there is a huge difference in the intent behind the government telling you you can't build an explosives storage because you haven't paid your explosives storage license vs. the govermnent protecting the lives of your neighbours by telling you you can't build an explosives storage .... see the difference?
When I said most laws and restrictions are meant to protect everyones equal rights I meant MOST, there are also quite a few restrictions where the sole purpose is to raise revenue for local councils, state or federal government. Even then many of these are MEANT to pay for local infrastructure benefits to owners.
It's a completely naive position to hold if you believe the government holds the infinite caretaker position on frequency spectrum for the benefit of the public, the reality is more like the government has aranged laws in such a way that they can charge an infinite amount of money over time for the same thing over and over again, and they have managed to convince most people that its to their benefit. I don't know about you but that to me is as corrupt an abuse of position and power as I've ever seen.
__________________
That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.
Aristotle
It was an extreme example to attempt to illustrate the point. Ok, a less extreme example: "I build my house up to 3 stories high, it doesn't threaten my neighbours lives, it is my property, I can do what I want".
You seem to think (or want it to be) law is about lives only, but it is a lot more than that, it is about trying to ensure everything fits harmoniously together.
Spectrum licencing ensures multiple groups, companies, military etc can share the space around us without interference issues, because the equipment built and operation of said equipment to use the space has rules and operating procedures to enable it to comply with the license conditions.
If it is not the government to control this, than who do you suggest should be best to do it? It is obviously a Federal matter, is some organisation going to take this on with no profit options? The government is also there to do the things that a company won't do as a company is only thinking about its bottom line. I suppose though, with the auctioning scheme the govt. introduced some years ago, this was a money grabbing scheme and maybe not in the best interests of the original intent which was purely to manage the spectrum....
Can people who have a lot of knowledge of this area please speak up here? I feel like I am a teacher with only a passing interest in this rather than complete knowledge trying to explain to a brick wall about this...
Regards
You do not need licensing to protect owners of RF spectrum from each other, simple recognition and protection of property rights by a government and its legal system is enough to ensure its proper use. this is no different to a scenario where a neighbour tries to move their fence boundary, the police and courts are their to protect property rights NOT licensing.
I'm not suggesting protection from each other. I am suggesting protection of the owners, who do not want to build the infrastructure to use the resource, therefore allow others to do so, hence licence it. Laws for fences are there to set basic rules to allow for negotiation and mediation between two property owners who can't agree. This does not impact on a single owner licencing a resource to another. I fear the analogy fails in this situation.
Licences are used to allow use for a period of time under set conditions. M$ do it everyday. It ensures that no other rights that can come with ownership are conferred onto the other party. A licence allows for a simple (?) single legal document to be in place. If the property was sold and then needed to be controlled there would need to be an Act in place which then necessitates the government taking legal action as opposed to breaching the licence condition and revoking the licence if people do naughty things. Hence licences are just sssooo much easier to control and enforce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremePC
Even a "code of conduct" is still applicable to a broadcaster that own's their own spectrum since the code of conduct is protection mechanism for viewers rights.
I think the code of conduct is more about how they carry out their commercial operations. ie The Franchising Code of conduct. Codes of conduct are usually put in place by smart industry bodies before the public pressure the government to legislate. Essentially self regulation, the best example I thin is cigarettes vs alcohol - look at who has all the nasty laws (OK until recently anyway)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremePC
For the government to sell land or spectrum it first needs to declare all land and spectrum as the property of government, that is exactly how it was and is done with land, once you have bought the land its yours to do with as you see fit within the bounds of laws and restrictions, the laws and restrictions for the most part being there to protect all owners equal right to their own property ... its a pretty fair system that we have all come to see as being the right thing to do, we build our mcmansions, gardens, we feel pride and we mostly try to improve our properties because it makes us fell good.
Based on the consitution all resources within the borders are ow
