A question for the group......
An article today on Wired's web page discusses the legislation introduced today by John McCain that would allow for the government setting a hard and fast deadline for the recovery of analog spectrum space currently used for TV broadcasts. As an avid TV fan (yes, Guindiblog will want you to know that I own two TiVo's, and if you don't have one, get one), a gadget geek, and a proponent of digitized content for TV, I am very much in favor of this bill. However, on a more ideological (imagine that) side and in the interest of minimal government involvement in the markets, either by law or corporate subsidy ala loan bail-outs for airlines, I am not in favor of this sort of government legislation and its unintended consequences.
I am at an intellectual and practical stalemate on this issue and would like to hear input from all the invited guests and commentators, since I think this issue is a good basis for "libertarian" discussion. What do you think, is this type of legislation a necessary evil or doing more harm than good?
The article can be found here.
posted by Henry | 3:01 PM
2 Comments:
I still haven't been convinced that this is one of those situations where we should buck the natural order of the universe and legislate. What exactly is the dire concern? Why should my tax money ensure that joe six-pack has digital tv? i can't distinguish this from the airline bailouts (which were clearly wrong). am i missing something?
Garence, exceelent points and thanks for the more enlightened perspective. So I am to take from your post you would view spectrum as one of those "public goods," much like national defense and police services, where the government does serve a somewhat useful role.
Guindiblog, sorry for the confusion on the bailout comment. My reference was made as a comment on one section of the article indicating the fear by many that the subsidies that may be set aside will not end up with end-users but rather with cable/utility companies for their "costs" in implementing this "heavy-handed" legislation, much as United expected loan bailouts as 9/11 wasn't their fault type of thing. (Note: they never have said that but I think the implication is clear)
Post a Comment
<< Home