How do people come to these conclusions:
“Ofcom argues that putting spectrum on the open market is the only way to make sure it is used to its full potential.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6378925.stm
>From Paul Frindle (in a discussion about DRM):
“The problem seems to be that you cannot allow society to drift into a free for all economically driven anarchy and then hope to moderate it by
increasingly draconian and unsustainable restrictions.
So much of our recent social and economic doctrine has gone this way. For instance, increasingly governments have realised that short term gains are to be made by ‘de-regulating’ services and creating private/public sector partnerships that spawn monopolies – then try to moderate their excesses with watchdogs and ombudsmen services. It is always better to steer the ship with intent, rather than letting it drift where it will – and struggling to correct its course periodically by force.
Once we are overloaded with ‘corrective laws’ and the morals have been allowed to drift, it is no longer possible to moderate society without dire strife.”
give this man a medal and then put him in charge of absolutely everything … maybe … :O)
FWIW, I would’ve thought that the frequency band used by radio mics was too far down the spectrum to be of much use by companies like mobile phone companies.
Mobile phones are increasingly demanding more bandwidth as they clammer for more services, such a low point in the spectrum as radio mics use, would be of little use to such companies.
I agree though, that de-regulating something as important as frequency spectrum is a disaster waiting to happen.
Perhaps ofcom fail to realise that more and more people are using services that the internet provide rather than relying on things like local radio?
Privatizing public sector companies is a bad thing. Just look at the state of BT or the railways.