Bandwidth allocation is still an essential part of our national security, the article is wrong about that.
Of course since whenever my private ISP doesn't "allocate" sufficient "bandwidth" I feel completely insecure, nothing personal but do you even think about the fact that you can actually not only survive but PROSPER without the state making every decision for you (for our own "safety" of course) ? I know it's scary but the serfs of Middle Ages Europe were able to do it and I am confident that you have the wherewithal to pull it off too.
"
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus:
That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind. " --
The Matrix
Take the RED PILL...
Huh?
What are you talking about? I dont think his reference to bandwidth has anything to do with ISPs at all. The statement about national security should have given that away. I know youre smarter than that fox
I believe he is referring to the airwave bandwidth that each entity can use to broadcast their signal.
He is correct in his statement (though I think that national security is kind of a senseless way to go about arguing the point). There IS a clear need to have something manage bandwidth. If not, I could create a random radio station in the middle of New York to broadcast my anti-government conspiracy theories. That is just fine BUT after doing so (and sinking my savings creating my new company) someone could come along with a more powerful antenna and override my signal or cross it and make anything I broadcast complete static. Likely my competition silencing me because they are established and have more funds to buy more powerful equipment/jammers. That is NOT alright. The same goes for communications such as aircraft to airport towers. Those bands are regulated so that no one else is allowed to use them making landing much safer than if someone could interfere with that signal even accidentally and then the military specific bands that I think he was referring to by bringing up national security.
Basically, there is little difference managing the bandwidth than there is to creating basic laws for driving. SOMETHING needs to keep the system generally working so that we can communicate and to be quite frank, the free market is unlikely to do so as it is in larger entities interests to BLOCK communication of their competitors.
NOW, the important question here is whether or not the FCC should continue to exist even if there are vital functions that need to be accomplished that the FCC currently takes care of. That also touches on this post as well:
Even the most committed Randian (You come across as a poorly read Randian) cannot dismiss the public trust doctrine without dismissing history itself. It has been accepted in economic and legal theory since Roman Code. Public ownership of resources to one degree or another has not been negated by any rational economic thinker from Smith to Rand to Friedman. In English and U.S. common law it is a well established principle. So your facile retort insinuating an embrace of the concept as "socialism" or "communism" is childishly simplistic and demonstrates which one of us is arguing from subjective dogma without reference to reality.
I will reject the Randian at the outset as the label itself is rather misunderstood and normally used as a slander rather than an actual doctrine. I am a libertarian though as I believe eflat is as well.
With that said, the question I made above is the real issue then:
NOW, the important question here is whether or not the FCC should continue to exist even if there are vital functions that need to be accomplished that the FCC currently takes care of.
I will agree with you that there is a real governmental purpose in ensuring that we can actually use the airwaves I will reject the idea that the FCC, in its current form, is necessary for that purpose. The fact is that what we need is an enforcement agency and the FCC is a bureaucratic and legislative agency. I even question why this is accomplished on a national scale rather than a state scale. Beyond identifying the bandwidth associated with specific communications (military, aircraft, emergency etc.) the federal government really has no purview here. Each state can create the rules it sees necessary to ensure that the airwave are not only open but also usable. Federal oversight is a blatant overstep IMHO.
Further, congress write law, not bloated bureaucratic entities looking to justify their existence. The very idea that congress has willfully and blatantly legislated their constitutional duties to bureaucratic entities is unacceptable. If there needs to be a law passed in relation to the airwaves then congress can get off their asses and pass the law. Just because I, and others, support the elimination of the FCC do3es not mean that I want to see chaos on the airwaves or even the complete control of such by private enterprise. There are governmental process that exist that are the CORRECT way of governing public resources. That does not include allowing bureaucratic entities write laws, enforce standards that they create out of thin air or enforcing standards that are not under their purview. The core problem with ALL bureaucracies is that they will grow without need and justify themselves even when they are no longer justified. This is almost universal within a bureaucratic agency. I see it all the time myself being a part of the largest bureaucratic agency on the face of the planet the DoD.
[MENTION=30139]eflatminor[/MENTION] [MENTION=44607]NightFox[/MENTION] I would also like to know what you guys think. Eflat seems dead set against any governmental control over the airwaves (which is NOT control over communication within them) but I kind of want to break it out of the FCC. The existence of the FCC and basic law governing the use of the airwaves are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, the problems with the FCC have almost nothing to do with what they were established to regulate. The problem, for me, is the entire concept of regulatory agencies in general.
