[520] in libertarians
Re: Free Radio Berkeley
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Magnus Nilsson)
Wed Dec 21 10:44:47 1994
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:38:13 +0100 (MET)
From: Magnus Nilsson <magnusn@algonet.se>
To: Adam Dershowitz <dersh@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Kevin THEOBALD <theobald@duke.cs.mcgill.ca>, libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v01510101ab1dae337ee5@[129.55.44.49]>
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
> At 4:23 PM 12/20/94, Kevin THEOBALD wrote:
> >In your message [Free Radio Berkeley]
> >+------------------------------
> >| Dunifer acknowledges his transmissions are illegal under current
> >laws, but
> >| maintains the Constitution guarantees him the right to free speech -
> >even over
> >| the airwaves - under the First Amendment. Moreover, he maintians the soaring
> >| costs of licensing and operating a legal radio station have made radio
> >elitist.
> >| The result is that most stations are run by corporations and wealthy
> >| individuals, leaving many segements of the community without an outlet,
> >he says.
> >|
> >| Peter Franck, an attourney with the Committee on Democratic
> >Communications
> >| in San Francisco, which filed court papers in support of Dunifer, said the
> >| FCC has set up a system that would be equivalent of charging money for
> >someone
> >| to get up on a soap box.
> >|
> >| "The structure of the FCC's regulations bans anybody who hasn't
> >got huge
> >| amounts of money from broadcasting, which disenfranchises minority
> >| communities and the poor," Franck said.
> >
> >It's hard to know whether or not to support this guy. Some of his
> >rhetoric, such as equating FCC licenses with charging money to set up a
> >soap box, makes me wonder how he would act if radio frequencies were
> >allocated by a free market. Since radio frequencies would still cost
> >money, would he still complain about how only the wealthy have access?
> >
> > Kevin
>
>
> Wouldn't allocating them by free markey really mean no licenses at all?
> Anyone can transmit where and when they want. No cost except to buy your
> transmitter.
>
> --Adam
>
>
>
It would still be a cost for uphoulding the rights to the frequencies, I
suppose. The important thing is that the frequence you got is really
owned by you, so you acn lend money on it, sell it or peel of parts of it
by using better techniqe. I think that a person named Glen Whtiman has
wrote a study on the topic for CATO institute.
magnus
