Property rights dilemma - airwaves
Posted by davidmcnab 9 years, 4 months ago to Government
This article raises an interesting dilemma. Does ownership of real property include the right to regulate access to radio frequency spectrum from within that property? The FCC strongly believes NO
If the down voter voted it down because of a perception that it is "irrelevant to Objectivism", then I ask that down voter to reconsider. What you just down voted was John Galt's right to put a radio frequency shield over the Gulch!
This is not permitted where I live (Australia).
My opinion is that the owner of the locale should be able to jam to protect the audience from unwanted interference, or for any reason, on that property. The emanator of the signal also has rights but such would not extend to forcing a signal where it is not wanted.
However, Smart City Holdings is not the property owner. They are destroying the competitors' product. Is this act with the permission of the property owner?
The OP asks a good question here so I have given an up-vote despite not agreeing with the inference that the FCC ruling is correct.
I voted this down because the poster is not serious about property rights and is in here to disrupt and denigrate Rand. His subsequent comments proved me right..
Airwaves as public, meaning government, property is the precendent they try to use to snag control of the internet. It is also something they could try and use to nationalize mass transit. Or the power grid, or water supplies. Oh wait, that has already begun, just going slow to keep it out of the public eye.
Nevertheless the point was about down voting. Something I have done three or four times on this site and NEVER to one your posts. But, interestingly if I disagree with you I find my count at 0 even on other discussion lines. Curious coincidence.