[CzechsMix]

How is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false?

Like, the biggest problem is that people are unhappy with comcast and there's no alternative. Then they get the bright idea that making entry into the market harder will fix this problem?

[feld]

There's very limited spectrum and if everyone is fighting to see who can broadcast the loudest the entire system will fail.

[innguest]

There's also very limited land but land is not tightly controlled by an unelected government agency the same way radio waves are.

If what you say is true then we should be able to buy and sell radio wave frequencies from each other. But radio waves are treated specially by the government because they're a long range means of communication. Same with the internet. That's why the FCC wants in. Not because "it's limited". Land is limited, where is the FCC for land? Gold is limited, yet we can freely buy and sell. Everything is limited but the FCC only has eyes for LONG RANGE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. Why?

EDIT for temporal:

Please explain this:

"One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. Members of the Congressional committees kept saying, 'it is working well, so why bother?'" -- Herbert C. Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 1920-1933, at 142 (1952). Cited in Hazlett, 1990.

[TeMPOraL]

Aside from the fact that radio waves have strategic role for every country, it's mostly tragedy-of-commons case. You can't just let anyone start broadcasting anything at any power and frequency, because there's no way they'll themselves coordinate to use the spectrum wisely instead of trying to overpower one another until the whole thing collapses into a total and unusable mess.

[dragonwriter]

> Everything is limited but the FCC only has eyes for LONG RANGE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

Well, there's the matter of their statutory brief. There is a reason they are called the Federal Communication Commission, and not the Federal Every Limited Resource Potentially Subject to a Tragedy of the Commons Commission.

[toyg]

> Land is limited, where is the FCC for land?

Lol, that's the government. You cannot "freely buy and sell" land, you have to follow certain processes to register your dealings and you are responsible for how you use that land (zoning, environmental laws etc). That's basically what the FCC does for airwaves, except they want to make sure you'll be "responsible" before they actually allow you to register your dealings.

[feld]

It's pretty easy to identify when land is in use, but not so much when it comes to radio spectrum.

[jsmeaton]

> How is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false?

We grant land ownership and leases. Why not radio spectrum too? Not all that different really IMO.

If the major problem as you see it is the cost of licensing, then I don't really have a response to that.