FCC gave away $70B in airwave licenses to large corporations
In 1996, Congress quietly handed over to existing broadcasters the rights to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves-a conveyance worth $70 billion-in exchange for. nothing.
Although the public owns the airwaves, the broadcasters have
never paid for the right to use them. The FCC has recently begun to recognize the large monetary value of the licenses and typically auctions licenses. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, however, prohibited such an auction for distribution of digital
television licenses, and mandated that they be given to existing broadcasters.
How to explain this giveaway, especially when other industries, such as the data transmission companies, were eager to bid for the right to use the spectrum? Look no
further than the National Association of Broadcasters. The NAB are huge political donors & have close ties to key political figures.
Not surprisingly, the nightly news was silent on this giant giveaway. It represents a failure of our working democracy
Source: Cutting Corporate Welfare, p. 17-18
Oct 9, 2000
Domain name registration needs openness to replace monopoly
The federal government currently contracts with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), to manage domain name registrations (including .com, .org, and .net). NSI’s monopoly on the valuable .com domain names has turned a tiny initial investment into a firm with
market capitalization of $2.5 billion-thanks to control of the power to sell the public the right to use their own domain names. At no time did the government seek any competitive bids to determine the prices that consumers and businesses should pay for
domain name registrations.
The federal government is now trying to find ways to introduce competition and replace the current NSI monopoly with something new. This new initiative raises a number of questions regarding its lack of accountability,
and it is justified largely on the basis that the NSI monopoly needs to be “fixed.” But it is hard to see how the creation of a new unaccountable body constitutes a “fix.”
Source: Cutting Corporate Welfare, p. 54-55
Oct 9, 2000
Put all Congressional voting records on Internet
Nader today urged Republican and Democratic leaders to support efforts to provide the public easier access to Congressional voting records. “Astonishingly, the Congress continues to obscure significant data-voting records-by failing to place this
information on the Internet in a searchable database format indexed by bill name, bill subject, bill title, Member name and related information,” Nader wrote. Contending that “citizens deserve better than this,” Nader said placing Congressional
Source: Press Release, “Improve congressional accountability”
Jun 26, 2000
More free info from govt via computers & airwaves
Citizens should be accorded computerized access in libraries and in their homes to the full range of government information. Inserts in billing statements from monopolized utilities and financial companies should invite consumers to join consumer
action watchdog groups. The public, which owns the TV/cable/radio media airwaves, which are leased for free to large commercial businesses, should have its own Audience Network to inform, alert, and mobilize democratic citizen debate and initiatives.
Source: The Concord Principles, An Agenda for a New Democracy, # 6
Feb 21, 2000
Ruling against Microsoft bodes well for competition
The judge’s finding of facts in the Microsoft case are a devastating indictment of the company. The judge found Microsoft responsible for a litany of anti-competitive and illegal practices that have harmed consumers. The 207-page decision is a
textbook on the use of monopoly power. Microsoft was seeking to control and monopolize key sectors of the PC software market. What does this mean for consumers? It means a Reagan-appointed judge agrees with the Justice Department that Microsoft’s
actions are anti-competitive and must be reined in. It means Microsoft’s dominance in many markets is often due to underhanded efforts to sabotage rivals rather than to superior products. It means that the introduction of new and innovative products
has been retarded and sometimes extinguished by Microsoft, reducing consumer choice. Mostly, though, it means the government may do something about the Microsoft monopoly. This bodes well for the future of competition and the Internet.
Source: New York Daily News
Nov 9, 1999
Microsoft is anticompetitive and anticonsumer
Everyone who uses a computer or depends on computers has an interest in seeing Microsoft’s anticompetitive and anticonsumer practices curtailed by antitrust authorities. Microsoft’s claim that it’s defending its right to innovate is a cruel joke in an
industry that sees its best innovators attacked by the company’s anticompetitive actions. Microsoft’s agenda isn’t innovation, it’s imitation, as well as the imposition of suffocating control over user choices and an ever-widening monopoly.
Source: Article, “Why Microsoft must be stopped”
Nov 9, 1998
Microsoft must be stopped
If the government can’t curtail Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct in the browser market, the company gets the green light to become even bolder elsewhere. And for Microsoft, elsewhere is just about everywhere. What’s critical for antitrust
enforcement is to find remedies that address the sources of anticompetitive conduct and are appropriate for an industry with short product cycles, changing product definitions & production innovations. Drawing from past antitrust actions in the computer,
software and other industries, the government could require, among other things, divestitures; nondiscriminatory sharing of technical information, such as data file formats; nondiscriminatory licensing; and required support for nonproprietary Internet
protocols. Ultimately, the industry will benefit from more diversity and less monopoly. We need to stop Microsoft’s efforts to transform the Internet into a private network dominated by a single, ruthless company.
Source: Article, “Why Microsoft must be stopped”
Nov 9, 1998
The public owns the airwaves; express our rights
The public legally owns the airwaves. The broadcast companies lease them through the FCC. We’re the landlords; the radio and TV stations are the tenants. But they pay us no rent and they decide who says what 24 hours a day. We’ve got to get a chartered
audience network that’s open to viewers and listeners, and take control of one hour a day at prime time or drive time, so that we can communicate with one another without the restraint of advertisers or broadcast executives deciding what we talk about.
Source: CNN’s Inside Politics with Bernard Shaw
Apr 9, 1996
Click here for definitions & background information on Technology.
