Robin Hanson wrote:
> Furthermore, even if you did represent one of these initial supposed
> losers of spectrum rights, you'd need to show that these people didn't
> implicitly accept the jurisdiction of the government that empowered the
> FCC. That is, if these people accepted that their property was not
> absolute, but instead subject to constituionally-valid government choices,
> then it is not clear what their complaint is. Were they not adequately
> compensated for the "taking"?
What "constitutionally-valid government choices"? Does anyone really think that RF regulation has anything to do with interstate commerce? I certainly don't see anything else in the U.S. Constitution that could be construed as authorizing the FCC.
If the states want to create RF spectrum property rights, great. If they want to regulate radio transmissions, well, most of them are authorized to do so. But the Federal Government? It has no Constitutional authorization to be involved in such matters.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I