On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:22:10 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <dsqdnT36fYx_gxjanZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>Cubit wrote:
>> Spectrum is infrastructure. It should not be taxed.
>>
>> That having been said, I don't have a scheme for fair allocation.
>>
>Why not a lottery?

Because it would fail to ensure the highest value use of a limited
resource. You could easily have some idiot win that wanted to run
wide-band morse code.

>Lets say we put a system in place where only responsible bidders can
>apply. This would be very similar to what is used for large construction
>projects where the concept of responsible bidders is used. In order to
>bid on a large project a contractor must show they have experience and
>resources.

You must not have much experience in construction -- that kind of
government involvement is rife with abuse, waste, and outright fraud.
No thanks.

>The winner would not be required to "buy" the spectrum which is really
>just a disguised pre-paid tax on its future users but only a nominal
>application fee to cover the cost of the lottery.

A one-time license fee is not a tax.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>