🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4c2qi8$t8e@noc.tor.hookup.net> baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:

>dreilley@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>In article <4btg96$2m7@noc.tor.hookup.net> baisa@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) 
>writes:
>>
>>>    So put me on record as counselling the following: abolish the CRTC 
>and 
>>>dismantle all telecom regulation for the simple reason that business 
>>>executives and their customers should be running the economy, not mental 
>>>patients.
>>
>>
>>And when *your* cell phone doesn't work in this deregulated universe, it 
>will 
>>be because *I* have started "Dave's Cellular Network", and no CRTC 
>regulator 
>>is going to tell *me* I can't use Brad's frequency.  I'll be a free man, 
>>operating in a pure free enterprise economy.


>You will be fully free to start "Dave's Cellular Network" if you own 
>broadcasting rights to the necessary frequencies. If you don't, and 
>transmit on those frequencies anyway, then you will be stopped, like any 
>trespasser.

No I won't -- because you will have done away with the instrument the state 
currently uses to define who owns which broadcasting rights.  (Or did you 
really mean that the state just keep on doing what it's doing, but first get 
rid of the CRTC and then create something similar with a different name to 
take its place.)



>It is appropriate for the government to be involved in the 
>process of objectively defining property rights,

And how would government go about doing this without a CRTC (or a CRTC by any 
other name)?


You seem to have trouble keeping the "party line" straight.  First you bang 
your beer-mug on the table and shout "I'd get rid of the CRTC," and then -- 
presented with the consequences of such a policy -- you tell us that 
government's role should be "defining the property rights of people who own 
frequencies".  So do you, or do you not, want the government in the role of 
assigning frequencies (or "defining property rights" as you put it)?  You 
can't have it both ways.