Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
What I'm not quite understanding is this: how wizwor's advocacy of lobbying for the return of cable bandwidth to the government is an embrace of crypto-capitalism. It sounds to me like an action which condemns deregulation -- not because of the involvement of the consumer, but because the result would be to reclaim once-public property (i.e., cable bandwidth).
But I don't think wizwor is saying that buying power is a substitute for regulation and government-agency monitoring. I think he's implying that buying power can help to create momentum for regulation in the otherwise profit-Wild West.
I do see how his telling us all to buy antennas could be seen in that light, but I didn't take it that way.
I'm opposed to the return of the bandwidth. If the government is not going to regulate the airwaves, then I guess I can put up an antenna and broadcast. We decided this was not a good idea and imposed regulation. It's kind of like requiring people to drive in the right lane -- freedom is surrendered for the greater good.
The people advocating for return of bandwidth are beneficiaries of the return because 1) they have plans for the bandwidth, and 2) they compete with those who currently use the bandwidth.
Right now, cable companies are paying to retransmit local stations. If OTA goes away, they can charge to host the content. PLUS everyone who wants TV has to choose among pay providers who have historically fought competition (franchise agreements).
I'm not a hater of Big Government, I'm an advocate of Good Government. Big Government created IP protection; Good Government created Fair Use. I'm generally opposed to IP protection. More so when the Big Government that created it exempts itself from it.
This fork of the topic began when I suggested that we not support companies that do not voluntarily sell/license products with consumer friendly terms. In this age of crowdsourcing, it's possible to produce entertainment without the support of production, promotion, and distribution infrastructure. Logically, this should lead to more innovation, lower costs, and more choice.
Unfortunately, powerful people have a stake in stifling this. Fortunately, they are losing.