Publication Date
2007
Abstract
For decades, the Federal Communications Commission has regulated the transmission of radio signals under a single regulatory framework. The current regulatory model functions extremely well for simple radio or television broadcasts, but newer technologies such as cellular phone networks or wireless internet systems are hindered by the present framework's rigid, inflexible construct. In response, several prominent scholars have proposed alternatives to the existing scheme. The two most notable alternatives are a private property approach and a commons approach. The private property model treats the ability to broadcast a signal as a private property right, and thus includes all of the benefits and trappings that inhere with a free market and private property. Alternatively, the commons model simply gives everyone a right to broadcast over any frequency desired. This Note suggests that while the private property and commons approaches have their advantages, a third approach seems to have been inconspicuously left out of the picture-a liability approach. A liability system contains the freedom and flexibility of a commons system, but guards against overuse by imposing fines if certain broadcast limits are breached. If new wireless systems are to flourish and expand, then a liability system should be considered as a viable alternative to the current regulatory model.
Recommended Citation
Sineway, Daniel
(2007)
"What's Wrong with Wireless?: An Argument for a Liability Approach to Electromagnetic Spectrum Regulation,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 41:
No.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol41/iss2/8