We'd be fine. Probably better....
http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/26581/?p1=Headlines
Personally, I believe alot more smaller companies would use wifi and its developments to drasticly lower cell phone rates. I would assume its easier to set up a wifi signal booster than a tower...
a few years back, xg actually turned me down for a job after what i thought was a pretty solid face-to-face interview. i was just entering the job market fresh out of college, so they opted for a more "experienced" candidate. of course, that's all water under the bridge now and i'm not the least bit bitter about it.
nope. not at all...
i do agree, though, that the FCC and the crony capitalist status quo it oversees has done much to stifle innovation, consumer choice and the emergence of a free and competitive market in telecommunications.
i'm just still a bit fuzzy on how electromagnetic spectrum rights would work if frequency allocation was left up to the market. the idea of homesteading pieces of the EM spectrum just never made much sense to me.
See "radio free rothbard". The FCC and its predecessor, the FRC, were never necessary to regulate the airwaves (either way--content or frequency allocation). If it were left up to the market, then property rights/boundaries would take care of it. You would buy the airwave space and if someone violated your property rights, you could take them to court. instead, the airwave space if owned by the government, and it is licensed out. If the government doesn't like what the licensee is saying, then they can revoke their license or fine them. Controlling content is the reason the FRC and FCC exist; frequency allocation was the excuse for them to exist.
There would be far more libertarians (both left and right) in the media
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin