broadcast spectrum rent
--- Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the broadcast spectrum currently used for television may be worth as much as $400 billion in an auction. How are the 15% of households who still watch TV over the air able to prevent this spectrum from being sold for another use? They should not be able to. The spectrum should be auctioned to the highest bidders who pay for a leasehold franchise good for several years, after which it is again put up for leasehold bid. The annual rent would go to the US Treasury. With a 10% return, that would be about $40 billion. Today, the spectrum holders have a license from the federal government at no charge. But the spectrum legally belongs to the people. So the spectrum holders are receiving an implicit subsidy. The spectrum leaseholders should be free of any content restrictions (other than the usual laws about fraud). That would create a market for the highest and best social use of the spectrum. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Charity
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Jason DeBacker wrote: -- I listed as one possibility that people are ashamed to admit their preferences. I feel the same way as you do, but I am not sure all people think like that. Some probably actually care about saving lives instead of having HBO, but for some reason do not act on that preference- I don't know why, though. Expressive preferences diverge from revealed preferences. When the cost of having lofty ideals is nil, people will have them. When it comes down to the choice of saving a life versus having HBO, people pick HBO. Eric
Re: Charity
I think this is like example from economics textbooks: a) We have common goods problem. Even if you will not help save these child's, may be someone else will. You cannot help everybody. Of course this is for usual people, not superrich. For example, I heard something like Bill Gates paying for anti malaria efforts (sprayed anti moskito nets) more ore less single-handedly. b) We have information problem. Charities have problem checking that their efforts brought results, have problem showing this to donors, and donors have every reason not to believe them. Main problem is that recipients of help are very far away from donors. This contrasts sharply with the case when you, for example, buy DirectTV programming and can look ot the same day. c) People, reasonably, think that they should first look after themselves. That is what Adam Smith invisible hand expects from them. This is may be less a case for religious people who give to charities to pay back for some sins, but generally we can expect that people think more (and pay more) about themselves or their family. Mikhail Gambarian Jason DeBacker wrote: Why dont more people give more money to charity? If you asked someone if they would rather see $50 used to feed a child for a month or on another month cable TV (or whatever), I cant imagine someone not saying that the child should be fed. But almost no one gives $50 a month to charity and many give that to watch cable television (or spend it on other frivolous purchases). Why does this happen? A few possible reasons: - The history of charitable money getting into the wrong hands has scared people from donating. - There is some kind of market failure (a la the story of the woman being attacked while the whole block watched and no one stopping it or calling the police). - People really dont care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. - People just dont think about donating. Regards, Jason DeBacker
Re: Charity
Eric has me as being nicer than I actually am. I would give up a leg to cure AIDS. For SARS I would take a kick in the leg. Alex -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
RE: TV Seasons
Wei Dai asked: Why does TV have seasons? I know it's customary to propose possible answers to questions posted here, but I'm really stumped. I can't think of any reason why television networks all premier their new shows in the fall and play re-runs in the summer, instead of spreading out the premiers and re-runs more evenly throughout the year, or having seasons that aren't synchronized with each other. Why doesn't the fact that the competition is a lot weaker in the summer attract more premiers? In television's infancy, something like 40 episodes were taped of each program and reruns were shown in the summer, when people typically watched less television (because the weather was better? Not sure) Now, reruns are shown throughout the season, particularly if one of the major networks is airing a major event, such as the Oscar's or the Super Bowl, other networks will run reruns or old movies. The practice of seasons betweeen labor day and memorial day is still closely linked with the belief that people watch less television in the summer. However, some shows, especially on new networks, are premiered in the summer and advertised as being that show that premiers in the summer so you don't have to watch reruns. I have a few ideas about this. Revenue comes from advertising. The larger the audience believed to be watching a show, the greater the amount the network can bill for advertising time during the show. So it makes sense that companies will show reruns (avoiding the costs of production but still getting some revenue) when they believe a much smaller audience will be watching the show - production costs for prime-time television series are quite high (above and beyond the salaries of the actors which always becomes a public affair, e.g. Seinfeld, Friends, Sopranos). However, viewers may be frustrated if reruns are shown to frequently, so networks try to find the optimal balance between new shows and low-cost reruns. However, it is more acceptable to show reruns when everyone else is showing reruns. So the groundwork is: if you want to show reruns, you should show them when other networks are showing them, or when you expect your viewership to be very low (due to special events). There are only a few major networks - NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox (the newest). I've seen suggested in many places that network television is an oligopoly, and the practice of seasons is a form of (tacit?) collusion. This analysis makes sense in a number of ways. Consider the following: in the old days of tv, there were less reruns, and competition for viewership was strong even during special event broadcasting; with modern recording technology, special events could be viewed and other shows taped, but reruns are still shown during special events; in spite of (as Dr. Hanson pointed out) primitive technology for measuring television viewership of specific shows and the seemingly odd proposition that people watch much less television during the summer months, reruns are still shown primarily in the summer. Fox, the newest network, often shows new shows or movie premiers when, say, NBC is showing a special event and CBS and NBC are showing reruns. This might suggest that Fox, th! e newco.. It will be interesting to see if a wider variety of competition as there are more substitutes for the 3 old channels of network television, if improvements in technology that reduce information costs about viewership, or improvements in home recording technology will change the way reruns are shown. - Zac Gochenour
RE: TV seasons
-Original Message- From: Wei Dai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why does TV have seasons? I know it's customary to propose possible answers to questions posted here, but I'm really stumped. I can't think of any reason why television networks all premier their new shows in the fall and play re-runs in the summer, instead of spreading out the premiers and re-runs more evenly throughout the year, or having seasons that aren't synchronized with each other. Why doesn't the fact that the competition is a lot weaker in the summer attract more premiers? Every once in awhile, a topic comes up to which I can contribute to empirically. I've asked my colleges at work, many of whom have worked in the television industry for many years, and here is the two consensus views: 1) Most television show plots are written by highschool students as part of detention. Once the school year ends, the supply dries up. 2) Summer finds prime time landing during daylight hours when many people are happily doing other things besides watching TV. The potential audience is smaller and therefore attracts fewer advertising dollars, which makes it riskier to spend a lot of money on a show that will premier during the summer months. The networks are deathly afraid of risk and would rather fade into oblivion than take one every once and awhile. Cheers, Michael Giesbrecht Internet Engineering Lucasfilm Ltd.
Re: Charity
Is it not possible that there is some common goods problem? People not helping b/c they think others will? The general welfare of others is a public good afterall, right?- (non-rival, non-excludable) I think it is reasonable to say that there is not an efficient level of charity (at least in the third world charity market), and if the answer is that people don't really care to give more, then you are saying it is efficient. I can envision this being the case, but it is hard to imagine. Jason - Original Message - From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Charity Jason DeBacker wrote: And the answer is: - People really dont care about helping someone else, but are ashamed to admit that. How could it be anything else? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] The game of just supposing Is the sweetest game I know... And if the things we dream about Don't happen to be so, That's just an unimportant technicality. Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein, *Showboat*
Re: Charity
This reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch that had a line in which the game-show host offered the contestant a choice: Would you like the nice gift package, or a hit on the head? To which the game-show contestant replied: Ah, I'll take the hit on the head! (or I'll take the 'it on the 'ead!) David G In a message dated 6/4/03 3:01:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eric has me as being nicer than I actually am. I would give up a leg to cure AIDS. For SARS I would take a kick in the leg. Alex
OT: a blow on the head
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch Here, I found the script: [...] Well your first question for the blow on the head this evening is: what great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to physical states? I don't know that! Well, have a guess. Henri Bergson. Is the correct answer! Ooh, that was lucky. I never even heard of him. [...] Right, now, Mrs Scum, you have won your prize, do you still want the blow on the head? Yes, yes. I'll offer you a poke in the eye. No! I want a blow on the head. A punch in the throat. No. All right then, a kick in the kneecap. No. Mrs Scum, I'm offering you a boot in the teeth and a dagger up the strap. Er... -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
