I thought that was the whole idea of spectrum auctions.

The RF spectrum is a public good in the US and there are requirements placed on the winners of those auctions to demonstrate it provides some public benefit. A company can't just buy spectrum and sit on it, for example. They must use start to use it in a certain timeframe.

The RF spectrum is a common good, not a public good. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The RF spectrum is non-excludable (anyone can transmit on any frequency, given the right equipment) but rivalrous (transmitting on one frequency prevents others from using that frequency).

Requiring the winner of a spectrum auction to use it is a way to prevent anti-competitive tactics (since the government is granting a monopoly to the winner). The goal is to incentivize productive use of limited resources, not necessarily to benefit everyone. In theory, the winner could use the spectrum for entirely internal purposes. Though in real world spectrum auctions, the government usually has stipulations such as requiring interoperability or using open standards. This reduces the value that the government captures, but likely increases the value that is created overall.

Before spectrum auctions, the government simply mandated what frequency bands were used for what, and by whom. Getting access usually meant lobbying and back room deals. Sometimes the FCC used lotteries, which caused speculators to enter lotteries and then license access (basically capturing revenue that would have gone to the government had the spectrum been auctioned). In practice, auctions are the worst form of spectrum allocation, except for all the others.

This seems circular… since the lack of a worldwide authority, that can decide the value of X public good is worth more than zero, is the issue in the first place.

> a public good is being commoditized

Just like the inclosure movement, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_act

With privatization, the public is paid something. Whereas StarLink's use of LEO is a taking. They're denying others open access usage. Without any possibility or threat of consequences.

"Use" is such an inadequate term, but I couldn't think of another. Commandeering?

Wow what a rabbit hole to get into.

The whole system of “lordship” is wild to me, I recommend watching Downton Abbey for a light intro into the topic :)

> “We” as in the select few countries that have the launch capability and the space tech.

There has never been more access to space-based imagery and other sensing. With multiple companies selling this stuff ever cheaper. Every news outlet can now afford to buy images. And that's because of cheap launches.

A global public good is being commoditized and being sold to the highest local bidder.