[Speed Gibson,
Saturday June 30, 2007 at 11:01pm]
Immediate Seating
The supposed premise of FCC regulation leading to the "Fairness" doctrine is that there are only so many frequencies available. Rather than be a registrar of deeds as with land, the government has retained ownership. It in effect grants leases, not ownership to broadasters wishing to use a given frquency.
Cotinuing this line, it is said that given this "shortage" the public interest is best served by some sort of rationing amongst all the various competing public interests and uses of the airwaves. Hence, the Fairness Doctrine.
This is sophistry, of course. There is no Fairness Doctrine of music genres. There is no Fairness Doctrine for sports or entertainment. There isn't even a Fairness Doctrine regarding religion, where Christianity dominates almost completely. There is only a Fairness Doctrine for politics and anything construed as political speech.
But let's go back to square one - is the bandwidth truly limited? Not in broadcast television, where here in the Twin Cities we have 6 unused channels. On both the AM and FM bands, I scanned with my ccRadio, finding well over a dozen unused frequecies in each. These are frequencies with 30 kHz (AM) or 400 MHz (FM) free either side.
Granted, this is Minneapolis / St. Paul. One would expect fewer vacancies in New York City or Los Angeles, but I'd be very surprised to not find a few in every band. Regardless, there are always radio stations changing formats, in response to low ratings. Such stations can be purchased for little more than the equipment you would need to buy anyway to start a new station.
Also note that the government itself is consuming some of the frequencies in the form of "public" broadcasting.
Even if there was a significant shortage of frequencies, technology has other answers like Satellite, HD, and with limitations, Wi-Fi and low power FM. The cellular concept could also be used and maybe will be some day.
Despite the physical limitations of the spectrum, there is de facto no business limitation. There is no need for a Fairness Doctrine on this basis.
Cotinuing this line, it is said that given this "shortage" the public interest is best served by some sort of rationing amongst all the various competing public interests and uses of the airwaves. Hence, the Fairness Doctrine.
This is sophistry, of course. There is no Fairness Doctrine of music genres. There is no Fairness Doctrine for sports or entertainment. There isn't even a Fairness Doctrine regarding religion, where Christianity dominates almost completely. There is only a Fairness Doctrine for politics and anything construed as political speech.
But let's go back to square one - is the bandwidth truly limited? Not in broadcast television, where here in the Twin Cities we have 6 unused channels. On both the AM and FM bands, I scanned with my ccRadio, finding well over a dozen unused frequecies in each. These are frequencies with 30 kHz (AM) or 400 MHz (FM) free either side.
Granted, this is Minneapolis / St. Paul. One would expect fewer vacancies in New York City or Los Angeles, but I'd be very surprised to not find a few in every band. Regardless, there are always radio stations changing formats, in response to low ratings. Such stations can be purchased for little more than the equipment you would need to buy anyway to start a new station.
Also note that the government itself is consuming some of the frequencies in the form of "public" broadcasting.
Even if there was a significant shortage of frequencies, technology has other answers like Satellite, HD, and with limitations, Wi-Fi and low power FM. The cellular concept could also be used and maybe will be some day.
Despite the physical limitations of the spectrum, there is de facto no business limitation. There is no need for a Fairness Doctrine on this basis.