We're going to take a short detour from our normal path of trying to keep the local FCC inspector happy. Instead, let's take a short look at where broadcasting might be heading. I hope to provoke some discussion on the future of broadcasting.
As just discussed, it appears that the "powerful influence" argument justifying governmental regulation of content didn't seem to be a strong enough argument for the framers of the constitution to put content control on the print media. Although a free press may be dangerous, it is necessary for a free society. It appears the same argument could be used to support the government staying out of broadcast content regulation, the current "powerful medium".
The second argument in favor of broadcast content regulation is that there are only so many broadcast channels to go around. While each of us could start a newspaper with a circulation of five or ten, economics tends to limit the number of print publications. By decreasing broadcast station power, a larger number of stations could be supported by the spectrum without interference, each with a "smaller circulation." We can get a rough idea of the relative scarcity of the various media by checking the yellow pages of the phone book. Here, in San Luis Obispo County, about 22 radio stations are listed. Six television stations are listed. For those subscribing to cable, probably another 30 to 40 signals are available. Without cable, perhaps 28 "voices" are available. Checking under newspapers, we find about the same number (28) publishers. Is there more "scarcity" of voices in the electronic media than in the print media? If there were, would that justify overriding the first amendment?
The third argument in favor of government content regulation (use of a public resource) seems to have some merit. The Lowest Unit Rate rules seem to be an attempt at getting broadcasters to pay the public for use of the spectrum. It does seem, however, that a much more direct solution to this problem is available. That solution would be for broadcasters to pay for use of the spectrum. Perhaps if such payment were made, there would be no strong argument in favor of content regulation (whether through lowest unit rate, fairness doctrine, or whatever).
Another approach would be to offer a fixed term lease on a channel (perhaps 20 years). These leases would then be auctioned off. At the end of the lease term, the current leaseholder would be welcome to rebid for the channel. A leaseholder could also sell the unused term of a lease to another wishing to get into broadcasting. Existing "antimonopoly" rules available for all business could be applied to keep one broadcaster from taking over all the stations in one market. I don't believe the costs involved in such a leasing arrangement would be substantially different from prices currently being paid for stations. A major difference would be, however, that the public, rather than a private individual or corporation, would be paid for the use of the spectrum. This should remove the "need" for governmental regulation of content, giving broadcasters full first amendment rights. Such a radical change would certainly disrupt the existing station trading market. It could, however, be introduced several years in the future (perhaps ten years) to avoid "changing the rules in the middle of the game".